Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (9009)	10/7/1999 6:59:00 PM
From: WTMHouston	Respond to of 32883

JXM: I agree with most of what you have said. Most votes are made up of both those voting on the merits and those voting only on popularity: it, unfortunately, is the nature of the beast. That concept does not change simply because this vote deals with A@P, which may, I will admit, highlight that facet of it. Perhaps the breadth of the vote is something that needs to be fixed. Perhaps a "community appeals panel" made up of either appointed or elected members would serve a better purpose. Obviously, SI would still have the right (and sometimes the obligation) to trump its decision, but it might instill more confidence in the consistency of termination decisions. I have said before that there is the appearance, whether real or not, of inconsistent application of the TOS. I'm not sure that the A@P vote completely addresses the appearance problem, but I am willing to trust SI enough to think that it is a step in the right direction, i.e., a beginning and not the end. <<. By putting it up to a vote, they have stated that they have weighed the evidence and it is not so horrible that they wouldn't let him back on.>> I had not looked at it that way, but you are right. But, doesn't that happen anytime they think about letting someone back? And, no, I do not think that this is the first time that they have let someone back. <<Regardless of the outcome, this vote will only cause more discord in the SI community.>> I agree that regardless of the outcome, this vote will cause discord, but I don't necessarily agree that it will cause "more" discord. There was already plenty of discord and, for better or worse, this was an attempt on SI's part to address it. I'm willing to give them credit for that. Those who have directed insults towards SI are, IMO, not nearly as concerned about the "community" as they profess to be. Constructive ideas for how to do things better have always been listened to by SI. I don't see this situation as being any different. Constructive idea on how to do it better reflect an interest in the community. Personal insults at SI people or even SI in general do not, IMO. <<Back in the good old days, SI would be concerned about discord in the SI community. >> I think that their concern over discord was what prompted the vote. The vote may not be the best solution, but it was, in my view, at least an attempt to address some of the discord. While there is certainly more "business" to SI now than say, two years ago, I doubt that page views from controversy had little, if anything, to do with their decisions. Finally, the business end of SI has brought every member of SI a substantially better service with more options and features. Even if SI's decisions were solely and completely business motivated rather than community motivated, my response would be, so what. In the long run, what is good for SI business will be good for the members. If there is no SI business, in the long run, there will be no SI community. Unfortunately, no matter what they do, they are not going to and cannot make everyone happy. That, too, is the nature of the beast. Troy PS - Your response is one of the few civil ones I have seen. Thanks.