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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5766)	2/14/2001 11:33:33 AM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

bp A local community here in CA. has been involved in a dispute about the community pool for several years (in court). A homeowner in the association sued to keep the local board of directors from monopolizing use of the pool for the local swim team. It seemed to this homeowner that the times when she wanted to use the pool were too often reserved for use by the swim team. She sued and eventually ($40K in lawyer fees) won and now 2 lanes are permanently reserved for homeowners. Here on SI some would argue we have purchased bandwidth with membership and share it with other members. Moderated boards seem like fenced-off sections with rules that supercede the TOU that we originally agreed to. PM's and e-mails might suffice for "sharing" of interests and thoughts but apparently are not enough for some. There is actually so little of this on SI that it is merely an annoyance and probably intentional, like "The Secert(sic) Club House". The "ignore" feature doesn't seem to work for many (esp. those with "rabbit" ears) and the pure ability to simply ignore others is rare. I can't see that moderation has been successful or for that matter necessary.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5766)	2/14/2001 11:34:06 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Another distinction is that those on SI have paid money for the privilege of using the site, and when we bought our lifetime memberships there were no moderated threads, so this is a change in the contract under which we purchased our lifetime right to post. Just another aspect SR may not have thought of.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5766)	2/14/2001 11:35:23 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

So the problem with "moderating" threads is that such could possibly degenerate into to nothing more than a public venue to attack groups, ideas, or individuals unimpeded. bp, could you take a look at the first couple hundred posts in Subject 50545 and count how many posts don't fall into the category of using "a public venue to attack groups, ideas, or individuals unimpeded"? Of course, with JLA's new moderation rules, I guess it's only groups and ideas that are supposed to be attacked unimpeded. Do you think it perhaps odd that there is extensive whining here about people banned from LWP, but nobody cares about being banned from RWET?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5766)	2/14/2001 8:07:28 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

One slight, but obvious problem with your reasoning about private vs. public conversation. All of the messages posted in this forum UNLESS done via PM are PUBLIC. So the problem with "moderating" threads is that such could possibly degenerate into to nothing more than a public venue to attack groups, ideas, or individuals unimpeded. Well, they are public in the sense that anybody who wants to read them can. In practice, though, very few people aside from those who post ever do read them. If groups, ideas, or individuals are attacked, the attack remains essentially within the small circle involved with the thread, and does no harm whatsoever to whoever or whatever is being attacked. If people are upset by what is written on a moderated thread, my suggestion is that they stop reading the thread. It's certainly easier than getting all huffy and righteous about it. I just can't imagine anyone caring that much about a few stray words in a remote corner of cyberspace.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5766)	2/15/2001 10:54:34 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

So the problem with "moderating" threads is that such could possibly degenerate into to nothing more than a public venue to attack groups, ideas, or individuals unimpeded. But they didn't. Do the results of experience count for anything? And what is the problem with them? Both moderated political thread provide a place for people of a particular bent to converse with other like-minded souls. Why is that bad? And most who post on LWP and RWET also post here and on the GWB and Impeach GWB threads, so they're not isolating themselves from the other side of the argument.