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: Solon who wrote (50844)	6/13/2002 3:49:05 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

What I find interesting, on reflection, is that nobody has inquired how Poet might feel about this. She has returned at least once, and many people hope she will return permanently. As long as the agreement with Laz held, she could return safe in the knowledge that if I posted to or about her I would be violating a clear agreement I had made. That provided some margin of safety. Also, she wanted me unbanned in part so the issue would die. Well, Laz has done two things. He has released me from any to-or-about limitation, and in fact has made me much more likely to post to or about Poet because my attempt to resolve the problem was rejected, so if I were to continue to not post to or about her, I would be giving the benefit of an agreement while still being deprived of what I bargained for, and why would I do that? So Laz has actually put Poet at more risk, if she returns, of my posting to her than before. Also, it has brought the issue back to the fore. Instead of being buried and forgotten, it has been resurrected. I doubt that Laz consulted Poet before reacting. But it's too bad that he chose to undo the good he had done, and in fact make things potentially worse, for somebody he claimed to be trying to help return. The law of unintended consequences in spades.

To: Solon who wrote (50844)	6/13/2002 7:58:08 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

I agree that there apears to be a contract here. But it does not appear to me (in the guise of a reasonable person) to express the intents you allege. It might reasonably be argued that there was a contract, but that this contract was merely to let CH back on SMBR. Once CH got back on and posted that contract was forfilled. The contract or agreement doesn't seem to say anything about not moderating CH off later. I suppose however that CH might argue that this is assumed. I'm not sure it is in this case. The nature of a moderated thread on SI is that no one but the thread moderator has an unlimited right to post (and even the moderator may be removed by SI admins). Restoring CH to SMBR would I think mean giving him the status of anyone else. He would be able to post but could also be removed at the moderators whim. Its not like coming to agreement to sell a car to someone and then taking the car back, its more like if Laz had told CH that he could drive the car, and then after letting CH use it for awhile Laz took it back. Tim