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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (19652)	8/22/2002 6:39:40 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

And now OMD can put bone or two of his into the pot if he wants Now there's an offer I'd rather not get sometimes. <g> A slight correction: The process you describe is in place on the header of TTMAR but has never been used. The process is essentially that if somebody has a problem they should bring it to the moderator's attention (that's me) and the moderator will ask a panel of thread regulars to weigh in on the issue of whether the problem should be dealt with by banning the person from the thread. The TOU's are specifically NOT the criteria. I made sure they were not the criteria because there are situations where the overall character and usefulness and fun of the thread can be destroyed by someone who is seeking to be a pain in the ass but who has not specifically violated the TOU's. One person eloquently likened the thread to a corner bar and the person who the bar's regulars might want to exclude as the foolish drunk on the stool at the end who is always shouting obnoxious nonsense and just generally making a fool of himself. The principles of freedom of association suggest that the group ought to be able to choose not to associate with that person, and as a group request that the moderator exclude that person. The details of the process have not been fleshed out because they have not been needed. Only once has a PM suggestion been sent to me advocating an expulsion, and I responded by indicating that the person involved probably hadn't earned an expulsion yet, and the request was withdrawn. I am generally not a fan of expelling anybody unless they are repeatedly and relentlessly disturbing the peace. The process does not envision the sort of public indictment and selection of jury that occurred today. I would suggest that Laz privately decide who should be on the jury, and PM those people for votes and discussion. If people want to make their discussion public I don't have a problem with that. I voted already and so far have chosen not to discuss publicly who I voted for, though if that discussion develops I may chime in. One final thought: Some sort of supermajority, such as two thirds or three fourths, ought to be required IMO for expulsion. If 51 percent of the people want to get rid of somebody and 49 percent do not, I don't think we should throw the person out the door.