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: Original Mad Dog who wrote (19656)	8/22/2002 7:05:45 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

The process you describe is in place on the header of TTMAR but has never been used. I seem to remember something like this being done on the predecessor threads to TTMAR. 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. Isn't that one way of viewing what's going on? 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. It appears there are people who feel that that is exactly what is happening here. 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and I responded by indicating that the person involved probably hadn't earned an expulsion yet, and the request was withdrawn. Was I the target? :-) I would suggest that Laz privately decide who should be on the jury, and PM those people for votes and discussion. You understand that now I can make this go either way if we do it that way? :-) Remember, I now know which jurors to pick for either result. 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. No votes will be made public without the voters permission. I am keeping the PMs containing the votes to protect myself against miscount charges. However, even if such charges are made, I still will not reveal votes without permission. The reason people can send me their votes is to allow them to vote as they choose w/o worrying about who they will or will not offend. Some sort of supermajority, such as two thirds or three fourths, ought to be required IMO for expulsion. I will take that under advisement. If a 3/4 vote is required, it's already dead. A 2/3 needs one vote to kill it. And that's essentially guaranteed. I can think of 3 highly likely "no" votes off the top of my head.

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (19656)	8/22/2002 7:09:27 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

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. That sounds right to me, on the grounds that if the person isn't disturbing 49% of the people sufficiently that they want him or her expelled, maybe that person isn't behaving appallingly enough to be expelled. 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. That seems completely reasonable to me -- the comparison of certain threads to the corner bar, the matter of the fun being ruined -- but do want to point out that where the customer who punches somebody in the face at the corner bar might well be asking to be tossed out, the one who does it in the Boxing Ring at the corner gym is in a different position. Not that I'm likening TP's posts to punching somebody in the face; I'm waiting for examples of posts that are abusive, harassing, obscene, threatening, harmful, or anything else at all that would be out of place in a Boxing Ring at the corner gym.