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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (80895)	3/10/2003 4:49:01 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Perhaps you should create another thread, with tighter strings, and let this thread be what it has grown to be. Otherwise I think you'll just be swimming against the tide, and eventually your arms will get tired. That's just my thought.

To: FaultLine who wrote (80895)	3/10/2003 5:46:42 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

1) I think your limiting posts to two a day does this to some extent. My personal rule was to post Columnists, and analysis type stories. "ABC says!" type of posts should stay off, IMO. So I would be against this rule in general. 2) This would ban "Chat," and short replies. I am against this in principle. Yeah, "Nice Post, so and so," gets old. But people go to the trouble to spill their guts here, it is nice to know that someone gives a damn. 3) NO. 4) Not sure what you mean. We have a problem. It is Muslim in nature, and Waahabi in specific. They are almost all ME people. Lets not get to damn PC about it. 5) Whatever you like. 6) Do as you are doing. 7) Get rid of the nuts immediately. You cannot reason with them. You are doing a good job of this now. 8) Most seem to use the spell checker. Let any offenders know by PM. The list you published seems to me to have come from someone who is not a regular poster and wants to have an easier time when he/she drops in to check the thread. Screw em! This thread is for our enjoyment, not theirs. It is not a post grad seminar that we are being graded on. If they want to enjoy the thread, let them post on a regular basis like the rest of us.

To: FaultLine who wrote (80895)	3/10/2003 9:22:01 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Here are some things that came to mind on how the FADG thread might be improved. I have sympathy for the views of this poster but don't wish to see us go this way with one exception. My most fundamental objection is to this suggestion: Obtain a list of everyone who's posted in the past month. Look at their most recent 2 dozen posts. If there was nothing in there that was fit for publication in Foreign Affairs, ban them. The idea here is to change the banning criteria from one of civility to one of utility. I don't agree with the means or the ends. If you adopt the means, almost everyone quits posting just sitting here waiting for enough inspiration to strike so an FA type post will appear out of one's fingertips. It's a formula to send everyone to alternative forums. As for the end, utility rather than civility, the thread loses some of its interest which is as a sort of community. I suspect most folk who post here are a bit like me, it's at the inner margins of fun and utility. Using these criteria, if applied rigorously, push it past the margins. Ban all posts having to do with news that is less than 1 week old. Disagree unless someone starts a thread for these posts. I get a good bit of news from here. Ban posts that are less than a few paragraphs long. Again, the thread becomes something else: a seminar rather than a sort of community. Ban posts discussing the relative morality of different ethnic groups. I mean really. Definitely, agree. Far too much put down in posts.

To: FaultLine who wrote (80895)	3/10/2003 9:52:28 AM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ken, I am finally designing my moderated thread and leaving 'No Political Rants' behind. I'd be happy to design the rules of the new board with you and other FADG members so that it complements FADG and satisfies my requirements. The only rule from this list I like is (4). I think that Jane Galt's rules are a good place to start. Paul

To: FaultLine who wrote (80895)	3/10/2003 11:23:24 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi FL - boiled down to its essentials, I think the gist of the suggestion is that FADG should consist only of quality posts by quality posters who are not having an off day. Lovely goal. No idea how to accomplish said goal without having a staff of in-house editors review all posts for form and content in advance. Limiting full articles to two a day seems to be a useful idea, and I also like Jane Galt's rules. But as a practical matter, as we slide in excruciatingly slow motion into the oncoming train wreck that may or may not be war in Iraq, I think people's nerves are justifiably on edge by the loud screeching noises all around us, and the flashing colored lights and 24-hour-a-day air raid sirens aren't helping, either. Which doesn't excuse the "so's your old man" posts, nor the flag-waving rah-rah on either side, but maybe mitigates?

To: FaultLine who wrote (80895)	3/10/2003 12:12:55 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Tell that thoughtful PMer to go start his own thread with his own rules. Don't argue with success. I veto this resolution on all counts. Big government = Threadland Security Rascal@ thanksanyway.com

To: FaultLine who wrote (80895)	3/10/2003 12:29:33 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So if it isn't CB, LB, BBB,JohnM, Paul_P, or me. Who is it?

To: FaultLine who wrote (80895)	3/10/2003 2:15:49 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 281500

"By the bye, Charles, are you really serious in meditating a dance at Netherfield? I would advise you, before you determine on it, to consult the wishes of the present party; I am much mistaken if there are not some among us to whom a ball would be rather a punishment than a pleasure." "If you mean Darcy," cried her brother, "he may go to bed, if he chooses, before it begins--but as for the ball, it is quite a settled thing; and as soon as Nicholls has made white soup enough, I shall send round my cards." "I should like balls infinitely better," she replied, "if they were carried on in a different manner; but there is something insufferably tedious in the usual process of such a meeting. It would surely be much more rational if conversation instead of dancing were made the order of the day." "Much more rational, my dear Caroline, I dare say, but it would not be near so much like a ball." Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen

To: FaultLine who wrote (80895)	3/10/2003 3:47:36 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

FL~~ Interesting thoughts you received from a "ghostie poster"... I personally think you have created a wonderful salon here in cyberland. A civil (mostly) and timely interesting place to discuss foreign affairs, current events, meet people's brains and their ideas from all over the world, to be serious, and have fun, depending on the topic. Nadine's comments, LB's, BBB's were all right on target, IMO. If you want to have a different type of thread, the "friend of FADG" or you could start one with those rules. You are doing a good job with this one, and the way it has turned out, even if it wasn't what the purists envisioned. Mistake was being democratic, and letting everyone post, as long as they followed your rules. In other words, you added people to the mix. You can never go home again. Start something new. Everyone is "wrong/silly/crazy/fillintheblank" except you and me, and sometimes I wonder about you. <g>

To: FaultLine who wrote (80895)	3/10/2003 9:06:36 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

Suggestions for thread rules: 1. put the rules in the header 2. don't spend time trying to reform people. Just ban them, and let them figure out why. Shouldn't be hard. If they ask why, refer them to the header. 3. create a separate "news only" thread. 4. Labels. The first word, or at least the first line, of the post should tell people clearly whether they want to read it. 5. some posters should be banned permanently (someone will suggest me) 6. it's going to be a real quiet thread, if we include only old news, FA-quality, long posts, no back-and-forth 7. discussing FA today, has to include, to be relevant, ethnic/religious/racial opinions. 8. insist that any opinion be backed up by facts, with cited references. Ban people who can't or won't do this. That should cut down on the clutter a lot, as dillettants and drive-by posters can't be bothered. 9. Ccen'tt spel werth a durn, donn't mak mhe tri,