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.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Bob who wrote (17426)	5/22/2003 7:38:39 AM
From: Stockbull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

Bob..I wonder if the rules can be changed for Moderated Threads.Some people who start threads Moderate people off for simply asking a question.Some people..for whatever reason,,Incarceration,lack of interest,whatever,start a thread, then never post on it after a short time.How about making it 1,3 or even 6 months the limit someone can be Moderated off. Food for thought,,,,.

To: SI Bob who wrote (17426)	9/13/2003 8:37:40 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

There's considerable discussion upstream from the post I'm responding to about moderated threads. My 2 cents: Keep them. As they are. Whether the critics recognize or admit it or not, they serve more than one useful purpose. I regard the existence of threads devoted to a single viewpoint, such as LWP or RWET, as perfectly legitimate. Banning them is like telling all athletes they must participate in all sports instead of specializing in football or basketball. Their existence also cuts down on fighting. There are people who stick to the single-viewpoint threads and avoid the general threads and their arguments. Requiring that someone be admitted to a thread after some period of banning is silly. Admission or banning should be the moderator's prerogative, the same as termination or retention of someone's membership is yours. Moderator's minds can be changed by good behavior. I was recently admitted to a thread that I had been banned from for about a year. One of the arguments upstream is that "No message board primarily dedicated to the discussion of a single security can be moderated." I cite the unmoderated AMD thread as THE counterexample. It turned into a political, not stock market, battleground long ago. That's why the moderated AMD thread was started. One of the arguments against moderated threads upstream is made by a poster whom many consider a sadistic bully. It's not surprising that he dislikes moderated threads. One was started to deny him and a few other people access. But that is not the fault of the people who wished to escape his mayhem; he did it to himself, was offered many opportunities to correct his behavior, and refused to do so. Alan Bell suggests the bannees be displayed on the threadhead. The only counterargument I can see to that is that it might make the moderator unwilling to reconsider a prior banning. Of course, it could also make him less willing to do it it the first place. Rick Faurot states " Moderated boards have provided welcome relief from a small fringe of posters who persist in obsessive personal attacks on various individuals. It has been these vicious personal attacks, not moderated boards, that have been a black eye for SI. " I agree fully with that. Nobody's free speech rights are trampled by the existence of moderated thread. Anyone is always able to start a new, unmoderated (or moderated) competing thread on the same topic. Sorry for the lateness of this post. I didn't see the discussion and got led back here by following a chain of posts.