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: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (17692)	5/27/2003 10:01:34 AM
From: Michelino	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32883

For those who cry out for moderated threads, I believe that there is a more civil, if not just as effective, alternative: Let moderator actions act as only as a filter rather than a deletion. In other words, thread readers could choice from two different views of a moderated thread, the first view would be of only those messages "endorsed" by the moderator, the second view would be to see all messages including those that the moderator considers to be off-topic. By default all reply messages to "endorsed" messages would stay in the "endorsed" version of the thread (unless the moderator decides that a post is off-topic.) Replies to off-topic messages would be available only in the unfiltered view unless the moderator intervenes. Moderators could also banish posters to default to the off-topic category for a limited amount of time (three days?) In this manner, readers could choose freely on a thread by thread basis whether to respect a moderator's endorsed view of the message stream. SI Features such as "View Next 10" and "View Replies" would adjust according to whether the reader desires to see moderator endorsed content or not. Moderators would be therefore become guides rather than absolute censors. Of course, all the usual TOS and Administrative oversight would still be necessary.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (17692)	5/27/2003 10:21:50 AM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

Jeffrey, the iHub model has been modified, only because of extremes of abuse that their original system permitted. IMO, changing it required a change of heart by Matt, seeing a particular example (EDIG) grow uglier and uglier, and a considerable lobbying effort by Bob. But the straw that broke the camel's back was personal, and so I think that it is not much more than an accident and a character flaw that caused iHub to improve for the better. When Matt started to rein-in moderators, the EDIG moderators bristled at it and started a "boycott" of iHub. They decided that if they couldn't have their way, it was the highway. At that, Matt redoubled his efforts. All IMO, of course, but not because his position was right, but because he'd been challenged. The system remains flawed, IMO. I'm not in favor of moderation, either in the form practiced on SI or the form practiced on iHub. But I favor the form used here, only because it is not widely-used here, and most threads here are unmoderated. iHub, on the other hand, is 100% moderated.