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 : SI vs. iHub - Battle of the Boards Part 2 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greg s who wrote (5294)	7/11/2005 2:04:10 AM
From: d:oug	Respond to of 5315

Matt [abuse] tool [against] poster who violated no TOU ... reality bites ... chit happens ... life ain't fair ... everyone is at the center of the universe of all ... E. Charters is a nice person, so why does he belittle me ... Graystone is a nice person, why does he belittle himself ... i'm right, you're wrong ... your're wrong, i'm right ... so, here we have two rights making a wrong :o) Gosh greg s, Lets assume SI's survival playbook has its own TOU, for example, BobZ's code of conduct towards others. From that a secondary event happens, subordinate to the first, and its called SI's business plan having agenda to be a viable business. Subordinate to the second event is SI's TOU to regulate the membership. No matter what directive SI's TOU states, it must not violate any of the TOU(s) it is subordinate to. Gosh I agree, this is an unfortunate state of affairs... ... but its life and, now that you know it will not be changed for you, you can continue to stay here unsatisfied with your membership, wait until it expires and don't renew, or, if a lifer, petition SI for a refund based on years left alive, but, first find if a petition is allowed in the TOU, and if not, don't violate the TOU that you say Matt does, and Matt is bad. so, are you bad? doug

To: greg s who wrote (5294)	7/16/2005 2:56:39 AM
From: SI Bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5315

Whether placing an ignore in someone's account is an "administrative action" is really debatable. Usually "administrative action" implies punishment, which an ignore isn't. Personally, I used posting bans (verbally issued but not software enforced like we have now) when people were violating the Terms of Use in each others' presence. And if two people can't co-exist without flaming each other, that's a Terms of Use violation. Especially on iHub, where the rules of the road are a little more specific about requiring civility. But you're right. You won't be able to get me to change my mind because as far as I'm concerned, it's not my decision. Dave and Matt are the Admins. I'm not. And I don't want their jobs. I got my fill of that years ago.