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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (39333)	8/25/2005 11:44:04 AM
From: SI Bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Remember how well stock market volume correlates with common index values? Yes, and the posting volume correlates with market performance usually, although we're seeing growth in excess of that. I attribute it to a known brand finally starting to get its tires back on the road again. Let me toss out another idea: How about giving the "justice" function to a panel of posters you regard as fair-minded or equally divided politically but willing to be fair. Complaints go to them. Benign Dictatorship is the only Admin model that has ever worked in my experience. But this is only because you have set it up that way. Give them full site access (maybe keeping the 5 post/day limit) but stick them with ads and quote those ad eyeballs to your advertisers. Being able to participate in non-market discussions is a perk of subscribership and we want to keep it that way. If people want to post for free, they can, so long as they're contributing content where our dollars are made. And you might even be able to attract non-market advertisers with this ploy. With few exceptions, we don't WANT to attract non-market advertisers. Finance is the highest-paying advertising sector.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (39333)	8/25/2005 8:29:43 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 90947

I don't think a justice panel would work. What is needed is that both sides go on the RECORD from the beginning--in the manner in which our society is accustomed. THEN the decision is made in front of everyone, and if there is obvious prejudice or ignorance, it is subject to legitimate challenge. The current system places an unfair burden on ADMIN and ensures the frequent miscarriage of justice. Get rid of ignore, get rid of ban, and give all accused 24 hours to defend the charge of impropriety with ONE post--with or without links. It is not a novel idea that the accused should have a right to defence. And there is no way in Hell a proper defence can be reconstructed after the fact of conviction and punishment. The river only flows by once. If everything is done in the open and with this transparency, then I would have no objection to progressive "sentences" based on inability to learn or change. ADMIN (of course) is afraid that an adversarial system would attract a plethora of posts pro and con to pressure their decision. It would not work that way. The judge hears one post from the Prosecution and one from the defence. Both are seen by all. ADMIN then rules. Instead of suspicion and doubt...they will have earned respect for their honesty and perception. Is there anything wrong with judges or administrators being accountable for the rulings they make? Is there anything wrong with an accused putting forth his side of the story in a single post? Rulings are ALWAYS fairer when the accused is allowed to give his/her side. Message 21616726