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 - Legacy Interface Discussion (2004-2011) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Dave who wrote (4840)	9/24/2006 11:37:23 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 6035

A pre-approval feature, if implemented, would further move SI away from the Dryer's founding vision. There would be no point in calling these "discussion threads"; rather, "me too, yes man" threads. The moderator/ban tool is sufficient for control purposes without giving away too much of the farm. There is no need for an additional Cone of Silence stifiling tool to be in the hands of dubious characters. If they "need" that much more control, let them start their blogs somewhere else on the net, rather than additionally abuse and torture what is still, for the moment, the premiere site for financial discussion on the internet, Silicon Investor.

To: SI Dave who wrote (4840)	9/25/2006 1:47:03 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6035

Moderators who misuse their privileges are no different from the users who intentionally try to get themselves banned, and not surprisingly some play their games on both sides of the fence. So you've said. Can you name ONE moderator who has lost moderation privileges for abuse? Just ONE? Or is your contention no such species has ever existed on SI? <>Moderators who misuse their privileges are no different from the users who intentionally try to get themselves banned, and not surprisingly some play their games on both sides of the fence. Hmmm, I think I smell gunpowder. Was that aimed at me? If so, I deny it. Let some people hear some things they didn't want to hear? I'll plead guilty on that one.

To: SI Dave who wrote (4840)	9/25/2006 3:07:45 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6035

Youse guys woud be getting very " Naveen Jain " here if that idea actually goes through. Any inner working, detailed rationalizations of this proposal are, IMO, irrelevant in the face of the overall concept: "The discussion also carried the idea that it would not pertain to existing boards; these would be a hybrid board somewhere between a traditional message board and a blog. Similar to a mailing list where the list operator must pre-approve before new users can submit to the list. It's a very old and common concept." It's a bad cake recipe. It sounds like something Infospace would have proposed. It's like saying, "We're thinking about putting motor oil in cake mix ---- but --- it's 20W-50, not 10W-30 oil!". Motor oil doesn't belong in cake mix anymore than INSP-esque ideas belong in discussion board mix. It wasn't easy getting through SI's Naveen years. Please tell us y'all are just pulling our Jain.