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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Off Topic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rink who wrote (242)	11/30/2006 4:56:17 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1141

Thread, a general remark considering that the amount of indirect insults seems to be rising on the main thread. You know exactly why the number of indirect insults are rising on the main board basically turning it into a Yahoo board. They have about 100 posts between them today and it is 4:55pm EST.

To: Rink who wrote (242)	11/30/2006 4:59:52 PM
From: dougSF30	Respond to of 1141

Yes, that would be a good idea. A 48-hour auto-vacation sans vote for "clever" insults that attempt to work around the rules.

To: Rink who wrote (242)	12/1/2006 12:27:28 AM
From: TGPTNDR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1141

Rink, I'm in favor of public linchings. Never liked the private response required to get a thumbs up or down. Public call for suspension, PM to moderator, Moderator posts vote -- including who voted which way. All votes posted. I've always supported moderator's ability to vacation a poster without a vote, but I think the three suspensions and out should be three publicly voted suspensions. IMO moderated ordered suspensions should not count to the three. But, if moderator orders a suspension s/he should be able to call for an up/down vote from the thread if moderator wants one. (As should any board member, sufficient number of requests requiring a vote.) -tgp

To: Rink who wrote (242)	12/2/2006 6:18:30 PM
From: Rink	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1141

I also propose that if a person is often suspended for indirect insults without hard explicit arguments that s/he'll be given a week instead of a two day period. If that would happen often two weeks. Then permanent. Regards, Rink

To: Rink who wrote (242)	12/2/2006 7:14:52 PM
From: jjayxxxx	Respond to of 1141

I'm actually against 2-day suspensions. The idea of 3 strikes and you're out (as the rules now exist) is that you only get 3 times. Not unlimited like your rule change would allow. I'd like posters to have the very real threat of losing their privilege of posting if they don't watch their p's and q's. A 2-day boot alleviates this and would empower folks to insult more often. I would like to propose a new method of voting though. Assuming even free posters can recommend posts on this OT thread, we could do it this way: 1. call for a vote on the main Mod thread 2. in the Mod thread post provide a link to a post on the OT thread for "YES - SUSPEND" with instructions to go to that OT post and either reply to it as their vote (which counts as a full vote) and/or recommend the OT post as their vote. Recommendations would only count as half a vote. 3. also in the Mod thread post provide another link to a post on the OT thread for "NO - DO NOT SUSPEND", again with similar instructions. 4. Finally in the Mod thread post explain NO REPLIES to that post. if anyone wants to reply, do so to one of the OT posts. I think this would solve all issues with voting: - Public for those that wish their vote to be public. - Anonymous for those that wish to be anonymous (at the penalty of a lower-weighted vote). - Doesn't pollute the main thread. - But DOES call attention to the vote on the main thread. Thoughts? Regards, JJ