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 - New feature discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Brad who wrote (54)	7/7/2011 9:00:53 AM
From: Dale Baker	4 Recommendations Respond to of 7352

Without moderation and bans, some threads would be totally overrun by the clique on SI that logs on every day just to be as abusive as they can to their political enemies. Since TOU is typically not enforced by SI on non-stock threads, moderation is the only way to preserve a reasonable atmosphere, i.e. screening out those who get off on constant personal attacks. It also keeps the serial abusers from polluting stock threads with their political grudges. Of course, if those abusers were simply tossed from the site for constant TOU violations, that would solve the problem too. But at the same time, the folks who are banned from some threads have thousands of other threads to exercise their speech on, including unmoderated threads that look like a constant food fight. Don't remove the moderation and ban features lightly. Though I agree that post deletions should be left to SI admin alone. I've found that banning and Ignoring offenders is more than enough to keep the peace.

To: SI Brad who wrote (54)	7/7/2011 9:16:36 AM
From: loantech	1 Recommendation Respond to of 7352

Brad, So far you are doing an amazing job but IMO we need to keep the ban button or threads get over ran with noise makers. Dale says it more eloquently but I agree with him. Many thanks, tom

To: SI Brad who wrote (54)	7/7/2011 9:20:54 AM
From: churak	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7352

IMHO, Moderators should have the ability to delete posts for violations of the TOU with abusive Moderators removed from their position. The Moderator position is a privilege & should be so treated by those entrusted with its powers. Admin gets called in when the Moderator abuses his/her powers; in all other instances, the board is "Admin'd" by the Mod & the ASSistants (if any). Forget global roving Forum Admins, IMHO. Stick to board specific MODs. Also, forget subject-specific rules - a site-wide TOU for stock/investment boards that is enforced by the MOD/Site Admin would be my SUGGestion. On non-investment boards, anything goes save & except violations of privacy & death threats. You might also want to consider uniform suspension penalties and a "three strikes and you're out" policy.

To: SI Brad who wrote (54)	7/7/2011 9:40:49 AM
From: Lahcim Leinad	5 Recommendations Respond to of 7352

I would like you to bring it back to the way it was, before you sold SI. No bans, no moderators. Both hinder the free flow of information.

To: SI Brad who wrote (54)	7/7/2011 11:09:58 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	4 Recommendations Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 7352

I think that the ignore feature is your most valuable tool on this topic. And I only have three people on ignore, so this isn't something that I get a kick out of using. But if you have an ignore feature that allows two options: 1. Ignore all messages by member and 2. Ignore all messages and responses. I really don't like subject level moderators on stock threads as everyone brings some bias to the table. An example, I consider myself to be the most objective person on SI. However, if you were to go to energy related threads there would be a faction that would be convinced that I was bringing my bias into moderating. Hell, they might even consider me to be a crazy nutball that shouldn't be allowed near pets, children or old people, let alone subject moderation. Seriously, if you let people create their own filters there is absolutely no reason to have the ban feature at all. And giving moderators the ability to delete posts would create an admin nightmare for you that I don't think you want to deal with. Imagine all of the people coming to you complaining about abuses of the feature and blocking freedom of speech. michal (lahcim) is absolutely correct on the abuses of moderators who have too much power. to summarize: 1. enhance ignore features (let's call it "filtering") 2. eliminate banning 3. do not even think of letting moderators delete posts

To: SI Brad who wrote (54)	7/7/2011 11:57:50 AM
From: Sawdusty	5 Recommendations Respond to of 7352

I personally vote for limited power of moderators, enough to control the board but no more, say just the ability to issue a 3 day ban for trouble makers, after which admin should step in. Actually, admin should step in if asked to appeal an unfair ban. I have witnessed moderators demonstrating their personal likes and dislikes to who they ban without taking into consideration the quality of a persons posts. IMO, that should not be allowed. An example would be to ban a person for making a negative comment on a stock. That sucks, we should hear all sides of the story.