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 Message Filtering - Pros and Cons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Brad who wrote (60)	2/11/1998 8:50:00 PM
From: Dick Smith	Respond to of 263

Brad says, "If we did manage to pull off the impossible and stomp out all controversy, would SI not lose a big source of its appeal?" Yes. That's why some of us are arguing against the Kill File function, or at least trying to keep it limited. Moderated forums are not good forums for open, free-wheeling discussion. Which is why we are here. Dick

To: SI Brad who wrote (60)	2/11/1998 9:42:00 PM
From: loafy loaf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 263

Brad, No one has requested a lack of debate or controversy. The rules here say that personal attacks and abuse of people is not allowed. I don't think there is much room for doubt about whether or not someone is being called names or being personally attacked, yet you do not remove these posts, where there is a lot of name calling, and you do not sanction the people doing it. I am wondering why you allowed hundreds of abusive posts against one member who has made many contributions but has been victimized by people who are even posting about her here? I understand you don't want to debate every case, but if you had a consistent policy of enforcement, there would be little debate. If you sanction one person yet allow others to do worse, and that is what I'm seeing in that thread, it's no wonder you can't defend your position. But if you were more consistent you could. Do you perhaps need help in revising the rules so that they could be more enforceable in a consistent way? LOAF

To: SI Brad who wrote (60)	2/12/1998 5:44:00 PM
From: Nazbuster	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 263

Brad, Here's an alternative to a "Kill" or "Skip" file: Automate a process which will impede, but not block, the offending poster and will kick into play when the level/frequency of complaints exceeds some threshhold. The "governor" will either limit the number, or frequency, of posts for some period of time. This could be set up as a fully automated process. The person who gets restrained could still email you for an appeal or they could cool it for a few days and let the steam dissipate. Complaints could be limited to one/day from each party with a maximum as well. Complaints would "age" off the system in 5 days. There could be two tiers: one where the target is informed that the counter is building, and another where they are impeded in their online activity. Take a look at ebay.com, an "auction" web site which has implemented a system of feedback which incorporates both counters and actual content of messages, but where only the target of the complaint can see the complaints. (All parties can see complements.) This feature makes people responsible for their complaints; they cannot be anonymous. At the same time, they are not public. The public, however, gets to see the level of satisfaction/complaint. I certainly would not want SI to suppress free speech in any way, but abuse - yes. Rather than make you the judge, let the SI participants do that. Make it tedious enough to do so that people have to feel strongly before they will follow the procedure to its conclusion to register a complaint: Several page changes explaining the process, an entry form, confirmation of posting the complaint, and recognition that the target of the complaint will know who issued it. Sounds awful, but otherwise, it is either pure anarchy or you have to act as class monitor!