POLL: Excluding specific members from "contributing" to specific threads

Should thread starters have the option to exclude a few members from participating?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 32.4%

  • No

    Votes: 25 67.6%
  • Total voters
    37
let's not get all PC

it IS about limiting free speech

but there is nothing wrong with that in a private forum

we don't let people talk about all sorts of stuff here. that is a limit on free speech

but there isn't free speech at elitetrader, nobody would claim there is, nor should there be
 
Quote from whitster:

let's not get all PC

it IS about limiting free speech

but there is nothing wrong with that in a private forum

we don't let people talk about all sorts of stuff here. that is a limit on free speech

but there isn't free speech at elitetrader, nobody would claim there is, nor should there be
More...
Actually, it is about being able to at least slightly limit access to the threads you start, because ET's management is negligent in ridding ET of its bottom-feeding trolls. A screen door, so to speak. It won't keep all the bugs out but everyone inside can exercise their freedom of speech privileges. Personally, I would much rather that offending trolls are permanently banned, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. Therefore, I am suggesting a weak compromise that would not require much in the way of ongoing effort on the part of the administrators -- something that should appeal to them. Further, the trolls can then voice their outrage in their own threads, thereby keeping up total post count -- another selling feature for HQ.

In summary, yes, I would like to limit free speech, but only for offending trolls who have repeatedly demonstrated that a privilege abused in bad faith is a privilege that should be denied. Yes, a privilege, not a right. This site is not a democracy. As you noted, it is a private forum. It is a business. With that in mind, it ought to show some responsibility and consideration to its members, without whom there would be no sponsors.
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

It should come as no surprise that there are some members who readily pollute threads with false logic, stupidity and nonsense. Members are free to place such people on "ignore." However, it might prove worthwhile for thread starters to have an option to disallow a small number (anywhere from, say, 1 to 5?) of specifically identified members from participating in their threads, with such determination to be made before the initiator's first posting in that new thread. I could be viewed as something of a "voir dire" prerogative of thread starters. Naturally, the offended parties would be free to start their own threads. Therefore, this initiative would not be about limiting free speech. Rather, it is about having at least a bit of say about who you invite to your own party.

Please note, the motivation for this suggestion is not to limit participation only to like minded people. I am talking about the right to exclude a small and limited number of people. It is about excluding known disruptive individuals who regularly pollute threads with incessant bullshit. A case in point:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1299090#post1299090

Selecting "ignore" for these disruptive individuals does not prevent them from steering the dialogue you initiated into the realm of stupidity, circular logic and self-aggrandizement.

Perhaps I am way off in my suggestion. Therefore, let's do a poll and see what others think.
More...

lol. That was a funny picture.
 
Quote from Longhorns:

Bingo.

ZZZ and his band of imbeciles control dozens of ET aliases.

Plus, Baron loves that he has lonely losers posting here 17 times each day. It keeps ET's thread count and page views up which = more $$$ in his pocket.
More...

LOL...snicker:D
 
Quote from traderNik:

I understand your suggestion. It is sometimes exasperating to read Z's posts. You must remember that Z knowingly posts circular logic, ad hominem attacks and assertions in order to elicit a response from others who feel strongly about the subject at hand. He's a lonely alcoholic troll who has no life (clearly).

I doubt that Baron will allow this. And the flip side is that we would not be able to go into Z's Assertion Threads and demolish his arguments, as we've done so many times in the past. Eventually he runs out of steam and then goes off and starts another.

Also we couldn't mock the conspiracy theorists, which is a very entertaining part of P & R.
More...
agree with that, however, just for sake of discussion, an idea cld be to allow threads to split, eg:
. allow the thread starter to block as many posters as he/she wishes
. the thread wld then automatically be split in 2, the main section on the left hand side of the screen, and the blocked posters' posts and subsequent replies to them etc on the right hand side...
. optionally, members could then elect to 'trust' the thread starter's call, and via a "main view only / main + blocked" toggle button, restore full screen view of the main section only...

i think this preserves the 'democratic' spirit... while allowing the thread starter some say in terms of who is welcome to interact on the main section of the thread...

if the thread starter makes an unreasonable use of the feature, it shld quickly become apparent to the other posters, who wld probably elect to unsubscribe from / stop participating to the thread...

all other ET features and options remaining available of course, recourse to mods' intervention etc...

apologies for the headache, Baron ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top