No, It only discourages those that want to start threads and think that what they have to say is so UN-important, that they are UNWILLING TO PAY FOR IT. When I start a thread, I could give a rats ass who responds to it or not, or who takes it where and if it is on topic or not. I only care to see the responses that interest me and I ignore those that don't, and I certainly ignore those whose users are on ignore. IMHO, the people that are REALLY adamant about keeping threads on "track" have an ULTERIOR motive for this requirement - usually they are pikers that would love to sell their "knowledge" and would like to get a "following" for FREE. If you already KNOW HOW TO TRADE, getting the gist of something takes 1 POST and not some endless thread about it. If you are a newbie, then why is the thread starter SO INTERESTED in helping them? Ulterior MOTIVES. PAY FOR IT. nitro
I don't get your point. You're explaining the situation for me. The reason why the moderators declared you, oops I mean Johnny, was not banned is because they didn't do it themselves. They did not know I banned that username because I didn't tell them. The REAL story is simple. Even though there are rules, ET is primarily a self-regulated community. Many moderators don't even take action against a certain post or poster unless there's a comlaint. THe JR account was banned because I received several complaints from regular users about many of your recent posts being seriously over the line. I mean, if your peers (especially traders) start complaining about your language, I have to assume that things are really getting out of hand. The fact that Johnny's thread had become the "most popular and insightful thread ever" is disputable, but I can assure you that banning JR didn't having anything to do with the "good" posts that were submitted. Like others, I enjoyed the thread until it started getting out of hand. In fact, I thought the thread started out excellent and it had some very insightful posts from a variety of different users. I don't mind re-instating JR's account and pruning the original thread back to the point just before it got out of control. If that's something you, um I mean JR, would like for me to do, let me know. Specifically, let me know which page of the thread to prune it back to, and I'll take care of it. My desire is that we can all move forward from all this and learn a small lesson in the process. I just want everybody to know that ET is not a place for unmoderated free speech where anything goes. And that no matter who you are, there are rules to be accountable to. I know the system of moderation here is not perfect and the enforcement standard is not always exactly the same with each moderator. However, I know for a fact that we are doing the best we can with the limited tools and resources we have to keep the site useable and enjoyable for everybody.
I think you're sincere about that, which is why I'm involved in this discussion. If in fact nothing can be done about disruption, then that's that; I don't have to be concerned about posting any more strategy threads since doing so would be asking for trouble. Let me illustrate at least part of the problem. The following is a current post: You're a liar, and a hairy monkey. Shave your back, for God sakes. When does Penn st. start your sophmore year? You are a total sham. Post again, and I'll expose your true identity, penn st. boy. I think everyone would agree that this does not exactly advance the discussion, regardless of what the discussion might be. But is it abusive? Does it have to have "dickwad" or "asswipe" or whatever in order to be abusive? Personally, I'd call it abusive, and an hour after I reported it, it's still there. Do you consider it abusive? What about the moderators? There are more than a dozen, some of whom I've never heard of because they don't become embroiled in any of the frequent controversies. Would all of them consider it to be abusive? Any of them? Would all or any of them delete it if it were reported? In this case, it was reported, but it's still there. Would it still be there if the thread originator could delete it? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless of what LongShot thinks, I'm not a little old lady pouring over Huckleberry Finn looking for evidence of homosexual conduct. But it's frustrating to see good threads die due to disruption (and this has nothing to do with JR). Perhaps requiring people to gain permission before initiating threads would help. Perhaps giving those initiators the option of deleting off-topic or abusive posts would also help (certainly if they abused the privilege, they would no longer be granted permission to initiate threads). I don't want to be a pest, and I'm probably already well into that territory. But I do have ideas for strategy threads that I'd like to post, and I don't have the time to deal with the (insert name here) of the world. If the problem isn't solved, at least partially, I'd rather just keep them to myself, and I doubt that I'm the only member who feels that way.
Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of this whole anonymous `net communication thing is this sort of behavior. Postings of this nature do absolutely nothing towards the purposes of most of the users here, further they discourage new posters and new users. A post of this caliber does not belong on ET.
Good example of what? Of a reply you have no interest in? Let me clue ya, I have no interest in your endless whining either. But I have to endure it.
...we all know it's BOBCATHY's fault!!!!! With her horrible language and incessant attacks against humanity....Im disgusted:eek: :eek: She even told a dirty joke once!
These kinds of posts were done by JR/Sim too. A lot of name calling and other junk. He made it clear in the Hershey thread that if he was censored he would leave. So, basically, you will run off some good posters who choose not to follow the rules, but for the sake of keeping a civil board, it will happen from time to time. The alternative is much worse. I disagree with the assertion by Sim that posters are run off for posting good info. On the contrary, they are run off for deciding to become disruptive. Hitman was not run off for his informative posts, but if I remember correctly it was for his recruitment for his firm, which is clearly against the rules. There is no conspiracy to keep discussions boring and mundane, lol...not a great business strategy. Anyway, as a moderator, I have two choices. Be Gestapo-like and censor every single post, which I do not have enough time for, or respond to indivudual complaints and things that I see when I read the threads in the forum I am responsible for. I agree that it seems like a double standard at times when something flagrant is missed, but be assured that it is never intentional.