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

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by Thunderdog, Dec 18, 2006.

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

  1. Yes

    12 vote(s)
  2. No

    25 vote(s)
  1. 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:

    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.
  2. 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.
  3. 4re


    It would be a good idea except that a lot of these guys have mutiple aliases. You would use all your dis-allows on basically the same idiot.
  4. I disagree, it may in sense prevent the disruption of the thread, but it may also censor an open forum. It is disheartening when a post that you have spent your valuable time on composing is trashed, but I believe that this is part of an open forum. Viewing the good, the bad and the ugly. But then this post is from a newbie that doesn't have a right to express a view. I just think that if you want to steer a thread into what you want it to become violates the free forum idea.
  5. 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.
  6. Joe


  7. Bad example, Joe. I am not talking about thread starters moderating their own threads. Rather, just excluding a small selection of known trolls who pollute just about any thread they participate in. The analogy in your link is of a court trial. Well, in that vein, what I am proposing is a voir dire of sorts. Not quite a perfect analogy, to be sure, but better than the one you propose.

    Threads are at their best when people have opposing views and discuss them rationally to the best of their knowledge and ability. A bit of humor is always nice. But there are assholes who hijack threads with disingenuous bullshit and intentional circular logic. Since you guys up in HQ seem to let the trolls run wild and free, then why not give thread starters at least a few bans from specific threads at the outset of such threads? It was already mentioned that the way trolls would circumvent this initiative would be to use another of their aliases. Well, then, if you guys want to run a clean shop then at least make an effort to permanently ban the most obvious trolls. The most obvious trolls are hardly a well kept secret. Do some work, guys.
  8. As I proposed it, the thread starter would not have carte blanche to ban any number of people from participating in his thread. Only a few of them. If the thread initiator only used the thread ban prerogative to put forward some stupid claim or whatever with the hope of going uncontested, there would be enough other posters to put him in his place. He would have to use his limited bans wisely indeed.
  9. There is no attempt made at "quality control" at Elite Trader...
    It's just not part of the business plan.

    If one visits serious forums like RealGM or even 2+2...
    The difference is NIGHT and DAY.

    Noobs and trolls do not have the same "rights" as experts...
    Noobs and trolls are not allowed to spam the forum with idiotic posts...
    There is zero tolerance for abuse...
    Etc, Etc, Etc.

    NONE of this applies to ET...
    Because the business plan here is to ** maximize traffic **...
    Feed the traffic to the sponsors...
    Who will them fleece the lambs.
  10. #10     Dec 19, 2006