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)
    32.4%
  2. No

    25 vote(s)
    67.6%
  1. 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
     
    #11     Dec 19, 2006
  2. 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.
     
    #12     Dec 19, 2006
  3. volente_00

    volente_00




    And that is just what he gave you in the thread with that picture.
     
    #13     Dec 20, 2006
  4. mxjones

    mxjones

    lol. That was a funny picture.
     
    #14     Dec 20, 2006
  5. LOL...snicker:D
     
    #15     Dec 20, 2006
  6. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest

    perhaps splitting Poltics and Religion into two seperate forums.

    Religion shouldn't have much of a place in politics anyhow.
     
    #16     Dec 20, 2006
  7. And yet it does, both in these forums and in real life.
     
    #17     Dec 20, 2006
  8. 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 ;-)
     
    #18     Dec 21, 2006
  9. 2cents, what I'm proposing is somewhat simpler and has greater limits on the thread starter's discretion.
     
    #19     Dec 21, 2006
  10. volente_00

    volente_00

    If you keep those out who don't share the same view, who will be left to argue with ?
     
    #20     Dec 21, 2006