Bob how can you tell who is posting? How do you know whether or not a person is posting from the dayroom of a military base, or from the community center at a condominium, or at the public library, where there is only one computer for everyone's use?
I'm not giving away all my secrets because doing so would tell people how to thwart the steps I use to limit the multi-account thing. But suffice it to say that your explanation of it denies reality in favor of a few very unlikely scenarios.
When you say that each individual isn't important to the site, I disagree.
Either show me where I said that or retract it. It's a blatant lie. Note that I'm not deleting it, though. It not only isn't appropriate for me to delete something based on my believing or even *knowing* that it's not true, it also is a part of the historical record that speaks for the credibility of the person who posted it.
You terminate enough people and you're left with just admin.
Kinda like how if you jump high enough, you'll land on the moon.
It's not my intention to terminate everyone. Just the ones who don't belong here because of their inability to follow a few simple house rules. You make it sound like it's a huge number of people, when in reality I've terminated very few accounts here, belonging to a total of three people. One of whom is you, although I'm giving you a second chance with this account, as I sometimes do. Yes, even for my critics.
I believe you're way too trigger happy and I think, like I posted previously, 3 days should be the norm, and basically the only people that should be banned are the ones that have been charged and convicted of illegal acts*.
Sounds like you've got it all figured out.
I won't disagree with 3 days being the norm, at least for first-time violations, as it's the way I do things unless the violation is particularly egregious.
However, I strongly disagree with your statement that "basically the only people that [sic] should be banned are the ones that have been charged and convicted of illegal acts."
So, according to your "rules", if someone repeatedly posts vulgarities in every post, or launches personal attacks on people, or threatens them with bodily harm or death, or repeatedly posts someone's home phone number, or uses multiple accounts to make it appear that multiple people share their point of view (especially about a stock) or spams their favorite stock to every thread, then they shouldn't ever be banned.
I've got news for you: There are sites like that. You know where they are. If those are the rules by which you'd prefer to play, then avail yourself of those sites. Sites like this one and Silicon Investor, however, draw users by *having* rules and conscientious enforcement of those rules.
Many people join these sites because of those rules, so they don't have to be subjected to the rule-less attitude of some other sites, and it wouldn't be fair to those people to suddenly abandon those rules.
Again, if you don't like the rules of a site or the way the admin of that site enforces those rules, well, "choice" is a really cool thing, and you should exercise that right.
So, what I'm basically saying is that you're wasting keystrokes trying to convince me, the owners of the site, or the members of the site that we should play by *your* rules. We have our own rules, thank you, and everyone knows that if they don't like them, they can go to a site with different rules or different enforcement.
Also, your approach runs counter to a central tenet of this site and a philosophy of mine to which I strongly subscribe: "Quality is more important than Quantity." I'd rather have a thousand people here engaging in civil discourse than a million people who don't.
Your choices are to either use this site and play by its rules, use another site whose rules are more to your liking, start your own site, or apply for my job then convince the owners that they shouldn't care about quality.
AI
