Bob, out of curiosity, where did we ever get with the discussion of allowing boards where people could exclude people or basically run it however they wanted?
Where we left it is that it was trumped by the one-board-per-stock rule. We both agreed that such a level of control in the only allowable board on a given subject was inappropriate and would eventually be used manipulatively.
Ok, I have an idea that I'd like to try, that we've never done. I'd like to try, for a 3 month period, to allow a "controlled" board. Let's call it "e.Digital Controlled (EDIG)" -- where, I am totally hands-off as the Admin.
I'm already pretty much against that idea. It'd become a manip-fest. Quickly. Even if another board existed where that wasn't possible, it'd be a black eye for the site to have an agoracom-like board here.
I think the CoB model works only if you have ultimate responsibility for all deletions.
If it ticks off a group so badly that they move to agoracom.com, suits me. I haven't really had any dealings with this "group" but the comment I read yesterday that was pretty much "I was going to subscribe, but you don't boot bashers, so I won't.", with its implied "Boot bashers and we'll pay you" already made me less than kindly disposed toward this group, even though that sentiment was expressed by only one person, as far as I know.
My gamble? The main EDIG one, that I run.
Bob, what do you think? If you agree to a trial run, I'll agree to it.
And if that's not the case? If the other board is stronger? It'll have set a precedent we'll have to follow.
As someone else brought up, perhaps such a test would be a little easier to swallow with a forced inclusion in the header stating not only that the moderators can delete and exclude at will, but giving the link to the board in which that won't happen.
But even with that, it'd take a lot of convincing to get me to want to do that even on a trial basis.
And for each person who suggests we should allow uninhibited manipulation because we'd make more money by doing so (we wouldn't, but that's beside the point), it'd take 10 people offering really good reasons to balance that out.
Credibility is everything when it comes to sites like this. It's not the top thing. It's the *only* thing. Once that's established, other things can be added to the list of what's important.
And anything that could endanger our credibility and our growing reputation as a serious, civil site, shouldn't be reasoned with. It should be shown the door.
My suggestion: If inappropriate deletions are rampant, replace the moderators with yourself. If such a move results in all those people moving to another site, so be it. Less work for the servers.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
