Dear friends,
Given the rising tension occasioned by some of Ted's recent posts and comments and after internal discussions here, I let Ted know last night that I was going to moderate his posts. I invited Ted to continue posting both his links and comments, with the proviso that I'd look at them and, conceivably, edit some of them before they went live. While I'm not up nearly so early as Ted is (rather closer to 6:30 than 4:30), I promised to act promptly on the moderation queue so that I'd minimize the disruption to the flow of the conversation.
Rejecting "censorship," he declined.
Ted's comments are, and will continue to be, welcome. Given the rising number of concerns, the moderation requirement will likewise remain.
I'll try to be a bit more present to pick up the slack and I'd encourage others, our vast and amiable lurker community especially, to do likewise.
As ever,
David
Comments
At the same time, people have to be responsible for their actions. I know Ted felt like this was asking to censor him, but the board belongs to you. Especially regarding posting whole articles, any possible legal repercussions were going to come your way.
Again, I hope he chooses to come back.
I say generous because this will take him time, when he could simply ban someone.
David and Charles have been models of gentlemenly and thoughtful behavior and this offer of his remains both of those things. It is not big brother or censorship to remove ad hominem attacks, I which I am confident is all David would do.
>jlev said: To be fair
yes David has been very fair.
If a poster disagrees with beloved people or ideas, they get slammed.
Ted has his own style - take the best and leave the rest.
For those that would like to know what prompted this I have provided a link to the discussion where I felt it was time to flag Ted's questionable behavior to David. It is ok to disagree but lets do it in a civil manner. I would not tolerate my best employee, from a revenue generation aspect, directing words such as these towards a lesser performing employee. I was taught to be respectful of others ... and, if Ted leaves he leaves by his own wishes, actions and doings.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/14812/let-s-iron-out-some-things
Please read through the complete post. If you feel I was out of line in flagging this post, to David, then so be it. But, know this, I'll miss Ted too ... but, I also do not enjoy reading the bitter exchanges, that at times, Ted's bad behavior has sparked between himself and other posters.
Old_Skeet
I hope it's not temporary but I already see topics started by members I have not seen posting here in my short time her or from those who post very little. I hope that continues.
I thought the whole point with some FoFs was that fees were lowered so the total was not outrageous. The AO_ ETFs I refer to frequently are assembled that way, I believe.
Is Ted so valuable that he should be allowed to insult other posters in as nasty a tone as he wants?
Is Ted so valuable that he should be allowed to tell other posters to either let him "lead" or get off the site?
Is Ted so valuable that he should be allowed to chastise others who dare to inadvertently duplicate one of his many links, presumably requiring everyone else to thoroughly open and check each and every one of his daily links before daring to post a link of their own?
Is Ted so valuable that he should be allowed to post copyrighted material in it's entirety, verbatim, resulting in an angry response from the author? Should he be allowed to put the site in danger of a potential lawsuit (effectively shutting down the entire site) because of such behavior?
Unlike what Ted has said to others, no one has told Ted that he should not post here. On the contrary: he was advised and gently reprimanded concerning his behavior quite a number of times, and only then, when he still continued with unacceptable behavior, was he told that his future remarks would be monitored.
If Ted chooses not to accept a requirement that he act, as do the great majority of other posters here, in a reasonable manner than I for one don't feel that the loss of a bunch of "links" that frequently have very few viewers and no responses will diminish this site at all. In fact, it may be one of the more constructive decisions that Ted has made lately.
Unfortunately he has made himself a bit controversial with his occasional tendency towards uncharitable personal remarks. This does not happen all that often, certainly not enough to cause permanent banishment to the hinterlands, but often enough to cause a pretty good ruckus now and again, with the result that other posters have either been driven away or muted into silent lurking. Perhaps some time in the penalty box may sort things out.
Regards- Old Joe
In this recent example, Ted put David in a unfortunate position with possible legal ramifications. I would suspect that this monitoring of posts might go away in due time if Ted abides by the rules and conditions David has set not only for him but for everyone here.
For Mr. Braham, apparently this was an ongoing issue and Ted had been warned before. Good to see you stop back in and I hope you make MFO a regular stop.
Yep - I'd rather critique Ted, Rono, Catch, OJ or anyone else when they're here to defend themselves - which Ted is clearly not.
Now I'll say, there is something about Ted that I really liked. I understood his humor and his way of communicating. Much of his sarcasm was in jest I believe. But as mentioned many times, sarcastic humor does not translate well in print.
Anyway, I have a feeling Ted will be back down the road. Hope so.
(Sorry Mike. I couldn't resist.)
Other contributors have left and returned and I hope (and suspect) Ted will as well.
On a related note, as it pertains to Ted's "offending" post, though I'm not a copyright attorney, I did study copyright law while in law school, albeit many years ago. As I understand it, a forum or blog can issue portions of an article so long as the excerpt is quantitatively small and does not cause the newspaper financial harm. When Ted published the post it made me want to click through to the original article--which I ultimately did. I'm sure that this forum wants to steer clear of copyright violations, and I don't have any issue with a moderator making sure that the site isn't subject to liability.
I'd suggest that David issue guidelines for the "reposting" of articles. If and when he sees those guidelines violated, he can gently remind offenders and can edit the posts accordingly. Beyond this, I think that censorship directed against individual posters should be frowned upon.
The short answer to your question is yes. See the following site for some recent decisions involving liability of forums and blogs for wholesale reposting of articles.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/