IHub Moderator Ethics in Practice

[Phil(Hot Rod Chevy)]

sb,

I deleted your posts because you got a case of typing finger diarrhea and were discussing post deletions to boot.

That is taboo in public.

Have fun,
Phil

[swampboots]

Sir: You can read latest stuff on Simply Politics /Rant & Chat (politics not allowed), hit my Swampboots handle. I was banned and deleted from Liberal Free Chat Zone and most of the hucka muck originated from my posting to that site. Today ,Rant& Chat (politics allowed) deleted my post.
But you will not have all the posts which I do not wish to comment on becuase they were deleted, it would not be fair for me to edit anything. Some comments were made today regarding this ugly episode by me, on the parking lot. It will take me much time to transcribe the missing posts from my copies, so just give me the word and I will word for word the 3-4 missing posts.

[chwdrhed]

Edit.

Never mind.

[swampboots]

I have a post I would like to post but some members on this site keep banning me for life after they delete me post. I would like to meet a fair minded type steeped in ethical neutrality who can judge whether I deserve such uh work outs as in out out. So far the causes of my deletions were pretention and mediocrity. But is that a deletable offense? As asst-moderator of a widly avoided board I wish to learn.

[ONEBGG]

HARRR!!! Maybe it was Freudian, LOL!

[chwdrhed]

I see.

...at the drop of a hate ...

Interesting typo.

[ONEBGG]

Morning Chwdrhed, Yes, personal info is always a no-no, I mentioned this because some posters have no shame and will do so, or threatens to do at the drop of a hate and it is IMO a big time booting matter.

Pertinent as in relevant to that board, as in any knowledge gained in the capacity of being a moderator of that board and matters pertaining to that board and/or it's moderator being used and/or posted.

… Gary

[chwdrhed]

Tell me more about #3. Wouldn't posting personal information about another poster be wrong in any case? What do you mean by pertinent?

[ONEBGG]

We agree, what a shock huh pal, HARR!!!

[ONEBGG]

I Concur, I know... I can't believe it either, LOL!!!

[ONEBGG]

Re: "there doesn't need to be justification", Good point!

[ONEBGG]

Hi Chwdrhed! FWIW, Here's my opinion.

1- Can anybody prove that it's the same person? I wouldn't think so and therefore I say the other alias whoever it might be has nothing to do with your assistant, even if it him or her, it’s a different site.

2- I try to treat every poster according to how they act on each board. There are a few people I do not get along with and/or have banned on one or more of my boards, but I do not hold that against them on different boards I moderate and visit..

3- IMO the only reason for a dismissal would be if that moderator posts pertinent or personal info from that board or it's moderators on others boards.

In short, No, each board is in it's own way a separate entity in of itself and outside matters should not effect a posters rights or treatment on that specific board.

[chwdrhed]

Thanks, Phil. That's the way I see it too.

[Phil(Hot Rod Chevy)]

Since no one truly knows if fred is the same person that posts on another site, I say that her/his conduct here on Ihub is the only thing that matters.

Have fun,
Phil

[chwdrhed]

We've been waiting for you.

Know any short jokes?

[chwdrhed]

I would too in that case.

[chwdrhed]

Another excellent point.

I would say wise beyond your years but I'm not sure that's possible anymore.

[chwdrhed]

That is an excellent point, Low. To my knowledge that has never happened here.

[Lownumba]

The policy du Churak stems from the belief that it is sometimes best to take the troublemaker and make him the hall monitor.

[Churak]

that's an interesting one...

[fung_derf]

Where the heck am I, and how did I get in here? It's like the Twilight Zone!!

[Burpzilla]

It's the policy du Churak that gets me the most.

[Lownumba]

IHub has policies, ad hoc policies, test policies, policies du jour, and policies as works in progress. Figure out which one applies to a given situation, and the rest is easy.

[Burpzilla]

Here's a for-instance... if a moderator or assistant were publishing excerpts from deleted posts on another web site, abusing the information in the manage console, I'd fire him.

[Burpzilla]

Brilliant! The old Churak strategy.

I think since EDIG is a raucous place, and chwda doesn't have an axe to grind one way or the other about the stock itself (as far as I know) and wants everyone to know the moderation is fair, it's a good idea for him/her to adopt Matt's policy... Don't consider other sites.

Unless something really unusual happens.

But make it known the decision is final, to deflect further complaining.

[Churak]

IMHO a MODERATOR/ASSistant should be judged solely by his performance on that board. Who cares what he does on other boards or other sites? His responsibility is to uphold iHub's TOU on that board. Period.

[Churak]

and I haven't let you down yet...

[Lownumba]

Whenever I start a board, I name Churak as an assistant. That way, the expectations are so low that I rarely have a problem.

[Burpzilla]

True.

To me, the bottom line is while Matt himself is necessarily constrained to judging a moderator's behavior only on iHub, a moderator is able to add/subtract assistants on a whim.

It happens all the time, too. People get in spats, have fallings out... there doesn't need to be justification. It's the privilege of having started the board or convincing Matt to put you up there.

I think in this case, chwdrhead is getting lobbied, but knowing ahead of time chwdrhead has good judgement, I'm guessing da chowda made the right call.


Edit: If friendlyfred were doing what you said, that would be a local issue and even Matt could step in.

[Lownumba]

If there is a perception that a moderator/assistant is using his position on IHub -- I have no idea if that's the case here -- to settle scores from other boards, that would be a problem.

[Burpzilla]

It's hard to say without knowing more of the central information specific to this case. Let me guess, he's a good poster/moderator on iHub but an arsehole somewhere else, like on Raging Bull?

Sure, there could be scenarios where somebody is so terrible somewhere else (scathing insults; posting personal information) that you wouldn't want him/her as a co-moderator on iHub even if he were acting like an angel locally. But it sounds like, in this case, judging by your well-written post over there, you've determined he's okay.

Hopefully the complainers know your decision is final. If they think it's open for discussion they might keep at you.

Also, grub set up.

[chwdrhed]

I would very welcome comments on the subject of this #msg-4498239.

The issue is that some members are calling for the removal of an assistant moderator due to his behavior on sites other than this one.

Let me know what you think.

[Lownumba]

It appears that there are a few loopholes around here that should be closed. Right, John?

[chwdrhed]

We're only the Ethics board. You'll have to take that up with Standards & Practices.

[Burpzilla]

Sounds like a loophole that oughtta be closed.

[chwdrhed]

Oh. I didn't know that.

[AKvetch]

But the board is moderated, in fact. "No Moderator" is the User who is the moderator. And we all know who "No Moderator" is, right? In case you didn't know, it is...

.
..
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

..
.
Churak

[Lownumba]

When you create a board, you are offered this option:

Leave this boxed checked if you would like to be the Moderator for this board. Uncheck if you want it to be unmoderated.

[chwdrhed]

Low, surprises me too. I thought when you created a board your alias was automatically attached to it.

A hole in the coded fortress maybe?

[Lownumba]

chowdah and other protectors of the realm, your thoughts if any....

As IHub is currently constructed, I can create a board anonymously (i.e. -- No Moderator) but still manage the board.

In the free zone, I can create and edit the iBox, name assistants, and delete posts. In the premium category, I can do all of the above and ban people at will (but banning does leave a signature).

It surprised me that I could do that.

[The Original dpb5!]

Yes, all three boards are in the Free Zone!

They are...

CIM
CMKX
One Step Ahead

[Ruellit]

I think he makes up the rules as he goes along.

Agree, and I don't care for it either, but we really don't have any recourse.

[Ruellit]

Rubbing somebody's nose isn't something I do. That guy did a good enough job all by himself, lol! You are right about the final score it was 56 to 10.

[chwdrhed]

Thanks for stopping by, mick.

[mick]

hi burp, i had to come over and say hi and good evening to all. i'll put this forum for my favorites.
ethics? law? lawyers?
is there a need to show o.t. how can it be o.t. , when you are speaking of the topic?
i think that is right and do you your own thoughts.
i try not to paste but if i don't have time then i paste.

[Old_Drummerman]

Good Post, Chwdr......

[The Original dpb5!]

Thanks Burp,

I did INDEED hit all the high profile boards on IHUB. Unfortunately for me, but good for IHUB those High Profile Boards were stock related.

And beyond those high profile stock boards, I also HIT all the popular NON STOCK boards. So, my thinking is that that is why my latest survey had the greatest survey response of any survey ever held on IHUB.

The only IHUB user to PM me with a complaint was one known as "financialadvisor". You can look his profile up here on IHUB.

Why would it be so bad if others decided to use the OT preface to garnish off topic responses on IHUB. To me, IHUB created the survey potential and should therefore allow it to be used sitewide!

I owe you a penny! :)

[chwdrhed]

My two cents:

Should OT (Off Topic) Messages be allowed on IHUB Stock Boards?

The question isn't "should" OT msgs be allowed but rather "are" OT msgs allowed. And the answer is No.

Here's the short version of the rules:

Post about stocks.
Be courteous and respectful of other folks.
Post about stocks.
Have fun.

Matt seems fairly serious about this issue. Here's rule #9 from the detailed version:

constitutes spam, which is defined as:
Posting about a stock(s) that is not relevant to the board you are posting to;
Continually posting the same or similar information;
Posting statements that do not add value to the discussion;
Posting excessively on one or more message board(s);
As well posting something that is completely off-topic to the current discussion.
For disputes regarding the rules or deletions, talk to Matt.

There really is no point to discussing whether OT should be allowed. It isn't.


If an IHUB moderator feels an OT post is in bad taste, is that justification to remove the post?

Absolutely. That is the moderator's role. Keep the board on topic and family friendly.

If no IHUB moderator felt the need to delete my post, why would I have received a complaint via PM from IHADMIN Matt?

You broke the rules. Matt certainly has the right to bring that to your attention. The fact that it was only a reminder speaks to his respect for you in general. However, what you did was clearly in violation of the TOU and therefore subject to sanction at the discretion of the site Admin.

[TonyMcFadden]

Oh. So it's an Ihubbub

[Burpzilla]

You forgot to rub this guy's nose in it:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4361479

What was the final, 56-10?