Actually no.

Just send another msg and explain that it is an update to the prior msg.

Just sent two messages to the Asuse board and tried to resend a proper one and couldn't erase what I sent in order to send the one I wanted to send before the time ran out,,, is there some secret way of deleting what you sent before the time runs out.

now here is a board that needs the dust whiped off.

best

HS5

Good to know you are still alive.

Phil

So nice to see this board getting used for it's intended purpose. Being a good moderator is a tough job. Especially on a contentious board. I hope those taking up the challenge will find some good advice here when desired.

Thanks phil

That's a premium board and the mods can ban you without a specific reason.

But chapter 11 didn't ban you, Matt did.

You need to take it up with him VIA PM.

My personal opinion is that the posts you copy and pasted here were "noise posts".

Please take it up with Matt VIA PM.

Phil

Hey chapter11 gave me the boot for posting the truth is that fair, this is all i posted right here.

admin GSHN was the stock Posted by: chapter11
In reply to: None Date:4/14/2008 12:04:43 PM
Post #of 6685

GSHN let go down again


Then he pumps it here

Posted by: chapter11
In reply to: None Date:4/16/2008 8:40:22 AM
Post #of 6685

GSHN news out
nothing to do with today performance but as i saw it i should inform everyone



Posted by: chapter11
In reply to: None Date:4/16/2008 9:42:53 AM
Post #of 6685

GSHN 0.0009 X 0.001

Look at the time trend it I don't need : Bob Stocks telling me chapter wasn't trading today why would someone tell me this ughhhh

Always glad to help when I can.

Phil

Thanks Phil, Thanks Dan

cheers investorshub!

3rd round of the Master today!

Thanks Dan for posting the link to the new handbook.

I think all new moderators should have to read the handbook and pass a test before allowing them to be a moderator.

This is the section we are currently dealing with, as you already know:

[edit] I don't understand why calling the CEO of our company a liar is not considered a personal attack.
The Terms of Use covers Posters on our site. Members are welcome to post their opinion (positive, negative or neutral) about public figures associated with the company and this is not considered a TOU violation.

[edit] The CEO of the company is a member of iHub. I don't understand why I can't remove posts that discuss her as being "off topic" (discussing other Members) or "personal attack" when others say her business practices are shady.
Discussion of public figures associated with a company is appropriate dialog for our stock boards. If one of the principals of the company chooses to post on our site, they do not have the same level of immunity under the "personal attack" provision in the Terms of Use. The bottom line and rule of thumb when it comes to "personal attacks" is that iHub members are protected from them but officers of the companies being discussed are not, even if they are Members. However; Members should still be civil and express their views in a manner that is appropriate for a public forum.

[edit] This poster is making libelous claims against our company and its officers! Why can't I remove these posts?
Libel can only become a fact if a judge says it is. Nobody else, including Moderators or Site Admins can nor will determine that Member posted content is libelous. Members are often of the opinion that a post is libelous, but no Moderator should act based on that opinion. Libel is decided by a judge in a court of law after conducting proper evidentiary hearings. If such a judgment is issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, iHub will abide by that ruling. Otherwise, it is not a matter that Site Admin or Mods can decide. Our only role here is to ensure adherence to the Terms of Use. Anecdotally, quite often the information that some Members allege to be libelous ends up being accurate, which is why neither Site Admins nor Moderators remove posts on the basis of being allegedly false or libelous.

Phil

Just noticed the conversation here about CEO attacks.

I agree with what you have posted and wanted to add this link from the new Wiki Q & A.

http://ihwiki.stocksite.com/index.php?title=FAQ:Deletions_and_Restores#I_don.27t_understand_why_calling_the_CEO_of_our_company_a_liar_is_not_considered_a_personal_attack.

SuperBee is a great moderator.

You are in good company.

Phil

I don't necessarily know if everyday ethics in life apply 100% to posting on a message board.

Maybe they could, if every poster had to post with his real name, home address, and home and cell number.

That will never happen, so you might as well forget that.

I guess what all of this boils down to though, is as a moderator, you should familiarize yourself with the Ihub TOU, and run the board to the best of your ability.

If you have any questions you can always PM admin for clarification.

Admin seems to always lean towards the side of common courtesy and decency, but in some cases they will allow personal attacks on the officers of the company.

If you care to read a board where the CEO of the company was posting, read the RXPC board.

The CEO was posting as "firesupport".

Go back about 200 or so posts and read the board.

You'll learn a lot.

Phil

P.S. One of the mods was/is a friend of the CEO and was removing the "personal attacks" and admin was replacing them.

Its been done just like you said. It is consistent with what Bee and I think. Best to you

Good morning IKAG,

I would have to say both of those topics (sexual orientation and attire) would be off topic on a stock board, but not a personal attack, if they were posted about a public person.

In any case, you should remove the posts, IMO.

Posters should be able to critize the officers on the way they are running the company, but what difference does it make if they are gay and/or dress like a slob?

They can take that kind of stuff to an off topic board if they want to discuss it.

ALL IMO!!

Have fun,
Phil

thanks, good exercise on ethics in practice, I always enjoyed back in the day the class time on ethics, in college and in insurance school when I was a health/life agent, both were good experiences and come in handy in business today.

thanks Phil, I appreciate it.

Now what about attacks,comments etc regarding sexual references or personal attire, ie: whether or not a CEO is Gay or wears Earings or doesn't wear a tie? Whats your view on moderating these things. imo, they do not foster a professional standard, whats your take?

Good luck today and enjoy

IKAG

Here are a couple of more I found on the issue posted by admin:

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

Posted by: IH Geek [Dave]
In reply to: goosemeister who wrote msg# 88910 Date:4/29/2007 9:17:59 PM
Post #of 107772

Company officials are not afforded the same degree of protection from personal attack as other users since they are public figures. That does not mean that users have a blanket exemption; they should still exercise common courtesy when addressing any user.

Whether referring to a specific user or a group of users, pejorative terms such as "pumpers" & "bashers" are almost always either off-topic and/or a personal attack, particularly on company specific boards. Those boards are about a stock and the company, not about other users.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19224521

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

Posted by: IH Geek [Dave]
In reply to: greatday88 who wrote msg# 88926 Date:4/29/2007 11:52:54 PM
Post #of 107772

"he should surely know the the CEO of USSE posts as "greenpower"

In case you missed the earlier dialog and assuming that there is even a way to know who a user is indeed a CEO, posting here does not gain him the same degree of protection from personal attacks that benefits other users since he is a public figure.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19226777

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

I hope that answers your question.

Phil

IKAG,

There have been many discussions on Ihub about personal attacks on the officials of public companies.

It has been likened to personal attacks on politicians.

The difference is that the officer of the company is a representative of that stock on that stock specific board.

If she/he reveals themself as an officer, they leave themselves open to criticism about how they are running the company.

They are not protected by the same TOU that protect a private poster from personal attacks.

Nor is it a TOU violation to discuss the way they are running the company even if they don't post on Ihub.

Of course the TOU regarding vulgarity still are in effect, but not the ones regarding personal attacks.

This is the way Admin put it recently:

Posted by: IH Geek [Dave]
In reply to: kkgd who wrote msg# 72927 Date:9/9/2006 12:31:59 AM
Post #of 107772

I'm of the opinion that if a CEO of a public company is foolish enough to engage in such rhetoric on message boards, let the post stand as evidence of that folly.

And, someone correct me if I am wrong, but has not "our-street" effectively posted the same or similar characterizations of the said CEO? He is by his own actions a public figure and hardly has clean hands in the matter.

Besides, who can honestly say they want to miss seeing a couple of boobs in a mud wrestling match?

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=13204976

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

There have been other discussions on the issue too, but it would take me a while to find them.

Phil

I like this board. I also could have discussed some things that have been on the table lately on stock specific boards. One of them is the topic of personal attacks of CEO's of stock specific boards. Does it matter if the CEO is a member of the hub or not? thoughts and experiences are appreciated. So many CEO's seem or appear to deserve some harsh treatment but its difficult to moderate a board, maintain a balance without killing the board spirit, have over 500 member marks and hardly anyone posts. Some days it seems like mod's like me sheriff to hard and make the board less attractive. Sometimes I think I will resign because of it, then other times I feel like the attacks are so redundant, repetitive that I stick around just to keep it clean..

I post here occasionally and am always glad to answer any questions I can answer.

I really don't need to be a Mod.

Phil

Phil, why don't you mod this board. Maybe a good place for people to discuss some problems, likes and dislikes

he got the boards mixed up and withdrew his request for mod

He's gone now. Sorry.

Who?

Just got a new Mod in place.

DUDE, What a great Place. Thanks!

Viva

Nobody here for two years now. Why bother.

A lesson from long ago: "Better late than never"

Fred

I could have used this site a few weeks ago.

Hi!!!

Long time, is right ...

re: "... I don't hold out much hope for a rather broad cross section of humanity gathered together under the umbrella of anonymity."

That's a good assessment. It's interesting so many folks, some of whom have posted on iHub for a number of years, lack the wit to grasp that simple truth. Instead of thinking, they blame it on Matt ... a reaction I find offensive.

I've suggested before that those who are unhappy with the actions of board moderators try to write a rule that would correct the circumstances that annoy them and post it here where it can be reviewed, amended, honed, and otherwise made presentable. So far, no-one has attempted it.

As far a I can see, all the complainers are saying is that the boards should be moderated the way they want them moderated. For my part, I like Matt's way better.

Fred

Excellent Point!

Until we moderators can convince Matt et al to listen to what rules need to be in place, moderators are only IHUB puppets, per se.

Sad, but true.

Hi, long time, eh?

The problem is complex. There are a number of competing motivators at work.

Having watched videos capturing elected officials hurling chairs, desks, fists, whatever they can get their hands on, at other elected officials in the same governing body who happen to have a opposing opinion, in full view of one another and those pesky cameras, I don't hold out much hope for a rather broad cross section of humanity gathered together under the umbrella of anonymity.

Maybe it's just me.

re: Mods who ban and delete bashers threads are being unfair, I think it should only be done when there are lies or attack, but come on do you guys really think Matt has the time to check for every little discrepency?

Probably not. Matt's little hobby has grown beyond his capabilities. That being said, in the case of at least one board, Matt is complicit with the moderator in banning a poster for no reason, either stated or actual. The kid does not get a bye from me.

Thank you, suh. This board needed a little spice.

Let me ask you this ...

Your original post on the topic outlined one of the problems on iHub, the (apparent) onesidedness of the board moderators. I don't think that's a good thing, either, but I haven't been able to come up with a solution I think Matt would find acceptable.

Can you suggest something?

If you do, there's a good chance others who watch this board will chime in and try to hone the idea into an acceptable shape.

We'd all be better off if you could do it.

Fred

Very good points guy I am not arguing just thought I would add some spice to the topic!

re: "... but it does imply that they have a right to say what they feel"

Oh, my goodness. Wasn't that the thrust of the most recent Supreme Court decision ... that you don't always have the "right" to say what you feel? In any case, that right does not extend to your postings on InvestorsHub.

IHub maintains stock discussion boards and you post on them at IHub's sufferance ... which is sometimes delegated to board moderators. As it happens, those favoring a stock are more apt to start up and moderate a stock board than are bashers. The trick, obviously, is to start a board for the stock you want to bash. However, to do that, you'll have to pick a stock that doesn't already have a board on iHub. The one-stock-one-board rule doesn't allow latecomers much control. (Another manifestation of the genius of our founder)

I suppose where I differ from you is that I think the term "stock discussion board" implies intelligent discussion. As far as I'm concerned, a pox on both pumpers and bashers. Neither add anything of value to iHub.

Oh, yes ... about bashers being "everywhere" great stocks are talked about ... the fact that stupid people are prevalent does not give them any inviolable rights nor does it give me any urge to emulate them.

Fred

I second that one, Bill.

No it does not imply that they are fair but it does imply that they have a right to say what they feel, and they really have a right if what they are saying is true, GOOG, SIRI, GG
all great stocks with controversy and bashers everywhere you see them talked about!

Does your assertion imply that bashers are fair? Does being a basher entitle one to fair treatment?

Ditto, of course, for pumpers ... but they don't get banned or deleted.

Ahhhh, such a quandry.

Fred

Mods who ban and delete bashers threads are being unfair, I think it should only be done when there are lies or attack, but come on do you guys really think Matt has the time to check for every little discrepency?