Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I agree with you on this.
As long as the post attacks the company and not the posters on the other side of the fence I have no problem with them - to a point.
Once the point has been made and discussed I don't allow it to be used again unless there is some additional merit that can be shown. An exception is where some poor sap brings up the issue and opens up the can of worms again. As far as I'm concerned if its on topic and people want to talk about it its allowed.
I guess these are all nice ideas. Maybe someday they'll have a practical application.
What did you do?
Only this:
A place to discuss the ups and downs of being an Ihub moderator.
What's wrong with that?
Of course it wasn't my fault.
The bashers made me do it.
I got suckered into it.
What I really wanted to do was help moderators of stock boards. However, I'm not sure they really want any help either.
Alas.
I see your point.
The purpose of the chairman was only so there would be one person to actually take action.
I'm thinking this would only apply to stock boards but I'm sure you're right about the number of complaints.
I suppose if Matt wants help he'll get some.
Hey! Are we telling Matt that he needs to get some help?
Edit: Nice grub, btw.
I think it's too complicated. The simplicity of the solution in place today makes up for its deficiencies.
Allowing moderators to delete posts from closely watched stock boards ensures that violating posts are dealt with quickly in most cases. Of course, this opens the door to abuse as well. Any abuse, however, is eventually righted by Matt. He either agrees or disagrees at some point and its his sandbox.
Is it the time lag between the occurrence of abuse and the righting of the wrong that causes us to dream of a better solution? If so, might it be that Matt simply needs some help? Has the site become too big for one person to monitor the moderators?
Perhaps what is needed is rather than having Matt personally review each deletion or TOU complaint a peer review board be set up. The board might consist of an odd number of very well respected posters on Ihub. They would have the power to do as Matt does only by consensus rather than by sole discretion.
The review board would have an acting chairman who would wield the buttons. The chairmanship would be rotated around the group at regular intervals.
The review board itself, that is the Ihub board that would serve as the meeting place, would be completely private to other Ihub members. Deleted posts and TOU complaints would show up on the private board and be reviewed by the board members in some timely manner. The board would take action much as Matt does today. Either confirming or reversing deletions, jailing or suspending.
As site Admin Matt would be in complete control of selecting board members. He could also overrule the board at any time.
Great.
Well seeing that I'm already all in I'll just sit back and watch.
Lemmy know when the good parts are coming up case I fall asleep.
Yessir, you've summed it up.
Interesting take, Paulie. Who can argue with that?
If this PR gives me a 1500 percent increase I'll be happy.
Both.
Yikes! That's ominous.
Given how wrong he was about the riches we would all enjoy perhaps I'll discount his prediction of our demise.
Thanks for keeping up on all the scuttlebutt.
Tell me cd's back in and I'll bet the farm.
Care to elaborate?
I'll answer someone as long as they are at least marginally reasonable. Once someone becomes belligerent I have no more interest.
Are you suggesting that someone have the ability to edit other's posts? Sort of a line item veto, if you will? Only in this case a word item?
Edit: Grub
I've had some success with PMs but I have to admit the failures are more common. My current procedure is to have Matt send a PM if I feel someone isn't taking the hint. Often he'll just jail them and be done with it.
In my first days as a moderator I really felt an obligation to explain myself. As I got better at it and my confidence grew I didn't feel the need as much.
That being said I almost always answer private requests for reasons for my actions.
Yes, the assumption is that the original post is worthy of deletion under the TOU.
C is my choice too and for mostly the same reasons.
Some might be tempted to follow A or B figuring that public humiliation is well deserved. These might choose A over B so as not to water down the flogging by deleting the original post. The thinking here is that perhaps the obnoxious poster will be rehabilitated by condemnation from peers.
The problem with this approach is that it sets a precedent for further responses to posts that violate the TOU. Really, the responses to the original post are more harmful than the original post itself. Why? Because obnoxious posters are a given and are generally irreformable. Efforts to curb their behavior are mostly wasted. However, the well respected posters need to set a better example for the community. Newer ones will learn from more established members what is acceptable and what is not.
The ideal situation for the board and by extension the moderator is when no one responds to posts of that kind. Allowing these posts to stand sends the message that posts about other posters are allowed under circumstances that seem to benefit an elite group. This is the worst possible precedent and will lead to a perceived lack of integrity on the part of the moderator.
Finally, there is the matter of lurkers who care not for public humiliation or integrity. They just want to read posts. And they're not much interested in posts that reply to a deleted post. They feel like they're missing some inside joke and it annoys them.
Therefore, the only instance under which I believe a post that responds to a deleted post should be left up is when it contains information that would otherwise be of benefit even if posted as a new message.
Yes, stock boards.
I don't think I will.
I'm content to let the board become what it becomes. That is, of course, if it becomes anything at all. Most boards don't.
Here's the kind of stuff I'm interested in.
Suppose a poster who has a habit of being obnoxious posts an obnoxious post worthy of deletion. Before you the moderator see the post three other fairly well respected posters respond calling out the obnoxious post for what it was.
Do you,
A) Leave well enough alone
B) Delete the obnoxious post but leave the responses
C) Delete the obnoxious post and all the responses
If you offer an answer be sure to explain your reasoning.
A mere pittance in astronomical (and Ihub) terms.
Yes, I'll be taking over the place when Matty moves out to LaLa land.
Only one order of magnitude I reckon. Not bad for my first board.
If this were a moon shot I'da only missed by a coupla hundred thousand miles.
The masses have spoken.
I hereby rename the board:
A place to discuss whether or not this should be a place to discuss the ups and downs of being an Ihub moderator.
... it would be nice if they sought help with problems ... and used the guidance to improve their board....
You're right. What was I thinking?
LOL.
Hey, I really don't have a strong opinion on the direction of the board. If it's useful to moderators then I will feel like I've contributed something.
I guess I thought that it could be a place where moderators with tough issues or problem children could come and bounce around scenarios. Maybe get a different look or two.
Gotta run. Be back in an hour or so.
Yes, it would appear he is sufficiently distracted!
How would this new feature be incorporated into the interface? Why would it be any more easy or intuitive than what is already in place?
I love the idea. Do you think Matt would go for it? I have my doubts.
I see what you mean. I hadn't thought of that.
My feeling is that posters who jump around and cause trouble on more than one board ought to be terminated. Like the ants in my kitchen - I'll kill this one today knowing full well I'll have to kill it again tomorrow. But I still kill it.
True enough.
However, the latitude given to moderators of premium boards is too great for us to have a meaningful dialogue. I mean, we can say we don't like this or that but in the end it really doesn't matter. I suppose we could debate the issues on a theoretical level but this board was meant to be practical.
Am I being too narrow?
Whew! I was really afraid that I had opened a can of worms by not stating in advance that I only wanted to talk about stock boards.
OK, so on to your issue.
My feeling is that there are systems in place at Ihub that communicate to Matt with a minimum of effort.
First, all deletions show up on his radar and are supposedly reviewed. I would hope that deletions by moderators who have shown less than ideal judgment are given closer scrutiny.
Second, if a post isn't deleted that a poster thinks should be you can report it via the TOS feature and describe your objection generally and in detail. However, unless the programming has been changed, I don't think Matt sees the detail. Only the general description.
At any rate both sides of the issue already come to his attention.
Do you feel this isn't working well enough?
Do you mean stock boards or premium boards?
I'm not sure I agree with that.
My experience is that there are quite a number of folks who get caught up with an emotional "investment" and really lose their bearings.
I wonder if I'm confusing stock boards with premium boards.
I've only been involved with a stock board from a moderating standpoint. Do you think there's a big difference between the two at Ihub?
Did you hear the one about the Jewish woman who moved back to her tribal land?
She had Gadabouter.
I used to say "time will tell" and think it was true.