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.
Also I was unaware you could do puts and calls on OTCs. I will take that up on Real poet's thread.
I usually don't get too high a percentage of my portfolios tied up in them, but I almost always have calls or puts on one OTC or another.
Also, if I think an issue is overpriced, I generally prefer to buy puts, but I'm not terribly averse to shorting an OTC issue if I think the pullback might take too long to happen and my puts might expire worthless. Generally, I'm a bit too chicken to short very often, especially after being long an OTC from 5 to 10 last year, then shorting it at 12, only to ride it up to 17 while I was short. It took a while to come back down, but I did eventually cover at a small profit. Too small, actually. It dropped *WAY* down eventually, and now it's the one I've got the July calls on.
Matt thinks I should zap it. I don't want to. In my mind, changing the title removed a lot of the "personal attack" element of it. But to tell the truth, it's a bit of a quandary for me and I'm not sure whether to zap it, or to let the activity in the thread itself speak for itself and the motives/credibility of the participants and the reportedly large number of like-minded folks.
At this point, the thread appears to be doing my rep far more good than my deleting it would. LOL
Last time I'm indulging you on this thread. Period.
You keep making posts to me about "I owe you a post",
You apparently *still* haven't read or understood the iBox for the "badbob" thread. It says pretty clearly that in any 6-hour period in which you make one or more posts in that thread, you need to make a stock-related post somewhere in that same 6-hour period.
There was a 6-hour period in which you did post to that thread, but didn't make a stock-related post anywhere during the same period or between that time and my last PM to you on the matter. However, if memory serves, I also did tell you that your recently-created thread for SEC regs or something like that is something I consider having filled that thread's requirement, even if belatedly.
You IMO are on a vendetta, and are looking for any excuse to justify what is your real motive, and that is to find a way to either terminate or suspend me.
Oh, so we're back to ignoring the fact that you shouldn't even be here at all, but I gave you a second chance and let you back in, eh?
But understand this: If I wanted to boot you off the site, I wouldn't be "looking for any excuse". I would just do it. Do you doubt that?
I wouldn't need an "excuse", but if I did, you've given me plenty. Including your stubborn refusal to quit disrupting this Q&A thread with your constant '"issues" with me.
Joemoney started a new thread where only negative opinions about me will be allowed. Go there.
get off your lazy butt and look in my profile before you make accusations that are unfounded.
I did. I don't make unfounded accusations. And I'd appreciate it if you would leave out the inappropriate displays of disrespect ("get off your lazy butt").
If you change requirements about being a member of IHUB, make it public, and make it for everyone..
I do, but here's my reply to this anyway: The people whose names are on my paychecks don't tell me how to do my job, so I don't see why you should think it's your God-given right to do so and I find it more than a little offensive.
Now take it to Joe's thread. Feel free to copy this message to that thread and reply there. But I'm not tolerating any more of this nonsense here.
Don't get me wrong.
I said that I'm very active in trading OTC issues. I am. Most of the stocks I deal with are OTC stocks, since I'm a techie and that's where most of the techs are. If a stock I'm trading isn't OTC, it's always NYSE. I'm pretty sure I haven't done any trades in Amex issues in ages.
Currently, I'm about 70% cash (reserved for can't-refuse OTC stock positions) and have the rest in options on OTC issues, two of which are May call options, and one of which is a July call.
You are apparently changing your stops aren't you.
Not at all. Why? Did you think I stopped trading OTC at some time? I doubt it'll ever happen.
Well, let's just say I've been overwhelmed by so much "testing" that I haven't been able to really do my job, and even had one bit of testing (not you and nobody would be able to guess who, so don't try) that went way past a personal line and I'll never get over it.
The main thing for me now is to be allowed to fade back into the background only to make an appearance as needed, and see everyone get back to or started in on conversations having something to do with the market.
Bob
A running joke between Brad, Jeff, and myself in SI's heyday (when it was getting about 30k posts per day and some of the fights were mind-boggling) was the notion of a virtual Jerry Springer show.
BTW,
Because of your openly confessed bias of OTCs, I do not agree with you being over anything with OTCs.
Openly confessed bias? Hate to break it to you, but at least 95% of my market activity is with OTC stocks. And I'm pretty active; probably averaging 3 trades per week now, but sometimes 3 per day. I'm *very* interested in seeing your response to that. <g>
HUH??? I expected better from you but that is the banner you operate under.
That was such a stupendously simple post, especially coming from me, that I didn't think there was any chance of misconstruing it.
Note that I put "?!?" at the end of it. That's a surprised question. The post to which I was replying made it clear that the author thought that duct-taping someone's mouth shut is the appropriate way to deal with someone who disagrees with them.
I was expressing my surprise at that notion.
I am not in favor of it.
There are times I use the duct tape, though, as you touch on later but incorrectly.
A post comes on a stock site saying "This is a POS and all you pumpers will never get this going ... the only way it is going
is down and there is nothing you hysters can do about it."
That post is a delete the minute it hits the thread. The only topic it has is a bias scenario maybe because it is an OTC.
I agree that it's a delete. You don't think it should be?
Another of the unspoken rules, but actually one I was aware of, and it'll become spoken in the Terms of Use, and I addressed it in my first or second post to the site is this: If you want to make such a comment in your own general-commentary thread, go for it. But if you go to the thread specific to that stock, you need to change your approach.
Here's where I touched on this topic specifically, shortly after I got here:
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=75548
General Rudeness
This is something that wasn't addressed on Silicon Investor at all. It will be here.
Excluding vulgarity, personal attacks, threats, and invasions of privacy, members will be able to conduct their
own non-stock threads in any manner they see fit. If your thread is not specific to a particular stock or group
of stocks, feel free to post in any way you see fit.
For example, if you have such a thread and post "This stock is a POS and the CEO works part-time at my
estate pulling dandelions with his teeth. If this turd ever pokes its ugly head above $5 again, I'm going to short
it until you feel some serious pain.", that would be acceptable.
However, if you go to the thread that's specific to that stock and post the same thing, you're going to get a
warning or suspension. If you want to post your negative opinion on the stock-specific thread, do so in a civil
manner. For example, "This stock is a poor investment choice because the CEO's only prior experience is in
lawn maintenance and I will see any rally as an opportunity to re-enter my short position."
On threads that are specific to stocks, civility is expected.
As a side note, does anyone notice the commentary about conducting non-stock threads in any manner the chairperson sees fit? I was already leaning this direction back then. Actually, long before then. That and a couple of other posts were drafted up as Word documents long before I was even offered the job.
Arguably, "General Rudeness" should be part of the deletion-reason dropdown, and by my posting it in what I thought was going to be an easily-navigated thread, I intended it to have the effect of a Terms of Use modification (same as my rescinding "libel" as a valid deletion reason and doing away with the one-thread-per-stock rule except for OTCBB and Pinks), but I prefer, for now at least, that General Rudeness issues be brought directly to my attention. It *is* going to be added to the Terms of Use. But I don't want everyone making that call until I get a good feel for how they'd use that deletion reason if they could.
The upshot is, like it or not, if I'm at iHub, stock threads are going to be held to an even higher standard than they were/are at SI. The loosening of rules and my hold on non-stock threads is a counterbalance to the higher standards I'm imposing on the stock threads.
Heck again look at how you deal with Jenna for example on your own thread.
Unless you know all of the aspects of how I deal with a situation, you're not really qualified to dictate to me how I should be doing it. Especially when you base assumptions only on what you see, and dismiss as possibilities the things that you very well know may or may not be happening behind the scenes that you know just as well I won't disclose.
That poor woman has tons of stalkers and harassers that are always making these very same type posts to get her going
Has this activity been happening currently or is this a past-tense thing and you haven't noted any change or the plausible possibility that the change might have something to do with my own unseen actions.
Now getting back to the subject of Silicon Investor, apparently my Cadillac/Vega analogy was just too subtle, so here it is without the analogy:
Granted, the current Silicon Investor is but a shadow of its former self, but it is *not*, as so many would portray it, a complete cesspool.
I don't think it's in a very healthy state right now, but it's not dead or even mortally wounded yet. I think it's still the best of class. I'd rate us between 4th and 6th.
If someone wants to cite the ratio of stock to non-stock postings there as evidence that we're better than them, they're ignoring our own ratio. I'm quite certain ours is far worse. And to me, this is the most important metric of a quality stock site.
I find it offensive and think it doesn't speak very highly of us when someone proclaims that we're the best and that SI is garbage. I also believe it's just not the case. Have you looked at threads like the Moderated AMD thread there? How about our own AMD thread? 2 months old and it's got 10 posts. One of which was mine in an attempt to spark any kind of conversation there. How many of our members have an interest in companies like AMD (10 posts), INTC (76 posts), CSCO (31 posts after nearly a year), or MSFT (8 posts in 8 months)?
Of course, on the flip side, we do have OBOX (133 posts in 3 months) and ASKV (3638 posts in just 4 months) and both are very market-centric and VERY active (almost all signal), but it's my understanding we're supposed to dismiss those since they're populated by "cronies" rather than "real iHub members".
Though SI has tons of noise on it, and it's the kind of noise that simply isn't tolerated here, their signal/noise ratio still trounces ours.
I hope to improve it dramatically, but when it comes down to it, there's really not that much I can do about it. I can try to get people talking about market-related things (and an attempt actually worked better than I expected) but I sure can't force them. Or maybe I can. I'm not willing to do so at this point anyway.
If the members of iHub want to see the site's signal/noise ratio improve to a point where they can be justified in saying we're better than SI, well, it's in their power to make it happen.
What I'm trying to say here is that, in my opinion, we are NOT better than SI yet, though it's my expectation that we will be, but people who would rather focus on beating up on the admin and each other rather than talking about the market aren't really trying to solve the real problem. They're being very much a part of it.
Regards,
iHub Admin (Bob)
Slapping duct tape over someone's mouth *is* an acceptable way to handle someone with an opposing viewpoint?!?
We're not planning to charge anytime soon. Brad and Jeff nailed it: Critical mass first.
post 3
It's my great pleasure to point out the misuse of the word "jealously" in your post. A grand and rare pleasure, as a matter
of fact.
The word "zealously" is the generally used adverb in that context.
I would expect it to be a great pleasure to encounter a mistake in any of my missives that wasn't purely typographical or dyslexic, as it's a rare occurence, given how zealous I am about correct use of the language, including punctuation.
But you'll have to seek that pleasure elsewhere, as I believe that either word would have been correct in that sentence, but "jealously" was the intended word, and the one that fully conveyed the intended message.
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=jealous
1.Fearful or wary of being supplanted
4.Vigilant in guarding something
5.Intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity; autocratic
Don't let it happen again or I shall trample your flower bed.
Bah
or
Baaaaah
or
Ewe wouldn't!
or
post 2
Taken in the context of the sentence that immediately followed it, I meant basically that no members of the site whose names don't appear on my paycheck can "oust" me, though some would apparently love to.
post 1
That rule is still in effect.
The reasons being:
1. Don't split a thread into two camps, positive and negative, where negative posts on a positive thread can be deleted for being off-topic and vice-versa.
2. No temptation to justify spamming something because it's going to all the threads relevant to a particular stock.
3. OTCBB stock threads is where the CoB concept and rules will get pushed and tested the most and I want us to be forced to deal with it head-on, not "get around" it by having an "alternative" thread.
I haven't been seeing inappropriate deletions on OTCBB stock threads in a little while now. And any I've seen I've restored.
Ummmm... Aren't you using "the eff woid" in your posts there?
I'm not terribly happy with the owners of Silicon Investor (big secret, eh?) but the only thing I could ever say that seems even remotely negative about SI Admin (Jeff) is that he's a bit more of a hard-ass than I am. But not by much. Oh, and he talks nice to you while he's busting you. I was never able to be happy doing that, although I did my best for a while at management's insistence.
I think that if Jeff's deleting something, I would've deleted it too. He's one of the good guys, but likely just as hobbled as I was.
For those who don't know, the Jeff I'm talking about is the rat bastage who got my job when I was laid off from Silicon Investor (along with about 250 other people, most of whom were old GNET folks, I'm told). Actually, he didn't "get" my job. He was my co-worker for about a year and now he's doing the job himself.
1. Let them
2. Yes.
3. Whoever creates the board.
4. Same as always.
5. Ultimately, me. No change. See GNET/INSP thread on SI for further info.
6. No.
7. No.
8. Yes.
9. No.
10. Yes.
11. They can have boards here. They can't use their boards to advertise their wares.
Understood.
Same back atcha.
Attention
We have reason to believe that Bob has deleted our board from the "New Threads" list on the front page. If this is not a
technical error, he may be trying to silence us. We must let him know what we think.
Thanks
joe
Joe,
Two things:
1. Right-click the link above that says "Home", then select "Open in New Window". Got it open? Now, look in the "New Threads list" on the homepage. Read what it says. On my system it says "New Stock Boards". That was recently changed to include only STOCK boards. As in boards that are relevant on a STOCK discussion site. Might want to tell the other person(s) in your "We" to do the same. Your pennance is to all of you to get on the phone in a conference call and chant "There is no conspiracy" 20 times. <g>
2. As you may or may not know, I posted earlier today that I was going to change the rules so that if someone wants to run a board that isn't about the market at all (a "personal" board), they can impose any kind of rules they want. Actually, I thought I was planning to change the sites rules to that, but found out that it'd already been much that way.
Although I have to admit I get varying versions of it. For example, I've had people tell me that the rules were always that they could delete anything they want on any thread, stock or otherwise, to which I've already replied "On stock boards? Not on my watch!" It was Matt (I prefer to get my facts from the horse's mouth when possible) who confirmed for me that it's been this way for "personal" boards, which cannot stock boards.
Well, someone whose opinion I always respect and sometimes agree with wrote to me tonight to basically tell me that I'm nuts and shouldn't have a hands-off policy in ANY category as there would eventually be people who would take advantage of that in a very bad way. He told me that someone will figure out that they can start a personal thread, talk about stocks in it, and delete any posts that disagreed with them.
I told him he was nuts. Nobody's going to do that. And I also told him that I'm willing to give it a try and see if it gets abused or if someone eventually proves to me that the idea itself is not workable.
Congrats, Joe! I figured I'd be waiting months.
Now, in case anyone's seeing this post because I'm on their peoplemarks, can someone defend the "Do whatever you want." idea being applied to any category of threads in light of this thread?
This thread makes no bones about it. Only people who dislike me are welcome. Only negative commentary will be allowed. Only "real" iHub members welcome (whatever the heck that means).
Input anyone?
And, Joe? Don't even think about deleting this post or any replies to it. I may have a lot of smileys and grins and laughs in my posts, but this has never been a "game" to me, and you just caught my attention in a major way.
But the point is that if I had made the actual accusation, how could one refute it?
Maybe I've got a too-simplistic view of it, but my off-the-cuff answer would be "No, I'm no more a pedophile than you are and I challenge you to prove otherwise."
Of course, it someone had actually made that statement, it would be a personal attack.
What's really tough right now is that we're delving into some pretty unlikely scenarios when 95% of the calls I and chairfolk have to make are nowhere near that difficult. For example, to use the vitriol-laden example with me in it earlier. How often is that going to get posted only once? That's the verbiage of someone who's going to step over the "harassment" line in pretty short order, making whether the one post constitutes a personal attack a moot issue.
I'm going to back way off on my participation on this thread for a few days and would appreciate it if we could all keep the number of posts down in it. I literally spent the whole day just trying to catch up to the top of this thread, and only got to about 3 PM's and half a dozen of my emails. And there are currently 162 messages in my Inbox. This work pattern is obviously not workable. I had to cancel my plans for tomorrow because I'm going to need at least a full day just to get caught up.
I'm not sure why it's done that way. When I have the keys, I'll look at displays like that to make sure there's a bit of consistency in how it's shown.
Hot lists are planned. No planned implementation date, though.
I really believe that there has to be some point where what someone says is taken to task
Personally, I think refuting someone is an acceptable way to take them to task. If someone says something I disagree with, I don't slap some duct tape on their mouth. I refute them.
Bob is a fraud, and a criminal. At si he was in a conspiracy with the shorters. How it worked was he would get the tip on which stock was going to be shorted beforehand, take a short position, and then allow the shorters to go on the targeted thread and destroy it, not taking any actions against the shorters to further his gains. Then he was told when to cover, which he did. In addition, he stole money from si, and all of the above reasons are why he was fired, and told never to come back.
That would not be a deletion.
If it were posted a whole lotta times in my Q&A thread, it'd become harassment. If Bob were a (non-admin) member discussing stocks in a stock board, it's a delete because it's a personal attack. If Bob were the CEO of the company, it's not a deletion. It's relevant to anyone deciding whether to buy, hold, sell, or short the stock. If Bob associated with the company being discussed, it'd be relevant (no deletion). Same is true if Bob were associated with the company and was a poster.
But even though untrue, it's aruably relevant as would be the rebuttal.
And speaking from a personal (rather than admin) viewpoint, I'd *want* such a post to remain because I would want the opportunity to systematically tear it down, leaving the accuser looking the fool.
Speaking further from a personal perspective, someone was actually doing very much that a while back and I begged them privately to *please* quit couching it in "IMO", so I could have an opportunity to force them to prove the veracity of such statements in a venue other than a message board.
Which brings me to a question of my own for any legal types: If someone makes a reputation-harming untrue statement about you in writing, and prefaces it with "I hear" or "In my opinion" or "I think" or any other such qualifier, is it likely to make it less libelous?
Since I don't get room to squirm out of an answer, I really shouldn't give anyone else that kind of room in a discussion that's pretty much "No. Don't do your job that way. Do it this way.", but I'm getting paid for this and you're not, so I'll let it go this one time. <g>
I am not posting about things that people may argue over whether it's libelous or not, I am discussing things that even you should be questioning, such as " BOP is a murderer, or BOP is a child molestor, or BOP is a counterfeiter"
Oh. Thought you had a tough one for me. hehe
They get deleted and stay deleted. Those are personal attacks and whether BOP is a murderer, molestor, or counterfeiter is private information about him and he and his alleged proclivities are irrelevant to any discussion about stocks.
If JXM has been posting reams of positive information about a company and someone says that we shouldn't listen to him because in the real world he's an acting, but unemployed, veterinary proctologist making his stock picks with a dart-board, it gets deleted. Even if I know it's true.
I sent you a PM several minutes ago. Please check your inbox.
Do I restore the post or do I leave it deleted?
My answer: I restore it.
Why? Because I can not determine that the post is "libel" and neither can the person who deleted it. If the person deleting it says that he knows the post is untrue and therefore libel, that's not good enough for me. I would have to take him at his word. And even if he says he can provide me irrefutable evidence that the post is a lie, it makes no difference to me. Once I make the call that the post stays deleted because it's libel, guess what. I just asserted on behalf of Investors Hub that every single post ever written on it is true.
If anyone recognizes certain aspects of that hypothetical scenario, it's because a very similar situation happened years ago (and similar ones happen daily), and at the time the proof that the person had libeled the company and CEO was that his statements were in direct contradiction with company press releases and SEC filings.
Actually, just caught another part that should be addressed for purposes of clarification of our position.
but I was trying to say that there must be SOME things that even you would say, gee maybe that kind of stuff shouldn't be posted,
Of course. Things like threats, personal attacks, etc.
But regarding "libel", it's not good enough to say "Well, there are SOME things I don't want posted because they really shouldn't be posted." That's not just gray. That's a paisley sofa cover in a black and white photograph.
Let's develop on the previous scenario. What we've covered so far is that BOP said that the CEO was lying in a recent press release.
Now, suppose the chairman of that board deletes the post because it's libel.
That's all we know so far.
Do I restore the post or do I leave it deleted?
A clear, simple answer please, because this is very much a "Yes/No" thing and if I can't get away with not making a direct do-or-don't decision on this matter, neither can anyone who wants to change how I handle such a specific part of my job.
Anyone is invited to answer. I'll answer in my next post.
I don't know that it's libel but I don't know that the statement is true or not either? A person makes a statement like that, and
you want to know how they know this. A response of 'well, I have my sources" what does that mean? maybe he hears
voices in his head, or he has 'visions". so lets say the person posts things that were or turned out to be true in the past.
that doesn't mean that THIS statement is true.
but I was trying to say that there must be SOME things that even you would say, gee maybe that kind of stuff shouldn't be
posted, it's really getting close at a minimum to crossing the line of what is libelous and what isn't and it PROBABLY is
libelous, in the absence of proof. and comon guys, lets show a little restraint here. and so, I believe that there are cases as
I said, that, if there's a situation where errors are being made, maybe it's better to err on the side of the recipient of the
post by removing the post, rather than err on the side of poster by allowing those types of posts to remain.
No, we're dealing with the subject of "libel" and whether or not I should delete alleged libel. The only way we can deal with it head-on (as I'm fully expected to do by everyone else) is to deal with it very directly and very simply. People have been holding my feet to the fire on this one, so let's try the warm-tootsie thing right here.
So, let me rephrase the original post and clarify a bit.
Company YYZ issues a press release saying they have acquired a freighter and includes a comment from the CEO stating that they're refurbishing the ship and looking forward to using it to deliver bottled air to Hawaii.
BOP quotes the press release and in his post he says "The CEO is blatantly lying to everyone. That freighter is a rusting hulk that was scuttled a year ago. "
Is it libel?
Again, nobody knows at this point whether the CEO really did lie. All we know is the press release and BOP's post.
Edit: Lemme add something in here since you at least partially addressed the "libel" issue in your reply.
I don't know that it's libel but I don't know that the statement is true or not either?
And neither do I.
But if someone says that they know it's libel, does that make it libel?
Yes, I do, but not immediately. I haven't looked at a single one yet today.
If someone has an issue with their deletion and they want to discuss it publicly, I'll go read what they have to say about it before deciding whether the deletion remains.
Yeah, it was causing a LOT of problems. There were some rules in place that most of us, including myself, didn't know about and could only find out about accidentally. <g>
What cracks me up about it is that I was privately (and excitedly) talking about just such a feature behind the scenes with a few folks and couldn't wait to spring it on everyone.
Agree.
Stock-related can be detailed technical analysis of a stock's recent activity, a complete run-down and analysis of their latest 10K, or "What does the word 'ticker' mean?".
Most of us love helping people new to the market learn about the market. And we often learn things ourselves in the process.
It's referring to post 169 in the source code. I don't have it in front of me right now, but would guess it's the line that parses out the first part of the message to make a "header" for it. I'd further guess that it's getting freaked out by the first "word" in the message being larger than the header field. Easy, easy fix. Just need to have the access to do it.
Suppose BOP goes to a stock thread and posts:
"The CEO is lying to you in that press release. The shipping vessel he claims the company is refurbishing was actually scuttled a year ago and is busy taking on a load of rust and barnacles."
Assume that all that is widely known at the time is that the company just issued such a press release and that BOP doesn't like the company. Let's further assume he's short a chunk of it.
BOP said the CEO is lying. Is that libel? If so, why? If not, why not?
Actually, who I choose to listen to regarding policy is my call, but as I've made apparent in the "BADBOB" board, there's definitely a part of me that sometimes looks at a post and goes "Ummmm.... You've never once talked about a stock or the market, so why am I supposed to care that you don't like how we run this *stock* discussion site?"
I've nudged people privately from time to time about remembering that this is a stock site, and for the most part they've agreed and gone and posted about stocks. And some found they'd forgotten how enjoyable that can be.
Yes, it was that situation last night, where I didn't feel the posts should have been deleted, that resulted in my finding out about the apparently understood "Your board; your rules" thing with non-stock boards. I'm not real keen on "understood" rules, especially when the rules guy doesn't know about them. <g> And I think we're all aware of how I feel about anything smacking of controlling the postive/negative ratio of content about public companies.
We're still hammering out between us how this will apply to areas such as boards for private companies, general market discussion, "trading call" boards, etc.
Someone starts a board about "what do you think of me? good or bad." and their rule is you must state word for word
"You are the best thing in the world." What then is the purpose of the board? It most certainly isn't an open forum.
Having a "purpose" isn't a requirement of starting a board. If someone wants to start such a board, they certainly can. Of course, we both know just how "successful" such a board would be.
Don't crowd me too much on the details of how we'll handle boards that don't fit neatly into the two categories I've already covered. We'll have our answer out shortly (I anticipate by the end of next week) and then we can all work on ironing out the wrinkles.
That looks like the error message you get if you start a message with a URL as the first thing.
But I just tried to do it and it worked.
Did you start your message with a URL?
G.B. why doesn't he just use the rule numbers in the drop down?
Forgot one thing. The list (once it has all the appropriate things added) will work just fine so there's no need to change it just for the sake of doing it differently.
That would require way too much memorization on everyone's part.
But there's a much bigger reason.
The things you listed is the all-inclusive list of the things the user agrees not to do as a condition of using the site.
Not all of those are things we consider ourselves or our chairpeople empowered to determine. Libel is the most frequently used example. Our inclusion of things like Libel doesn't mean that we will determine that a post contains libel.
Having every user assert that they will not do certain things is not the same thing as saying that we will scrutinize every post and do all of the necessary legwork, including bringing every post up before a judge, to determine whether or not the user broke his promise and posted something that was, among other things, unlawful, libelous, deceptive, or fraudulent.
I've struggled for years to come up with a clear, concise explanation of the fact that there's a difference between what we require a user to agree not to do and what we take responsibility for determining. Is there someone out there who can express this more clearly?
Exactly .. but thread disruption needs to be added to that drop box.
Knew I had forgotten a few.
I've asked that "Harassment" be added. I hesitate on this one because it's the one that most often gets mis-used but it is a valid reason for deleting a post. I've seen it used as a catch-all to justify deleting any post that the chairperson just doesn't like for one reason or another. It's the grayest of all the rules.
A single post asking, for example, "Why do you like this stock so much?" is not a disruption nor is it harassment. Yes, it can be argued that it disrupts a thread, but it's not an argument I'll accept.
If, however, someone asks basically that same question repeatedly, then it becomes apparent that their intention is to harass a person or the thread.
And I don't want to see it used to shut down someone just because a lot of people don't like the person or their posts. It's arguable that a disliked person can be a thread disruption, but that's also not an argument I'll accept.
Or because someone's demeanor is just annoying or abrasive. Some of us are just annoying, abrasive people and that's the way it is.
Basically, use harassment as a reason only if all of the person's posts, taken as a group, show clear intent to do nothing but harass a person or a thread.
Of all the deleted posts I review, the ones with "Harassment" as the reason will receive the most scrutiny.
he would remove a CoB for NOT properly deleting posts as quickly as he would remove one improperly deleting posts.
This was actually a very recent issue, and a side of it that wasn't common knowledge: A chairman posting a personal attack then deleting a personal-attack reply but not deleting the original personal attack.
I like it. Let's try it.
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/board.asp?board_id=620
Thanks to BOP, TRPoet, Bard, and all who gave their input on this.
Discussion of specific deleted posts is now off-topic in this thread, and I'd appreciate it if even discussion of the post deletion concept be reserved for the new thread for now in the interest of reducing the bandwidth of this thread.
Wanted: 2 Directors for this board. First two people to PM me in response to this post have the job.
Do you have a target date on when the Full Text search feature will be operational?
SQL Server 7.0 (which we use) has a really cool feature built in that would take care of this for us and we need only enable it (I don't know if this has been done -- Been a while since I've asked) and do minor modifications to the search function. There are downsides I know of for certain, though, including doubling of the size of the database and a major slowdown if we do something like add and populate a field when the message table has millions of rows. A slowdown that apparently would last *days* rather than minutes.
I know how to write such a solution myself that would do away with the reindexing slowdown and likely be much smaller and faster. I figured if we implement the built-in thing immediately (after determining if we can later disable it and cut the database size in half by doing so), it'll at least work for us long enough to let me write a replacement if we determine we'll need to do so.
I'm not sure why it hasn't been done yet, but the only programmer with access to the actual hardware (in case we need to reinsert the SQL CD) and the only programmer currently making programming changes are both busy with other things.
So, the best answer I can give is that we will likely have text searching working again about a day after the feature included with SQL Server is installed and I have access to make programming changes. I'm hoping that'll work out to no later than the weekend of the 26th.
If anyone out there is intimately familiar with SQL Server's Full-text Search feature as it applies to extremely large tables, and doesn't mind giving some free help, please PM me.