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.
Open question for all:
Is it offensive that I often change a spammer's alias when I terminate their account or are there other (potential) problems with my doing so?
Someone raised an interesting point that it's a sign of my disrespect for the community as a whole. I maintain that it's only a sign of my disrespect for people who come here, hit us with a barrage of spam, then leave. I wouldn't do it to someone who had already been posting then started spamming.
Your thoughts?
You said nothing to me until I came back as Sir Vinny. It was only then that you warned me of my 7 day suspension.
You asked me tonight why you had been suspended, to show how "unfair" I am. At best, very disingenuous.
And as far as not being my business, you are WRONG it is my business. It is also everyone else's business.
No, it is not any of your business whether or not the person to whom you directed that post had a problem with it. That person is not in charge of enforcing the rules of the site.
The fact thaty many here are complaining is precisely because you are NOT FAIR.
Not "many". 3 by my count. Sure, with lots and lots of accounts, and even more posts, but where I come from the group who shouts the loudest isn't necessarily right.
You have the power to remove anyone who doesn't share your views. That is what I call ABUSE OF POWER.
Having "power" doesn't equal abuse of power. Having it and misusing it would, but not simply having it.
I have a question. If Matt, THE OWNER, knew Tim was here under the alias littlelamb as evidenced by communication
between the two of them... and did not terminate his account..
I certainly hope that's not the case. I really do.
Yes, I've done that quite a few times. Spammers have zero respect for message boards and the people who use them, so I have zero respect for spammers.
There's another reason for this. A lot of times, people don't know that they've been spammed because they're only watching one board. I feel it's important for people to know that the person that just gave them that super-hot stock tip (or the group of people giving the tip, as happened with the accounts I named "Spamo Profundo", etc) spammed it all over the site.
actions like that are improper by an admin person, and drives people away.
I have never been aware of that driving people away. Actually, that was a pretty popular thread and someone even started a repository at one point for the most clever renames. My favorite was "I Used To Be A Spammer", by Brad Dryer, who inspired me in that endeavor and so many others.
But if you feel that such conduct is improper when done by an admin, I'll take it under advisement, although it's my belief that the world of message boards is better served by a *real* person than a smiley face with nothing but sweet things to say and always thanking people for having written.
Did the recipient of that post complain to you?
None of your business and irrelevant. If you want to be mad at someone for having a problem with that post, be mad at me.
And does the post warrant a 7 day suspension without warning?
7-day suspension? I thought you said I hadn't said anything to you about it and that you thought it must've been a termination or system glitch.
That's pretty funny, Tim. As is the alias.
Bye.
who has the ultimate decision that will exercise his power to protect himself
Got a DD question for ya: How many of your posts have I deleted tonight? If your allegation were true, wouldn't it be a number at least slightly greater than zero?
With Bob gone there is talk about everyone going back to SI.
http://www.sibob.com/siposts_files/image001.gif
Nope. Downtrend seems to be continuing. If my getting laid off from SI were such a boon, I'd expect a reversal of that trend.
I have not been actively trading since Sept last year. Your point is?
My point was that you accepted a statement from a person unknown to you as Gospel and agreed with him on what appeared to be your first encounter with him. Lots of people do that. It just puzzles me. I think that the reason for my puzzlement is that it's not a healthy habit for people dabbling in the market in any way, but maybe the real reason for the puzzlement is that I'm a Missourian, and no self-respecting Missourian ever believes anything without more than a one-liner to back it up.
No one is blaming you for anything financially ...
Ummm... Perhaps you're not. Others have. Repeatedly. Haven't you heard that I'm apparently a key figure in some massive illegal OTCBB shorting conspiracy? <g>
You are the adovcate for bashers, liars, spin doctors and urban legend generators
Let's take these one at a time.
Bashers: No, I'm an advocate for all people being heard if they can abide by the rules and basically just act like civil grownups. Period.
Liars: I don't know who's lying and who isn't. If you tell me that someone is a liar, I don't automatically accept that they are.
Spin Doctors: I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Urban Legend Generators: And I definitely don't know what you mean by this. I'm somewhat of an Urban Legend afficionado, but that's an entirely different thing, as I see it. It's no more relevant than my love of motorcycles. I have no idea what "urban legends" you're referring to.
only to be its first victim
There's that "This is true even though I don't have any way of knowing for sure" thing that puzzles me so much. No, he's not the first person booted from here since my arrival.
However, though we have to endure the posts and thus when we attempt to justify our innocense there comes
the judge BOB who likes to suspend people for defending themselves.
Are you just winging some of this stuff? It's starting to go way beyond rational argument and looking more like you're just snatching rhetoric out of thin air or somewhere.
The Journal does a lot of articles. I don't read all of them or remember all of the ones I've read.
Do you have a link to the article? I'm genuinely interested in reading it.
You can;t have bias people in control
That's the strongest case that can be made against the CoB (Chairman of the Board) concept, but I think it's possible for people with a financial interest in certain discussions to still make the right choices when deleting or not deleting posts, as the vast majority of CoB's have demonstrated.
that let the evil do whatever they want and the good guys when they complain get nailed.
Welcome to Bob;s world.
Actually, the last part of that is more accurate than you intended.
Why?
Because I've seen that "you let the evil do what they want and us good guys can't do anything about it" thing before. Surprised? Probably not. But do you know where I've seen it? I'll get real specific here. That sentiment was expressed to me (usually by the hundred) by people in the threads for MTEI, RMIL, BIDS, DGIV, and a host of others.
The fact that someone says another is evil and wrong doesn't necessarily make it so, in my experience.
It's like deja vu all over again.
What came first, The chicken or the egg!
I've never understood why this question was considered paradoxical.
The answer is "The egg"
Animals were laying eggs long before there were chickens. <g>
I don't recall you asking why you'd been suspended from SI, but I likely would have told you then (a couple of years ago?) and sure wouldn't remember now why it was. I thought your whole beef was someone else not being suspended when they posted negatively about BIDS when it was trading in the 20's. That's what your issue was then. I honestly don't recall having suspended your account there although if you had multiple aliases, that could be the reason.
As for why you were suspended here, again, here goes:
Alright....whip out your tongue! Hmmm.....I do indeed see shades of brown on it. Kissing up to someone doesn't always mean you're going to score points.
It would've remained a suspension, which would've expired by now, but for these multiple accounts.
SO we have another victim of a bias scenario
Ummm... You're kinda active in the stock market, right?
As such, you do know the difference between allegations and fact, and don't assume something to be true, and state your agreement that it's true, just because the person who said it said it's true. Right?
Sorry, but even after all these years, I still do get genuinely surprised when people who are active in the market and have been active long enough that they've survived some "interesting" times without going bankrupt still use reasoning in other conversations that would be financial suicide if applied to their market endeavors.
But it may be that the people I see do that don't agree with me that due diligence isn't just for the market. Or maybe their due diligence in the market is really as it seems to be in non-market things. Dunno. It's puzzled me for a long time.
SO we have another victim of a bias scenario
Ummm... You're kinda active in the stock market, right?
As such, you do know the difference between allegations and fact, and don't assume something to be true, and state your agreement that it's true, just because the person who said it said it's true. Right?
Sorry, but even after all these years, I still do get genuinely surprised when people who are active in the market and have been active long enough that they've survived some "interesting" times without going bankrupt still use reasoning in other conversations that would be financial suicide if applied to their market endeavors.
But it may be that the people I see do that don't agree with me that due diligence isn't just for the market. Or maybe their due diligence in the market is really as it seems to be in non-market things. Dunno. It's puzzled me for a long time.
SO we have another victim of a bias scenario
Ummm... You're kinda active in the stock market, right?
As such, you do know the difference between allegations and fact, and don't assume something to be true, and state your agreement that it's true, just because the person who said it said it's true. Right?
Sorry, but even after all these years, I still do get genuinely surprised when people who are active in the market and have been active long enough that they've survived some "interesting" times without going bankrupt still use reasoning in other conversations that would be financial suicide if applied to their market endeavors.
But it may be that the people I see do that don't agree with me that due diligence isn't just for the market. Or maybe their due diligence in the market is really as it seems to be in non-market things. Dunno. It's puzzled me for a long time.
I even went before the SEC and it took the WSJ to put a stop to it.
Again: "Huh?"
I don't know what you're talking about. You went to the SEC with a problem with me and they didn't do anything about it but the WSJ did? What did the WSJ do about it? And what is "it"?
has a problem with Bob like I do
Again, it's really news to me. Until tonight, I had no idea you had a problem with me. I certainly haven't "had a problem" with you, that I can recall.
Against.
As someone pointed out this weekend, though, my apparent tolerance of personal attacks when they're leveled at me does give the impression that I'm tolerant of all personal attacks, which I'm not. So I'm getting less tolerant of the ones directed at me.
Why did you erase my last post?
I delete every post you write and terminate every account you make, and will continue to do so, because your first account was suspended for your inappropriate conduct, then you immediately created new accounts to continue it.
I would like to see what the Chairman of the Board will do!
The chairperson of this board will be leaving the post intact. Stated once or a few times, it's just opinions. The same thing over and over again, to the exclusion of even stock-related commentary, and with a clear intent to continue harassing would be another matter.
Granted, it's specifically bashing me and I might support deletion if someone else were the target though I'm getting less tolerant of being the target.
Even though I have a problem with the way the opinions are presented, I'm leaving it because anyone who uses the site or might come to, should have the benefit of seeing that post and any replies to it, as it could be an important factor in deciding whether or not to use the site.
But I strongly disagree with someone's earlier statement that, as an employee of the site, I should allow myself to be subjected to personal attacks. I definitely tend toward allowing a degree of hostility toward me I wouldn't tolerate toward anyone else, but I disagree with the notion that I *have* to.
Now wait a minute Bob you allow personal attacks that take years and even the WSJ has to put an end to it. You allow urban legends to spark and to run away.
Huh?
Since when did you care about personal attacks
Quite a number of years, actually.
It's a tough job to try and be a fair judge.
Amen to that!
Did I send you a private message? I didn't think I did, but I might have mistakenly hit the wrong button on a reply.
Anyway....
Deleting a post because of an opinion rather than rules that were broken, is a violation of Freedom of speach....IMHO
We disagree on the letter of that, but not the spirit. I don't think deleting a post violates anyone's right to free speech, but I do think deleting it for the wrong reasons is just plain wrong. And deleting an opinion because it's the opposite of the deleter's opinion is "extra wrong". And to go one step further, I think deleting an opinion only because it runs counter to one's financial interest in a stock is "super wrong, should be illegal, and just might be proven to be someday".
In the case of post deletions, not only is the poster's ability to post his views compromised, but so are the interests of those who may've arguably benefitted from having seen the post, whether by helping them make a decision regarding the stock, or helping them decide for themselves how much credence to give that poster in the future.
An interesting debate would be the significance of a financial interest in a stock combined with the ability to delete posts about the stock. Personally, I'm leery of it (putting it mildly) and think it's only acceptable when an unbiased person (one with no financial interest in the stock in question) has oversite of the delete function.
Which brings me to another point: It's no secret that I get accused of bias, but it's mostly of the "he likes these people and doesn't like those people" variety. I don't agree with that assessment, but it begs the question "Who has more bias: The person with a vested financial interest in the outcome of the discussions or the person who doesn't but is accused of liking some people more than others?"
I'd say that if I had a financial interest in the stocks being discussed, "bias" would be a very relevant issue and a serious allegation.
Off-hand, I'd think that the matter of whether or not someone who did the deletion is biased (because of financial interest) is really a more important one than the matter of whether someone who is being flamed is biased against the flamer.
If I were long a stock and deleting the posts of people who don't think it's a good idea to purchase the stock (or advocating such deletion), I'd be *very* careful of getting within earshot of the word "bias".
But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
PS. Let me point out once again that the chairmen on the site are performing an invaluable service for the site and the overwhelming majority are doing it fairly and in an unbiased manner.
Interesting. I was just going to add something to my reply to you, only seconds after submitting it, and the Edit Message link wasn't there. Odd.
Anyway, what I wanted to add is that if the problem is with pasting a URL, that's a bug in the site. I know for certain that PM's don't like it if you put in a URL as the first thing, and it wouldn't surprise me if public messages had the same problem, as I suspect (without really looking) that it's a problem with parsing out the "subject" part of the message and stuffing it into a field of a specific size.
If you ever get an error message when submitting a post that starts with a URL, try inserting some text on a line before the URL.
One to you, Why can't I clip and paste in these boxes???
You really should be able to. Assuming you're using some flavor of Windoze, you should be able to highlight the text, press Ctrl-C to copy it to your clipboard, put the cursor where you want the text to appear, and press Ctrl-V to copy it from your clipboard.
Good question.
The first part isn't technically correct because deleting posts doesn't remove the right to free speech. They're two entirely different things, but I understand what you're getting at with the question, and it's quite valid, IMO.
Personally, I lean very heavily toward the latter. I strongly prefer that people's opinions, right or wrong, be left intact. For two primary reasons:
1. Neither I nor anybody else with access to the "Delete" button should be the arbiter of "true and false" on a message board because we don't always really *know* if something is true or false, even if we really think we know. Me included. And it's certainly not good enough to say "I know it's false because the CEO told me so."
2. All statements (excluding profanity, privacy invasions, spam, and the like) should remain part of the publicly-available historical record, and so should the replies to all such statements as they collectively determine a poster's credibility down the road and may even be evidence in legal matters, which stock discussions so often become.
Everyone knows I cannot stand Bob and why and I was extremely disappointed
I shouldn't fuel this, but that lines comes as news to me. Had no idea that you "cannot stand" me. I'm quite certain this is the first time you've ever said so. Personally, I thought we got on just fine. And, no, I don't automatically assume that everyone I've ever suspended hates me. Many of the names I'm seeing here in support of me are names I recognize as having suspended at some time.
I am just being patient but I grant you when the time is right I will definitely be here to expose Bob to the internet and the real world.
The internet and the real world both have a pretty good idea who I am and every relevant thing about me.
I do find it a bit interesting and puzzling, though, that the "Bob haters" do all seem to have one thing in common: Penny stocks. I don't know if "that blew up" is part of it, but I know it is in at least some cases. That's odd, as I used to play primarily penny stocks myself and did pretty well with them, so I'm not sure why the penny stock factor would have any meaning, but at face value, it would sure seem to.
I do wish, though, that anyone who feels they must "destroy" me just take me to court and not attempt to destroy this or any other site in the process. The constant harping on it by a few makes me think they themselves don't really believe what they're saying and really have nothing in mind but destruction of the site for their own purposes. Either because they feel "threatened" in some way, or just because they're destructive people.
It's probably irrelevant, but I don't mind answering.
I was given a small piece of the action as inducement to join up. I don't have any of my own money invested here.
I am thinking that a FREE public message board is EXACTLY like that public street
I'm thinking that it's not. This message board has private owners and I'm one of them. It's not like that government street where your taxes pay for its existence and maintenance.
Although there is a similarity: You can be taken off that public street for breaking the laws in much the same way you can be taken off of an internet site for violating its rules.
I don't know that this idea has been approached legally, since the internet is so "young".
I'll take that as a compliment since I'm only about 5 years older than the internet. :)
Suppose a person posts about religion, and they are terminated for whatever reason? Is this an intrusion on someone's
rights to "freedom of religion"?
I think that's also an interesting issue. Here's my answer, right or wrong: If they keep posting about religion in the INTC thread, they're off-topic, and I've got a problem with that. If I terminate their account, I haven't denied them their freedom to worship as they see fit.
I got a lot of really upset-sounding complaints a while back on SI because someone was posting historical material, in a thread about religion, that was very upsetting and portrayed Christians in a very bad light. Things like the details of the Spanish Inquisition. I was told that the person was a Satanist and needed to be booted out. I refused because a person's religious beliefs are really irrelevant when deciding whether or not they should be allowed to post on the site.
Your argument was on such shaky ground that I figured you'd see it for yourself.
I am sorry to hear that you denied someone the right to express themselves.
That's your comment to him.
His comment back to you was: I am sorry to hear that you believe someone has the right to threaten to kill a group of people!
Neither one of those is a personal attack, IMO. And if they were (which I don't think think they are), he did no worse than you did.
But for the sake of argument, I want to show you that he didn't do anything worse to you than you did to him.
He originally stated that he was sued for denying someone the right to express themselves. He didn't say that he denied someone that "right". Do you see the difference? It's subtle, but if you look close enough, it's undeniably there. "Sued for" is not the same thing as "did". At least in this country.
His reply looks to me like commentary about your feeling it was wrong for him to have "denied" someone their "right to free speech". The intimation that I'm picking up on is that he "denied" someone their "right" to threaten to kill, and that your arguments, including that one post, seem to support the "right" to say anything anywhere.
Personally, I thought it pretty deft handling of a post that would've incited lots of people to flame someone in response.
With that said, your welcome's getting a bit thin. Care to go talk about stocks somewhere? I mean, look at the site's name. It's a stock discussion site.
Bob
I don't remember how that Prodigy suit turned out either, but I do know that the current situation is that as long as a site doesn't edit (as in change, but otherwise leave intact) the contents of a post, CDA protects them; they're treated as just the carrier.
Bob, I have a question or two.
As long as they're questions and not personal attacks on me or a seemingly-endless barrage of destructive posts, okay....
It seems to me that this thread has become a mirror image of what happens on a typical BB thread, only you're the one being bashed, not the BB stock
It seems to me that that's not even remotely an accurate portrayal.
I'm not a stock. I'm a person. Being critical of my actions is fine, but including personal attacks in it isn't. Just like with stock threads.
Don't you think that in light of that, you're being a little hypocritical if you punish anyone for criticizing you?
That statement is a lot like "Don't you think it's wrong for you to continue beating your dog?"
I don't "punish" anyone for being critical of me. However, I've always had a history of allowing people to say things about me that I wouldn't let them say about others. That's coming to an end, though.
If anyone says they've been sanctioned for being critical of me, they're not telling the truth or the whole truth. If I sanction someone, it's because they've broken a rule. Recent examples include multiple accounts from people who post nothing but very strong personal attacks. Sure, the person I'm thinking of *says* they were booted for being "critical" of me or disagreeing with me, but that's not the case.
He started in with inappropriate and irrelevant comments about me ("gerbils", "guys", "tart", etc) and included things like "idiot".
If you think such conduct is merely benign "criticism", I strongly disagree. If you think that kind of conduct should be allowed, again, I strongly disagree.
And if you believe something is true just because someone said it was, well.....
In the past a big discussion was made on si about 'freedom of speech", and I think the conclusion was that since si was a paid site, that there really wasn't any 'freedom of speech" rights
Whose conclusion was that?
It couldn't be more wrong.
Freedom of Speech, in the sense of the constitutional amendment, doesn't even remotely apply to anything but governments. Go read it.
The owners of *any* venue (be it online or 3D) have sole discretion in determining what can and can't be said in their venue and who can or can't say it. Period. Whether a site is free or paid has zero bearing on it.
It seems to me that ihub would in fact be violating someone rights to express themselves, free speech, because of this status as a free, open to the public site..
Has ihub checked with the ACLU or an attorney about this?
No need to. It's common knowledge. But you can feel free to check with them if you like. I already know what they'll say: iHub is not "Congress" or any other government entity, and whether it's a paid site or a free site is utterly irrelevant.
Yes, I'm responsible for terminating all of your accounts.
Your accounts were initially suspended for continued personal attacks, then later terminated for creating new accounts while under suspension, and I'll be terminating any new account you make. Your participation on this site is not desired and won't be permitted.
If you want to keep creating new accounts, I'll just keep terminating them. It takes me only a few mouse clicks.
I thought I already explained this to you privately, but maybe it was after this post. I'll answer again here, though, to clarify for anyone else who might wonder.
No thread chairperson can (currently) suspend any rules from our Terms of Use in their threads. The relevant example here would be personal attacks. The *site* has a policy of not allowing personal attacks, so any *thread* created on the site needs to comply with that rule.
Bob
And he speaks my mind as well. That situation should improve dramatically and immediately.
In a very related vein, a big part of the problem as I see it is a very low signal-to-noise ratio. The market itself may be partially to blame, but even in a dull market, I would expect the s/n ratio to be quite a bit higher.
I'm going to be more aggressive now about squelching the noise component.
Now all of you get out there in the stock threads and produce signal! <g>
Bob
I have a question also: Is spamming donkeys still spamming?
Sorry to say, yes. Spam is spam.
I'm only answering this one because it's a question others might have.
I am very confused by some of your posts, at times (April 11) describing youself as the "Operations Manager"...
My job title is and always has been "Operations Manager". However, until we come out of beta, I won't have direct access to the system and therefore can't do anything an Operations Manager typically does. So, functionally, I'm not filling the Operations Manager role yet. It's frustrating, but it's the way it is. The only thing standing between me and banging out code on my own (hence, functionally the Operations Manager) is our coming out of beta, which is a limitation imposed by our provider, and I can't say that I disagree with it.
Bye now. Really.
Regards,
Bob Zumbrunnen
Operations Manager in title but not in function yet
I don't know how I can make it any more clear, but I'll try.
It is my opinion that your intentions for the use of that thread and your *stated* reasons for starting it are, to be kind, disingenuous, and I won't have any part of it. That includes not reading it.
So have fun beating your horse.
I've already posted my one and only message to that thread, which I refuse to acknowledge as a valid place for such a discussion when the chairperson can delete any posts contrary to his own views (more latitude is given since it's a non-stock thread) and has a major vendetta against me and a predeliction for deleting posts because he disagrees with them.
And watch it with the spamming.
Here's a simple rule of thumb: If you copy a whole post and paste it into another post, it's spam.
And if I were as biased against you as you think, I'd be well within the rules if I treated it as such.
Oh, this should be fair. The person with the biggest vendetta against me chairing a board about me and able to delete anything that goes against his personal bias?
I will not give this board the dignity of a bookmark or any further posts after this one.