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.
All:
There's a bug with PM's that I intend to fix as soon as I have system access.
Specifically, it doesn't like it if the first thing in your PM is a URL. To get around this problem for now, put any text on a separate line before the URL.
I agree. For my part, I'll refrain, even if I want to reply to lies about me.
Francois, Bob-bashing is off-topic here. Please keep that in mind in the future. When I choose to reply to those lies rather than let them stand unrefuted, it just adds to the off-topic content.
My last comments on the subject in this thread.
Edit: Deleted.
That's enough of the new accounts. They're all toast.
To the vocal few who are focused on me: Take note of the most recent addition to the iBox for this thread. So far, I've been allowing things regarding me that I would consider personal attacks if they were directed at anyone else.
No more.
But I don't think people should be banned for language, spelling, opposing viewpoints, stupidity, group "cold shoulders', or any of the other things that seem to have been used as an excuse to stop someone's postings.
I also don't think people should be banned for most of those things, the exception being "language". I feel someone should be banned if the rules state that profanity is not allowed, but they keep doing it.
People don't get banned here for "spelling, opposing viewpoints, stupidity", etc so while you're standing on that soapbox, you might as well beat your chest a little louder and bellow out "And they shouldn't be banned for being left-handed, or bowlers, or having red hair."
Oh, BTW. I'm sure you probably haven't noticed, but this site is called "Investors Hub". It's a place for people to gather to talk about the market and get into other topics with like-minded people.
Think you might be posting about the market sometime?
Feel free to post questions about the site here, but also note that this isn't the "Bash Bob" thread, and I'm frankly getting more than a little tired of this nonsense coming from a small group of people who simply *must* be heard and who simply *must* convince everyone that only their view is the right one.
Amen!
Sounds like quite a lot of fun, actually. :)
So, you're the wife of natural_gas? Or daughter?
Bob how can you tell who is posting? How do you know whether or not a person is posting from the dayroom of a military base, or from the community center at a condominium, or at the public library, where there is only one computer for everyone's use?
I'm not giving away all my secrets because doing so would tell people how to thwart the steps I use to limit the multi-account thing. But suffice it to say that your explanation of it denies reality in favor of a few very unlikely scenarios.
When you say that each individual isn't important to the site, I disagree.
Either show me where I said that or retract it. It's a blatant lie. Note that I'm not deleting it, though. It not only isn't appropriate for me to delete something based on my believing or even *knowing* that it's not true, it also is a part of the historical record that speaks for the credibility of the person who posted it.
You terminate enough people and you're left with just admin.
Kinda like how if you jump high enough, you'll land on the moon.
It's not my intention to terminate everyone. Just the ones who don't belong here because of their inability to follow a few simple house rules. You make it sound like it's a huge number of people, when in reality I've terminated very few accounts here, belonging to a total of three people. One of whom is you, although I'm giving you a second chance with this account, as I sometimes do. Yes, even for my critics.
I believe you're way too trigger happy and I think, like I posted previously, 3 days should be the norm, and basically the only people that should be banned are the ones that have been charged and convicted of illegal acts*.
Sounds like you've got it all figured out.
I won't disagree with 3 days being the norm, at least for first-time violations, as it's the way I do things unless the violation is particularly egregious.
However, I strongly disagree with your statement that "basically the only people that [sic] should be banned are the ones that have been charged and convicted of illegal acts."
So, according to your "rules", if someone repeatedly posts vulgarities in every post, or launches personal attacks on people, or threatens them with bodily harm or death, or repeatedly posts someone's home phone number, or uses multiple accounts to make it appear that multiple people share their point of view (especially about a stock) or spams their favorite stock to every thread, then they shouldn't ever be banned.
I've got news for you: There are sites like that. You know where they are. If those are the rules by which you'd prefer to play, then avail yourself of those sites. Sites like this one and Silicon Investor, however, draw users by *having* rules and conscientious enforcement of those rules.
Many people join these sites because of those rules, so they don't have to be subjected to the rule-less attitude of some other sites, and it wouldn't be fair to those people to suddenly abandon those rules.
Again, if you don't like the rules of a site or the way the admin of that site enforces those rules, well, "choice" is a really cool thing, and you should exercise that right.
So, what I'm basically saying is that you're wasting keystrokes trying to convince me, the owners of the site, or the members of the site that we should play by *your* rules. We have our own rules, thank you, and everyone knows that if they don't like them, they can go to a site with different rules or different enforcement.
Also, your approach runs counter to a central tenet of this site and a philosophy of mine to which I strongly subscribe: "Quality is more important than Quantity." I'd rather have a thousand people here engaging in civil discourse than a million people who don't.
Your choices are to either use this site and play by its rules, use another site whose rules are more to your liking, start your own site, or apply for my job then convince the owners that they shouldn't care about quality.
Full text search hasn't worked in a long time because the programmer initially did it in a way that just wasn't workable once there was a decent number of posts on the site. He's supposed to be checking into using the tools built into SQL Server to get search working again, but it hasn't happened yet. It'll be high on my priority list when I have personal access to the system.
PM's can no longer be trusted on iHUB, as Admin is pro-shorters, IMO and can access them..
While it's technically true that I can access PM's, I don't. The only way it would be possible would be for me to log in as whoever the sender or recipient of a PM is, which is true of any site. And I've got no desire or inclination to do so.
Francois, if you feel that Investors Hub is that useless, and even dangerous, you really should note that I have no desire to force you to continue using it. However, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't use destructive misinformation while you're here.
Therefore, I suggest, Bob, that before you terminate my account again keep in mind who is of greater
importance to your employer. Is it members?
Collectively, it's the members.
That doesn't mean that each and ever single member is more important, though. Most members add to the site. Some don't. Some are quite destructive to the site and subject other members to things they shouldn't be subjected to by virtue of there being an admin present.
It's my job to protect the site and its membership from the types of members who're destructive to the site and objectionable to the membership. So the argument that an obnoxious, destructive person is of more value to the site than an admin just doesn't hold water.
Some discussions are interesting, some are valuable, some are funny and some are silly. The point being that it is members that make the success of these boards.
You forgot a number of categories. Some are abusive. Some are objectionable. Some only want to destroy. Some can't even be clever enough in their destructive acts to at least obey the site's rules.
Again, you're not welcome here for 7 days, and that'll be a permanent condition if you post again with this or any other account.
I humbly suggest you'd be far happier at the likes of Yahoo or Raging Bull.
Your other account was suspended for 7 days for an objectionable comment that was also a personal attack. I've deleted the post, but it involved someone's tongue and what color you thought it was.
And if you post again with this account, both accounts will be terminated, as will be any new accounts you make.
I found this message pretty offensive and am sure a lot of people do, however I'm leaving it intact. I deleted worse ones, but want to leave at least *some* evidence of why you no longer have an account here, so I can point it out to you when you (try to) return with another account.
And to show someone just what kind of person they aligned themselves with without really looking closely enough.
Bob
I've sent a message to Matt. I haven't looked at how Chairmail works yet.
Good For Ya, eh.
Buh-bye
Got something relevant to this thread to post? If so, go for it.
If not, take a hike.
Just a warning this time: Don't use this thread for any kind of attacks on other people.
Darn! I was waiting to get those 4 aces!
And if that's not enough, you got a full house in the global post number!
Proof? You needed proof? Did GoNorth post on any other board besides BIDS? Did you notice he suddenly
stopped posting on January 14, 2000 and hasn't posted anywhere else since then?
Wow!
I can't believe you're saying that anyone who posts on only one board is being paid to do so. And that *is* what you're saying if you say that the fact that someone posted on only one board is "proof" that they're being paid.
But it's irrelevant anyway.
Not bad.
My 3 aces beats that though.
Grubbing is an evil and unproductive activity and I don't condone it.
Regards,
iHub Admin (Bob)
PS. Oooh! Pair of nines with an Ace kicker. Can you beat that?
Anyhow, as far as Bobby is concerned, I don't think he's the same one. I think the folks here at IH are just trying to profit from his notoriety at the old place.
I'm the same guy.
You won't like it here. I remember all the hollering that I must either terminate someone's account or face legal action because of claims they were paid to post negatively about BIDS. I remember the multi-account thing too.
I'd forgotten all about BIDS though until you just mentioned it. So, how'd it turn out? Was that guy ever really proven to be a "paid basher"? Or was it just another in the seemingly endless string of such accusations ("we have proof") I saw. Come to think of it, I remember that people stated they had "proof" that I was being paid to allow negative "lies" to be posted about it and that they also had "proof" that I was short the stock.
How's BIDS doing? I remember it was trading in the $10 to $20 range and lots of estimates of it reaching $100 were being thrown around when that whole thing erupted on SI.
Anyway, if you still want me to throw people off the site on no more than allegations of misconduct, you won't like this place at all. I still refuse to do that.
I'd also like to ask him why he stiffed my friend, CousinVinny, $100 when he joined SI.
Because multiple accounts are not allowed. And not just multiple "concurrent" accounts. If someone's account is terminated, they are not permitted to get back on with a new account. Those things are pathetically easy to track. Especially when the new account uses the same email address and password. I'm sure SI's policy on the matter hasn't changed, and know I have the same policy here regarding multiple accounts being used to tout or bash stocks.
Buh-bye now.
Reset counter is a bit of a misnomer.
What it does is recalculate your message counter in case it's not showing the correct number. It's becoming much less of a problem, but when we were getting frequent timeouts, it was easy to "Remove" the same message twice, which would subtract two from the message count rather than one.
There is currently no way to categorize and file archived private messages. They go into the same holding area.
We plan to eventually implement a filing system, but I can't give an estimated date on that yet.
Bob
The iBox says to leave the personal issues at the door.
Yesterday I asked nicely that people refrain from using this thread for their battles.
Today I deleted posts that were just more battling.
This thread is not the place for it. It needs to be taken private or to the Parking Lot thread.
If it continues, I'm suspending accounts.
PM me with the desired ticker and the thread URL
"Tickers" added at creation.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, I'll get more verbose on this one.
When you create a thread, you can give it a "ticker", which shows up in parentheses. I compare it to AOL's "keywords". Cute idea.
Will all the combatants kindly take their battles elsewhere? I'd recommend http://www.investorshub.com/beta/board.asp?board_id=37
Thanks
"I DO NOT HAVE an offshore bank account"
Yes, I saw that post earlier today. While I know nothing about the validity of the contents, I was quite impressed with the way it was written. No-nonsense refutation without attacking.
I believe that there should now be NO argument that the public statement of the concerned party, McBride, has a LOT
MORE weight than that of his DEFAMER, whose post should be construed as:
Incorrect.
What we have here is two people making contradictory statements. It's for the reader to decide for him/herself which is more credible and act accordingly. It's not for you to determine that one is more credible than the other and therefore the only one fit for public consumption.
That one of the people involved is a former officer of the company has absolutely no relevance from an administrative perspective.
The boards are for sharing of opinions and information for the benefit of all who read them. The role of the chairmen, directors, and myself is to keep the threads clear of things like personal attacks, vulgarity, threats, and spam. Not to "filter" the information being presented.
AND DELETED HENCEFORTH....
which I have done AGAIN..... Hopefully for the last time...
That was not a particularly good move.
That's on the list of initial projects I sent to the programmer a couple of weeks ago. Haven't heard back yet.
Correction: I meant to say that I deleted 8237 because of the irrelevant graphic and need whoever deleted 8236 to contact me.
I just reviewed 3 deletions from this thread, and while I strongly agree with 2 of them, I need whoever deleted 8286 to PM me to tell me why it was deleted. I'm not dead-set against its deletion either, but need to understand the reasons for it.
Also, I took the liberty of deleting 8287. Yes, Francois, I do delete posts but VERY rarely.
I'd appreciate it if the "undocumented feature" that allows the inclusion of images or sounds in thread message lists not be used for blatantly off-topic contributions.
Regards,
iHub Admin (Bob)
I thought I'd go ahead and make this a public issue, since it likely will be anyway:
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=90309
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=90333
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=90425
I just encountered the above 3 posts as being recent deletions and restored all 3. I'd like to open this up for public discussion.
First, here's my thinking:
These represent a case of deletions that are almost capricious. Or at least examples where the notion of deleting a post is being treated way too lightly.
The first post is arguably a personal attack, but no worse than others that've remained. That it was deleted along with the other two also smacks a bit of a poster hiding what they themselves have written.
I don't think deletions should be taken lightly at all. A post should be very clearly a violation of the Terms of Use before it's deleted.
My concern here is that my perception is that only posts that *must* be deleted should get deleted, but that others feel they should be able to delete posts that they *want* to delete.
Thoughts, anyone?
For instance you were recently under the wrong impression that McBride was an Officer/Director of SEVU, which he's NOT, since February... I know that and so do the Directors of the thread...
Actually, though my knowing this is irrelevant, I know that he's not an officer but was. Makes him a relevant topic.
How do you know it's Libel?... Because the Chairperson is familiar with the stock, while you're NOT...
Am I the only one who shuddered at reading that?
While I'm certain there can be no doubt you know SEVU far better than I do, that's a particularly broad paint brush that's best left unused.
If I wanted to discuss INTC and couldn't find an INTC thread, I'd probably create one. Does that mean I know everything about the company and I should be trusted to determine what's true and untrue that's posted to that thread and delete things I "know" aren't true?
Or to use an example that's not even hypothetical, are you aware of a current discussion in which the chairman of another OTCBB thread maintains that there are never short positions in OTCBB stocks and has been deleting some posts telling him he's wrong about that? I swear, I'm not making this up.
Do you see why I have a problem with the notion of "trust the chairman because he knows what's true and false."?
Or to use another hypothetical example, suppose the CEO of a company wants to unload his stock. He assumes an alias, doesn't disclose his position, and creates a thread to discuss the company so he can pump up the price and volume enough to unload his position. Suppose he and other would-be sellers all join in and start posting all the rosy things about the company.
Not terribly hypothetical, really, because it happens all the time. It can happen here or on any other site. I'm powerless to do anything about it (unless specific rules are broken like spam, multiple accounts, and personal attacks).
In those situations, the only people who have any power to stop those things or to minimize the effects are other posters. Which is as it should be. I know a thing or two about the market and generally know a scam when I see one, but it shouldn't be my role to thwart them. And, yes, I feel I also recognize "crying wolf" at something that's not really the scam it's made out to be. But, I don't know everything. And my opinions about a company don't and shouldn't enter into any administrative decision I make.
But let's add something to this scenario: A site on which the above people can control the discussion by removing posts they say are "false". If someone posts "The CEO is using message boards to hype this stock so he can unload it" and the chairman (remember, he's the CEO in this scenario) removes it because it's "libel", does the deletion stand because "the chairman knows best"? The statement was true, but can't be easily proven or backed up with links.
It is my opinion that in exactly the same way my opinions about a company shouldn't enter into admin decisions, that should also be the case with chairmen.
Do we entrust chairmen to make calls we don't entrust (and rightly so) to site administration just because they were the ones who created the threads?
I believe very strongly that this should not be the case.
Yep. In my opinion, a much stronger case can be made against it. But it's one of those things where I'm not 100% opposed to it because I haven't really scruitinzed it that thoroughly.
Done.
Being a Missourian, I'm always skeptical. Of everything. But I know where I want this to go, my sites are set on that, and I don't want to hobble it in advance.
The reason for that is that it would remove what, to me, is one of the biggest benefits of the whole CoB concept: speed.
Suppose the post should be deleted because it contains an adversary's home phone number?
It bothered me at my previous position that I couldn't get to these anywhere *near* quickly enough, and was part of the reason I was always "at work".
I expect that when all the bugs (philosophical and technical) are shaken out of the CoB implementation, the threads will have directors and chairmen who could easily step in for me and nobody would notice the difference. Well, maybe the lack of car talk would be a giveaway as would any lack of brusqueness, but you get my point.
What the CoB is now is not what I envision it becoming. Functionally, nearly the same, but I envision it living up to my expectations of fair and rapid enforcement of the Terms of Use.
That would present a bit of a technical challenge, and would involve other potential hurdles I haven't really given a lot of thought yet, but strike me at first blush as "bad things". Like the notion of the system itself posting a message (with its date/time stamp, IP info, etc) that isn't a direct result of the author pressing the Submit button from that IP address, at that date/time, etc.
And, as you pointed out, deletions and reinstatements do happen fairly rapidly. Not always, but usually.
I feel certain that all of the potential readers of a post will not have gone past that post by the time it gets restored, as I don't think that of 100 readers of a thread, more than about 10 read new posts every minute, but I'm kind of curious what those stats really are. Perhaps a project for wayyyyy down the road.
We're resourceful people. Perhaps we can come up with something that'll easily ensure that reinstated posts get a chance to be read by people who did already get past them.
How about this one: When I restore a post, that process automatically posts to the thread from an administrative account giving the link or message number. Something like: "Deleted message [number here] has been restored by site administration."
Here's the problem:
I maintain that when a Libelous statement is offered without any support and as a fact, instead of an opinion, it should be deleted, as none of the above arguments apply:
Bold emphasis mine.
You cannot determine whether the statement is libel and neither can I. The correct word to replace "Libelous" above would be "Questionable".
When you delete a post because it's "libel", you are effectively deleting it because it is "not true", and put the site in the position of asserting that all undeleted posts are "true".
Do you any inkling of the size of that particular can of worms?
I think it's possible to make a case for allowing deletion of "untrue" statements in non-stock threads, with the stated understanding that the chairperson assumes all potential liability that may arise out of his doing so, but not only is it dangerous to the site to allow that kind of editorial control over stock-specific threads, it's potentially dangerous to people with current or potential financial stakes in the stock, in addition to being just plain *wrong*.