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.
This thread's safe. I see your concerns about the header, but I'll be reading this thread too. With both eyes. So I'd personally be stepping in to intervene in worst-case scenarios, and that includes "over the top personal attacks and vulgarity".
Finally something on which we can agree.
The misconception that negative posts are systematically deleted is simply not true,
I agree with this one. There are heated discussions as we hammer out some of the finer points of what should and shouldn't be deleted, but really very few posts are getting deleted, and of those that're getting deleted, I'm restoring only a tiny fraction.
By and large, most of the chairpeople and I are on the same page. And the ones who aren't on the same page with me are at least in the same chapter. Don't anyone think that the vehemence with which we're disagreeing is a condemnation of the concept itself. We're arguing over finer points that're focused in small areas of the site. And the results will be adjustments both in my approach and theirs.
But deletion occur very rapidly, with minimum intervention of the iHUB staff...
And a HUGE benefit I get out of this is that rather than getting a dozen complaints about a particular post, researching it, deleting it, and replying to all the emails, I only have to scan the deleted posts. Once we get this concept optimized (in philosophy and in application), it'll get even easier. And one of the changes in how it's applied should be taking place in just a few more days.
Can a person sue a site for violating one's right to freedom of speech?
Not sure if you're asking seriously or not, but my unqualified opinion is that, yes, a person can sue for anything. But that they wouldn't have much luck with the 1st Amendment angle. The First Amendment only forbids governments from impeding ("abridging"?) free speech.
A message board site, can, if it wants, decide that everyone who never used the word "purple" at least once on the site can no longer post on the site. And now I'm covered if that happens.
Yeah, you're alright. For a Chevy guy.
Not that I should talk. I've got a Chevy truck.
Fortunately, I've got a *real* truck, too. <g>
http://www.sibob.com/rig1.jpg
Good. I like this title. Especially being the cynical kind of guy (Missourian) I am and that I expect others in the market to be. I'm a LOT more comfortable with "Let's really poke around under the hood of this one" than I am with "Hey, it exists, so it must be alright." :)
That'd be a good analogy but where am I at this card table?
Sure it's not a game of Solitaire and I'm getting a LOT of help dealing with the cards?
Speaking of cards, I'm seeing some familiar names on this thread.
well that's not excuse. you should be polite with the users so they won't run off. i don't think RB yells at it's users. eom
I'm polite when politeness is appropriate and impolite when that's appropriate. First and foremost, I'm myself; not some corporate-speak sugar-coated customer support person. A person with that kind of personality wouldn't last a week.
But if other sites have admins that wear the kid gloves you prefer, well, that's what's so cool about having choices, eh.
I'll see your nickle and raise you anything. <g>
I've said before that I listen more closely to those with whom I disagree. I'm all ears on this one.
It's well-earned. Try a few years in this kind of role and see what it does to you. LOL
What if it's true? I'm not saying that it is, but if that person feels that it is, then they should be able to say it without you deleting their posts because you don't like it.
so I fail to understand why you're so inflexible on this issue
Because I will not have chairpeople, as proxies for me, deciding which posts are and aren't true, and deleting the ones they either don't believe are true or don't want others considering as possibilities.
You're supposed to be facilitating discussions about the company, including negatives and positives. The chairperson role is not to be used as a "filter" to eliminate things you don't personally think are true.
I don't know where you got the idea you'd be able to exert that level of editorial influence over a board, but I certainly didn't see anything to that extent or I wouldn't have taken this job.
Bob, I delete LIBELOUS STATEMENTS because...
Don't. You don't have to act on my behalf to protect me and I wouldn't dream of asking you to do so.
Whether a post is libel is not something you or I are to determine. And using "libel" as an excuse to delete a post is only a very tiny step away from "I deleted it because it wasn't true", which quickly becomes "because I don't think it's true".
Either don't do it, or move to a site that'll let you do it. Period.
Speaking of undocumented features, if you paste in a URL first thing in a PM (and possibly in a public message) you will sometimes (or always?) get an error message when you submit it. If that happens, I move some text in before the link and it goes fine.
Does it do that to you every time you try to open that one? I haven't ever been down to one message yet, but I've seen that error a few times. Going back and trying again has been working for me so far.
No, and the "topic" seems to have deviated substantially from q&a about iHub tonight.
So, is it your position that if a COB posts a lie, then the victim should have the ability to refute it?
No. It's my position that if you believe someone is lying, you should refute it rather than deleting it. If a person uses this site for personal attacks, harassment, etc, I don't agree that they should retain the "ability" to continue doing so.
That's a *perfect* way to end my online day and head outside, laughing my fool head off.
Those were the days....
I'm not giving any time frames yet. I haven't been able to gauge yet how quickly the other programmers work and I personally don't have the access yet to bang out code on my own, although that should be coming in the next week or two.
I'll personally write the "Hot" code as it's a very tricky algorithm that I'm already very familiar with. Would take too long to explain it to someone else. Even then, it's not something I can write in a day or two and it's a little ways down on my list.
I'll let people know when I'm able to bang out code and will tell everyone what I'm working on first so everyone can get their own idea of how long it takes.
Go to your room!
With that in mind, I'm curious to know how this is actually relevant to the dicussion. Nobody can refute or figure out if this guy is wrong or right. So how does it add to the "discussion"? That's what a discussion is about. A debate with some sort of intelligent thought backing it.
The implication is abundantly clear and the full force of the negative connotation was apparently intended, judging by the reaction of those chairing that thread.
"safely stashed" implies that it's put there for the express purpose of keeping it away from any legal claims against it.
then a significant amount of the people in the stock market would be criminals.
They are. No matter how tightly or loosely you define "significant", it's a true statement. And not just my opinion. Although my opinion is that the number of criminals in the market who have escaped official identification as such (via SEC or legal action) is an even more "significant" number.
But it wouldn't be correct to say "Many market criminals work offshore so all people in the market from offshore locations are criminals" any more than you can say "Apples are fruits therefore all fruits are apples".
But you do raise an interesting point I hadn't addressed. Note that the item I was quoting was item #7 in a list of items that nobody argues were relevant. The post was being removed because item #7 was considered either a "lie" or a "personal attack". We're talking the entire post and all of the stuff in it that nobody argued was irrelevant.
A post that otherwise is extremely relevant shouldn't be removed because one of the comments is irrelevant, if the comment isn't a personal attack against a poster. If I post information about a company and add that it's a beautiful day out here (which it is, btw), it's not a valid reason to remove the post.
The fact that a post that was blatant personal commentary about a couple of posters (and nothing more) was not deleted while the other post was repeatedly deleted leads me to one inescapable conclusion: Bias on the part of the chairman and a tendency to squelch information/opinions detrimental to his position and encourage personal attacks if they're used to discredit bears.
Thought I'd bring the following discussion over here where it's more on-topic and where other chairmen can see where I'm coming from on this particular issue.
You want me to delete a fairly mild personal attack and irrelevant post, such as:
"Josef and Mark should go back to the Police Accademy and not to invest in anything." (suggestion)
Bolding emphasis mine.
If a thread has established precedent of not allowing even the most minor "personal attacks" or used "any commentary about the poster rather than about his statements or the company" (not a direct quote, but the gist of how it's been done in that thread) as a definition, it needs to continue to follow that precedent consistently; not show bias by using it to remove bears' posts but ignore it in a bull's post.
Personally, I prefer that the standards regarding personal attacks be kept that tight, since it should minimize the eruption of full-scale flame wars.
However, note the word "irrelevant". A characteristic of personal attacks is that the commentary is irrelevant because it attacks the person, rather than contributing to on-topic discussion. We'll revisit this word in a moment.
Yet, you maintain that the following comment isn't a personal attack and should remain?...
"7) Don't hold your breath for Rich to step up - his money is safely stashed offshore."(statement of "fact")
Well, Bob, I strongly believe that the latter statement should be construed as a serious personal attack on the integrity and
honesty of a poster here...
Emphasis mine again.
A big difference between the two examples is "relevance". In this case, "Josef and Mark" are not associated with the company in question. "Rich" is. To put it another way:
"Josef has his money safely stashed offshore" -- irrelevant, Josef has no association with the company
"Rich has his money safely stashed offshore" -- relevant, Rich is strongly associated with the company
Note that the above examples apply whether the statements are true or false. It wouldn't change their relevance.
Regarding the "poster here" part, people associated with companies are "fair game" for commentary about what they do and don't do. Because commentary about them is "relevant". If Josef pulls down a million dollars a year and stashes it in his mattress, that's irrelevant. If the CEO of a company does, that's relevant.
A person associated with a company isn't considered any less an insider (hence, relevant) by virtue of his also being a "poster" here. Or to repeat my earlier statement about this, "A company officer posting here doesn't get immunity because he's posting here".
A person's "honesty and integrity" are very relevant to discussions of the company if that person is associated with the company. Whether or not he's a poster here simply doesn't enter into it.
Regarding "suggestion" versus "statement of fact", those aspects of the statements have nothing to do with whether or not the statements are relevant or if they're personal attacks. A statement that's a personal attack doesn't become less so or more so based on whether it's presented as a suggestion or a statement of fact.
Let's revisit the latter example again:
""7) Don't hold your breath for Rich to step up - his money is safely stashed offshore."(statement of "fact")"
Another reason I've repeatedly been told that this post should be removed is that it's "libel".
Says who? Me? No. I don't know whether the statement is true or false and will not allow it to remain deleted using that as the reason. What if the statement is later proven true? The site would be in deep doo-doo for having taken it upon itself to say "No, that's a false statement." My leaving it intact doesn't mean I think it's true either. Because the bottom line is that I (and the site) do not determine what is true and what is false.
I've seen plenty of lies posted about me personally here. How many posts have I deleted for lying about me? Zero. Even thought I personally know they're lies. Even in a case in which I suggested the person making those statements sue me if he so strongly believes the comments are true so I can prove them wrong in court.
If it's a lie, refute it.
One more point. A statement such as the above has a very strong reason for not being deleted. It's evidence of wrongdoing on someone's part. One of the following is likely true:
A. The former CEO has been stashing ill-gotten gains (implied) off-shore so it can't be touched.
or
B. The poster who said so libeled him with that statement.
I do not remove posts, even at the author's request, if the post can be considered "evidence" in any imaginable scenario, and that one certainly can be.
Comments?
If such unsubstantiated statements came from a basher, they would have been deleted, to be restored by Admin Bob
You still would've deleted a post for being "unsubstantiated"?
Anyone, I was hoping we'd made it clear that "unsubstantiated" is not a valid reason to remove a post. If something is unsubstantiated, it should be refuted, not erased. To use the current scenario as an example, the unsubstantiated information can easily be construed as "evidence" of at most some serious wrong-doing or at least a statement that will vouch for the poster's credibility when the future proves or disproves the accuracy of the statements.
It's interesting though that had the same post been written by someone labeled a "basher" (whether correctly or not), it would've been deleted, but wasn't deleted when it came from someone apparently wanting a higher stock price. And that the very blatant personal attack on two critics wasn't deleted.
Still trying to figure out "second level software". Anyone know what on earth that is???
The guy's a riot. Wish he were a better artist, but with writing chops like those, you don't need to be able to draw. He's also really cool about answering email.
Although he's never commented on my suggestion that he include a stock chart of Dilbert's employer where the chart looks like the profile of the Pointy-Haired Boss. So many do.
I recently saw some folks on RB and to a lesser extent SI who were citing a mildly bullish comment of mine years ago about a stock as being evidence that the stock must be legit. Couldn't believe they were miscontruing my past comments that way or that they'd think for a nanosecond that what I say about stocks carries any weight (especially so long ago before I'd learned many of the lessons of the past few years).
The analogy I used was that it was like thinking that a dog show judge is especially good at retrieving ducks himself.
I have no idea why I thought this bit from the most recent Dilbert Newsletter screamed out for me to post it here, but here it is:
Induhvidual Debating Technique
------------------------------
Lately I have found myself in e-mail discussions with Induhviduals
who employ debating tactics that are very similar. I suspect they
are learning these methods in some sort of top-secret Induhvidual
training facility.
The Induhvidual debating technique involves four steps:
1. Exaggerate your opponent's statement into an absurd absolute.
2. Make an inappropriate analogy.
3. Change the topic to something easier to defend.
4. Claim victory.
For example:
Me: Vegetables are good for you.
Induhvidual: That's ridiculous. If you ate a truckload of
vegetables all at once you would die.
Me: No one eats a truckload all at once.
Induhvidual: Let me give you an analogy. If you tried to swim
across the ocean, and you didn't know how to swim,
and you had no arms or legs, you'd never make it.
Surely you can agree with that.
Me: Um...that's different.
Induhvidual: Ha! So now you agree with me that swimming is good
exercise!
The worst part is that not only will you be frustrated at your
inability to make your point, you will be branded as the person who
thinks swimming is bad exercise.
Who deleted 8011 and 8009? Why? PM, please.
Because this is the MPTV thread. I agree with the directors on this one.
and that I didn't delete the post
It doesn't matter who deleted it. It was deleted. By someone.
I reviewed the post in question (the one with the Mark Twain quote) and have restored it because it is just as arguably on-topic as the other two posts in question were. Either all 3 are off-topic or none of them were.
Regards,
iHub Admin (Bob)
I'm really glad RB didn't feel that way when someone started posting really inflammatory stuff there as "SI Bob". And, yeah, a lot of people really thought it was me.
Hammering on the subtle points of "ownership" of a random assemblage of alpha characters doesn't enter into it, IMO, when there is obvious intent to use a name, thread participation, and posting style to either cause confusion about someone's identity or to lampoon them.
There was confusion. The confusion was the intentional goal, which was obvious to anyone with more than a few cells rattling around in their cerebrum. Having at least a dozen such cells, I saw the problem and addressed it.
To portray the use of the name as innocent, accidental, or not intended to lampoon or confuse is disengenuous and I'm old enough not to fall for it.
The End
That's not all of it. But the majority of it, and quite correct.
Francois, since my arrival here, you and a small number of others have focused an awful lot of energy on using this thread to bash both me and InvestorsHub.
If you want to continue, create a new thread for it. Just don't continue it here.
This is a Q&A thread for people to ask questions about site functionality, etc. I'm getting too many complaints from people who would rather not have to wade through your seemingly endless "I hate Bob" posts to get to things that are actually relevant to the thread.
We all get it. You hate me. Now kindly get back on-topic and take the hatred elsewhere.
Seems like IHUB database has either been hacked by a friend
of SI Luc, or IHUB admin. is opening a big can of worms for
itself !
How on earth did you arrive at this conclusion? You didn't present anything to support it.
The disclaimer in your profile aside, it was very clear from your posts that you were imitating a well-known user from another site, posting to the only thread he'd be likely to post on here, and giving the impression that you were him. The disclaimer was not enough, as it wouldn't be seen by many people.
If you want to discuss it maturely, without all the irrelevant [stuff] ("disney", "caricature", etc), let's. My mind can be changed.
But if you want to make it personal, let's not.
Edit: Was supposed to have been private.
Agreed. Name-calling of any kind, or calling someone's posts "whining childish complaints" is still a personal attack.
Kendrick, I'm with gotinearly on this one. Kill that last part and you're fine.
Bob
Yes. If you're chairing or directing the board in question, zap it immediately and don't give it another thought. Zero tolerance on spam.
If you're not, then report it to the chairperson, a director, or me, and we'll see to it that it's removed.
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/board.asp?board_id=516 is probably the best place to report spam.
Bob
I thought Matt had answered that but apparently not. I looked through your recent posts but didn't see it there. Do you have the URL handy or, if not, do you mind reposting the question?
Bob
Just a quick note to let anyone who has me bookmarked (all 3 of you) know that I read this thread every morning and this is the best way to report spam. I might even get creative with renaming some folks who spam us pretty badly. In the message prior to this one, though, I couldn't really think of an alias I'd wish on her worse than the one she chose for herself.
Bob