Refuting the hit generating ploy.
Was refuting one of the vessels that destroyed SI and will it be the catalyst to undermine the concept of IHUB?
Yes I believe so since I am a victim of this concept. bias admin practices can be done effectively using the refuting card as a way or rather ploy to undermine TOS. This has been so well developed that anarchy prospered on SI till everyone left and the only voices on SI are those that no longer can get into verbal warfare on reckless accusations. Just because someone says something (the SI factor) the excuse or concept was/is to refute it. Understand it makes no difference whether if there is true only that refuting will create traffic and activity. Under this refuting concept does not require duty or responsibilty to even remotely have an underlying basis to anything you say. All you have to do is reword the rules of engagement and you have it.
By changing the refuting card basic wording it becames a useful play or ploy as SI is proof it can be played very effectively. Where the refuting concept is the normal manner for say religion concepts, political concepts, heck every concept in our society. What SI did was bring it to a new level.
The destruction of SI may have been the refuting of personal attacks to increase its hit ratio. Under the SI regime people just let anything that was said stand and should excuse the bias admin practice and selective application to TOS by asking other to just refute the claim. Hey it worked just like it was suppose to because the basis was to get hits. Also the TOS was totally undermined as was thread diruption as was civil posting. In other words it became a war zone.
So now SI was nothing more than memebers screaming HELP, SI regime saying what is the problem just refute it and in the end SI was nothing more than disrupted threads and personal attacks reign supreme. It did not matter to the apparently because SI had hits and false figures for traffic. But SI was on target with its hits. Reckless regard for the truth reign terror on SI and its members and still does. This hit getting tactic was designed even further so that the burden of proof was not on the one making the claim! That's right SI went as far as to change the basis for refuting. Now this “Bad mouth all you want” and "refuting" concept is attempting to invade IHUB and undermine its very principal.
To even further fester anarchy, refuting was designed and refined to violate its members. All Si did was found it acceptable for the attackers to demand that the target provide proof to refute the claim made against them. That's right all you have to do is change who should provide burden of proof. In our society the burden of proof is on the person making the claim but not on SI. That is not part of any and that would cause full application of the TOS. Never do they attackers provide proof or substance that would hold up in court to support the reckless claim(s). Just plain and simple spinning of information and word play. Even further to fester this was the concept well what might me out of line in one place is not in another.
I have always screamed foul on this refuting ideology for a long as I am a victim to this concept. This is the basis for SI’s anarchy and innocent people and companies have had to suffer through numerous attacks of reckless claims and never once any proof to the claim was provided and the refuting turned to fights that caused hits. SI was suppose to be about stocks and slowly the focus was turned to claims being made and no underlying basis for them either. Of course with a demand for clarification (refute please) the TOS was totally undermined.
Here prior to Bob if you were going to make a claim then state the underlying basis or it got deleted thus squelch the anarchy activists. Even now look at what is happening to IHUB. The activists are screaming foul. They want to be able to say what they what when they want without any basis or duty or anything. They want refuting. But be careful on the refuting because if you dare word it wrong it is a personal attack to yur attacker and thus suspension.
Next the harassing card. The hardest thing to prove and requires a lot of historical proof. Another hit generating tactic to undermine peace, justice and proper admin practices..
:=) Gary Swancey
