The Supreme Court argument of I cannot adequately define pornography, "but I will know it when I see it," seems a logical starting point.
Why give one person so much control? You give control over the introduction of a stock to the first moderator to write something. The company can change management, change names, be bought out, but the one moderator could keep his ibox indefinitely.
I am not looking for what is truth as much as limit opinion - positive or negative. Posting in 50 point font claiming
NEWS!!!!!!! George is currently pumping his stock portfolios because that's what
George does best! He is nothing more than an ambulance chaser and will
ALWAYS look out for George and only George!
can only be taken as opinion. This opinion covers the entire page.
Farther down, the former management gets a half a page (again in 50 point font) claiming that nobody can be sure he is really gone. Again, clearly opinion (that medication may reduce).
Then a quarter page claiming the directors might not be who posters claim is again opinion that could better be argued on the Message Board. One of the two directors were removed 6 months ago, but the ibox still claims that his bio is a lie. Nobody can remove it either. How do you fix this and make Ihub more interesting to read? Simply stating that opinions are for the message board, ibox is for introducing the company
. If the company puts it in their reports (q, k, 8k...) it should be taken as fact. Those "facts" can be disputed on the message board and even stickied for all to see. Web links are not usually controversial. Neither are charts, income statements, outstanding shares
, announcements of RS's...
Finally, if there are 5 moderators and 1 person claims that something is a fact, the other moderators should be able to veto it by vote - positive or negative "facts" that are vetoed could then be removed from the ibox and the conversation could be taken up on the actual board.
Seems much fairer than squatter mods forcing their agendas on everyone for years.