AI
Monday, January 27, 2003 8:05:28 AM
Re timed suspensions. If it's good enough for the real world, it should be good enough for cyber world. At least if you do the crime you know what the time will be for the infraction. I believe in rules & for fixed penalties for breaking those rules. Like speeding etc. Sure there are ranges for the penalties & for increased penalties for continued infractions but that should be made known up front perhaps even as part of the TOU Agreement. It should not matter whether a Community member is a premium member or a freebie; same crime; same time IMHO. I agree with Bob on this one...consistency is very important and will not make people feel like they have been picked upon or singled out.
Re a more serious tone from ADMIN. Respect has to be earned. When a member gets thrown in JAIL for violating iHub's TOU Agreement. I think it depends on the infraction as to how that member is to be treated. Bob has mentioned SPAMMING as fodder for all of us. I think that those that SPAM are not interested in rehabilitation. They simply want to SPAM their stuff & move on. I have yet to see a SPAMMER in JAIL want to get out. Terminate them without prejudice.
AFAIAC, the worst TOU offenders are the multiple alias registrants. These are the ones that should be made an example of IMHO. They know it is wrong to register multiple accounts yet for whatever reason...do it. If, and I say IF, someone is to be played with, it is should be these offenders.
Some boards (especially those that are non-stock related) get very emotional and passionate. It should be up to the COB & their Directors to maintain adherence to iHub's TOU Agreement. In the event that flaming gets out of control & TOU violation reports start coming in on an individual, then a fixed timeout is in order based on ADMIN's review. No need for JAIL for these offenders, IMHO. A PM from ADMIN advising of this should be sufficient referencing the offending posts(s) with the duration of the timeout & a warning re what the increased penalties would be for continued infractions up to & including termination for habitual offenders. Something like the 3 strikes rule. I don't know what the percentage of TOU violations are for flaming BUT this should cut down ADMIN time considerably. I haven't been a member here that long but from what I have seen, the nastiest comments in JAIL have been from FLAMERS. Given them a timeout & remove the discussion.
I also think this would remove some of the personal interaction of ADMIN & the Community. You guys are running a business & while it may be nice/fun to interact with the members you are still running a business. Slapping people around by management for fun & entertainment will not garner you any respect. Keeping order in a quality site, will get you that respect.
Something else I would like to mention, I also don't think that ADMIN should be talking about stocks or their picks. That can be misconstrued. I think that you have to make a decision ie you want to talk about stocks or you want to be the OWNER/ADMIN of the best stock discussion site on the net. IMHO, I do not think the two can co-exist.
A suggestion has been made for a Senate or Member Review type committe for TOU violators. IMHO, fuget about it as I do not see it as the highest & best use of one's time & resources. Set the rules & list the penalties for violating the TOS...KISS.
Re a more serious tone from ADMIN. Respect has to be earned. When a member gets thrown in JAIL for violating iHub's TOU Agreement. I think it depends on the infraction as to how that member is to be treated. Bob has mentioned SPAMMING as fodder for all of us. I think that those that SPAM are not interested in rehabilitation. They simply want to SPAM their stuff & move on. I have yet to see a SPAMMER in JAIL want to get out. Terminate them without prejudice.
AFAIAC, the worst TOU offenders are the multiple alias registrants. These are the ones that should be made an example of IMHO. They know it is wrong to register multiple accounts yet for whatever reason...do it. If, and I say IF, someone is to be played with, it is should be these offenders.
Some boards (especially those that are non-stock related) get very emotional and passionate. It should be up to the COB & their Directors to maintain adherence to iHub's TOU Agreement. In the event that flaming gets out of control & TOU violation reports start coming in on an individual, then a fixed timeout is in order based on ADMIN's review. No need for JAIL for these offenders, IMHO. A PM from ADMIN advising of this should be sufficient referencing the offending posts(s) with the duration of the timeout & a warning re what the increased penalties would be for continued infractions up to & including termination for habitual offenders. Something like the 3 strikes rule. I don't know what the percentage of TOU violations are for flaming BUT this should cut down ADMIN time considerably. I haven't been a member here that long but from what I have seen, the nastiest comments in JAIL have been from FLAMERS. Given them a timeout & remove the discussion.
I also think this would remove some of the personal interaction of ADMIN & the Community. You guys are running a business & while it may be nice/fun to interact with the members you are still running a business. Slapping people around by management for fun & entertainment will not garner you any respect. Keeping order in a quality site, will get you that respect.
Something else I would like to mention, I also don't think that ADMIN should be talking about stocks or their picks. That can be misconstrued. I think that you have to make a decision ie you want to talk about stocks or you want to be the OWNER/ADMIN of the best stock discussion site on the net. IMHO, I do not think the two can co-exist.
A suggestion has been made for a Senate or Member Review type committe for TOU violators. IMHO, fuget about it as I do not see it as the highest & best use of one's time & resources. Set the rules & list the penalties for violating the TOS...KISS.
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
