Isn't it enough that we want to be free of the harassment? And that's what it is, really.
"Harassment" is one of the most-abused words I've seen in my years around these kinds of sites. Right up there with "bashers".
If it means "free from personal attacks, vulgarity, and just plain disruptiveness", we already have that.
If it means "free from seeing things I personally don't want to see", we've got that, too. Filters.
They spam, use multiple aliases and otherwise impose themselves on us.
I haven't followed the board, but I do know that Matt is a capable enough admin that the above statement is very likely untrue.
Because someone labels something "spam" or says someone is using multiple accounts doesn't make it true.
We (both Matt and I) are *especially* uptight about multiple accounts. If suspected multiple accounts were reported to Matt and he found that they were indeed multiple accounts, he'd terminate all accounts involved.
If such accounts are reported but not terminated, it means they're not really multiple accounts.
And I really do tire (am still tired from how often I heard it at SI) of the "we know all the risks of our investment so we don't need reminding" bit.
It's not about the longs or the shorts. It's about both sides PLUS those who're observers who haven't made up their minds. If they're reading a board about a stock they're considering buying, and all they're allowed to see (as determined by the longs who run the board) are what the longs want them to see, and they buy based on that, they were manipulated. Those people deserve to see both sides.
Most of these people have but one purpose and that is to be a pain the neck.
That's an assumption, no matter who states it. I've seen the same stated about people who I was personally convinced only had altruistic motives. Janice Shell is the example who comes readily to mind.
In "real life", I could get a restraining order.
Filters.
We've heard But Anyway's arguments over and over.
They should be refuted every time they're presented if they're refutable. Not every visitor to a board has seen the arguments before. Delete them every time they show up, and new visitors won't have seen them and won't have the benefit of seeing potential valid/relevant arguments against buying the stock. That's manipulation.
And don't forget that any "long" position benefits primarily from others who're new to the stock coming along later, deciding they like what they see, and being willing to pay an even higher price for the stock.
Next thing the board becomes full of his posts and little more.
I've seen the same thing said before. But it doesn't happen very often. And you don't want to know the scenario in which it does happen.
What about someone who is not a member who comes to read the board for information?
I covered this one above, but I'll reiterate/rephrase it to say that someone who is not a member or is a new member who comes to read a board for information is very arguably the one who MOST needs to see both sides of the discussions.
If someone wants to avail themselves of the Filter feature, they need only register a free account (until that feature, inevitably, it's starting to seem, becomes a Premium feature) to use it. It's not my problem if they don't want to do so and it would be impossible to allow a non-registered account to use filtering.
EDIG is your third most popular message board. On RB, there are over a million posts. Clearly, there is a following.
Clearly. What's that got to do with the level of control we should allow the moderators, though?
It's up to IHUB at this point to choose what's more important - the number of posts, or the quality of the posts.
Quality, by a long shot. I thought that's what this argument was about. Or maybe it's differing definitions of "quality". To me, it means civil and free from manipulative or capricious deletions with people maturely and intelligently sharing their opinions both pro and con, for the mutual benefit of all participants and observers.
I know it's not easy, but I also know that the shareholders of e.Digital will not frequent a board that even remotely resembles RB.
No response to that one except to say it's very definitely the wrong tack.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
