Is Bob Bad For iHub?

[Was (Bob)]

In reply to: http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=99595

Fine. We have checks for the spammers. We have checks for the Chairman.
Now, How de we trust you and have checks for you?

And your suggestion for a way to make the checks and balances go full circle? I'm curious about this one.

I have been following this for a little while, and lurking on a few other threads, and you seem to allow certain people more liberty and I find you are not consistent.

Do you have any examples of this? I strive not to let that happen, and believe I'm not letting it happen, but I'm not perfect.

I do know of a recent example that could give the appearance of inconsistency. I recently booted someone for, among other things, being continually disruptive in this thread, but later when someone else came in here who was upset about that booting, and posted about 30 or so far more disruptive posts to the thread in a few hours' span, I did nothing. Well, I did something, but I didn't boot them.

Had I not been too swamped to notice what'd happened, I would've given them a warning and then a suspension if it continued. However, they got away with it.

Inconsistent? Arguably so.

However, there are factors that aren't discussed publicly that also came into play. Things like that person having no prior suspensions. That person not doing it just a couple of days after I'd reduced their 7-day suspension to about 2 1/2. My having publicly warned everyone about it and everyone, including the especially disruptive one, complying with my request and stopping the disruption.

If someone goes over the line, I warn them about it, and they back off, I don't go back and suspend them for going over the line if I later realize they'd done it to a greater extent than I'd realized. I'm consistent about that.

But since the things like warnings and suspensions aren't a matter of public record, people like to assume that only the thngs they saw with their own eyes are the things that really happened. As a Missourian, I can't blame them for wanting to see something before accepting it as reality, but I also don't automatically assume that things I didn't see never happened and devote tons of energy to bemoaning the unfairness of it.

An important (to me) of the philosophy of doing this job is that suspensions aren't used as punishment for every misdeed. They're used when it seems apparent that future conduct won't improve without them. Quite different from the real world.

Yet, whomever you convinced to get the position must either be very naive or trust you very much? Which was it?

I think it was the latter.

If the young fellow named Matt made the decision, what did he base his judgment on to hire you?

I'm not Matt so I don't know the answer to that question, and even if I knew, I'd consider it nobody's business but his own.

You seem to have more detesting your style than supporting it,

"seem" to? I haven't really tallied up the numbers, but it seems to be more in favor than against. It's not like there are hundreds on one side and thousands on the other. I'm thinking it's closer to about 10 for and 5 against.

But that's immaterial. It's Matt's site, so it's his call. He can fire me if he wants. His site; his call.

Personally, I do care what the majority of people think of the job I'm doing, but more important to me is that this site (or any site with which I'm associated) is a level playing field for the participants and not a scammers' haven.

and that maybe skewed because my understanding is that this Frank gentleman was suspended because of his past rather than what he was doing here.

I can't get into any specifics, but can assure you it was for current conduct on this site; not past conduct on another site.

In my time here so far, I have suspended people I know full well I never suspended on SI, some of whom were members there and some who I don't know to have been, and in no case was their history on another site ever a factor.

In fact, we've got one person here who has never been suspended here (to my knowledge) but who I never would've allowed back on SI after terminating them there long ago. I even suspended someone else here (who I don't recall ever suspending on SI) for having broken a rule in a post targeting the one I'd never let back on SI.

I'm sure some of the people I've suspended here would be considered "cronies" of mine by another poster, though I disagree with the assertion that they are.

The assertion that I suspend people based on their conduct on another site is patently false, no matter how loudly it's shouted or how frequently the same few people shout it.

If we have someone that executes very strong controls over this new concept, well my personal opinion is...This won't
last!!!

And my opinion is that if we don't, this won't last.

I'm inclined to think that the ownership of the site is in agreement with me on this or they wouldn't have hired me to help the site grow and to change its reputation and the aspects of it that'd caused that reputation.
.
If, in reality, the intention was to let the status quo continue, including deletion of posts that shouldn't be deleted, and my hiring was simply as a figurehead to add credibility to such a scheme, I shall be very put out.

I firmly believe that in a stock discussion, you simply cannot have the whim of a person invested in the stock be all the reason necessary to remove a post.

I can see the attraction of a site in which each person who starts a thread has 100% discretion over the contents of the thread but to apply this model, without real oversite, to market discussions is to give Trouble a nicely-engraved invitation on gold leaf and I would never be willingly associated with such an endeavor.

Edit: post 2