Thanks Matt! I know it's going to take some time before Bob can get to these things due to the new SI workload. But I hope this gets done afterwards as it isn't just I who have had this problem. I've seen it happen to other people also.
Matt: Would you please explain your Admin definition of "spam?"
As you know, some people who don't like a particular viewpoint or fact posted about their favorite stock try to get posts removed by calling them spam because the person has previously discussed the same point. Because a large number of members try to get unpopular messages deleted by reporting them as spam, you and the EDIG board moderator have created the following definition of spam, which is very subjective and ambiguous: #msg-1055256.
My concern is that it appears that it only applies to the unpopular points of view and not to those that are popular. If a member wants to be able to post the same inane hype day after day, he or she is allowed. But if another member tries to explain complex issues from SEC filings that are major risk factors and that many shareholders clearly don't understand, that member runs the risk of being censored with post deletion, or worse, yet suspension. Additionally, when repetitive hype is allowed and a poster is not allowed to reiterate disagreement with that hype and why, only one side of the equation is portrayed.
I think this is a very slippery slope and is subject to bias and abuse. I would urge that you consider creating an objective and unambiguous definition of what a TOU violation for "spam" really is so that it can be applied without bias.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
