Replies to post #211673 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[janice shell]

You are by no means the only one who thinks that.

[Scumbag Fraudsters]

As New Coke and Crystal Pepsi have proven, that rule about "If ain't broke don't fix it" should be tenaciously adhered to and can be extremely costly when ignored.

However, "If ain't broke don't fix it" doesn't really apply here because something was definitely broken imo.

There were flame wars erupting long before the overhaul, but far too often mods & admins were heavy-handed and removed posts without rhyme or reason or on a whim.

Many of my posts that were "removed by admin" were restored after I questioned their removal, meaning they were wrongfully removed in the first place.

More than once I argued about a post being removed because the words "investors" or "shareholders" was viewed as an attack on other members. Despite my protestations that's it's ludicrous to forbid the words investors and shareholders on a site made for investors and shareholders, the posts were not restored.

Your messages need to focus on the company and the stock and should not contain comments about people who post on the board whether specific or in general.

While the old Handbook rules were applied too harshly yet did more to diminish attacks, the new ones are too hands-off and allow almost unrestricted vitriolic posting. There needs to be some middle ground or - here's a thought - make people obey the TOS.

As I've pointed out ad-nauseam, the TOS and the Handbook are in direct conflict with each other, and that's part of the problem. Which one are we supposed to adhere to? The one that expressly prohibits threatening, abusive, harassing, vulgar, hateful, posts, or the one that only says "Debate the message rather than attacking the messenger" and "avoid vulgar name calling?"

The Moderators' Guidelines are more restrictive, but why would the average member read the mod's guidelines?

For example, the Community Guidelines don't mention anything about religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, age or disability, but the mod's page does.

The Community guidelines say "No egregious vulgarity." Wow - that's completely undefined and open to interpretation. But the mod's guidelines attempt to define it and even allow some usage of the "F" word:

If society has deemed it appropriate for a 13 year old to hear, it is unlikely that it will be offensive to the majority of Users. It should be noted that PG13 does include some use of the “f” word.

The admins continuously instruct members to report issues to them, but after I had reported one mod numerous times for personal attacks I was threatened with being blocked from sending PMs to admins.

[TenKay]

“Trying to fix a problem, by making the problem worse is not the way to fix it.“

Except the “problem” they were trying to fix is different than the “problem” that was made worse.

[Rat Fink]

"You can be critical of other Users" new I-Hub's guideline has suddenly and unfortunately allowed I-Hub posters to freely attack other board posters!

Multiple posters are just gang-attacking/slandering/lying about me by name/handle now on one of the boards I post on! The numerous anti-company posters hate it and me because I post pro-company posts/info. Now, I am the focus of anti-company stock board posters; not the stock. Yesterday, a poster truthfully posted, "MAN ALIVE!!! THIS BOARD IS TRASHED!!!"

For 10 years of my posting on I-Hub up to now, myself and all I-Hub posters were "protected" against "personal attacks" by other posters, but NOT any longer apparently due to this new "guideline": "Yes, you can be critical of other Users".

Up to now, all I-Hub posters were supposed to (and appropriately) focus on the company on stock boards and NOT on other posters. Personal attacks were always removed and "this" set I-Hub apart from other posting forums. Now on I-Hub, you can freely and legally attack, lie about, and slander other posters on a stock board—without even mentioning the stock! Wow!!! "This" is essentially setting up some I-Hub stock boards to be "dog fight rings" where posters just all-out attack each other on the board or gang-attack some posters—reducing actual stock content posts. Paying members, who are being attacked, are essentially paying to get attacked, slandered, and lied about on by posting on I-Hub stock boards! I wonder how many I-Hub posters, who are now getting attacked daily, are going to just walk away completely from I-Hub because of this BS?

REPLIED-TO ECOMIKE'S POST 211673 QUOTES BELOW:

– "The flame wars have already begun all over I-hub, because of the recent TOS word change, and I will not be a part of it."

– "IMO, The old rule must be restored and that which was not broken, and then broken, needs to be unbroken again."

– "The way to fix it is stop all defamation posts and attacks on anyone, not enable a free for all of shit-fest of escalating attacks. I left Facebook 3 years ago because of that kind of BS."