Bob you said: "but feel that my concerns can probably be appropriately addressed with the appropriate disclaimers everyone would have to agree to before participating in such boards".
i think the feature i would like to see before these is the ability to recieve and post via email...much like groups!yahoo. that would allow users alot of flexibility (esp those behind proxy's denying access to ihub :( ). it also allows access from anywhere..i.e. via Mobile phone with email capability...
Posted by: Churak ... a private board [is] the worst form of censorship. ... the public perception [iHub] is pumper clown heaven. ... [bad idea] to tell others what to read or not to read? ... keep those opposing/conflicting views [NOT] buried. [stop]
Posted by: Bob Zumbrunnen Philosophically opposed [to] private, invitation-only boards. That said [the] odds that I'll implement a "private board" [are] 50/50 at this point, although it'll cost, and I seriously doubt enough people will pony up for it to make it worth... [stop]
Bob,
Eventhought Zeev says time cannot run, in regards to iHub it is moving at a much greater speed than you and Matt expected, and was prepared for. This growth is welcomed and ensures that iHub and Silicon Investor will still be standing years from now, but this places an accelerated timeframe where you and Matt must organize SI & iHub using a structure so that new personnel brough in can handle the current work load you and Matt are now are doing on a personnel level, but they will not be as owners able to resolve conflicts using avenues available to you and Matt, but only within a structure that currently is not fully built to handle such activity.
The EDIG, IDCC and now the WAVX outcry for a private board today signals the most critical structure absent from iHub, that by chance years ago was designed into Silicon Investor thru the introduction of Moderated boards where this person can exclude any poster by removing their privilege to post.
For sure iHub's ability to remain a seperate investment board web site distinct from SI, and supply another revenue stream to hasten the wealth you and Matt obtain requires that a different between SI & iHub remain in the philosophically sense so that both can sustain and generate growth by an offer to do implementation to satisfy very different approaches to manage the rules upon posters can interact with another, while having near identical interface and functionality.
Bottom line is that people on SI and iHub are no different, and each needs outlets to handle their Trials & Turbulations.
On SI the EDIG, IDCC and WAVX conflicts are handled thru the exclusion of posters rights on the board, but the ability to post remains for those excluded by creation on another board of same trading symbol.
Since iHub allows only one board per company, this design creates a seperation of philosophical approach needed to make SI & iHub different, and the exclusion of posters not allowed on iHub contribute to this difference, a method to resolve the conflicts noted by EDIG, IDCC and WAVX must be made into the structure of iHub sooner than later based on that time factor not simply running, but will soon run away, the time, and leave you and Matt unable to catch up and capture it and deal with it :o)
Needed is to identify the conflict.
Churak has itemized it very well, as copied into the start of this post, along with your concerns business wise.
My suggestion has been posted many times on this board.
Rather than read it again for the first time, the gotmilkSpeak, here is a recent babble #msg-931500 that PLEASE DO NOT click into, but try this using Colleen's fully charged translator.
Posted by: gotmilk In reply to: IH Admin [Matt] Date: 4/18/2003 ... this is something, I think, is worth a "test" and THEN discussing as it goes... ... have those Moderators on [EDIG, IDCC and WAVX] decide which two or three posters have received the most votes to be bannished from the board, and the IH Admin will decide if it has reached a level equal to the EDIG, IDCC and WAVX levels to present a Clear & Present Danger to iHub, and if so then these few members will have their profile modified ONLY by the IH Admin to prevent them from posting on that board. In parallel it is required that a Shadow board named XXX_Shadow be open to all without anyone being a moderator, aka no deletions. Note: XXX is the same symbol of the board in question for a fix. This way the folks that went to the original EDIG board remain on the one with the "history" and are free on them hot button pushers, while everyone is free to go "nuts" on the shadow board. To me its Matt having his cake and eating it too since those hot button pushers will post on the shadow board and enough of those that are screaming to Matt to remove these hot button pushers will post on both boards, eventually the shadow board will become the high volume leader and mimic the current EDIG board in chaos, but without the right of anyone to complain :o)