Replies to post #35196 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[Snackman]

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".

What exactly do you want and mean?

[Phil(Hot Rod Chevy)]

Bob,

If you decide to implement a private board feature, I would recommend that not only must one pay to post there, but also to read the bull____.

Have fun,
Phil

[Dimension]

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...

[gotmilk]

Yes Bob, You can have your Churak & eat it too.

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)

This solution uses Bob'nLogic in reverse :o)

Doug