OK Matt,
Constructive criticism it is.
1st with the exception of GB all of those on the list left because they felt they have been disrespected by either you or Bob or both. Like it or not, you and Bob are tied to the same chain. And whether it's fair or not to do so, people are going to hold you accountable for Bob's sins and vice versa. My comments are for both of you. Believe it or not, Bob's final commentary on our last exchange (though private) actually gives me reason to believe that things can be different.That is why I included that little tagline at the end of my previous message...
Sometimes it is not enough to avoid evil...sometimes you must avoid even the appearance of evil.
You and Bob both give the "appearance of evil" when you dismiss a suggestion with an insulting or flippant remark. You also disrespect users when you completely ignore their comments. These were what specifically caused Poet to depart here and caused my own diminished participation. This behavior has continued and expanded. This is IMO, the number one challenge that IH management must overcome. Every time either of you post a belittling comment to a user (any user, even joemoney) you give the appearance of disrespecting users. You and Bob have done this so often in the last few months that your recent "I don't care" comment takes on a different, more insidious meaning in the eyes of your readers than perhaps you intended.
It's a mindset thing. I understand clearly that this site belongs to you and Bob, and that you can do as you wish with it. Even to the extreme of enforcing a non-sensical rule. I do believe, however that you do understand the second part of this equation, that without users your site is worthless. That you must attract and keep quality users here at the site. The easiest way to do that is to remember "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"
Would you want a site admin trying to humiliate you into leaving a site? or bait you into a violation so that he has an excuse to terminate you?
Some things, while you may not like them, you just have to put up with if you want to attract and keep quality users. It has to do with "the appearance of "being fair". If a user appears to be getting shafted by management just because they don't like his/her style, then other users wonder "What happens to me if they decide I'm not doing things the way they want?". Special "rules" for certain posters can also cause users to ask that same question. You have in place some excellent tools for dealing with troublemakers and you can use them well. Don't get caught in the trap of trying to control what gets posted on the site. To do so you'd end up on one side or another, because you cannot force people to always choose the middle of the road. Let the community decide what is acceptable or not, if you listen, they'll tell you. In simple terms they want a place where they can post without fear of being mistreated...by anyone, including the management.
In general you have that, but there are a few cracks in the image, and it appears that management would prefer to dismiss them and proceed with it's own agenda, whatever that may be.
Whenever management gives the appearance of being inconsistent in enforcing the rules it does have and does not persistently enforce those same rules, management then opens the door to the interpretation that it is biased, unfair and therefore unsafe in the eyes of users.
It's not a matter of who you go head to head with...it's HOW you do it. Both you and Bob have shown errors in judgement in the HOW lately.
The Bird of Prey
PS I don't expect perfection, but the current situation is nowhere within sight of perfect. It really isn't even acceptable IMB, but there is a slim hope that things can be turned around, with the possibility of getting closer to the Utopian Ideal than ever before.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
