Replies to post #20649 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[Lownumba]

Are you suggesting that only "bashers" are guilty of these infractions? Churak's point is that the policy applies to longs, shorts, hypers, and bashers alike.

[Churak]

this is what you wrote:

I had been under the definite impression that iHub was created for stock promotors and that's why the "zero tolerance" for bashers rule existed.

That is what I addressed. You spoke about iHub in general. If you have negative facts that are verifiable post them. If the post gets removed by the COB, you can appeal to ADMIN ie MATT. If that continues ie legitimate posts removed & then reinstated by iHub ADMIN, there is a good possibility that the COB will be removed as COB from that board. I have seen that happen. I am not saying that will or will not happen on a specific board ie EDIG...I am telling you iHub policy & what I have seen.

[Churak]

FactorFiction:

You referred me to an EDIG post:

Current iHub EDIG Board Policy:

We have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy on personal attacks, disruptive posts and spam. Please avoid any confrontational messages; let the Chairman system rid the board of that -- by doing so, the board stays focused on EDIG and not 'personalities'.

I don't see the word basher in there. That is typical of how you distort facts...omission. You have shown your true colors here, doll.

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

Their putting that in a message on the board does not make it a "rule" or even remotely enforceable. It's just another message.

Unless it comes from Matt, it's simply not a rule.

At the time they posted that message (before my time) the site philosophy was a bit different, and CoB's were allowed more autonomy in setting up their own rules. No longer the case and hasn't been for a long time. Since before I came back aboard.

Edit: Upon re-reading it (Thanks, Churak), I don't see the word "basher" in there. I'm a bit surprised at myself for having only glanced at the post and assumed it said so only because you said it did. That's really not my style.

I'll grant you that "disruptive posts" is subject to interpretation and the definition has been abused in the past, but that's not the case these days.