For instance you were recently under the wrong impression that McBride was an Officer/Director of SEVU, which he's NOT, since February... I know that and so do the Directors of the thread...
Actually, though my knowing this is irrelevant, I know that he's not an officer but was. Makes him a relevant topic.
How do you know it's Libel?... Because the Chairperson is familiar with the stock, while you're NOT...
Am I the only one who shuddered at reading that?
While I'm certain there can be no doubt you know SEVU far better than I do, that's a particularly broad paint brush that's best left unused.
If I wanted to discuss INTC and couldn't find an INTC thread, I'd probably create one. Does that mean I know everything about the company and I should be trusted to determine what's true and untrue that's posted to that thread and delete things I "know" aren't true?
Or to use an example that's not even hypothetical, are you aware of a current discussion in which the chairman of another OTCBB thread maintains that there are never short positions in OTCBB stocks and has been deleting some posts telling him he's wrong about that? I swear, I'm not making this up.
Do you see why I have a problem with the notion of "trust the chairman because he knows what's true and false."?
Or to use another hypothetical example, suppose the CEO of a company wants to unload his stock. He assumes an alias, doesn't disclose his position, and creates a thread to discuss the company so he can pump up the price and volume enough to unload his position. Suppose he and other would-be sellers all join in and start posting all the rosy things about the company.
Not terribly hypothetical, really, because it happens all the time. It can happen here or on any other site. I'm powerless to do anything about it (unless specific rules are broken like spam, multiple accounts, and personal attacks).
In those situations, the only people who have any power to stop those things or to minimize the effects are other posters. Which is as it should be. I know a thing or two about the market and generally know a scam when I see one, but it shouldn't be my role to thwart them. And, yes, I feel I also recognize "crying wolf" at something that's not really the scam it's made out to be. But, I don't know everything. And my opinions about a company don't and shouldn't enter into any administrative decision I make.
But let's add something to this scenario: A site on which the above people can control the discussion by removing posts they say are "false". If someone posts "The CEO is using message boards to hype this stock so he can unload it" and the chairman (remember, he's the CEO in this scenario) removes it because it's "libel", does the deletion stand because "the chairman knows best"? The statement was true, but can't be easily proven or backed up with links.
It is my opinion that in exactly the same way my opinions about a company shouldn't enter into admin decisions, that should also be the case with chairmen.
Do we entrust chairmen to make calls we don't entrust (and rightly so) to site administration just because they were the ones who created the threads?
I believe very strongly that this should not be the case.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
