Replies to post #22351 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[NoMoDo]

Why not just allow private boards? If it is marked as such and everyone know it's purpose, then who could object to excluding others?

[SoxFan]

Matt, the first message boards I was involved with were in 1979. They used Vax Notes and were internal boards with the company that discussed everything from soccer to politics to engineering. There were some sensitive topics in which the poster had to get permission to join the group as the group was anonymous and one could not enter or view the discussion without permission. I set up several as they were client specific and on a need to know basis. However, there were social boards such for Drug dependency, life styles, etc. If there were users that wanted privacy maybe for a small fee to join the group (what ever additional maintenance costs needed) it could be password protected to join. That way people could do and say whatever they want and only the internal board moderators would be the judges.

Just a thought.

[sarals]

Tough questions. I always liked the idea that the stock boards that are specific to a particular stock were open to everyone as long as they observed TOS. Personally, I'd like to see this unchanged.

However, it might help to provide private groups for people. So, for instance, you might get a "InfoEDIG" board that only allows certain posters and focuses on just factual articles or "LoveEDIG" for those wanting to exclude nay sayers.

One thing though, I feel that if someone is posting personal attacks on someone else, those posts should be deleted regardless of what kind of board they are posted on.

And back to the original idea of public stock board, I like to say that I've learned alot by being on iHub boards that have controversy and where lively discussions occur. It's actually kind of fun as long as it doesn't get out of hand. I think your system here has taught alot of people how to be better posters, how to get their ideas across, keep thier focus on the issue and avoid attacking individuals for their differing opinions.

Look at the RANTS board. It's gone through some hard times and had gotten out of control, but as of late people on all sides are making a better effort and things are improving IMO.

I know you like quotes... here's one for you...

Nothing ever gets settled in this town…. a seething debating society in which the debate never stops, in which people never give up, including me. And so that's the atmosphere in which you administer.
George P. Shultz

[Cassandra]

Matt: I'm not sure where you are going with this "higher level of banning" concept. Since you specifically mentioned me in your post, am I to understand that you are again revisiting whether or not you the moderator should be able to banish me even if I do not break the rules?

Also, what evidence do you have that there is no intent to scam others, pump the stock or misleading shareholder by those who want to eliminate contrary points of view or the correction of misrepresented facts? IMO, that element very definitely exists on that board.

When a stock becomes as illiquid as EDIG is, the motive to keep "everyone else" invested is increased since even relatively small sell-offs can cause a major drop in the share price. Additionally, with a company that relies on sales of freshly minted stock to stay in business, there is a motive to get others to buy the stock since there is always a certain supply for sale.

In the end, you may decide to capitulate to the demands of penny stock touts and naive investors who believe the myth that only paid bashers criticize their stock. If you do, you no longer have a "discussion," but a tout board.

An analogy could be made to a discussion board about cigarette smoking. The tobacco companies would like to suppress information about the health hazards of smoking and those addicted to cigarettes would rather not hear the bad news about these proven hazards. If you reverse your position and begin to allow "banning" of certain members because they have a contrary point of view (often the more truthful and accurate one), you would be taking a similar action as banning those who would post about the health hazards of smoking on a smoking discussion board.