Replies to post #22751 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

My quick take on that is the majority of the traffic would move to that "private" board and the person, usually one who has paid for largely unfettered access to the site, would be left posting to themselves on an abandoned board that people won't read because they haven't figured out how to use either our software-provided filtering or their own internal filtering mechanism.

Or they'd still be getting shouted down by people who just don't want their posts existing without being "appropriately" shouted down and discredited.

Keep in mind that this is an extension of "filtering" as it was discussed some time back. That we were making it a non-premium feature on a trial basis on assurances it would completely solve the problem and with the understanding it was likely to go back to being a premium feature.

It didn't solve the problem. Obviously. It's failed so miserably that it's tough to make a case for even a limited version of it being available for free.

I'm equally convinced that not only would "private boards" cause a new set of problems, they would prove to be another example of wasted effort. They'd "solve" nothing. They'd make a lot of people happy, but the problem they'd supposedly address wouldn't be solved and we'd take on thornier problems in the process.

I'm not claiming to have the solution to the "problem". I'm not sure one exists. In fact, I'm pretty certain one doesn't.

[JimLur]

Great post and understanding of the situation.

This I think says it all.

"I can name a handful of people on the IDCC board who point out the negatives of the equity, and are welcomed with open arms. They do it in a balanced way, aren't blind to one side of the other. They are welcomed. I like those type people. They can acknowledge a positive and a negative and *discuss* it."

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

I could be wrong, but I don't think what Jim's trying to say or do smacks of protecting people from themselves or blocking out dissenting views.

I strongly agree, but *only* in his case. Plug anyone but Jim into the equation and see what you get. Though I think I know one person who would be excluded eventually by what he's proposing, if you throw that out, it'd work fine because it's Jim. He's much like Mani at the AMD board on SI. Fair-minded and would handle the responsibilities correctly. Except for one of the exclusions I can almost guarantee would happen. One of the people "targeted" in that discussion is also someone I personally find extremely annoying and I don't welcome their presence, though I won't say who.

Now imagine Franchwa Goelo in such a position of control. Who would've been banned from posting about ZSUN, SEVU, BLPT, etc? What would've happened to the majority of "serious investors" in those companies as a result? Would we have enabled their financial slaughter? This is the "slippery slope" I alluded to earlier.

Actually, if it hasn't already been done, I'd love to see a survey on the IDCC board to the effect of "If we could exclude Onceinalifetime from posting to this board, should we?" And a separate survey for each other person many in the group would like to see removed.

[gotmilk]

Warning: This is only a test of the emergency system.

Please leave your seat and hide under your desk....

Message In Reply To:
... there are simply some people, that large groups,
just don't like. Not because of what they are saying,
but because of just how [they] are [presenting it]...
... like the EDIG board [*large*] groups of people [to] gather
and discuss IDCC without the interference of one or two people.
...
If we have... that want a board that can block out 1 person,
we are stupid not to provide it for them. For whatever reason.
But let's figure in the moral variable....
If a board is large enough, you keep the "main" board
and spinoff a "private" board with blocking facilities.
What's wrong with that?
There's a free, public board and a closed-end exlusive....
...
... this is something, I think, is worth a "test"
and THEN discussing as it goes...
Food for though, Mr. President.
[end.]
(or)
Archived Sent Messages for: gotmilk
Private Message
Sent By: gotmilk
Date: 4/15/2003
Yes i agree that "their fear" is the focal point...
I'am sure we can find example large & small, simple & complex
in all of us in every instance of living on Earth :o)
Question about the EDIG board that Sheriff Matt is trying to solve.
I believe you are now the board moderator.
My recent input on the Q & A board in the form of advice to Matt
in less than 50 words is to have those 2 or 3 highly skilled folks
like (i forget the names) Once?, Cass---? that know how to push
the hot buttons of many others using methods that causes Matt
to defend them... ok, over 50 words... my advice to Matt was that
these 2 or 3 people be ban from the EDIG board(the original one)
and a shadow board EDIG_Shadow be open to all without anyone
being a moderator, aka no deletions. 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)
But Matt & Bob want a logical & rational solution,
not one like mine using reverse-logic :o)
If you wish you can forward this PM reply to anyone you wish to.
Doug
(plus)
Private Message
Sent By: gotmilk
Date: 4/16/2003
ok, and while i agree with your "the public board should
only ban those that are banned from the entire site..."
i agree yes, but only under situations where there is
an even & fair playing field for all, and as i mentioned
in my posts to Matt & Bob one or two months ago
on the Q & A board, there is a Trojan Horse on iHub,
which has hoodwinked & buffooned & dunderheaded Matt :o)
but,
"time will tell"
a simple search on my iHub profile for "voices"
should explain my writing style as others have "questioned" it.
also,
please do a simple search on my iHub profile for "Trojan"
if you wish to re-read my post to Matt & Bob.
D:oug

[sophist]

To Matt: I believe you put your finger on the primary problem. As Jimlur says, why call this website Investor's Hub? As the Header of the IDCC Board implies, it is intended to be a place where people of good will can find relevant information and useful discussion about the investment value of IDCC. There is no prohibition against discussing the weaknesses and risks of IDCC, and many board members do so in reasoned ways that give proper balance to the overall discussion (rmarchma comes to mind with his extensive list of "concerns and weaknesses").

The problem arises, it seems to me, when someone comes along who has no investment interest in IDCC, and serves no other function than to "badmouth" IDCC with a singleminded focus, who "mocks" those (or the views of those) who defend the value of IDCC (without necessarily engaging in "profane or personally insulting language" that would have him jailed), who never acknowledges valid reasons for investing in IDCC, and frequently comes to the defense of a different stock altogether. In effect, his posts do little more than provide the function of a "full disclosure of risks" or a "safe harbor statement" repeated over and over again. Now there may be some benefit to being made aware of possible risks, but if a person is unwilling to ever acknowledge possible benefits and repeatedly tries to discredit discussions of such possible benefits, then you can see how this might be viewed by sincere investors as a great distraction and frustration of their desire for constructive discussion, and an attempt to undermine the purpose for which the board was created in the first place. In effect, it tries to turn upside down the formal SEC and other statements provided by the company IDCC itself, by trying to make the "full disclosure of risk" as more credible and believable than the company statement of policy and goals and achievements. If the company believed this to be the case they would be obligated to so inform its shareholders. The implication is that this offensive poster is maligning the management of IDCC, and confusing the minds of board members in their efforts to make a balanced assessment of benefits and risks for an investment in IDCC.

In my opinion, "free speech" should not permit someone to subvert the purpose for which the board was created in the first place. If someone has an "agenda" contrary to the purpose of the board, it seems to me to be self-defeating to permit such a person of "ill will" towards the purpose of the board to exercise "free speech" in a community organized as a voluntary association to fulfill that shared purpose. Does such a person make a useful contribution to the board that outweighs his harmful effects? I doubt it. He does not advance the discussion creatively or constructively. He is like a broken record repeating essentially a disclosure of risks and in a way that is in your face.

Sophist