Replies to post #22767 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[Mattu]

>>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.<<

You might have missed my edits to my original post you are replying to.

I pointed out that this needs to be:

1. On a trial, test basis. As in, not a surefire offering to the site, but something we are TESTING because there is a significant uproar for it. Then, at least we "know" and aren't dealing in hypothetical situations.
2. Limited to my approval (in other words, little/no OTC boards would have one)
3. I see only two possible boards it could be used on, one definitely

As you said, much of this is only a serious thought in my mind because Jim is the one pushing the idea and in charge of it (along with some help he has picked out).

MB

[greg s]

Bob,

re: He's much like Mani at the AMD board on SI.

I certainly hope not. My years of experience on the AMD-Mod board is exactly why I have my boxers in a wad over this whole thing.

[JimLur]

"He's much like Mani at the AMD board on SI. Fair-minded and would handle the responsibilities correctly."

This is probably true and never entered my mind. Many probably would abuse such privledges which in fact could hurt IHUB's reputation.

Maybe IHUB could have a waiting period before granting a board the right?

I just explained to my wife what we are discussing and she said why don't you just ignore the person?

[Corp_Buyer]

Bob, what is the difference in your mind between a "naysayer" and a crapper or grafitti artist that would be banned from your house? If you do percieve a difference, then please codify it in the TOU.

On the IDCC board, we have a case in point - a paid up member that you seem convinced is a "naysayer" while many other interested folks firmly believe from experience over time both at IHub and prior boards that he is a crapper to the detriment of newbies, the board, and IHub. Perhaps there is an honest difference of opinion here, but you do agree this poster is "personally ... extremely annoying and I don't welcome their presence".

Well then, when and under what circumstances will you take some executive action? Executive action is needed e.g.:

* ban the crapper from any boards he disrupts by executive order;
* empower carefully selected IHub board managers (e.g. Jim L.) to make the tough judgements for the overall benefit of their thread.
* Revise the TOU to limit crappers while not limiting naysayers i.e. draw the line somewhere/somehow.
* and/or some other options TBD.

For the record, so it is clear where I am coming from, I:

* agree with the public board model at IHub;
* want IHub to succeed;
* do not want private boards;
* see a difference between naysayers (which are welcome) and crappers that work within the TOU but grafitti the house and are not welcome;
* believe that crappers can and do ruin boards for newbies seeking valid information, rational *discussion*, and analysis that is BOTH positive AND negative;
* think the TOU is inadequate in that it does not distinguish between crappers and naysayers;
* believes filtering is useful feature for all if used sparingly, but filtering is not a substitute for detecting and eradicating crappers;
* I believe more action is needed and overdue to limit the few (maybe only 1-2) crappers on the IDCC board.

Regards,
Corp_Buyer