Views on the Moderation on this Forum (started by STMOD)

[iceman]

I'm sure Roger can do his own bidding?

I´m sure he can. Roger is a valuable poster although I do not agree with his view on HNZ. But I sincerely hope he has not been banned this time for anything he has posted on this thread as it seems to me that his recent posts are simply his views and comments put in a non offensive way. Surely he has been banned for comments elsewhere !?

This thread was actually started by STMOD with this post (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?10436-Views-on-the-Moderation-on-this-Forum&p=599980&viewfull=1#post599980). However some posts copied in from elsewhere have an earlier time and thus appear 'earlier' on this thread.

[iceman]

I see Paper Tiger has also been banned and apparently both of them for the comments on this thread. We may not agree with the comments but they are hardly offensive.
I think both bans are unwarranted and hope the Moderators lift both bans quickly.

[Meister]

I feel the need to express my extreme disappointment regarding these bans. They were unwarranted and the discussion in this thread was civil compared with what goes on in the PEB thread.

I hold HNZ, and though I do not post much I appreciate all the conversation that goes on within this thread. The recent discussions were on topic, not personal, and hardly offensive. Opposing views are extremely important for both holders and non-holders to read, digest, and keep open minds about. Requesting evidence for statements posters make should also not be discouraged (and that seems to be the only crime Paper Tiger has committed here).

[blackcap]

Bloody hell! really banned for the banter between Roger and PT?? What is this site coming to? They were both expressing different opinions and that is what makes these sites so valuable to the investors and potential investors. If we all agreed with each other... well no point in coming at all.

[mickey2]

I have always enjoyed the thoughts of Roger and Paper Tiger on various threads - and learned from them. Sometimes it's good to face the challenge of reconciling opposing points of view! Hope to see them both back soon!
Disc: Hold HNZ

[LAC]

Bloody hell! really banned for the banter between Roger and PT?? What is this site coming to? They were both expressing different opinions and that is what makes these sites so valuable to the investors and potential investors. If we all agreed with each other... well no point in coming at all.

I was actually enjoying the opposing views....maybe the moderators can let us know which posts got them banned?
How long are they banned for? They were quite active members too:(

[gv1]

Bloody hell! really banned for the banter between Roger and PT?? What is this site coming to? They were both expressing different opinions and that is what makes these sites so valuable to the investors and potential investors. If we all agreed with each other... well no point in coming at all.

Ditto!!! Yeah.

[pierre]

I was actually enjoying the opposing views....maybe the moderators can let us know which posts got them banned?
How long are they banned for? They were quite active members too:(

I have no problem with posters having opposing views, but what does become incredibly tiresome is the endless repetition of the message. I enjoy most of the contributions from Roger and PT but I'm also enjoying a day or two's respite from Roger's constant bagging of HNZ (and the constant pumping of AIR).

Discl: Hold both (HNZ and AIR that is - not Roger and PT!)

[kizame]

And I have been banned for saying what i think of the moderators,I still hold that same view,If you can't have some lively debate on here why have a forum.
I actually don't agree with Roger but that shouldn't stop him from being able to freely express his views,and PT is a great contributor,enjoy all his posts.
Come on moderators,get with the times,free speech and all that,nobody has been abused.

[trader_jackson]

If they need people to ban, just look at the nonsense and personal 'pot shots' that people 'talk up' on the PEB thread...

[Baa_Baa]

ST is a kumbaya compared to 2004 when I joined up, oh man were there some tough customers! I think the sad thing with PC'ing the forum is that it seems like more of the exceptional highly respected people are leaving permanently than others. Jmho, the old days were awful and good riddance but I think the new days are close to be borderline PC vs why bother.

[percy]

I have no problem with posters having opposing views, but what does become incredibly tiresome is the endless repetition of the message. I enjoy most of the contributions from Roger and PT but I'm also enjoying a day or two's respite from Roger's constant bagging of HNZ (and the constant pumping of AIR).

Discl: Hold both (HNZ and AIR that is - not Roger and PT!)

I think that is what is at the heart of the matter.
Why bother posting ,why bother doing research,why bother trying to have a sensible adult conversation?
Unfortunately more people just can't be bothered.
People having an argument on ST may be entertaining,but those who are trying to make a contributuion end up saying "I can't be bothered".
To those who enjoy a good argument,get off the fence and try and make a useful contribution.Be bothered.

[janner]

I think that is what is at the heart of the matter.
Why bother posting ,why bother doing research,why bother trying to have a sensible adult conversation?
Unfortunately more people just can't be bothered.
People having an argument on ST may be entertaining,but those who are trying to make a contributuion end up saying "I can't be bothered".
To those who enjoy a good argument,get off the fence and try and make a useful contribution.Be bothered.

One has to be charitable..

Share Trader Forum...

Can be addictive :-)))

[janner]

That has sent some scurrying through their thoughts :-)))))

[janner]

It must also be presented..

Share forum is the best value that is available to so many for so little..

THE BEST !!..

[tim23]

I´m sure he can. Roger is a valuable poster although I do not agree with his view on HNZ. But I sincerely hope he has not been banned this time for anything he has posted on this thread as it seems to me that his recent posts are simply his views and comments put in a non offensive way. Surely he has been banned for comments elsewhere !?

I got stood down for a week in August wasn't really sure why but didn't get too upset was lying on a Indonesian beach and being warm!

[winner69]

Stating a view that is contrary to the popular view is not 'arguing'. Many of those posts are valuable contributions.

All insights should be welcomed which will enrich our knowledge of the company - that's the basis of good fundamental analysis

What any individual does with those insights is their choice. They may care to ignore them but please let others take them on board if they think them worthwhile. Not having these discussions will deprive them of that knowledge.

[gv1]

Stating a view that is contrary to the popular view is not 'arguing'. Many of those posts are valuable contributions.

All insights should be welcomed which will enrich our knowledge of the company - that's the basis of good fundamental analysis

What any individual does with those insights is their choice. They may care to ignore them but please let others take them on board if they think them worthwhile. Not having these discussions will deprive them of that knowledge.


Ditto mate!!. I don't understand, no one offended anyone. If it continues i don't think the site will last long!

[Baa_Baa]

Stating a view that is contrary to the popular view is not 'arguing'. Many of those posts are valuable contributions.

All insights should be welcomed which will enrich our knowledge of the company - that's the basis of good fundamental analysis

What any individual does with those insights is their choice. They may care to ignore them but please let others take them on board if they think them worthwhile. Not having these discussions will deprive them of that knowledge.

Well put winner, censoring discussion and debate will end ST. We don't want it to end do we.

[RGR367]

Has there been an incident or a scenario where our ST MOD explained why someone is banned? Otherwise, I say that ST MOD is either of the accounting and/or auditing profession and got tickled badly when PT and Roger were questioning about accounting/auditing procedures :) Yeah, banning both sane and prolific contributors for something so trivial to me is hard sometimes to comprehend.

[iceman]

Yes RGR367 I would have hoped (and still do) that with the numerous posters voicing their concern and disagreement with these decisions, that an explanation and reconsideration maybe forthcoming. I hope the moderators reevaluate their decision.

[minimoke]

There have been times I've felt I have probably pushed some boundaries but still haven't earnt myself a ban yet. What they posted most likely really pushed the Mods buttons. I suppose we have to remember this forum isnt a democracy and we are here as guests of the forum owners. Out stay our welcome and theres going to be a consequence. Is there a guide on what activity earns what type of ban? Defamatory posts, abuse of Members, abuse of Mods/ Owners, profanity earn what sort of ban? Do you get a warning shot across the bow before a ban? One month seems like quite a long time, what about PT? Seems like BFM did something outrageously bad since he seems to be gone forever.

[skid]

To be fair,Ive been banned and did get a reason so guess its not all the ''what for'' scenario--I personally think there are occasions when the back and forth does get sidetracked a bit--me incl.
I personally feel pretty much anything is fair game about a particular company ,especially if many have been let down,but attacking posters should have some limits. We have all seen situations where it seems those limits have not really been reached,but unless we all want to pay a membership fee and start our own,its ''Cest La Vie''
I do think however that if people are going to state their views ,they should stay,not erased if a poster decides to call it a day(sometimes to return as new posters)--It screws up threads and may encourage some to think before posting.
IMO its all about attachment--the more attachment ,the more emotion--this is hard to avoid if you become the ''spokesman'' for a company. Some companies have got a sweet deal with all that free work done for them in the form of research and PR.
Having said that,
Roger and PT certainly dont spring to my mind when I think of trouble makers

PS -I dont think posters who have left have always done so because of bans--Many times it could have been more for the same reason the bans happened (or heaps of other reasons)

[skid]

I got stood down for a week in August wasn't really sure why but didn't get too upset was lying on a Indonesian beach and being warm!

Yea they shouted me a trip to Indonesia as well--They did all banned members didnt they? :):)

[Halebop]

...I suppose we have to remember this forum isnt a democracy and we are here as guests of the forum owners. Out stay our welcome and theres going to be a consequence...

The flipside is the owners will receive no value if the contributors and readers stop coming. I personally like the debates, they make me think. Even the heated ones don't worry me as long as they play the ball and don't get too personal.

[BlackPeter]

Oh dear - how do you start a post on the sad news that Roger and Paper Tiger have been banned?

Maybe like that:

(1) It is good that this forum is moderated. Operating on forums without moderation feels like Wild West - a killer (or at least a troll) can wait behind every tree. Given that the human species produces unfortunately a certain percentage of highly unpleasant people who thrive on bullying, harassing and annoying others (particularly if they can do this under the cloak of anonymity) am I glad that STMOD tries to protect us to a certain degree against these people.

(2) I don't think that STMOD has an easy life ... and it is unlikely that they have the time to assess every post in context. I assume as well that they mainly read posts which are flagged to them. The result is that some people get away with bad behaviour (not everybody flags every slightly abrasive post) and others might get time for something others get away with. I am rather sure that STMOD tries to do their best, but I don't think that he / she / they have the time and resources to be absolutely fair (and hey - this is a free forum, i.e. we users don't even pay for this service ...).

(3) I consider both Paper Tiger as well as Roger as extremely valuable contributors to this forum. I did read the last pages of the HNZ thread (which I assume are the reason for the bans) - and have no view on the arguments (don't hold, i.e. quite relaxed). I think I could see a bit more emotion than normally in at least one of PT's posts (though there are many posters who regularly get away with more ...) and yes, Roger was somewhat pointed towards the Tiger. Probably a bad day (some days it is better not to post or to review the post before pressing the post button).

(4) Personally - I value both of them very high as contributors of this forum ... and am glad to see that PT is back. I hope as well that Roger can come back (and still wants to come back) ... and I am sure, that these two can sort out any remaining differences without the need for bans. Could we get them to start a "restorative justice" process (I know, they are somewhat distant to each other ... otherwise a beer or two could help) and just report back?

(5) And if I have (one or two or three ...) free wishes to the moderator before being banned myself for speaking out ...

* it would be great if we could use the measure of banning sparingly ... and preferably at least initially only for short periods. Many of the banned posters I remember over time used to add a lot of colour and valuable information. Glad that many returned, though unfortunately some didn't

* I have seen in other forums (e.g. hotcopper) that moderators briefly explain to the forum the reason for pulling posts and for bans. I think this would be a great idea, if we could implement that here as well. It would help everybody (highly educational) and might reduce the need for future bans.

* Now this one is difficult and obviously based on pure speculation ... but as indicated earlier - I assume that STMOD becomes mainly active when posts are reported. Just wondering - we probably all remember some kids at school who liked to sneak something to the teacher. Obviously this activity can reflect on a true grievance - but it might be as well the desire to control the activities of others ... and if some posters don't like the arguments of others, than they might use STMOD the same way they used to use their teachers previously. Just wondering, whether this was what happened on the PEB thread and now on the HNZ thread? I can't really imagine that either PT or Roger (the only ones effected in this case) did complain to the moderator (but who am I to know). Would be a pity if we have a snitch or two in the forum ... but maybe something the moderator might have an eye on. Its not always the child snitched on who caused the problem ...

OK - so if STMOD still sees me fit to continue ... I actually do like this forum - and I hope that we all can soon enjoy again not just PT's but as well Rogers posts.

Ah yes - and again ... Thank you STMOD for doing this unloved job ... its one of these things - we need it, but it is impossible to make everybody always happy!

[iceman]

A great post BP and I suspect it fairly sums up how many of us feel. I definitely agree with all of it.
It is important to acknowledge that this is indeed a free site and the moderators have a difficult job that needs to be rspected. But I sincerely do hope we get both the posters in question back pronto.

[winner69]

BP - you used snitch, a word I haven't seen for years

I snitched yesterday

For the first time ever I used the Report Post button. Yes I snitched

The post (on this thread) I snitched on was the most vitriolic personal attack on a fellow forum member I have seen. It really was bad

Fortunately it was taken down, presumably by an admin person because my post suggesting the poster himself delete it was also deleted.

If I ran this site I would have banned the poster for good. But he seems to have got off scot free as his guru status remains intact

At least being a snitch meant who the post was aimed at didn't see it.

[Baa_Baa]

Right now there's about 4x as many viewers on ST as members.

That's consistent with my observations, sometimes that ratio is a lot higher, but around 4-5 times viewers to members on a thread is typical. Taking into account that some much smaller proportion of members actually post stuff, then combined, the non-posting members and the viewers make up the vast proportion of those who 'use' ST. They must see some value in it ... so where is the value? It must be from those who post stuff here, otherwise where else could it be? Nowhere. The value comes from those who post.

The point of this is that by banning those in the small proportion of members who actually post, and when those members are generally unselfish contributors, and some who are just plainly enlightened and capable investors, then the risk is that those members vote with their delete button and exit ST, some taking all their posts with them (actually they have to ask the STMod to delete them and their posts, but you get the point).

Then of course ST's value diminishes accordingly. So it must be a very fine line between ST allowing free speech, albeit at times with baiting, vitriol, repetition, argument, ramping, down ramping, etc ... and all the other no-no's, thereby strictly banning the much smaller minority of posters who actually bother to share what they choose to share.

Amongst those small minority who do have the quals and willingness to share, there are the gems that keep bringing us all back to ST. Let's not ban them too quickly, or for too long, or the 'royal we' will quickly find other avenues to discuss our passion for investing. And there are many alternatives.

[minimoke]

If I ran this site I would have banned the poster for good. But he seems to have got off scot free as his guru status remains intact
.
To save my good name being dragged in the mud it wasn't me!

Edit: Can I add Couta's name to the list. i miss his advice.

[Crackity]

However there is obviously a degree of dissatisfaction with recent events and this feedback will be taken into consideration in the future.

STMOD

Thanks for a more detailed response Mr STMOD - I think everyone realizes being STMOD is a fairly thankless task.....

will we be seeing Rog back soon? ( just asking - no offense intended! :) )

[percy]

This post is from STMOD and does not represent the views of Vince or the Site owners.

Thank you all for your posts and private messages received so far expressing your views.

Not all the bans that happen on this site are by STMOD and at there is no intention of discussing individual bans.

Much as posters have different views of individual companies, forum members have different views of what are acceptable posts and behaviours and this does lead, at times, to moderators being in a no-win situation. Someone is unhappy whatever decision is made.

Moderators do not read every single post on this forum, though certain threads do at times get some attention, but in the main it is up to forum members to report posts that are considered inappropriate.
Moderators are also not necessarily in a position to respond quickly to such reports and patient is required before the report is either acted on or not. Also whilst it is considered a courtesy to reply to reports that are not acted on, this is not always practicable.

However there is obviously a degree of dissatisfaction with recent events and this feedback will be taken into consideration in the future.

STMOD
I think you must try harder.
Banning members without reading the thread is a hopeless situation.
You do yourself no credit,and let down Sharetrader site.
In this latest case you banned both Roger and Paper Tiger,while there was no cause to ban Paper Tiger,had you read the thread.
You did the same to me one time Roger baited me,and I questioned your judgementand.It would appear it has only been "good" members pointing out the errors of your ways, that both Paper Tiger and myself were quickly reinstated.
Had you read the threads, and followed conversations over the years, you would have realised the best moderator the site has had has been a poster.! That poster has been Paper Tiger, who has questioned a number of posters, when they have had their facts wrong,or have just lost the plot.
Banning Paper Tiger by mistake, just means your credibility is further lowered.
I would also point out I have not seen Paper Tiger post since his ban was lifted.
I would think you owe him an apology.

[percy]

This is disappointing, but illustrated how things can get out of hand quickly.

"Moderators do not read every single post on this forum" was meant to mean that the Moderators do not read every single post on this forum and not also mean that Moderators only read reported posts. I think we deserve a little more credit than that.

Otherwise as stated earlier there is no intention of discussing individual bans.

The intention is to move the debate forwards.

STMOD

I think we all would agree with your "intention to move the debate forward"and it is what a lot of us keep trying to achieve....??!!!

[Baa_Baa]

This is disappointing, but illustrated how things can get out of hand quickly.

"Moderators do not read every single post on this forum" was meant to mean that the Moderators do not read every single post on this forum and not also mean that Moderators only read reported posts. I think we deserve a little more credit than that.

Otherwise as stated earlier there is no intention of discussing individual bans.

The intention is to move the debate forwards.

STMOD

I agree, it is disappointing but healthy nevertheless, that at this juncture that a debate is sought.

Many might not realise that STMOD is multiple identities, some privileged members, another with ultimate influence. The small differences in 'current user title' is perhaps lost on some, perhaps many? Explaining that would be a good start, along with what the role and powers of a moderator really is.

My suggestion fwiw is an amnesty. That STMOD, the really angry guy, who decides ST online life and death, gives everyone in say the past year who has been banned or decided to leave an opportunity to return.

(I should add that STMOD, I can't tell which one(s), has been equally as hard on me four times [and I deserved most of them in hindsight] as he has been concerned for my well being!)

STMOD, you have their emails, invite them back, all of them, offering contrition and a definition of consequence. Restate the rules if it helps. Maybe those who are banned won't come back, maybe they will, I hope they will, all of them. We miss them, we miss the healthy debate, albeit sometimes heated. That's life, people have differing opinions, better to hear the opinion and debate it, sometimes battle it, than censor it forever.

ST now lacks a certain colour and vibrancy without those folk who have been around a long time, are very astute and in the past twelve months or so suffered the ignominy of being permanently banned, or banned frequently enough, or for sufficient time as to decide with the delete button.

Jmho, trying to progress the debate. Think amnesty, bring back the quality, and the colour.

BAA

[percy]

STMOD is right with "the intention to move the debate forwards. "
This last banning came about by Paper Tiger trying exactly to do this.
Years ago we had a poster,Dr.Who who used to post "I would never go near this dog". This sort of comment is very disappointing to the person who has spent a great deal of time researching a company,and putting forward solid reasons why this company is worth investing in.He never gave his reasons for why each company was a dog.He never "moved the debate forward."
Time and time again we have seen posters posting similar type posts.In fact on the HNZ thread I have pointed this out time and time again;yes HNZ will receive a banking licence,no HNZ will not need to raise more capital,no HNZ do not have a large exposure to dairying or Auckland property market,yes HNZ have researched the no deposit Holden promotion,
Yet every bit of bad news about dairying was posted on HNZ thread.We have been blessed lately with posters on that thread going back to their memory of GFC, while another poster retains his miss guided thoughts about the reason CSB joined in the formation of HNZ.Neither realise no depositor lost money with Marac,and CSB shareholders benefited by being part of a listed bank.
So an AMNESTY sounds fine,so long as we have a strong STMOD, who will in fact do as he says "move the debate forward".
Should this happen we will all benefit.
As a sidebar it is interesting to note banned BFM, has won this year's NZX stock picking contest,being up a massive 75.22%.That is skill,not luck,yet we are missing out with him sharing his knowledge.

[percy]

Positive negative share knocking.!!
The thread on ASX;"Dick Smith IPO."
This thread makes for interesting reading.
Posters Stranger Danger,Trader Jackson,Macduffy and Born2invest need to be thanked for their sage advice.
Would have saved any one who thought of investing in the Dick Smith IPO a lot of money.
A case of sharetrader working for the benefit of others.

[minimoke]

So I got my first serve from STMOD today and posts deleted. I’m OK with that - I’ve already said that is their right. But it has given me a first hand experience of Moderation so I feel I am much better qualified to post on this thread.

First up there is obviously no “natural justice” being applied by Moderators. It’s a simple concept. An bad poster gets a right to respond to accusations before sentence is passed. In my case I apparently strayed off topic (something I dispute) so that’s an immediate deletion of posts but I don’t get any right of reply even off line.

Next, what do we do if there is a dispute? I reckon I was generally on topic, STMOD disagrees. How about a function where STMOD crosses out the post (you know that rule line thing through text) to give a poster a warning shot as well as a chance to edit and amend. Also other posters get to see the type of post that transgresses and learns from others without repeating the mistakes.

And back to natural justice. What’s with the SDMOD being accuser, prosecution, Judge and executioner? Regardless of forum owners having rights, that’s a shed load of power to be wielding by one individual.

I have already said I like the idea of an amnesty (or was that post deleted as well). I’d also like a note against forum members profile showing how long they are banned for and when they can re enter the fray. For example “Roger “seems to have disappeared off the Member list - how about a note showing how long he is banned for – temporary or permanent. Obviously my suggestion on a date of return didn’t go down well since that post was deleted.

And finally how about having a precedent section – a section which shows posts that earnt a ban. It would help us understand limits and also describe the thresholds.

Oh and one last idea. Consistency. Given my posts have been deleted due to being off topic (or whatever reason) we should expect all posts that don’t meet that standard to have the same treatment. Time will tell.

[percy]

Well I think it is great we had our posts deleted as we had "lost focus" and moved "off topic."
I had a good chuckle to myself when some one added to my reputation for a post I posted on this thread.
[It was not STMOD].lol.

[minimoke]

Well I think it is great we had our posts deleted as we had "lost focus" and moved "off topic."
I had a good chuckle to myself when some one added to my reputation for a post I posted on this thread.
[It was not STMOD].lol.That may be so, but Forum rules only give a Mod the opportunity to delete posts if a rule is infringed. Those posts didn't infringe any rule as far as I can tell so the Mod is acting outside their authority. So to stay on topic I would like to see Mods acting with the rules - summarized below for reference. I dont see any rule that gives the Mod the right to delete something '"distracting from the important subject of this thread"

By accessing, using and posting material on Tarawera Publishing Ltd's ("Tarawera") share information web site ("Sharetrader"), you as the User agree to abide by the following terms, conditions and rules ("Agreement").While Tarawera invites Users to engage in open discussion and presentation of views on Sharetrader, Tarawera and Users agree to seven basic rules designed to maintain Sharetrader as an interesting, informative, and legally permissible forum:
1. Users will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of Sharetrader by other Users (for example, by harassing or threatening another participant of the message boards, including the use of expressions of bigotry, racism, sexism, hatred, or profanity);
2. Users will not use Sharetrader to conduct any activity that is illegal (such as misleading and deceptive conduct) or violates the rights of others, provide instructional information about illegal activities, or promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual;
3. Users will not use Sharetrader to advertise or sell products or services (including financial products and services such as securities) to others; or for spamming purposes to promote or encourage members to purchase products, services, or membership recruitment to others; doing so may incur a fee
4. Users will not post or transmit material that is libellous, defamatory, obscene, fraudulent, harmful, threatening, or abusive, that violates the property rights of others (including without limitation copyright or trademark), that violates the privacy or publicity right of others, or that is used to circumvent manufacturer-installed copy-protection devices, including digital watermarks and registration numbers for software programs;
5. Users will not post or disclose any personally identifiable information belonging to children or displaying material that exploits persons under 18 years of age;
6. Users will not impersonate another User or Tarawera staff member; and
7. User shall not post information on the site if they are a licensed investment adviser or representative of a licensed investment adviser.
Tarawera has no responsibility for the content of any material posted by Users and Users are individually liable for the accuracy and authenticity of their postings. User profiles and any content posted by Users contains the opinions and views of theirs or others and Tarawera is not responsible for such content. Users should also be aware that it may be difficult to identify and locate the person making postings therefore taking legal action may not be possible.
If a User violates this Agreement or if Tarawera believes in good faith that any portion of the material a User posts is infringing any copyrights or proprietary rights after Tarawera becomes aware of such breach, Tarawera reserves the right in its sole discretion to:
1. edit or delete in whole or in part such User's posted material appearing on Sharetrader;
2. refuse access to all or portions of Sharetrader to such User; and/or
3. terminate such User's right to access or use and/or membership.
4. Charge such User a spamming or advertising fee as follows;

[percy]

Is it true some of the members are on strike? Please clarify anyone in the know - I'd hate to be a scab! Solidarity Brothers....? :)

When is the strike due to start.?

[percy]

Already I believe thru the grapevine ;)

Must be a very local [Auckland] strike,as it has had no affect down here.!

[winner69]

That may be so, but Forum rules only give a Mod the opportunity to delete posts if a rule is infringed. Those posts didn't infringe any rule as far as I can tell so the Mod is acting outside their authority. So to stay on topic I would like to see Mods acting with the rules - summarized below for reference. I dont see any rule that gives the Mod the right to delete something '"distracting from the important subject of this thread"

By accessing, using and posting material on Tarawera Publishing Ltd's ("Tarawera") share information web site ("Sharetrader"), you as the User agree to abide by the following terms, conditions and rules ("Agreement").While Tarawera invites Users to engage in open discussion and presentation of views on Sharetrader, Tarawera and Users agree to seven basic rules designed to maintain Sharetrader as an interesting, informative, and legally permissible forum:
1. Users will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of Sharetrader by other Users (for example, by harassing or threatening another participant of the message boards, including the use of expressions of bigotry, racism, sexism, hatred, or profanity);
2. Users will not use Sharetrader to conduct any activity that is illegal (such as misleading and deceptive conduct) or violates the rights of others, provide instructional information about illegal activities, or promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual;
3. Users will not use Sharetrader to advertise or sell products or services (including financial products and services such as securities) to others; or for spamming purposes to promote or encourage members to purchase products, services, or membership recruitment to others; doing so may incur a fee
4. Users will not post or transmit material that is libellous, defamatory, obscene, fraudulent, harmful, threatening, or abusive, that violates the property rights of others (including without limitation copyright or trademark), that violates the privacy or publicity right of others, or that is used to circumvent manufacturer-installed copy-protection devices, including digital watermarks and registration numbers for software programs;
5. Users will not post or disclose any personally identifiable information belonging to children or displaying material that exploits persons under 18 years of age;
6. Users will not impersonate another User or Tarawera staff member; and
7. User shall not post information on the site if they are a licensed investment adviser or representative of a licensed investment adviser.
Tarawera has no responsibility for the content of any material posted by Users and Users are individually liable for the accuracy and authenticity of their postings. User profiles and any content posted by Users contains the opinions and views of theirs or others and Tarawera is not responsible for such content. Users should also be aware that it may be difficult to identify and locate the person making postings therefore taking legal action may not be possible.
If a User violates this Agreement or if Tarawera believes in good faith that any portion of the material a User posts is infringing any copyrights or proprietary rights after Tarawera becomes aware of such breach, Tarawera reserves the right in its sole discretion to:
1. edit or delete in whole or in part such User's posted material appearing on Sharetrader;
2. refuse access to all or portions of Sharetrader to such User; and/or
3. terminate such User's right to access or use and/or membership.
4. Charge such User a spamming or advertising fee as follows;

Mini - you seem to have killed all discussion / debate about STMod fairness or not

Is it game,set and match then

[BlackPeter]

Mini - you seem to have killed all discussion / debate about STMod fairness or not

Is it game,set and match then

Not sure whether it was Mini killing the discussion. I would have hoped to see Roger and PT by now back into action, but it appears STMOD does not desire to right past wrongs.

Regrettably we haven't heard either about an intention to improve the process moving forward. Begs the question: why bother to continue this discussion?

[Vince]

Ok, this is all new to me, haven't been around for the past two weeks.

With regards to bannings, going to be having a look at things to see what's happened to bring this about about. Not too sure why Roger & PT have been banned but I'll look into that also.

In the interim I've taken the bans off both Roger & PT till I work out what has happened.

Cheers,
Vince

[Crackity]

Ok, this is all new to me, haven't been around for the past two weeks.

With regards to bannings, going to be having a look at things to see what's happened to bring this about about. Not too sure why Roger & PT have been banned but I'll look into that also.

In the interim I've taken the bans off both Roger & PT till I work out what has happened.

Cheers,
Vince


That gets a big :) from me Vince!

[Beagle]

Ok, this is all new to me, haven't been around for the past two weeks.

With regards to bannings, going to be having a look at things to see what's happened to bring this about about. Not too sure why Roger & PT have been banned but I'll look into that also.

In the interim I've taken the bans off both Roger & PT till I work out what has happened.

Cheers,
Vince
Thanks Vince. I really hope you look into this thoroughly so that changes to the moderation of this site can be implemented such that it improves its enjoyment for all members and that everyone can gain from it including those that enjoy a good healthy debate. Once that review has been completed and the outcome is made known to me I will make a decision as to whether to come back or not but I would like at this stage to sincerely express my gratitude to all the posters who have expressed their support towards me and to those that have made suggestions for positive changes to the moderation methodology.

[minimoke]

Mini - you seem to have killed all discussion / debate about STMod fairness or not

Is it game,set and match then
Hard to continue a discussion when I point out the rules only to show the ref is in breach of those rules. Anyway I thought we were on strike.

Nevermind good to see Roger back and hopefully PT returns to the fold real soon.

Now I just have to figure out how I restore my reputation after the highly distressing deletion of my posts. I havent slept a wink since. Compo, I sniff compo!

But lets not forget - the rules are there for some semblance of order. We should respect them and the opportunity to have this forum

[Crackity]

I think we're going upstairs to the video ref Mini but he will be reviewing footage of the refs on field - think the players all seemed onside....

PT - do you feel like returning to posting on ST after your very dubious banning? Go on - I think you should!

in regards to compo - put on your best David Bain jersey and see what happens.

;)

[Beagle]

For the record :-

I was banned for a whole month for alleged "continuously inflammatory behaviour" after posts #6801 and #6803 on the HNZ thread. Please folks, take the time to read these posts for yourselves and decide if you think STMOD grossly exceeded their mandate / authority.

Some of my detractors (and this clearly appears to include members of STMOD including Joshuatree and Percy), are clearly very annoyed at what they think is a too dogmatic style of posting including but not limited too thoroughly discussing the debt issues HNZ potentially face with their loans this despite my posts mentioned above clearly showing I felt the issue had now finally been fully discussed. Please note that this is an extremely serious issue and the leader of HNZ has form in that he was previously leading Marac when they had to take an $83m hit on their commercial property loans.

If we cannot debate such important issues both pro's and con's what is the point of this forum ? I would freely acknowledge I feel this issue has now been through canvassed and I am happy to leave that issue where it lies, as something that only the passage of time will reveal the truth about.

To my detractors, you may think I'm too dogmatic in my posting style but remember that it was me that got changes to SUM's insider trading policies changed and this extremely important change was initiated by me and concluded with the help of the Shareholders association. This was brought about by my dogged determination to effect this change for the benefit of ALL Summerset shareholders. If I hadn't of taken a dogged approach this change would have never happened.

Winner69 a valuable contributor wouldn't have come back after he was banned quite some time ago if I hadn't of talked him into it by e.mail. How many of my detractors know that ? Likewise I have been talking behind the scenes by e.mail to Couta1 and Noodles, both valuable and prolific posters trying to talk them into coming back and I am pleased to see Noodles making the occasional post again.

Couta1 will NOT be back unless changes are made to the moderation of this site. I can tell you he is on the verge of PM'ing Vince for all his posts to be deleted. I am sure he will not mind me posting this. Changes must be made or both he and I will be gone, sorry I don't know anything about well respected and prolific poster Paper Tiger.

STMOD has only ever PM'd me once regarding the HNZ dogmatic posting style issue and asked me politely to leave the HNZ thread alone for a couple of days. This was some time ago and I did leave it alone for a few days as requested. If my posting style was so offensive to STMOD why didn't they simply PM me and respectfully ask me to simply tone it down ?

Must we whitewash all major issues and challenges to companies to the point where this forum becomes ultra politically correct and a vanilla exercise where we do nothing more than pump each other's tyres with only positive talk about stocks ?

Has STMOD not noticed that prolific long standing posters like me and Paper Tiger have a full six bars of reputation so clearly a wide range of other members highly value our prolific contributions and yet STMOD treat us both with contempt ?

Perhaps STMOD's members needs to spend some time on Cameron Slater's whaleoil blog to see the level of vigorous debate that goes on there ?

If its good enough for our own Parliament to involve vigorous debate to sort out issues then by default doesn't that set some kind of standard, albeit some would argue is too low :-)

I believe STMOD's recent multiple banning's of myself have been grossly excessive and their performance needs to be thoroughly reviewed and changes implemented.

I have made detailed submission regarding my thoughts on the matter to Vince.

[minimoke]

For the record :-

I was banned for a whole month for alleged "continuously inflammatory behaviour" after posts #6801 and #6803 on the HNZ thread. Please folks, take the time to read these posts for yourselves and decide if you think STMOD grossly exceeded their mandate / authority.
I think there are three issues here.
Firstly the rules of the game under which we play. I've pasted the rules above cos rules give clarity. If we cant play by the rules expect repercussions.

Secondly there are bleaty posters who run to mamma because they dont like the way the toys are being played with. This has to put Mods in a kinda difficult position when they are trying to ensure all enjoy the forum as per rule 1. So to Posters I say, if you you don't like the way the discussion is progressing ignore it - you alone hold responsibility for when you log in and click on that thread and read those posts. If you cant handle the heat stay out of the kitchen. And if you want to bleat refer to the rules and if a rule is being broken refer it to the Mods - let them decide.

And thirdly the Mods. They have an unenviable task - but their task would be easier if they stuck to the rules. If rules 1 - 7 are breached deal to it. If not let the natural order find its level.

I quite like rule 7. This is clearly not a forum full of professional financial advice. Any one that invests, or not, based solely on reliance on what is posted on these boards is a nutter. It's a forum full of peoples views and in the grown ups world we accept we may not like the views of others but we respect their right and ability to share a view. What we do with it is our own concern.

[BlackPeter]

Hi Roger,

good to see you back (hopefully for good). As indicated earlier - I have (due to lack of interest) no strong opinion on the HNZ issue (and it would be inappropriate to discuss it here anyway), but I would be shocked if stating the views you did (in the referred to posts) would get anybody banned on a sharetrader forum in a free country like New Zealand. I thought (but I might be wrong) that it was the way you did express your views (not the views themselves). It would be good if STMOD / Vince could clarify this (if they prefer in a more generic way) in a wrap up session to this exercise.

There was however another very interesting statement in your post. You indicated that Joshuatree and percy are doubling up as "STMOD". Just wondering - JT and percy - could you please clarify whether this statement is correct? If so - who else is part of STMOD? I would see this as a quite significant undeclared conflict of interest - and I would feel very uncomfortable to keep contributing in a forum where individual "supposedly" peer-contributors can secretly get out the big banning stick to silence anybody who happens to disagree with their views on particular stocks. Not saying that this is what you do, but particularly given JT's deep and opinionated involvement in the PEB as well as the HNZ thread ... this theory would explain some things ... and the picture would not be pretty, unless STMOD have a very sound process to make sure that nobody can exercise admin rights on threads on which they as well post under different pen names ....

So - please explain ...

[BIRMANBOY]

Just a couple of observations from an occasional poster:
......The "rules" that govern posters behaviour would appear to be in need of an energetic and impartial redoing.
......These rules should be simplified so that different interpretations of the rules are virtually impossible.
...... The moderators need to be consistent in judgement on any transgressions. (This can only occur if the rules are simplified)
......The moderators position and judgements will be better accepted/respected by any judgement/banning being accompanied by a referral to the specific rule that has been broken. So for example...

Dear (fill in the name), while we respect every posters right to express individual views, it has been reported to us that the following post you made on (fill in the blank) and detailed below..(fill in the blank) has broken rule #(fill in the blank). This rule says (fill in the blank). Since this is the third time you have broken this rule, and it would appear that the first warning and the second 1 week ban has been ignored, we have implemented the mandatory 3 month ban. Please be aware that any further transgression will mean permanent barring from making posts. As per forum rules you have one week in which to appeal all moderator decisions regards banning. Any appeal against the banning must be accompanied by a reasoned rationale and will be judged by a three person appeals group made up of three fellow posters acting independently of each other and the moderator. For the appeal to be successful all 3 appeal judges must be unanimous in favour of the poster.
.......Under this format everybody will feel equally dealt with and more importantly have some right of reply. So firstly simplify the rules, secondly make sure everybody knows the rules and lastly make sure the rules are complied with without favour or bias.

[Vince]

Read this..... (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?10442-New-Forum-Rules&p=600716#post600716)

[percy]

Ok, this is all new to me, haven't been around for the past two weeks.

With regards to bannings, going to be having a look at things to see what's happened to bring this about about. Not too sure why Roger & PT have been banned but I'll look into that also.

In the interim I've taken the bans off both Roger & PT till I work out what has happened.

Cheers,
Vince
I would like to know your judgement before making any suggestions for new forum rules.
Roger, and some people feel his behaviour is acceptable,while others including myself, thought his posts were unacceptable.

[percy]

With all respect to you Percy - Minimoke has kindly posted the current rules - which one do you think has been broken by Rog? And is it possible maybe a months ban was trying to send a not so thinly veiled message? Best wishes and I mean that sincerely ;)

I await Vince's judgement.
It is Vince"s site and really he has final say in the direction he wants sharetrader to take.
If he decides vigorous debate,then it is vigorous debate,with suitable rules..
Should he decide he wants sensible discussion,then it will be sensible discussion with suitable rules.

[minimoke]

....
If he decides vigorous debate,then it is vigorous debate,with suitable rules..
Should he decide he wants sensible discussion,then it will be sensible discussion with suitable rules.
Are these mutually exclusive? Id have thought they could be the same thing

[couta1]

Since I incurred a week's ban a few weeks ago I haven't posted on the forum because I no longer have any faith in the integrity of the moderation system currently in place. The first reason I received from STMod for my ban was because of Persistent Name Calling. I then received a pm from STMod saying far too many of my posts are derogatory of others and to dial it back when I return. For anyone having read my posts during my time on here it would be obvious that I believe strongly in openess,honesty and respecting others so I found the reasons above for my banning highly offensive and basically false allegations. I would challenge whoever this particular STMod is to show evidence from my posts in the context of which they were written to prove all this Persistent Name Calling and Derogatory comments. A forum is in essence an exchange of ideas and so all viewpoints should be welcomed and acceptable as long as they don't cross bad taste guidelines. There is no point in having a new set of rules unless there are unbiased,fair and consistent applications of those said rules which at this point there is not as some posters can literally say what they want while others are banned for sneezing. Anyway I have no intention in participating further on the forum at this point as I can't get past the untruth in the reason given for my last banning rather than the banning itself. Kind Regards Couta.

[winner69]

Since I incurred a week's ban a few weeks ago I haven't posted on the forum because I no longer have any faith in the integrity of the moderation system currently in place. The first reason I received from STMod for my ban was because of Persistent Name Calling. I then received a pm from STMod saying far too many of my posts are derogatory of others and to dial it back when I return. For anyone having read my posts during my time on here it would be obvious that I believe strongly in openess,honesty and respecting others so I found the reasons above for my banning highly offensive and basically false allegations. I would challenge whoever this particular STMod is to show evidence from my posts in the context of which they were written to prove all this Persistent Name Calling and Derogatory comments. A forum is in essence an exchange of ideas and so all viewpoints should be welcomed and acceptable as long as they don't cross bad taste guidelines. There is no point in having a new set of rules unless there are unbiased,fair and consistent applications of those said rules which at this point there is not as some posters can literally say what they want while others are banned for sneezing. Anyway I have no intention in participating further on the forum at this point as I can't get past the untruth in the reason given for my last banning rather than the banning itself. Kind Regards Couta.

Hi couts

That's a very very sad story mate

I would have thought you were the last person in the world to do name calling or make derogatory comments about anybody. Always found you to very upfront and honest.

I always appreciated your posts. In particular your insights into the retirement sector were good stuff

Shame your relationship has ended this way (esp if some personal animosity to you is the cause)

I'll miss you

Take care

[Vince]

Seems like this has just turned into a bitch session about the moderators... not what I really expected.

Vince

[Joshuatree]

I have no problem with posters having opposing views, but what does become incredibly tiresome is the endless repetition of the message. I enjoy most of the contributions from Roger and PT but I'm also enjoying a day or two's respite from Roger's constant bagging of HNZ (and the constant pumping of AIR).

Discl: Hold both (HNZ and AIRthat is - not Roger and PT!)

I agree with this; who needs the constant multiple posting, spruiking or bagging a stock.Its like he needs to influence and be the authority go to leader and it goes on and on.And encouraging people to buy is potentially sus.Whats the motive here?.If he could come back and share his v good research without the repetition or agenda and higher righteous ground; then welcome ; that would be a win/win for all;if he is not prepared to adjust ; adapt ,well maybe he would be better off with his own blogg site where he can totally suit himself and lead..

[winner69]

I agree with this; who needs the constant multiple posting, spruiking or bagging a stock.Its like he needs to influence and be the authority go to leader and it goes on and on.And encouraging people to buy is potentially sus.Whats the motive here?.If he could come back and share his v good research without the repetition or agenda and higher righteous ground; then welcome ; that would be a win/win for all;if he is not prepared to adjust ; adapt ,well maybe he would be better off with his own blogg site where he can totallying a bit respective suit himself and lead..

Aren't you yourself getting a bit repetitive here doing much the same as you accuse others off doing.

Just an observation - and jeez I am not even a STMOD

[BIRMANBOY]

Better to your face than behind your back Vince. Obviously some disgruntled patrons in the ST restaurant. Reminds me of a upmarket eatery that opened to high acclaim in Miramar here in Wellington and was given great reviews etc. etc. Some six month later the owner found himself in hot water because he insisted that a "highly perfumed" lady dining that evening had to leave the premises because the strength of the perfume was so offputting it was causing other customers problems. So a few months later after all the adverse publicity the restaurant closed. What's the moral..it doesn't matter what the facts are in many cases its how the circumstances are perceived and transmitted that ultimately determines the outcome. Dealing with issues is good, transparency is good and I'm sure everyone recognises that getting things out in the open is much better than shutting things down..which the ST MOD could have done. Stick with it..the end result will be better for it.
Seems like this has just turned into a bitch session about the moderators... not what I really expected.

Vince

[minimoke]

Seems like this has just turned into a bitch session about the moderators... not what I really expected.

Vince
Well Vince, perhaps thats getting to the heart of the issue.

You have been given examples of where Forum Members feel aggrieved.

To use an analogy its seems to me that the Mods are there as market regulators - there to keep some semblance of order and transparency and ensure the playing field stays level.

Trouble is it seems like there are two sets of rule. The last couple of days has been interesting - seems to me Forum Members have a pretty good understanding of the rules under which they participate.

But it also seems the Mods have their own sets of rules. And perhaps each mod has a different set from another Mod. And then the Mods apply the Forum rule breach consequences to their own sets of rules.

So perhaps we don't actually need a new set of rules. Maybe its just one set for all.

And of course rules need to have consequences when they are breached. Perhaps forum members would appreciate a guideline on what they can expect to happen to them when they start infringing - but we already have that in the rules. Looking back to the Market Regulators - they dont go for a delisting straight away if say, an Annual Return isnt filed on time. There are normally warning shorts, like trading halts, and then there are fines and eventually when the real serious stuff happens the big boys get involved.

Doesn't matter the analogy - there is just one set of rules. And the application of those rules are transparent.

But hey - I've learnt something these last few days. Didn't realise there was an "Ignore" button. Must look that one up. Wouldn't use it myself, but if Forum members get a bit agitated at the way a thread is progressing perhaps they should be encouraged to make better use of this feature. Probably make the Mods jobs a bit easier if Members took responsibility for their own sense of grievance rather than let others be aggrieved on their behalf.

[winner69]

Well Vince, perhaps thats getting to the heart of the issue.

You have been given examples of where Forum Members feel aggrieved.

...........

Agree mini, that is the heart of the matter. And Vince needs to recognise that.

[winner69]

BP - you used snitch, a word I haven't seen for years

I snitched yesterday

For the first time ever I used the Report Post button. Yes I snitched

The post (on this thread) I snitched on was the most vitriolic personal attack on a fellow forum member I have seen. It really was bad

Fortunately it was taken down, presumably by an admin person because my post suggesting the poster himself delete it was also deleted.

If I ran this site I would have banned the poster for good. But he seems to have got off scot free as his guru status remains intact

At least being a snitch meant who the post was aimed at didn't see it.

If Vince needed evidence about STMod inconsistency about who gets banned I ask him to look at the deleted posts of early afternoon on 5th Dec (assuming a record remains) - the post mentioned deserved a very long time on the sideline.

[Minerbarejet]

This has nothing to do with anything anyone has said so far and is merely an observation.

New Zealand appears to have a population with a bias towards knocking others just for the hell of it. Otherwise known as Tall Poppy Syndrome there is no doubt in my mind a fairly large element of this creeps into the conversations on ST.
Recipients invariably respond leading to further and deepening agitation.
It would appear that we are currently stuck with it as part of the national psyche.
Communication and Education are about the only things that can change it.

[BlackPeter]

Seems like this has just turned into a bitch session about the moderators... not what I really expected.

Vince

Hi Vince ... first - given that we have at current a number of quite unhappy posters - and some of them (I think) some of our most valuable contributors - great that STMOD / you give us a platform to discuss some of the unease which seems to stifle our community.

I think it is great that we want to make this a still better forum, but one of my problems is, that I still don't understand how the existing system works. Before we change this system - would it be possible that either you or somebody from STMOD could clarify:

1) What exactly is your position - do you own Tarawera or are you employed by them?
2) What's in it for Tarawara to run this forum (i.e. what is its ultimate purpose)? - How does Taraware want this forum to look like?
3) Who or what is STMOD (we don't need names, but it would be good to know to understand any potential conflict of interest and whether this is one person or a number of people ... and, if they are posters on this forum as well, who are they?
4) If regular posters are part of STMOD - what was the criterium to get them there? Have they been elected by other members, have they been selected by yourself or somebody else from Tarawera - and what was the criterium to select them (like number of posts, reputation, personal contacts, other)?

Any chance to get some information on that before we proceed?

[Vince]

Interesting that neither Percy or Joshuatree have denied being part of STMOD. Sunlight is a great disinfectant and we have secrets and dark places badly in need of sunlight.
I will do my best to leave it at that for now. I believe I have fully articulated my thoughts..probably too fully for some people's liking.

Neither of them are MODS and the thing I will never tolerate is accusing other members of certain things.

[Vince]

This has nothing to do with anything anyone has said so far and is merely an observation.

New Zealand appears to have a population with a bias towards knocking others just for the hell of it. Otherwise known as Tall Poppy Syndrome there is no doubt in my mind a fairly large element of this creeps into the conversations on ST.
Recipients invariably respond leading to further and deepening agitation.
It would appear that we are currently stuck with it as part of the national psyche.
Communication and Education are about the only things that can change it.

Best post yet!

[Crackity]

Neither of them are MODS and the thing I will never tolerate is accusing other members of certain things.


Bearing that statement in mind Vince could you please give some thought to answering Black Peters questions. Best wishes ;)

[Vince]

Hi Vince ... first - given that we have at current a number of quite unhappy posters - and some of them (I think) some of our most valuable contributors - great that STMOD / you give us a platform to discuss some of the unease which seems to stifle our community.

I think it is great that we want to make this a still better forum, but one of my problems is, that I still don't understand how the existing system works. Before we change this system - would it be possible that either you or somebody from STMOD could clarify:

1) What exactly is your position - do you own Tarawera or are you employed by them? Neither
2) What's in it for Tarawara to run this forum (i.e. what is its ultimate purpose)? - How does Taraware want this forum to look like? To provide a community to discuss shares
3) Who or what is STMOD (we don't need names, but it would be good to know to understand any potential conflict of interest and whether this is one person or a number of people ... and, if they are posters on this forum as well, who are they? They are people who have a pretty crappy job at times and others will also insinuate they have a conflict of interest and a hidden agenda, - this goes with the job.
4) If regular posters are part of STMOD - what was the criterium to get them there? Have they been elected by other members, have they been selected by yourself or somebody else from Tarawera - and what was the criterium to select them (like number of posts, reputation, personal contacts, other)? Selected by myself, trustworthy and have a good history.

Any chance to get some information on that before we proceed?

As above....

[Crackity]

As above....

Thanks Vince - I suspect your answer to 3 and 4 is only going to prompt a few more questions.... ;)

And I do note for the record some of my posts on this thread have been removed and not by myself - I believe these posts totally met the current site rules. I am not complaining merely noting :)

[Crackity]

Thanks Vince - I suspect your answer to 3 and 4 is only going to prompt a few more questions.... ;)

And I do note for the record some of my posts on this thread have been removed and not by myself - I believe these posts totally met the current site rules. I am not complaining merely noting :)


And tonight my reputation score was reset to zero.....hmmm interesting ;)

[Vince]

And tonight my reputation score was reset to zero.....hmmm interesting ;)

And with that the third trouble maker of the group is gone permanently also...

[Vaygor1]

To me, when it comes to members (or rather, characters) in a forum of sharetrader's nature, colourful and controversial seem to come in the same package. As such, I will continue to miss many contributors that have now gone.

In line with the intent of this thread I have tried to come up with a draft list of concise rules by searching through the rules of other internet forums/blogs etc. But there are 2 main problems:

1) The human part. On a forum like sharetrader, contributors opinions and experiences are intrinsic to how and why it all works. For ANY given topic, each contributor's take on what is acceptable or offensive is not only unique, but each individual's reaction to anything will also to some extent vary from day to day. Which brings me to the second part….

2) The succinct part. How do you succinctly make rules to cover even 50% of every eventuality when there are no bounds like that on a sports field? Well, you can't - even rugby has over 1000 rules - which helps explains the 1st rule under the 'Long-List' below.

In my searches I have found a few sites that have already searched and collated others' rules. Without reinventing the wheel, I have summarised the most common rules, removing the ones that in my humble and subjective opinion, don't apply to this forum. So, using some of share traders existing rules, and ignoring liability/indemnity/disclaimer/IP issues here they are:


THE SHORT LIST

Use common courtesy
Respect others (even when they don't deserve it)


THE LONG LIST

Mods have total authority over rulings, membership, and site content.
Moderation appeals by email only.
No illegal, abusive, hateful, threatening, obscene, violent, or malevolent behaviour/posts/media.
No misquoting, defamatory content, fraud, libel, slander, lying, impersonating, or deliberate deceit.
No posts that breach copyright, violates anyones privacy or any 3rd party's publicity rights.
No posts of any kind exploiting minors or identifying anyone under 18 years old for the same.
No posts by any licensed investment adviser or representative of the same.
No selling, advertising, or spamming of any product or services. Refer fee schedule regarding breaches.
Hyperlinks are forbidden to any site that encourages or includes any issues set out in the above 6 bullets.
Limited 'adult' behaviour regarding mild profanities, comeback lines, banter, name calling.
Limited thread-hogging, semi-repetitive posting.


On reflection, the above is not too far removed from the existing rules.
There is however an added element of deliberate vagueness by way of the last 2 points because there's no other way to do it without some subjective wriggle room for fun. It comes back to the first rule which unfortunately can never be applied 100% consistently.

I have not included any banning mechanisms (ie 3 strikes, warning shots, ban periods, breach consequence etc). Perhaps a set of house rules that provide guidance only on what can be expected for each type of breach would suffice?

Feedback welcome… and I know.. there's a million ways to skin a cat on this one. None right, none wrong, just different.

[BlackPeter]

To me, when it comes to members (or rather, characters) in a forum of sharetrader's nature, colourful and controversial seem to come in the same package. As such, I will continue to miss many contributors that have now gone.

In line with the intent of this thread I have tried to come up with a draft list of concise rules by searching through the rules of other internet forums/blogs etc. But there are 2 main problems:

1) The human part. On a forum like sharetrader, contributors opinions and experiences are intrinsic to how and why it all works. For ANY given topic, each contributor's take on what is acceptable or offensive is not only unique, but each individual's reaction to anything will also to some extent vary from day to day. Which brings me to the second part….

2) The succinct part. How do you succinctly make rules to cover even 50% of every eventuality when there are no bounds like that on a sports field? Well, you can't - even rugby has over 1000 rules - which helps explains the 1st rule under the 'Long-List' below.

In my searches I have found a few sites that have already searched and collated others' rules. Without reinventing the wheel, I have summarised the most common rules, removing the ones that in my humble and subjective opinion, don't apply to this forum. So, using some of share traders existing rules, and ignoring liability/indemnity/disclaimer/IP issues here they are:


THE SHORT LIST

Use common courtesy
Respect others (even when they don't deserve it)


THE LONG LIST

Mods have total authority over rulings, membership, and site content.
Moderation appeals by email only.
No illegal, abusive, hateful, threatening, obscene, violent, or malevolent behaviour/posts/media.
No misquoting, defamatory content, fraud, libel, slander, lying, impersonating, or deliberate deceit.
No posts that breach copyright, violates anyones privacy or any 3rd party's publicity rights.
No posts of any kind exploiting minors or identifying anyone under 18 years old for the same.
No posts by any licensed investment adviser or representative of the same.
No selling, advertising, or spamming of any product or services. Refer fee schedule regarding breaches.
Hyperlinks are forbidden to any site that encourages or includes any issues set out in the above 6 bullets.
Limited 'adult' behaviour regarding mild profanities, comeback lines, banter, name calling.
Limited thread-hogging, semi-repetitive posting.


On reflection, the above is not too far removed from the existing rules.
There is however an added element of deliberate vagueness by way of the last 2 points because there's no other way to do it without some subjective wriggle room for fun. It comes back to the first rule which unfortunately can never be applied 100% consistently.

I have not included any banning mechanisms (ie 3 strikes, warning shots, ban periods, breach consequence etc). Perhaps a set of house rules that provide guidance only on what can be expected for each type of breach would suffice?

Feedback welcome… and I know.. there's a million ways to skin a cat on this one. None right, none wrong, just different.

Great post, great effort ... and I think you are right - we won't manage to get all imaginable situations into a rule set - and if we did, than nobody would bother to read them anyway. Hey - at the end of the day its just another forum - we don't want to study law to get it right (and hey - lawyers and courts don't get it always right either).

However - I would propose to add a (short) banning policy:

* Moderators have discretion to edit / hide posts and / or sanction members who violate above rules. Available sanctions are warning, temporary ban, permanent ban. Under normal circumstances will the moderator for a first offence just warn the member and give them an opportunity to apologise and withdraw the offending post. In severe cases (or for repeat offenders), the moderator may in his/her discretion ban the member for up to one week (tbd?). Any sanction needs to be explained (which rule has been violated).

* In cases of several repetitions or very severe rule violations a panel of selected posters and moderators can decide over a ban longer than one month (tbd - up to permanent banning).

* Sanctions are stored (including an - if necessary anonymised - copy of the offending post, which rule has been broken, which moderator made the decision and what the sanction was) and are visible to the forum to help other posters to understand the application of the rules.

[Aaron]

I am sure an unkind post I made disappeared. To be consistent maybe you should also delete the other post that is recognized as an alternate fact.

Is that you Hamish??

[iceman]

I am starting to have a nagging doubt about the moderation of these forums. They seem on some occasions to be very heavy handed on some posters while other posters get away with just about anything and don't get reprimanded.
I do note that we have been told on some threads that we should not expect to see posters reprimanded if those offended don't complain. That is an interesting position. So posters can get away with total vitriol and personal attacks, as long as nobody complains ?

The main reason I am extremely concerned about the fairness of the moderation is that Joshuatree has a long history, many years, of personally attacking anybody that has a different view to him/her. This is particularly so on the political threads, where his gross comments have reached the lowest of low in the last few days. I suspect nobody has complained as the posters he has attacked are thick skinned and rather than complain about him/her, feel quite sorry for him and his mental state.

But I have been told by other posters, that some have complained about his personal attacks on several occasions and no reprimand has been forthcoming. So I have a couple of questions for you Vince:
1) Are you or someone close to you posting here as Joshuatree ?
2) Why do STMODs ignore complaints about his/her vitriolic comments ?
3) Would you consider naming the people that are acting as STMOD, even just their ST name if they are ST members ?
4) Do you think posters can say whatever they think as long as noone complains ?

I hope you can answer these questions as I am currently having serious doubts about the neautrality and fairness of the moderators. Hopefully my concerns are unfounded and unnecessary.

P.s. before posting this I checked the thread and posts I was referring to and it appears they have been deleted now. No idea when this happened ! Despite that, my questions and ponderings above remain unchanged and I would appreciate if Vince can respond to them publicly on here

[BlackPeter]

Thanks iceman, while I am not sure it is helpful to name here individual posters who's posts seem to be treated differently than the posts of others (but I do understand what you are talking about ;)) - I do agree with the general gist of your post.

You are not the only one who is occasionally wondering whether the moderation of this forum is in some cases putting personal views, biases (or just relationships?) over equal treatment and fairness towards all posters.

I think this is a pity. This could be a still much greater platform for sharing views and opinions if it would provide a plainer playing field and a bit more transparency.

Obviously - I do realise that we are all only guests on this forum ... and I assume the moderation team will indicate pretty soon, whether we overstayed our welcome. Lets hope that the recent incidents help to make this a better forum.

[SilverBack]

I am starting to have a nagging doubt about the moderation of these forums. They seem on some occasions to be very heavy handed on some posters while other posters get away with just about anything and don't get reprimanded.
I do note that we have been told on some threads that we should not expect to see posters reprimanded if those offended don't complain. That is an interesting position. So posters can get away with total vitriol and personal attacks, as long as nobody complains ?

The main reason I am extremely concerned about the fairness of the moderation is that Joshuatree has a long history, many years, of personally attacking anybody that has a different view to him/her. This is particularly so on the political threads, where his gross comments have reached the lowest of low in the last few days. I suspect nobody has complained as the posters he has attacked are thick skinned and rather than complain about him/her, feel quite sorry for him and his mental state.

But I have been told by other posters, that some have complained about his personal attacks on several occasions and no reprimand has been forthcoming. So I have a couple of questions for you Vince:
1) Are you or someone close to you posting here as Joshuatree ?
2) Why do STMODs ignore complaints about his/her vitriolic comments ?
3) Would you consider naming the people that are acting as STMOD, even just their ST name if they are ST members ?
4) Do you think posters can say whatever they think as long as noone complains ?

I hope you can answer these questions as I am currently having serious doubts about the neautrality and fairness of the moderators. Hopefully my concerns are unfounded and unnecessary.

P.s. before posting this I checked the thread and posts I was referring to and it appears they have been deleted now. No idea when this happened ! Despite that, my questions and ponderings above remain unchanged and I would appreciate if Vince can respond to them publicly on here

Without entering into the discussion of the appropriateness of particular moderations, I think it works best when a moderatored post is retained but the content is replaced by a statement about why it has been moderated. Any replies to the moderated post can also have their content replaced. That way everybody understands who and why a post has been moderated.