sharetrader
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 71 to 80 of 80
  1. #71
    The approachable Admin Guy

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    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....

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ak
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    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
    Last edited by Crackity; 14-12-2015 at 03:17 PM.

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ak
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crackity View Post
    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

  4. #74
    The approachable Admin Guy

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crackity View Post
    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...

  5. #75
    The past is practise. Vaygor1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northland
    Posts
    923

    Default A draft.

    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.
    Last edited by Vaygor1; 12-01-2016 at 08:58 AM. Reason: removed a comma.

  6. #76
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaygor1 View Post
    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.
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  7. #77
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,519

    Default

    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??

  8. #78
    Dilettante
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down & out
    Posts
    5,430

    Default

    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
    Last edited by iceman; 19-06-2019 at 05:08 AM.

  9. #79
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9,497

    Default

    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.
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •