sharetrader
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 80
  1. #41
    percy
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    14,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crackity View Post
    Already I believe thru the grapevine
    Must be a very local [Auckland] strike,as it has had no affect down here.!

  2. #42
    CEO Butch Analytics Ltd winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    26,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    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
    “Just consider that maybe the probability of you being wrong is higher than you think.”

  3. #43
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    6,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    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?
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  4. #44
    The approachable Admin Guy

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    115

    Default

    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

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ak
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    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!
    Last edited by Crackity; 12-12-2015 at 12:28 AM. Reason: sp

  6. #46
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    16,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    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

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ak
    Posts
    413

    Default

    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.

    Last edited by Crackity; 12-12-2015 at 01:22 AM. Reason: Added PT ref

  9. #49
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    16,538

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Beagle; 12-12-2015 at 09:06 AM.

  10. #50
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger View Post
    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.

  11. #51
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    6,091

    Default

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

  12. #52
    Advanced Member BIRMANBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,611

    Default

    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.
    www.dividendyield.co.nz
    Conservative Investing and dividend producers...get rich slowly!
    https://www.facebook.com/dividendyieldnz

  13. #53
    The approachable Admin Guy

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    115

  14. #54
    percy
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    14,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vince View Post
    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.

  15. #55
    percy
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    14,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crackity View Post
    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.

  16. #56
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by percy View Post
    ....
    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

  17. #57
    Trying to get outta here
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,388

    Default

    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.

  18. #58
    CEO Butch Analytics Ltd winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    26,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by couta1 View Post
    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
    Last edited by winner69; 13-12-2015 at 08:34 PM.
    “Just consider that maybe the probability of you being wrong is higher than you think.”

  19. #59
    The approachable Admin Guy

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    115

    Default

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

    Vince

  20. #60
    Update Ready To Install
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Floating Anchor Shoals
    Posts
    8,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pierre View Post
    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..

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
  •