sharetrader
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 80
  1. #51
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9,497

    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)

  2. #52
    Advanced Member BIRMANBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,556

    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

  3. #53
    The approachable Admin Guy

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    128

  4. #54
    percy
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    17,221

    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.

  5. #55
    percy
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    17,221

    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.

  6. #56
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    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

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,516

    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.

  8. #58
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,738

    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 07:34 PM.
    “ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”

  9. #59
    The approachable Admin Guy

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    128

    Default

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

    Vince

  10. #60
    IMO
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Floating Anchor Shoals
    Posts
    9,696

    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
  •