New Forum Rules

[Vince]

Ok, so obviously we need some new rules around posting etc.

I invite members to post here some rules they would like to give a definitive as to what is right & wrong, what will get you a warning and what will get you a temporary banning and a permanent one.

What I'm looking for is you guys make the rules and you guys abide by them, - just the set of golden rules with nothing too long-winded.

Regard's,
Vince

P.s - Keep this thread about the rules and nothing else please!

[minimoke]

OK. I'll get the ball rolling.

No personal abuse of a Member including the use of expressions of bigotry, racism, sexism, hatred or profanity.

No providing of information which could be construed as financial investment advice under (What ever Act)

No bringing the reputation of the Shareholder Forum, its owners, Members, Administrators Moderators etc into disrepute, including the making of defamatory statements

No spruiking stuff

No telling tales unless it is breach of one of these rules.

No grumbling, moaning whinging about anything related to this forum.

[Vince]

Thanks Minimoke!

[Minerbarejet]

Thanks Minimoke!

Reinstate all banned members.
Second Chance
No Trolling
Also
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Excessive thumbs down 1 week ban/2 week ban/ Bye byes 1 year
Stock Held Yes NO and Sentiment
Buy Hold Sell

[Vince]

No Trolling
Also

Thanks Minerbarejet, - care to define you understanding of trolling to make it clear.

Vince

[BlackPeter]

OK. I'll get the ball rolling.

No personal abuse of a Member including the use of expressions of bigotry, racism, sexism, hatred or profanity.

No providing of information which could be construed as financial investment advice under (What ever Act)

No bringing the reputation of the Shareholder Forum, its owners, Members, Administrators Moderators etc into disrepute, including the making of defamatory statements

No spruiking stuff

No telling tales unless it is breach of one of these rules.

No grumbling, moaning whinging about anything related to this forum.

Think I could live with these rules ...

Propose to add something related to openness / transparency / disclosure:

- disclosure required for posters with admin / moderator rights & conflict of interest resolution process (moderators who are as well posters are only able to penalise posters if they are impartial in the related discussion) - a simple referral process should solve this.

- Every moderator has a unique ID (based on my understanding that STMOD might be a number of people)

- long term bans (more than some days) can be appealed. Appeal process as proposed by Birman boy (e.g. referral to a panel of say one moderator and 2 or 3 posters excluding the moderator who decided about he original ban)

... and I'd like a clear escalation process like e.g. proposed by miner (starting with warning / short ban (days) and only if this does not work, long ban (months). permanent ban in my view only for repeat offenders (3 strikes) and really bad behaviour

agree as well with BirmanBoy's proposal that Moderators should explain the reason for any warnings / bans by referral to the respective (violated) rule.

[Vince]

Think I could live with these rules ...

Propose to add something related to openness / transparency / disclosure:

- disclosure required for posters with admin / moderator rights & conflict of interest resolution process (moderators who are as well posters are only able to penalise posters if they are impartial in the related discussion) - a simple referral process should solve this.

- Every moderator has a unique ID (based on my understanding that STMOD might be a number of people)

- long term bans (more than some days) can be appealed. Appeal process as proposed by Birman boy (e.g. referral to a panel of say one moderator and 2 or 3 posters excluding the moderator who decided about he original ban)

... and I'd like a clear escalation process like e.g. proposed by miner (starting with warning / short ban (days) and only if this does not work, long ban (months). permanent ban in my view only for repeat offenders (3 strikes) and really bad behaviour

agree as well with BirmanBoy's proposal that Moderators should explain the reason for any warnings / bans by referral to the respective (violated) rule.

Thanks BP - good points!

Vince

[Snoopy]

OK. I'll get the ball rolling.

No personal abuse of a Member including the use of expressions of bigotry, racism, sexism, hatred or profanity.

No providing of information which could be construed as financial investment advice under (What ever Act)

I don't think authorised financial advisers could ever post 'advice' on this forum. The simple reason is they have no idea who their 'client' is and what their client's circumstanes are: having an anonymous person on the internet as your 'customer' doesn't cut it.

But as far as someone expressing their own opinion as to whether a particular stock or bond is worth buying selling or holding - -that shouldn't be classed as 'advice'. I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a core reason for the forum to exist. Merely stating an opinion though is not that useful on its own. Best you post why you think a certain way.

No bringing the reputation of the Shareholder Forum, its owners, Members, Administrators Moderators etc into disrepute, including the making of defamatory statements

As long as defamatory statements sanctions do not cover "In my opinion, ..... etc." IOW a defamatory statement is not defined as simply as something that the moderators just disagree with.

No spruiking stuff

I think there are enough members with common sense on the forum to point out when something is being spruiked. Ideally a poster should declare their own position (whether they are looking to buy or sell or hold for example) when they post. But such a rule would be unenforcable. Best just to rely on other members to police this one. I don't think a special 'no spruiking' rule is needed.

No grumbling, moaning whinging about anything related to this forum.

Well meaning, but far too general and subjective.

SNOOPY

PS

The most important guideline of all should be.

*/ As a poster, don't regard yourself as too self important! You are only setting yourself up to be very easily offended if you do that! Maybe a minimum skin thickness should be required before posting?

AND

*/ Make your point once and move on, accepting that others my disagree. No point in playing an endless ping pong game of disagreement over one idea.

[Minerbarejet]

Ignore list.
Advise posters they have been placed on an ignore list and who the anonymous poster is that has done so.
1. If a poster gets too many he may realise that he is not flavour of the month generally speaking and as a consequence may apply more thought to what he is saying.
2. In order to prevent ongoing discourse and unwarranted ignore, ie ganging up, if a poster ignores someone it becomes valid for two weeks and the ignore cannot be removed.
This stops you ignoring someone and then sneaking back for a look and carrying on as before.
I am guilty of this.
It would also make you think before ignoring someone in the first place which may make the ignoree in turn think about what he/she has said.
Just a suggestion, ignore it by all means.

[BIRMANBOY]

MBJ.being a student of the injustice system, you well know that ignorance of the law is no excuse. So by ignoring the ignoreee, is this a sign of my ignorance or am I merely just another ignorant ignoror. I'm having trouble coming to grips with that...in fact I'm gnawing on the knowing and could use some guidance.... as could you apparently. Lets keep it simple...just don't read anything from posters that have exhibited anti-MBJ sentiment or inclination....but hang on ..just a quick peek..you know you want to...we all have been guilty. I like to think of it as glass half full behaviour ..always looking for betterment and improvement in the status quo. Judith Collins is living proof of this positivity.

Ignore list.
Advise posters they have been placed on an ignore list and who the anonymous poster is that has done so.
1. If a poster gets too many he may realise that he is not flavour of the month generally speaking and as a consequence may apply more thought to what he is saying.
2. In order to prevent ongoing discourse and unwarranted ignore, ie ganging up, if a poster ignores someone it becomes valid for two weeks and the ignore cannot be removed.
This stops you ignoring someone and then sneaking back for a look and carrying on as before.
I am guilty of this.
It would also make you think before ignoring someone in the first place which may make the ignoree in turn think about what he/she has said.
Just a suggestion, ignore it by all means.