-
 New Forum Rules
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!
-
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.
-
-
 Originally Posted by Vince
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
-
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
-
Expected disclosure of related party interests or significant conflict of interest (i.e. other than minority shareholder <5% retail investor)
-
Originally Posted by Minerbarejet
No Trolling
Also
Thanks Minerbarejet, - care to define you understanding of trolling to make it clear.
Vince
-
Originally Posted by BlackPeter
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
-
Originally Posted by Lizard
Expected disclosure of related party interests or significant conflict of interest (i.e. other than minority shareholder <5% retail investor)
Agree, thanks Lizard
-
Vince - you know my thoughts - thanks for the PM 
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks