In the future, please post something like this only once. Multiple postings of the same thing is considered spamming.
You obviously monitor certain threads
I'm not sure why that would be self evident ("obviously").
In any event, it is incorrect. I check into threads when problems in them are brought to my attention. Sometimes I'll bookmark them for a little while if I feel I need to keep an eye on them, but that doesn't happen very often. In this instance (I know which thread you're talking about), I removed my bookmark yesterday afternoon.
connected to a certain fallen guru and his lemmings.
Pretty easy to see where this is going when the first sentence berates a group of people. I often see this kind of personally attacking verbiage in missives that are complaining that others are carrying out personal attacks. It's one of the more amusing aspects of my job. <g>
Why is it that you allow the profanity, the personal attacks, the constant "pos" attacks, the vitriolic posts that are not factual?
I think you're mistaking "allow" for "unaware of". I'm generally not aware of anything that isn't brought directly to my attention. Generally, we don't allow profanity and personal attacks, although a little leeway is given in that regard when it's contained to specific threads.
I don't know what you mean by "pos attacks".
Regarding "vitriolic posts that are not factual", we do not try to determine whether or not a post is factual. It is for the reader to make that determination and act accordingly.
Can more than one individual post under an SI name?
It depends on a lot of things (Are they part of the same company? Do they represent themselves as such?) so there isn't a simple easy answer. I'm not sure why it'd be an issue anyway. A bigger issue is individuals who use multiple accounts. In fact, I'm currently dealing with someone we found to be doing precisely that; to attack the person you refer to as a "fallen guru", and to give the appearance of multiple people favoring a particular stock that the same guru had a strongly negative opinion of. It's a terribly manipulative act and just plain *wrong*, IMO.
Is it spamming to do this to promote a private site?
It's "spamming" to do anything to promote one's own site. We allow people to do anything they want in their profile (including advertsing their own site) or to include a link to their site in one thread header they create, but that's it. No advertising in messages.
Do those who get paid per post risk your ire?
An interesting one. I've heard this allegation many times before and when I ask people for details (out of curiosity only), I never get anything I'd remotely consider "proof". It's usually something like "They obviously are getting paid or they wouldn't do it." or something similar.
But it's irrelevant where I'm concerned. I have no way of really knowing who is paid to post and who isn't, and, though it seems to me a ridiculous notion, it's not against our rules. If someone wants to pay you money to log on to a web-site and write messages, that's an issue between you and them. I'm sure in certain instances it might also be an issue between you and regulatory agencies, but it's not something we deal with directly. Such issues should be brought to the attention of the appropriate agencies.
Similarly, when a short brags about "creating volume" and then realizes that perhaps that could be interpreted as manipulative and violative of SEC regs, how is that he is allowed to have that post deleted?
I'm not aware of this ever happening. We delete posts for violations of the Terms of Use and sometimes (rarely) delete a post at someone's request if it contains something they feel they shouldn't have posted (a friend's first name being the most common example).
Ask around and you'll find that a lot of people who have requested their posts be deleted were told that we wouldn't do it.
Generally, we will not delete a non-violating post if we feel it would be "revisionist" in a substantial way in any imaginable scenario. If you posted "I get paid 5 cents per post." and asked us to delete it, we wouldn't because a scenario could exist in which that would be relevant history.
I've recently been PM'd by certain individuals who claim to have knowledge that someone with your moniker had access to the "Private Site", the one that apparently charges $600/month for participation, and which is promoted on these threads.
And since it was said on the internet, it must be true.
Of course, I'm being facetious. I don't own a copyright on the alias I use here and it wouldn't be policeable if I did. People have impersonated me on other sites but when I find out about it, I ask the site to change the alias on that account. To date, they've all been kind enough to do so.
I've seen the same done to others. Someone once created an account on another site with a name similar to a well-known short seller from this site and, until they started getting really nasty about it, I found it terribly amusing that so many people assumed it really was the same guy. It obviously was, according to many.
If I create an account somewhere else as "rrufff", it doesn't make me you. Even in virtuality. Or, at least, it shouldn't.
I'll check with the person who has the other site you're talking about to see if someone is impersonating me there. I'd be surprised if they allowed that to happen at all, since they know who I am and understand that I wouldn't be a participant at another site.
These PM's, as well as some posters on Raging Bull, claim that this perhaps has influenced your views.
Hmmmm....
I'll be nice. And succinct on this one.
If my views were influenced, it would follow that I wouldn't suspend someone who was "a friend" or whatever term you want to use. Have I ever suspended the "fallen guru" you refer to? I can't give an answer to this question, but you certainly know the answer.
As I've said before, if my own mother violated the Terms of Use, I'd suspend her in a heartbeat.
I think someone in your position should clear the air so that there is not even the slightest appearance of any bias, agenda or wrong-doing.
Clearing the air never really happens. Someone will either take exception to some of my answers or believe me to be lying. I've been around long enough to know I can guarantee this. Attempting to "clear the air" is always an exercise in futility, and the only reason I'm doing so now is because it's been a little while since I've answered these kinds of accusations, so I figured I'd at least give it a shot, lest the wiser approach of not trying be misconstrued as guilt on my part.
To address each of the "appearances" you're talking about (though it's impossible to ever remove the "appearance" of what people want to see), I submit the following:
bias: I have no bias toward anyone on the site. When dealing with Terms of Use violations, I'll take into account things like length of time on the site suspension-free, or the number of previous suspensions for the same thing, but that's it. Whether or not I consider someone "a nice person" doesn't enter into it. My personally liking someone (I like most people) doesn't enter into it.
It's only natural for people to think I'm biased if I suspend them, so it's not something I hold against them. They did something they considered "right". I suspended them because I considered it "wrong" (according to the Terms of Use). We disagree. If they'd thought it "wrong" to post it, they likely wouldn't have.
agenda: This one's easy. My agenda is simply to do my job to the best of my ability and in the best interests of this site and those who use it.
wrong-doing: That's one of those things that can be examined at an infinite level of detail, to the extent that it's impossible to say "yes" or "no" to it. I make mistakes from time to time. When I do so, I do my best to fix it and learn from it. I'm still learning to this day. But in that sense, I could answer "yes" to the "wrong-doing" accusation. I screw up occasionally, and it's wrong.
But that's not the intent of your question. I'm sure what you mean is whether I do anything that most people would consider "wrong", "bad", or "evil". To that, I'd answer No. I don't take bribes and nobody has ever tried. I am never "out to get" anyone.
For example, there's a poster currently on another site who was booted from this site and who to this day claims I couldn't wait to terminate his account when I got this job. The reality was actually the opposite. I gave him a lot more "last chances" than I ever did with anyone else. It was wrong to do so, but I was relatively new at the job and was overcompensating for my knowledge of his past conduct, lest I act out of prejudice. I also felt a bit sorry for him because he was young and had gotten creamed by some bad choices. That, too, was wrong. Correct, but wrong.
Anyway, I don't expect you to just automatically believe this (it wouldn't speak well of you if you did -- it's just text on your screen), but I'll say it anyway: My code of ethics is extremely important to me and I would never do anything I consider dishonest, no matter what it might gain me.
I agree with your posts about civility and would love to have the tone of these boards become civil.
Too civil would be breath-takingly boring. It's possible to have heated exchanges within the confines of this site's rules of engagement. If the exchange is boring, one or both sides may not be digging well enough for relevant facts or just holding them back.
We're all supposed to be here for these exchanges, and to help each other learn the truth about our investments for our mutual benefit. It's us (Silicon Investor users) against them (non-SI users) in the marketplace. A lot of people seem to frequently forget that. Or maybe I'm just the only one who thinks that's the way it should be.
I have no problem with shorting.
Neither do I. A couple of years ago, "short" used to equal "evil". I'm glad to see that on this site more than others, it's no longer the case. We tend to be among the sharper knives in the drawer here, IMO.
It's the attacks and the attempts to scare shares out of longs with personal attacks and unfair methods that bothers me.
When personal attacks happen, they should be brought to my attention.
However, if by "attacks" you mean people expressing strongly negative opinions about a stock, we're going to disagree. A short has as much right to say why he's short as a long has the right to say why he's long. Both sides should heed and learn from the other.
And I have no idea what you mean by "unfair methods".
It used to be very commonplace that people would inundate me with vague complaints about others on the site and I'd find that what was really happening was they were just doing anything they could to try to silence someone who had an opinion contrary to their own. It still happens, but is actually quite rare anymore. It used to be my single biggest complaint about my job. I'm happy that it's no longer the case.
Anyway, I hope I answered your questions even though I concede they likely don't "clear the air".
Regards,
SI Admin (Bob) |
