I rarely post publicly, but due to a lot of wild speculation, accusations, and overall misunderstanding, this seems an appropriate time to do so.
As a rule, we don't discuss administrative actions with anyone except the people directly involved, but since some of the details have already been made public, I'll discuss the incorrect statements about it
1. His suspension was for 3 days, not the 4 or 5 I'm seeing cited.
2. This was only a *suspension*, not the "revoked account" I'm seeing cited.
3. I have just removed the suspension based on email conversations with him.
4. The suspension decision was mine alone and was based on a complaint and my subsequent decision that a violation of the Terms of Use had occurred. To speculate that we have a monetary motive or evil intent is not only extremely unfair, it is patently false. Don't try to read too much into us. We're a small group of computer geeks doing something we love. Nothing more.
5. The lifting of the suspension had nothing to do with the public messages about us or the emails we've received except for his. We do what we believe is *right*, regardless of public pressure or the nonexistent "other motivations" I'm seeing discussed.
To some of your specific points:
Just Got Done Sending an E-mail to SI...
On this particular issue, send emails to me at mailto:si_admin@techstocks.com
Jill is the Webmistress, but I deal with many of the admin issues, including this one. Sending these emails directly to me is more expedient since Jill is on West Coast time.
to tell them how upset I am about what they did to Rocketeer1 while they let
naysayers or paid shills like Janice Shell, Mr. Forthright, Bill Ulrich, Little engine,
Catlady, tastes like chicken, coffee pot, etc
I'm familiar with these names as I've read many messages from and to them.
I'm also extremely familiar with the term "naysayer" and how it's a label often affixed to anyone who doesn't like a stock or a company. Being a "naysayer", however, is not a violation of the Terms of Use. The reasons should be obvious.
Same with "Paid shills". I see that term thrown about frequently in many threads. Typically it's applied to the same people as the "naysayer" label.
I can not and will not take action against somebody because they have been accused of being a "paid shill", "paid promoter", "hypester", etc.
The "proof" I often see cited for this goes along the lines of "They don't own the stock, yet they put a lot of effort into the thread, therefore they must be compensated for their efforts."
This "proves" nothing to me, and I won't act on such allegations. On the other side of the coin, I also hear the same thing about folks who are bullish on a stock. That they're paid promoters. Obviously, I can't take action on any issue solely because it is alleged to be true.
does SI do anything about these creeps.....no!!!!
Do you know that for a fact? No!
The Terms of Use don't forbid "trashing and bashing" (of stocks) any more than they forbid "promoting" or "arguing with 'naysayers'". SI is a medium for discussing all sides of stock-related issues.
However, when the Terms of Use are violated, and it is brought to my attention, I take action. Period. No matter who it is. That's my job.
Let me repeat that: When the Terms of use are violated, and it is brought to my attention, I take action.
With nearly 5 million messages on the system, and so few of us to go around, it simply isn't possible for us to be aware of anything on the system that isn't brought to our attention.
1) Why did SI suspend Rocketeer1????
I won't discuss that publicly other than to say if anyone is suspended, it's because they violated the Terms of Use in some way.
2) Is SI going to check into the harassing tactics of the people I just listed in the previous paragraph.
I'm not going to violate the privacy of any of the listed people. There are, however, many folks for whom I have "peoplemarks", and I check frequently to see if they're in violation of the Terms of Use.
3) Does SI read the private messages of its members?
I'm glad you asked, as I'm seeing a lot of false allegations along these lines.
A. Someone started a rumor in one of the "Joke" threads about a month ago that search engines such as Alta Vista could find private messages. That person later admitted it was just a practical joke. However, it seems that many people believe it and are spreading the rumor. Such statements make me wonder about the "DD" habits of the people who make those statements; citing something as fact because someone else said it, yet not taking the very easy steps of testing it for themselves.
Try it. I sign all of my private messages with "SI Admin (Bob)".
B. We do not and, in fact, can not read private messages. Sure, since everything's stored in a database, it'd be possible to browse the database locally, but none of my admin screens have any provisions for reading private messages. And that's how we like it. Privacy is something that is of utmost importance to us. Ask anyone who has ever complained to me about something that was said in a private message.
Each of us at SI has our own particular "hot spots". For me, it's definitely privacy. I don't take invasions of privacy lightly. That extends to such things as revealing the true identity and personal info of participants, posting the contents of private messages, and posting the contents of emails, without the author's permission if doing so compromises our principal of their right to anonymity.
It could be argued that I over-react to such things, but I think over-reaction is far better than under-reaction where privacy is concerned.
Does anyone disagree with that?
4) Does SI have any involvement with brokerage houses, Market makers, professional investors who short the BB stocks?
Depends on what you mean by "involvement". Personally, I have accounts at 4 brokerages. I don't trade stocks anymore because I don't want the temptation or potential allegations of "conflict of interest", although I do hold a few long-term. Plus, this job simply keeps me too busy to do what I consider an appropriate amount of DD.
If you're asking whether we ever take any admin action for the benefit of "brokerage houses, MMs, professional investors who short BB stocks", the answer is a resounding NO!!!
I suspend people, no matter who they are, for violations of the Terms of Use. Nobody has ever attempted to bribe me, and they wouldn't be successful. I love my job (usually <g>) and SI far too much to ever even think of exposing it to anything like that. Plus, it would just plain be WRONG.
If my own mother violated the Terms of Use, she'd be suspended.
I fear the worst we all are suspecting about SI is correct.
That's why I'm replying publicly. I'm seeing a lot of these "suspicions" stated as "fact" when they really are nothing more than a lot of misguided suspicions.
I propose the following, that we begin contacting the SEC, our senators and
congressmen, 60 Minutes, WSJ, other web sites and tell them about the tactics of
these shills and what SI's involvement appears to be. If SI is in cahoots with these
naysayers, paid shills, etc.they must be exposed.
This may come as a complete surprise, but I agree wholeheartedly with that last sentence. If we were in cahoots with "paid shills", etc., we would deserve to be exposed.
The fact of the matter is, quite simply, we're not.
Please send any replies via PM or email, as I intend this to be my only public discussion of the matter. |
