Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (17675)	5/27/2003 5:14:31 AM
From: d:oug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32883

"...be moderated off of a particular stock thread." or "...be moderated off from discussing with others the very stocks that are most important to her/him." . Responding to Message #17675 from Kerry J. Carmichael Matt,... PS - Matt, one of the reasons why I am only an infrequent visitor to IHUB [is] policy of permitting only one thread per stock. If I were to be moderated off of a particular stock thread (rightly or wrongly), I have no recourse open to me to offer an opposing viewpoint. Therefore, theoretically anyway, the whole thing becomes a race to be the first to start a thread on a new stock, so that (as moderator) the thread starter can determine the tone (long or short) of the thread before anyone else can participate. For this reason alone, (if asked) I would recommend against buying a [IHUB] membership... [stop.] . Kerry, . My opinion is that anyone who values your above recommendation will do iHub a favor and not join the folks there. I say this based on the errors of facts and logic you exhort as [un]truth, cloaked as a warning. . Since you are unable to understand the simplicity of the iHub v. Si model as pertains to the "freedom" granted users to post, i will acknowledge that i understand your inability to see the complex in the simple. . Where Si grants near total power to the person who creates a thread Moderated, Si balances this power by allowing anyone to create another thread for the same stock issue. This in a way mimics the stock market, as there exist total control of how a company is run by those officers, you as a trader in the market can decide not to trade that company since other shares in other companies exist. This way the control is balanced by survival trends, not force. . iHub's model is completely different in that the power of any "moderator/creator" is both weak and pitiful comparied to an Si Moderated thread person. . On iHub what you see is very much not what is really there, as the troubled and weaken structure that appears as strength is a direct action taken not to allow banning anyone from a board. . While "easy" banning a person from an Si Moderated thread exist, the antisepsis effect of intended pain & suffering does not damage neither the banned or banner with the allowed creation of another. . On iHub the power of banning does not exist, and while post deletions do exist at the whim of the board "moderators," it is done with a prelude for the person whom deleted the post, to be judged by Sheriff Matt as he will then review each deleted post not as a fact, but as a request. . Bottom line is that you fear expressed about iHub v. Si is backwards. . It is far easier to abuse the boards on iHub than here on Si. . There are special cases sepeate from the above, and this thread is an example being an "official" Si thread in that the Admin of Si has use of this thread to conduct community relations of Si. . While i state its easier to abuse iHub than Si, those that do irk iHub will reach a point of termination faster than if done here on Si. (example) To:SI Admin (Bob) From: Jon Tara Tuesday, May 27, 2003 End of any pretense of SI's censorship-free environment being maintained under the new ownership. R.I.P. SI You've got an awfully thin skin about mmmary's comments, Bob. She hasn't done anything wrong here. You disagree with her, and you are threatening to censor her because of that.[end.] Doug