New Forum Rules

[Lizard]

Expected disclosure of related party interests or significant conflict of interest (i.e. other than minority shareholder <5% retail investor)

[Vince]

Expected disclosure of related party interests or significant conflict of interest (i.e. other than minority shareholder <5% retail investor)

Agree, thanks Lizard

[Crackity]

Vince - you know my thoughts - thanks for the PM

[BIRMANBOY]

A few more thoughts/ideas into the cauldron
In the spirit of keeping it simple here are my thoughts on the golden rules.
(1) No personal abuse either direct or implied.
(2) No direct (personalised ) aggressive criticism or belittling of other investors methodologies. (This is not supportive of our shared goals and is not welcomed or encouraged. Countering posts should be polite, civilized and framed in such a way that they don’t leave individuals feeling belittled or perceived as idiots.)
(3) All posters should have to disclose positions if they are employed by a Share market listed/associated company. If they are in a “top ten shareholder” position this should also be detailed. This, along with list of all shareholdings should be set as a “signature” for all posters and then is visible on all posts. I don’t believe this is asking too much and also adds some relevance andor questions as to posters motivation in posting.
(4) No posts that have elements of defamation or discrimination.

I think that any reported post should be measured and could be judged as being one of following.
(a) Not contrary to rules
(b) Contrary but minor or first offense..equals warning
(c) Contrary but serious escalation , even if first offense, equals one week ban
(d) Contrary and second offense on same subject..equals one week ban
(e) Contrary and third offense on same subject..equals 3 month ban
(f) Contrary and 4^th offense on same subject ..permanent ban from forum

Regards trolling, spruiking, downramping, pumping,dumping and associated endeavours. Since these are hard to prove and extremely open to interpretation, maybe let these be dealt with in the normal interaction of day to day posting. Being questioned by fellow posters should be sufficient to keep it under control. Its hard to draw a line between natural enthusiasm and pumping so let it go and let posters enjoy their wins and moan about their losses. It becomes obvious to most posters in anycase

[Joshuatree]

maybe let these be dealt with in the normal interaction of day to day posting. Being questioned by fellow posters should be sufficient to keep it under control. Its hard to draw a line between natural enthusiasm and pumping so let it go and let posters enjoy their wins and moan about their losses. It becomes obvious to most posters in anycase

Respectfully disagree.Unfortunately this hasn't worked in the past hence a recent ban. Relentless spruiking is very different to promoting a stock as is continuous bagging is different to choosing to sell or not buy a stock and giving reasons. Its the mods job and guidelines need to be clear for all imo..

[iceman]

Respectfully disagree.Unfortunately this hasn't worked in the past hence a recent ban. Relentless spruiking is very different to promoting a stock as is continuous bagging is different to choosing to sell or not buy a stock and giving reasons. Its the mods job and guidelines need to be clear for all imo..

Thanks Vince for giving us the opportunity to comment on new rules.

There isn’t much to add as other posters have come up with a fairly comprehensive list. My view is in line with what minimoke, Black Peter, Lizard and Birmanboy have posted.

I do not like the thumbs up thumbs down idea. We already have a facility to agree or disagree with posts and these are now open to anyone to look at. I think that is sufficient.

I do agree with Birmanboy about the pumping, dumping downramping etc, leave it to be dealt with in he normal interaction of day to day posting. Posters can easily put those they don’t like on the “ignore” function

[minimoke]

To keep the ball rolling.....

A few more thoughts/ideas into the cauldron
In the spirit of keeping it simple here are my thoughts on the golden rules.
(1) No personal abuse either direct or implied.

more an Admin issue - but the only person who can complain about rule one is the aggrieved person - not a bystander

(2)

No direct (personalised ) aggressive criticism or belittling of other investors methodologies. (This is not supportive of our shared goals and is not welcomed or encouraged. Countering posts should be polite, civilized and framed in such a way that they don’t leave individuals feeling belittled or perceived as idiots.)

Kinda the same as rule 1? and will perhaps makes things a bit sterile

(3)

All posters should have to disclose positions if they are employed by a Share market listed/associated company. If they are in a “top ten shareholder” position this should also be detailed. This, along with list of all shareholdings should be set as a “signature” for all posters and then is visible on all posts. I don’t believe this is asking too much and also adds some relevance andor questions as to posters motivation in posting.

No I am against this one. My shareholdings are my personal business. This is a forum, not an investment advice seervbice so any views, unrestrained should be welcome

I think that any reported post should be measured and could be judged as being one of following.
(a) Not contrary to rules
(b) Contrary but minor or first offense..equals warning
(c) Contrary but serious escalation , even if first offense, equals one week ban
(d) Contrary and second offense on same subject..equals one week ban
(e) Contrary and third offense on same subject..equals 3 month ban
(f) Contrary and 4^th offense on same subject ..permanent ban from forum

Agreed, but how a bout a bit simpler.
Moderators cannot contribute to treads
Complaints can only be made against a rule and by a participant in that thread
Upheld complaint earns a "warning (wee red light thing that goes next to the Green light Reputations) that lasts say 6 months."Mods decide first 2 red lights
Three red lights (on any threads combined) earns say a one week ban. Next ban is for say one month, next six months next one year.
Decision on third red light decided by Jury of peers, not a Moderaotr

Regards trolling, spruiking, downramping, pumping,dumping and associated endeavours. Since these are hard to prove and extremely open to interpretation, maybe let these be dealt with in the normal interaction of day to day posting. Being questioned by fellow posters should be sufficient to keep it under control. Its hard to draw a line between natural enthusiasm and pumping so let it go and let posters enjoy their wins and moan about their losses. It becomes obvious to most posters in any case

Agreed - rules need to be simple and objective. Dont make the Mods job harder by allowing subjectivity.

Oh, and another bit of admin rule.
- Posters are solely responsible for opening, amending , deleting pasts. Admin reserves the right to add a footnote (eg "this post has earnt a warning"". None of this wholesale deletion of all posts when a Member spits the dummy. No deleting of posts by Mods. Flag it as a rule breaker sure, but move on.

[BIRMANBOY]

So re your responses to my post # 1...actually anyone can report a post not solely the aggrieved person. Simply click on icon at bottom left of post.
#2 similar but different...its possible to rubbish someone elses choices and investing style and not be abusive, but at the same time make them feel bullied. There is a way of doing it which can be constructive and supportive which is surely more productive.
#3 not to question your motives ..but whats the harm in disclosing your (our) interests. Personally I feel it adds to the weight of the post/poster if I see they have skin in the game. its too easy to be critical when you don't have anything to lose or gain. Also its all anonymous anyway so I don't see the issue.
#4 details obviously need to be hammered out but ultimately once set should be easy to follow and understand.
Which posts to delete and when and can mods do it or posters are another discussion in my view. what we should be focussing on first is the rules and whether they are fair , manageable and easily administered. I'm assuming the moderators don't get paid for what they do so lets make their job easier and less tiresome and less time absorbing.

To keep the ball rolling.....
more an Admin issue - but the only person who can complain about rule one is the aggrieved person - not a [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]bystander
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]
Kinda the same as rule 1? and will perhaps makes things a bit sterile
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3] No I am against this one. My shareholdings are my personal business. This is a forum, not an investment advice seervbice so any views, unrestrained should be welcome

Agreed, but how a bout a bit simpler.
Moderators cannot contribute to treads
Complaints can only be made against a rule and by a participant in that thread
Upheld complaint earns a "warning (wee red light thing that goes next to the Green light Reputations) that lasts say 6 months."Mods decide first 2 red lights
Three red lights (on any threads combined) earns say a one week ban. Next ban is for say one month, next six months next one year.
Decision on third red light decided by Jury of peers, not a Moderaotr

Agreed - rules need to be simple and objective. Dont make the Mods job harder by allowing subjectivity.

Oh, and another bit of admin rule.
- Posters are solely responsible for opening, amending , deleting pasts. Admin reserves the right to add a footnote (eg "this post has earnt a warning"". None of this wholesale deletion of all posts when a Member spits the dummy. No deleting of posts by Mods. Flag it as a rule breaker sure, but move on.

[minimoke]

#3 not to question your motives ..but whats the harm in disclosing your (our) interests. Personally I feel it adds to the weight of the post/poster if I see they have skin in the game. its too easy to be critical when you don't have anything to lose or gain. Also its all anonymous anyway so I don't see the issue..

Still not sure what value this adds. And fraught with difficulty. For example I've posted on the RIS thread. What do you want to know. That I am a holder, how many I own (couldn't tell you - no idea), How much I paid for them (no idea - came from some convoluted backdoor process), How much are they worth now (no Idea since I dont know how many I hold)

Say I want to contribute to PEB of which I hold none. So I'm going to tell you I hold 20,000. Happy now?

Having or not having skin in the game I dont think adds anythng other than nosey parkers seeing what I hold. It doesn't enhance my ability to analyse the issues and have an opinion. Its a forum afterall. The most respected opinions ought to be the ones backed by evidence

And Rule One - I guess it gets up my nose when people take offence on behalf of others. For example I have been called all sorts of things in threads. I've a thick skin and dont take offence. I'd be mortified if someone complained on my behalf - I'm quite able to do it myself. I accept there are some thinner skinned people. This is a sharetrader forum not some nancy world where we need to be looking after the vulnerable - they should stay on the TradeMe message boards. If a person cant take a bit of stick being in the sharemarket probably isn't for them - and if they are upset they ought to have a free call to the Mods to call a halt.

[BIRMANBOY]

Everyone entitled to an opinion...Seeing that a poster is a holder is sufficient ...anything else is just unnecessary unless they are substantial (top ten) holder or they are somehow connected to the company. Both of these elements should be disclosed in my view. In fact I believe that this is presently in the rules somewhere. As for whether or not one is a holder doesn't stop anyone from posting. How much weight is put on the post is as you say based mostly on the content and its relevance, However I personally believe that comments coming from holders or previous holders carry a bit more weight. Others may not but living through an experience surely should carry some meaning? Re your second point as to "nosey parkers", you are obviously a thick skinned person who can deal with a bit of grief..that's great but its not all about you here. Unfortunately some people a easily put off and can be adversely affected by something you would just shrug off. I don't mind being labelled a "nosy parker" if by reporting a post it shows some solidarity and sensitivity to someone who has been embarrassed and or humiliated. Unfortunately we are not all created equal in our ability to withstand hardships so I believe we should not assume that everyone will "harden up". I guess that makes me a "nancy boy" LOL

Still not sure what value this adds. And fraught with difficulty. For example I've posted on the RIS thread. What do you want to know. That I am a holder, how many I own (couldn't tell you - no idea), How much I paid for them (no idea - came from some convoluted backdoor process), How much are they worth now (no Idea since I dont know how many I hold)

Say I want to contribute to PEB of which I hold none. So I'm going to tell you I hold 20,000. Happy now?

Having or not having skin in the game I dont think adds anythng other than nosey parkers seeing what I hold. It doesn't enhance my ability to analyse the issues and have an opinion. Its a forum afterall. The most respected opinions ought to be the ones backed by evidence

And Rule One - I guess it gets up my nose when people take offence on behalf of others. For example I have been called all sorts of things in threads. I've a thick skin and dont take offence. I'd be mortified if someone complained on my behalf - I'm quite able to do it myself. I accept there are some thinner skinned people. This is a sharetrader forum not some nancy world where we need to be looking after the vulnerable - they should stay on the TradeMe message boards. If a person cant take a bit of stick being in the sharemarket probably isn't for them - and if they are upset they ought to have a free call to the Mods to call a halt.