Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

a quick update on Ted

Dear friends,

Given the rising tension occasioned by some of Ted's recent posts and comments and after internal discussions here, I let Ted know last night that I was going to moderate his posts. I invited Ted to continue posting both his links and comments, with the proviso that I'd look at them and, conceivably, edit some of them before they went live. While I'm not up nearly so early as Ted is (rather closer to 6:30 than 4:30), I promised to act promptly on the moderation queue so that I'd minimize the disruption to the flow of the conversation.

Rejecting "censorship," he declined.

Ted's comments are, and will continue to be, welcome. Given the rising number of concerns, the moderation requirement will likewise remain.

I'll try to be a bit more present to pick up the slack and I'd encourage others, our vast and amiable lurker community especially, to do likewise.

As ever,

David
«1

Comments

  • Sorry to see this happen. The links added to the board, and I'd like to see Ted post more. If only for his usually off the wall gambling picks.

    At the same time, people have to be responsible for their actions. I know Ted felt like this was asking to censor him, but the board belongs to you. Especially regarding posting whole articles, any possible legal repercussions were going to come your way.

    Again, I hope he chooses to come back.
  • edited August 2014
    Ted's posts contribute greatly to the forum. I can't blame him for his reluctance to post under the watchful eye of big brother. Please do not shoo him away.
  • I was wondering what ApMember meant.
  • Personally I think people should be more thick-skinned--we are all adults, I hope, and anonymous, and here to learn about investing well, not to get our hands held--but if Ted's comments really were causing problems, David's offer to moderate and perhaps revise them is generous and should be accepted.

    I say generous because this will take him time, when he could simply ban someone.

    David and Charles have been models of gentlemenly and thoughtful behavior and this offer of his remains both of those things. It is not big brother or censorship to remove ad hominem attacks, I which I am confident is all David would do.
  • To be fair Ted has received his share of (perhaps deserved) ad hominem attacks as well, and while some of those have also been flagged and edited, some haven't.
  • edited August 2014
    from outside looking in:

    >jlev said: To be fair
    yes David has been very fair.
  • edited August 2014
    Accipiter said:


    >jlev said: To be fair
    yes David has been very fair.

    Also more than true.
  • expatsp said:

    Personally I think people should be more thick-skinned--we are all adults, .

    I see this on other boards. If a person doesn't post in what some consider an acceptable style they get flack.

    If a poster disagrees with beloved people or ideas, they get slammed.

    Ted has his own style - take the best and leave the rest.

  • edited August 2014
    Hello,

    For those that would like to know what prompted this I have provided a link to the discussion where I felt it was time to flag Ted's questionable behavior to David. It is ok to disagree but lets do it in a civil manner. I would not tolerate my best employee, from a revenue generation aspect, directing words such as these towards a lesser performing employee. I was taught to be respectful of others ... and, if Ted leaves he leaves by his own wishes, actions and doings.

    http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/14812/let-s-iron-out-some-things

    Please read through the complete post. If you feel I was out of line in flagging this post, to David, then so be it. But, know this, I'll miss Ted too ... but, I also do not enjoy reading the bitter exchanges, that at times, Ted's bad behavior has sparked between himself and other posters.

    Old_Skeet
  • Well done, Mr. Snowball.
  • edited August 2014
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • I was traveling and just settled in back home. Pretty much everything has been said already but I wanted to commend David for his patience and attitude in handling this situation. I hope Ted will continue in delivering his expert opinions in investing minus the personal insults.

    I hope it's not temporary but I already see topics started by members I have not seen posting here in my short time her or from those who post very little. I hope that continues.
  • A site without Ted's posts will be a much inferior site
  • Don't have religion one way or the other about Ted and his work, but there is nothing in that linked thread to give offense, as it reads now. So that leaves us, or me, in the dark.

    I thought the whole point with some FoFs was that fees were lowered so the total was not outrageous. The AO_ ETFs I refer to frequently are assembled that way, I believe.
  • "A site without Ted's posts will be a much inferior site"
    Are you suggesting that Ted is so valuable that he should be allowed to set his own site rules?

    Is Ted so valuable that he should be allowed to insult other posters in as nasty a tone as he wants?

    Is Ted so valuable that he should be allowed to tell other posters to either let him "lead" or get off the site?

    Is Ted so valuable that he should be allowed to chastise others who dare to inadvertently duplicate one of his many links, presumably requiring everyone else to thoroughly open and check each and every one of his daily links before daring to post a link of their own?

    Is Ted so valuable that he should be allowed to post copyrighted material in it's entirety, verbatim, resulting in an angry response from the author? Should he be allowed to put the site in danger of a potential lawsuit (effectively shutting down the entire site) because of such behavior?

    Unlike what Ted has said to others, no one has told Ted that he should not post here. On the contrary: he was advised and gently reprimanded concerning his behavior quite a number of times, and only then, when he still continued with unacceptable behavior, was he told that his future remarks would be monitored.

    If Ted chooses not to accept a requirement that he act, as do the great majority of other posters here, in a reasonable manner than I for one don't feel that the loss of a bunch of "links" that frequently have very few viewers and no responses will diminish this site at all. In fact, it may be one of the more constructive decisions that Ted has made lately.
  • Since it was my writing Ted copied and pasted, I feel justified in weighing in here. I personally don't like the idea of any MFO member being monitored for every post they make. If we're all honorable people, it should be up to members as a group to flag inappropriate posts and notify the moderators of such a problem. If a member is persistently rude or foul mouthed or is persistently breaking the rules of the site, they should be banned. But I didn't get the impression that was Ted's manner. I assumed he was simply ignorant of the consequences of his actions when copying my work and wanted to inform him that what he was doing with copyrighted material was inappropriate. I think it's a shame to see him go.
  • Hello Lewis- Your comments, observations, and sense of fair play are definitely welcomed. Ted is one of the oldest and most consistent contributors to this site, and in fact to the FundAlarm site which preceded MFO. His behavior, generally, is reasonable, and there are in fact many MFO users who quite appreciate his contributions.

    Unfortunately he has made himself a bit controversial with his occasional tendency towards uncharitable personal remarks. This does not happen all that often, certainly not enough to cause permanent banishment to the hinterlands, but often enough to cause a pretty good ruckus now and again, with the result that other posters have either been driven away or muted into silent lurking. Perhaps some time in the penalty box may sort things out.

    Regards- Old Joe
  • I recall the first few days I came on here and posted. Ted was not very welcoming and in fact insulting. My experience has taught me that every discussion forum on the web has its resident curmudgeon/s. In that sense it hurt Ted because I clicked on very few of his link threads and only if another member had replied.

    In this recent example, Ted put David in a unfortunate position with possible legal ramifications. I would suspect that this monitoring of posts might go away in due time if Ted abides by the rules and conditions David has set not only for him but for everyone here.

    For Mr. Braham, apparently this was an ongoing issue and Ted had been warned before. Good to see you stop back in and I hope you make MFO a regular stop.
  • edited August 2014
    Ted is 77 years old and as he has mentioned several times not in the best of health. I might be a bit more onery too if I had a host of health problems (and was 77 years young) So we should probably cut him some slack.
  • edited August 2014
    A good learning experience re: copyright law. I've found librarians in the past to be especially well versed on the "dos" and "don'ts". And, to his credit David has done an excellent job over the years explaining what's acceptable and not acceptable in that regard. But copyright law's not an easy concept for many laypeople to fully grasp.

    Yep - I'd rather critique Ted, Rono, Catch, OJ or anyone else when they're here to defend themselves - which Ted is clearly not.

  • Junkster said:

    Ted is 77 years old and as he has mentioned several times not in the best of health. I might be a bit more onery too if I had a host of health problems (and was 77 years young)
    So we should probably cut him some slack.

    I hadn't realized he was of that age. Now that I know I will take your advice Junkster and not say any more about it. Thanks for adding some perspective to the matter.

  • There are other websites where I run into big jerks. I simply turn them off. Literally, I block them so I don't even have to see them or anything they may say. That's not possible in here. I recall years ago someone was "stalking" Max Bialystock in the Fund Alarm website. He wasn't heard from much, after someone chimed-in and called a spade a spade... Anyhow, Ted is ignore-able. But I wouldn't do that. He knows too much. And a word here directly to Ted: " Where have you gone, Joe Dimaggio? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you."
  • Thumbs down. He has been posting here and FA a long time, perhaps longer than Mr. Snowball.
  • Considering what we pay for this site, I think it should be put to a vote.
  • Guess I'll give my 2cents. Basically, Ted is not the victim here. Ted consistently pushed the rules that we are all subject too. No, sorry, being 77 and in poor health is not a free ticket to victimize others.
    Ted's comments are, and will continue to be, welcome. Given the rising number of concerns, the moderation requirement will likewise remain.
    This seems more then fair, if not to Ted, then for posters that were attacked for their opinions and personalities.

    Now I'll say, there is something about Ted that I really liked. I understood his humor and his way of communicating. Much of his sarcasm was in jest I believe. But as mentioned many times, sarcastic humor does not translate well in print.

    Anyway, I have a feeling Ted will be back down the road. Hope so.
  • edited August 2014
    MikeM said:

    Anyway, I have a feeling Ted will be back down the road. Hope so.

    "Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in." - Robert Frost
    (Sorry Mike. I couldn't resist.)
  • Can a moderator (for example, Prof Snowball) of an online messaging board (for example, this one) be held liable for violations of copyright law by a contributor? If yes, I'd be interested in being directed to case law in this area.

    Other contributors have left and returned and I hope (and suspect) Ted will as well.
  • I just scrolled down and see that Ted has indeed returned. End of drama
  • Glad to see Ted has returned.

    On a related note, as it pertains to Ted's "offending" post, though I'm not a copyright attorney, I did study copyright law while in law school, albeit many years ago. As I understand it, a forum or blog can issue portions of an article so long as the excerpt is quantitatively small and does not cause the newspaper financial harm. When Ted published the post it made me want to click through to the original article--which I ultimately did. I'm sure that this forum wants to steer clear of copyright violations, and I don't have any issue with a moderator making sure that the site isn't subject to liability.

    I'd suggest that David issue guidelines for the "reposting" of articles. If and when he sees those guidelines violated, he can gently remind offenders and can edit the posts accordingly. Beyond this, I think that censorship directed against individual posters should be frowned upon.




  • Bitzer,

    The short answer to your question is yes. See the following site for some recent decisions involving liability of forums and blogs for wholesale reposting of articles.

    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/

This discussion has been closed.