Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Guidelines for Post Signatures

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
This is one of the best reads I've had in awhile, keep it coming!

kingofpopcorn1.gif

dule-popcorn.gif

jon-stewart-popcorn11.gif

colbert-popcorn.gif

indiana-jones-popcorn.gif
 
Let's keep it civil folks.

Reputation is anonymous if the awarder chooses not to sign and it could be from any of the >10,000 members.

If someone care enough to post a reputation, then he/she should have the gut to put his/her name behind it. Taking a cheap shot by being anonymous? I could care less.

To those call me this or that behind the scene, I don't even see who you are, so I won't bother.
 
Not to stir up this thread, but a few comments:

And this is what you been doing behind the curtain, busy giving me bad reputation? Larry? Very funny.

Latest Reputation Received (26 point(s) total)Thread: Guidelines for Post Signatures
10-30-2013 11:43 PM​
go back to your site..wasting time..annoying guy

As Admin, I can see who posts reputation, and it wasn't Larry. That said, this feature is being abused and I've gone ahead and disabled the ability for regular members to give negative rep. Some are taking it too seriously and others are using it to hurl insults. We expect communication on this forum to be respectful whether in public forums, private messages, or anonymous comments.

The rules seem fair, but shouldn't he have been told to modify his signature instead of someone doing it for him? Seems he should have been asked to modify it, and if he refused, then perhaps more active measures.
The rules are pretty standard. We got by without them in the past because people were just using good sense.

Kevin was asked repeatedly and purposely ignored the moderators.

I hope the mods consider updating the signature policy. I think Kevin99, sleepyhead, and others should be able to post links in their signatures to articles they've written. It's sensible.

Edit: I'm confused. Is the issue linking to another site or having a lengthy signature?
I think the right way to do this is if you've written an article off site that would be of interest to others at TMC, you post a link to it along with a brief summary or a quote so readers aren't forced to click through to get the gist. Kevin was posting links the same articles in multiple threads in order to promote his site. So essentially cross posting and spamming, two violations of standard forum etiquette. You may have not seen the full extent since the mods interviened. Compounding that with three or four lines of links to his site in his signature makes things feel even more spammy (as well as an overly long signature).
 
Lo
Not to stir up this thread, but a few comments:



As Admin, I can see who posts reputation, and it wasn't Larry. That said, this feature is being abused and I've gone ahead and disabled the ability for regular members to give negative rep. Some are taking it too seriously and others are using it to hurl insults. We expect communication on this forum to be respectful whether in public forums, private messages, or anonymous comments.


The rules are pretty standard. We got by without them in the past because people were just using good sense.

Kevin was asked repeatedly and purposely ignored the moderators.


I think the right way to do this is if you've written an article off site that would be of interest to others at TMC, you post a link to it along with a brief summary or a quote so readers aren't forced to click through to get the gist. Kevin was posting links the same articles in multiple threads in order to promote his site. So essentially cross posting and spamming, two violations of standard forum etiquette. You may have not seen the full extent since the mods interviened. Compounding that with three or four lines of links to his site in his signature makes things feel even more spammy (as well as an overly long signature).

To be fair, in the beginning I was doing "spamming" as I see it pretty normal in a forum setting, and the links i posted is the thread i started within tmc, not even my site which i stsrted much later. Later on given the notes from mods, I did exercise caution by common sense so it is no longer the case.

However my posts seems caught the gawky eyes of Nigel, who keeps slapping on everything I post, to the point I have to ignore him. Nigel even gave me a bad reputation the last post I did on KNDI and I was like what the heck is that for. I didn't see how he modify my post, which he did all the times so I don't see how I violate the rule again. Here is the post:
KNDI Investment discussion - Page 7

I've thought about this and it is not worthy to continue. Not much fun if I have to think twice what I have to say every time.

I will minimize my participation so peace.

For the record, this is not true:
"
Kevin was posting links the same articles in multiple threads in order to promote his site. So essentially cross posting and spamming, two violations of standard forum etiquette."

In the beginning I post links to the tmc thread i started, not my site which did not exist.

I might post link to my site in the right context, a single link but never multiple. Go ahead show everyone how bad I was.

Now that i started the whining, let me flush it out. One more incident is when I included my paid article link from seekingalpha in my post, Nigel even removed that link with the accusation of me getting a few more clicks to earn a few cents. I called that ridiculous and since then it striked the wrong chord and Nigel seems amp up the effort of slapping. That is why I have to ignore him, and refuse to discuss with him one on one unless someone else is involved.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, in the beginning I was doing "spamming".....

Ummmm, right......

However my posts seems caught the gawky eyes of Nigel, who keeps slapping on everything I post, to the point I have to ignore him. Nigel even gave me a bad reputation the last post I did on KNDI and I was like what the heck is that for. I didn't see how he modify my post, which he did all the times so I don't see how I violate the rule again. Here is the post:
KNDI Investment discussion - Page 7

My wife says I don't have gawky eyes.

BTW, I didn't change anything on your original post. The record shows you edited it yourself yesterday. The negative rep was because three of the last four posts on that thread were you directing folks to your personal site.

Now that i started the whining, let me flush it out. One more incident is when I included my paid article link from seekingalpha in my post, Nigel even removed that link with the accusation of me getting a few more clicks to earn a few cents. I called that ridiculous and since then it striked the wrong chord and Nigel seems amp up the effort of slapping. That is why I have to ignore him, and refuse to discuss with him one on one unless someone else is involved.

Kevin, I'm not on a witch hunt but the fact is that as a moderator on the investor section your posts were always likely to fall under one person. I'd be happy to publish the entire communications we have had but I'm not sure it would make you feel better.
 
This is one of the best reads I've had in awhile, keep it coming!
Alright to the entertainment of rolosrevenge, lets continue the saga, and perhaps get to the bottom of all these dramas.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by kevin99 viewpost-right.png
However my posts seems caught the gawky eyes of Nigel, who keeps slapping on everything I post, to the point I have to ignore him. Nigel even gave me a bad reputation the last post I did on KNDI and I was like what the heck is that for. I didn't see how he modify my post, which he did all the times so I don't see how I violate the rule again. Here is the post:
KNDI Investment discussion - Page 7




BTW, I didn't change anything on your original post. The record shows you edited it yourself yesterday. The negative rep was because three of the last four posts on that thread were you directing folks to your personal site.

Yes when I post #65 (KNDI Investment discussion - Page 7), I didn't see #64 (KNDI Investment discussion - Page 7) , perhaps I have a tab open long time ago and didn't reload. I said something like this:

"
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by ckessel viewpost-right.png
Not sure I'm grasping it from the charts (waiting on site registration), but basically you're buying one call when prices are low and writing another call when the price has gone up to cover the cost of the first trade? The trick is your comprehension of when a swing up or down has reached it's zenith/nadir?




I though I replied but I guess not, there is a thought process which decides the trades and the thought process is more important the trades itself. My strategy in my signature elaborate the process.
"

I am pretty sure I didn't include any link but refer to my signature. Later I realize there is already #64, so I removed the part.
Now tell me Nigel, what bothers you gives me a bad reput on this?


Kevin, I'm not on a witch hunt but the fact is that as a moderator on the investor section your posts were always likely to fall under one person. I'd be happy to publish the entire communications we have had but I'm not sure it would make you feel better.

I certainly welcome that. It will enlighten everyone on your judgement. BTW, I have the record and I can publish it too.
 
However my posts seems caught the gawky eyes of Nigel, who keeps slapping on everything I post, to the point I have to ignore him. Nigel even gave me a bad reputation the last post I did on KNDI and I was like what the heck is that for. I didn't see how he modify my post, which he did all the times so I don't see how I violate the rule again. Here is the post:
KNDI Investment discussion - Page 7

Ummmm, right......


My wife says I don't have gawky eyes.
Sorry typo. I meant hawky eyes.
 
Nigel has been very clear and fair in his handling of you. Just because you don't like what he said (and I and other mods agree with him) doesn't mean you can ignore him.

If that is the case, we should really go in and peel the onion to see how fair he was. Publishing the whole communication will serve the purpose.

I maintain my stance of refusing dealing with Nigel on 1-on-1 basis.

I am fully aware of the possibility of being kicked out here by displaying such disrespect. I don't usually do this but I had enough of him.
 
Last edited: