talking about double standards. I am sure there are plenty of speculations(right or wrong) in a lot of posts. quite some name calling, too.
specifically, "never has his interest been to reward minority shareholders.", this is not exactly wrong opinion, just different opinion only.
I guess, the action of acquiring AustraLand is not exactly rewarding minority shareholders as far as most investors can see in any near future, speculation aside. FCL was leveraged to the hilt.
(15-10-2014, 01:44 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]talking about double standards. I am sure there are plenty of speculations(right or wrong) in a lot of posts. quite some name calling, too.
Quite some name calling? Please report those posts, in case moderator has missed them. Due to the volume, moderators might not able to read all posts.
Regards
Moderator
What I am questioning is the basis for baseless accusation?
How about constant assertion that the company will do this or do that, won't do this or that? What is base?
Will "never has his interest been to reward minority shareholders." be baseful if the commenter mentioned anything about what FCL has done in the past? After all, FCL had done a lot of things. right or wrong, is judged by what or who? What is exactly baseless?
Like "FCL has taken debt to acquire AustraLand, so never has his interest been to reward minority shareholders"?
"FCL has listed its hospitality assets together with assets from Charoen's private holdings, so Charoen only interested in making himself rich"?
Are any of the statement above baseful or baseless?
(15-10-2014, 02:56 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]What I am questioning is the basis for baseless accusation?
How about constant assertion that the company will do this or do that, won't do this or that? What is base?
Will "never has his interest been to reward minority shareholders." be baseful if the commenter mentioned anything about what FCL has done in the past? After all, FCL had done a lot of things. right or wrong, is judged by what or who? What is exactly baseless?
Like "FCL has taken debt to acquire AustraLand, so never has his interest been to reward minority shareholders"?
"FCL has listed its hospitality assets together with assets from Charoen's private holdings, so Charoen only interested in making himself rich"?
Are any of the statement above baseful or baseless?
Judgement call required to determine. Typical inputs for the judgement is base on historical posts, the context the post was posted and various other factors.
The level of moderation will also depend. In this case, a pre-warning was issued, rather an an official warning with record.
It might go into endless argument on the judgement. Let's get other moderators to vet it. If the vet is OK, the case will close. Further post on this matter will be removed till other moderators' comment.
Cyclone and Kazukirai, please comment
Regards
Moderator CF
Quote:Charoen only interested in making himself rich, never has his interest been to reward minority shareholders.
As forumers can see, the poster only post one liner as above, where is the base to say Charoen never has an interest to reward minority shareholders ?
Moreover, given the reputation of CityFarmer which has done excellent job as Moderator, let's just trust him in moderating the posts. Thanks.
I think Freedom has raised valid questions. The intent of the forum has always been for healthy discussion regarding companies and investments.
Having said that, it's impossible to draw a clear line but we need to be aware of when our statements reflect an opinion on the future of the company (which is fine, since no one has a crystal ball to prove or disprove the point that one is making) and when our opinions reflect on the intentions, integrity and actions of entities.
In my opinion, the latter is the more tricky kind of topic to comment on because it invites potential trouble in the legal sense. For example, by saying that "Charoen only interested in making himself rich, never has his interest been to reward minority shareholders.", this clearly reflects an opinion on the integrity and intentions of an entity which invites trouble, especially if one cannot prove his/her statements. This is effectively what Cityfarmer means by "baseless".
New forummers may not be sensitive enough but in this forum, most of those who have been around long enough would rather see intelligent comments, discussions and analysis on the financial health of the company, industry trends, economic moats etc. rather than the intent of personas as those come across as having a bone to pick or an axe to grind.
I think there are better forums out there for that sort of purpose.
In short, I think most forummers here are adult enough to understand the difference between an analysis on a company vs. speculation on the minds of business people. We (I think I speak for most of us) prefer the former to the latter.
As I previously have stated, pending for moderator's comment, I will remove all posts on the topic. Other company related post are allowed to continue
Thanks
Regards
Moderator (CF)
(15-10-2014, 05:01 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]As I previously stated, pending for moderator's comment, I will remove all posts on the topic. Other company related post are allowed to continue
Thanks
Regards
Moderator (CF)
No further post on the topic, till moderator comment to close the topic. Other company related post can continue
Regards
Moderator (CF)
No comment anymore. I just don't want to see any postings that can be interpreted as defamatory. Enough is enough.
The moderators' comment on the queries by freedom and others, on the LLS's baseless post :
We need to differentiate "free speech" and "speaking responsibly". We have never condemned negative comments as long as they are based on facts.
For example, if a company has been constantly having negative operating cashflow and levered to the hilt, you are free to point it out and thereafter state your opinion that its intrinsic value (based on your opinion) is divorced from its price.
The above is certainly not positive but you are free to state it because it is responsible.
However, if you say something that accuses an entity of something (e.g. that XX is only seeking to make himself rich at the expense of minority shareholders) then you better have very solid proof (e.g. a voice recording of the person saying that) or else that posting runs the risk of yourself and the forum getting embroiled in serious legal matters.
THAT is not responsible.
You want free speech, that is fine. But the question is can you handle the responsibility that comes with that? If you cannot, then please feel free to take your opinions elsewhere.
That is the position of moderators, after our discussion. The enforcement requires a judgement call, and the judgement lies solely on moderator. The judgement is final, with endorsement of all moderators. You might disagree with it, but that is the rule, otherwise we will spend our valuable time to argue endlessly on the topic.
In short, no further appeal, and that is final. Further post on the topic will be removed. Let's re-focus on the company topic
Regards
Moderator (CF), on behalf of our moderator team