Making these forums for RR's only
51 RepliesJump to last post
I have to ask just to clarify: What is it you specifically do not want the public reading off of your posts?
I am mixed on this. I think all of this filtering RR's is a waste. Hell it's hard building a book period so what % of people do you honestly believe want to go to a message board on their spare time and read what broker's have to say? I am lost. All of this because of a Bobby Hull and Charlie Broker. Can we count 5 people who are not broker's on this site? I mean after all, the people asking for this filter are the same ones who hide behind anonymous usernames to reveal company information that was meant to remain confidential. The Admin needs tor esearch the legality of this situation ie. Couldn't brokerages come after this site for encouraging broker's to hide and pass on insider information? where does the line stop? I just think by controlling who comes in we have to also supervise what can be said.There should be filtering, not just b/c of the trolls, but because we, as RR’s, or other professionals have chosen a place to share information that should not necessarily be shared or that we would not want to share with the public. While everything I do is ethical and legal within my practice, I certainly don’t want to openly share my trade secrets with the general public. Sure, there are places that the general public can go to learn everything they’d like to know about wrap accts, 12-b1s, etc., but let them use google and FINRA for that.
I don't think that a lot of what is discussed here should be shared with the public. A lot of the topics of discussion are of the same ilk as those with which wholesalers share with us where topics or visuals are not "client approved" or "approved for the general public." I would like to feel confident that a place of discourse entitled "Registered Reps" was pertinent to just that: Registered Reps. So, I agree that other professionals such as attorneys, CPAs, and Insurance agents, who we, as RRs, deal with on a daily basis are indeed pertinent to the conversations and topics we discuss. The regular Joe, however, such as charlie, fighnancy, or whomever, certainly does not need to be privy to our discussions. One option, if the general public is so interested in our discussion, would be to have a more restricted access for those people. In these non-RR forums they could comment on what they would like to see from their FAs so that we had something to build on, as well as a recruits sections for those considering the crazy idea of taking the leap into the business. As for unlicensed individuals perusing our discussions on estate planning, etc., I don't think they need to receive that free advice from us. This forum is a tool for us RRs to improve our businesses, not to provide free solutions for Do-it-yourselfers.[quote=iceco1d]
You might as well be a Bengals fan while you're at it as well![/quote] I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.[quote=anabuhabkuss] I have to ask just to clarify: What is it you specifically do not want the public reading off of your posts?
I am mixed on this. I think all of this filtering RR’s is a waste. Hell it’s hard building a book period so what % of people do you honestly believe want to go to a message board on their spare time and read what broker’s have to say? I am lost. All of this because of a Bobby Hull and Charlie Broker. Can we count 5 people who are not broker’s on this site?
I mean after all, the people asking for this filter are the same ones who hide behind anonymous usernames to reveal company information that was meant to remain confidential. The Admin needs tor esearch the legality of this situation ie. Couldn’t brokerages come after this site for encouraging broker’s to hide and pass on insider information? where does the line stop? I just think by controlling who comes in we have to also supervise what can be said.[/quote]
One key to this process that many have not thought about is this: You will only be able to have one username. If you have to qualify each user manually then we will obviously not be able to approve several usernames. This is another win-win with providing proof.
MissJ
There is really no easy way to have our cake and eat it too. If we want restrictions on non industry folks, we need to be willing to be identified somehow. If i stumbled on this forum and tried to join and was asked for my CRD #, i would be hesitant, even without knowing about all the lunatics that have graced us with their presence over the last few months.
It seems to me that the best solution to this, not perfect, but best possible solution is the idea that has been mentioned by many - a subscription number. If someone doesnt have a subscription they could be given two choices - either subscribe, which any RR can without cost, or submit their CRD. Its ok to ask for the CRD, as long as their is an alternative offered. I think it would be a good thing to make this forum somewhat exclusive, and not that easy to get into. And as Miss Jones said, it would prevent idiots from re-registering under a new name. One more thing - to the admins - you guys have really turned the corner. Kudos, i for one am excited at the prospect of having a place to come to that is pure resource again.[quote=Indyone]Going backwards in another thread, I see Tarheels had the same idea about using the rrmag account # to join here. I think it’s a great idea, but wanted to tip my hat to Tarheels for thinking of it first. I still think there should be exemptions for some long-time posters who in my mind have certainly proven their industry bona fides whether or not they subscribe to RRMag.
Also, in light of CB's post above, and the fact that many here want CB to go, you should honor her request and delete her profile. I will say this, she didn't do half the damage that Bobby Hull and his various personalities did here. Feel free to disagree, but I'm calling that one as I see it. That kind of behavior has no place here as it resulted in the loss of more than one quality poster. [/quote]Ditto. Added emphasis mine.
First - Thanks to Indyone for offering me elevated status. If admin were to go in that direction that elevated staus should extend to Indy as well as a list of regulars. It wouldn’t be hard for admin to determine who’s an FA. They all should get a pass.
Second - Personally, I'm entertained by the trolls and all the goading that goes on. Personally I miss going toe to toe with Put Trader, even though, technically, he wasn't a troll. Just a bad pony. Regardless, he is/was one smart dude and in his own way added to the knowledge of the group. He also added to the honesty factor in that there was no way BS was going to get past him. Banning him was a double edged sword. Good to get rid of the avarice, bad in that gone with him is his extensive industry experience. Third - Disclosing inside information under the gise of a pseudonym? Hmm? Noone here is a corporate officer privy to inside information. This forum is a place for reps to tell it like it is. Stifling that discussion defeats the purpose of the forum.This is a good, healthy discussion. Admin, you should be pleased with the quality feedback you are receiving. Hopefully, much of it gets incorporated into the final product. The CRD# idea. which most have backed away from, is not in my way of thinking a valid screen as it can easily be misappropriated. Anyone who can go to the FINRA site and use broker check, can easily misappropriate someone else’s CRD#. The RRMag subscription number is a much better form of verification as (1) it’s relatively private, (2) it will greatly reduce the use of multiple personalities, at least in the restricted zone, and (3) as others have stated, it has the potential to increase RRMag subscribership.
If you hear use our suggestion of creating public and restricted zones, I'm curious as to how you will handle all the posts and threads already here and would solicit the opinions of other members on whether some, all or none of it should go into the restricted zone. I have my opinion, but am more interested in hearing the opinions of others first.Why not just allow posters to enter their RR subscription# in their profile if they want to and, if they do, have “RR Subscriber” appear under their ID…like you have “Senior Member” or “Newbie” now. Let the users choose between extra anonymity or extra credibility.
Iceco1d, although newer to the business, may make a pretty good moderator candidate. You're going to be hard pressed to find moderators who do not express their opinions here. At best, you'll find moderators who are willing to hear all sides, despite natural biases, can get along with all but the most unreasonable members here, and are fairly active. Some of the worst transgressions here happen after hours and have unfortunately gone unchecked for far too long. A small, but diverse group of moderators from all channels, sharing power, would eliminate a lot of the garbage that we've dealt with in the past, and frankly, almost ruined this forum at one point. Why not let the users nominate and vote for moderator choices? You can still eliminate candidates that are problematic for you, but given some of the fine suggestions I've seen in this thread, I think you can trust us to give you some good, if not completely unbiased, candidates.By the way, iceco1d, good ideaabout the quiz. Very innovative!
[quote=BondGuy]
Third - Disclosing inside information under the gise of a pseudonym? Hmm? Noone here is a corporate officer privy to inside information. This forum is a place for reps to tell it like it is. Stifling that discussion defeats the purpose of the forum.[/quote] Exxxactly. Which is why this filtering idea is pointless. Honestly, admin, just put in a button that let's users flag irresponsible users for moderation. I still see no valid point why to filter people out altogether. If you do not want someting disclosed to the public, spend your time making a sales call. This whole discussion baffles me and is a first, that I know of, for message boards. Once again, no one has been able to count the number of trolls and non RRs on this site. Disclosing personal information at the expense of a handful of annoyances is downright silly. Nothing stopped any of you disclosing information for years on this site, why complain now? Is business that dead for you? There's no way you can stop anyone fooling a "subscription" system or, as someone else mentioned, a quiz they can't get answers to over the internet.[quote=anabuhabkuss][quote=BondGuy]
Third - Disclosing inside information under the gise of a pseudonym? Hmm? Noone here is a corporate officer privy to inside information. This forum is a place for reps to tell it like it is. Stifling that discussion defeats the purpose of the forum.[/quote] Exxxactly. Which is why this filtering idea is pointless. Honestly, admin, just put in a button that let's users flag irresponsible users for moderation. I still see no valid point why to filter people out altogether. If you do not want someting disclosed to the public, spend your time making a sales call. This whole discussion baffles me and is a first, that I know of, for message boards. Once again, no one has been able to count the number of trolls and non RRs on this site. Disclosing personal information at the expense of a handful of annoyances is downright silly. Nothing stopped any of you disclosing information for years on this site, why complain now? Is business that dead for you? There's no way you can stop anyone fooling a "subscription" system or, as someone else mentioned, a quiz they can't get answers to over the internet.[/quote] I'm not sure we're speaking the same language here yet, but I would respectfully disagree that restricting access to at least a portion of this forum is pointless. As has been mentioned earlier, there are many materials labeled "not for use with the public", and correspondingly, there have been plenty of occasions here where registered reps have exchanged, or would like to exchange information that is not ready for public distribution, due to suitability, etc. Since there is no way to vet all visitors for suitability and/or know their entire financial picture, there should be an area that is off-limits to the public where such material can be discussed. In addition, if everyone here operated in a manner where we assume that everything we post can and will be read by the general public, the quality of the content would naturally be diminished. I can tell you from personal experience that there have been several instances where I would have liked to contribute something helpful, but held back because I could not limit my audience. PM's help, but the helpful information is limited to one recipient. Other members who might have gained are shut out. While trolls may not be eliminated, they would certainly be curtailed under such a system and anything is an improvement in my opinion. As to fooling a subscription system, certainly that is possible, but again, such a system would be a vast improvement over what we have now and would sharply curtail some of the foolishness we've had to put up with. Help me understand here...what you're saying is you think the forum in it's current format is the best solution?I agree with Indyone. While what annabuhabkruss (hope i got that right), said about other forums not restricitng any group from joining, dont forget that we are in an industry that is unique as far as regulation is concerned. That is to Indyones point.
With all due rrespect.To some extent, I am just looking for plausible deniability.
If somehow I was ever "outed", I would like to be able to say, "Wait a second. I'm not posting in a public chatroom. This is only for registered reps. If I had any idea that the public was reading, I would have gotten my posts approved in advance." I know that it sounds stupid, but when it comes to compliance issues, we registered reps have a deck that is stacked against us. P.S. I really dislike having to remain anonymous. Like many others, I post because I want to learn from others in the industry and give back to an industry that has given me so much.I must be the only person here who doesn't like this idea. Ice, sorry to breakup the love in. Maybe it's because I couldn't answer the E&O question? Off course the reason I couldn't answer that question is because I've never purchased E&O insurance. Those of us on the wire/regional side don't have to buy it. Maybe we should but... This brings up the issue of just what questions to ask, who's asking, and what would constitute a passing grade? Already one question tripped a 25 year vet. How many of those questions could a CPA or Attorney answer? How do we not exclude those we want to include? Who is asking the questions? Admin isn't manned by FA's or financial experts. These people are journalist/writers/publishers who know about as much about investing as the average layman. If they are anything like their most of their counterparts over at Money Magazine they probably haven't made an investment beyond their 401k. They are ill equipped to craft expert screening questions. Of course they could ask questions about grammer, spelling, and sentence struture, but that would eliminate me as well. What would constitute a passing grade? What if the newbie gets only one question wrong, but it's a basic question everyone should know? Pass or fail? Personally, if I came to a forum, business or otherwise that was so exclusionary as to require a test to join, it would be straight ahead keep walking for me! Proving we're FA's to journalist/writers via testing? It as ridiculous as it sounds.By the way, iceco1d, good ideaabout the quiz. Very innovative!
…awwww, BG…we’ve already nominated you for a pass, anyway. I’ll concede your point that a quiz could be problematic. There was one question that I wasn’t sure about either…I can’t remember which one, but I do recall questioning my choice. If I fail, do I get to keep taking it until I finally get lucky and pass? Or am I barred after one attempt?
I still like the idea of using the RRMag subscription for most and giving obvious professionals a pass. While Iceco1d's idea of a quiz was clever (and I'd still nominate him for a moderator), for reasons you mentioned, it should at least not be the only method of registration if used.I hope that this site doesn’t become too exclusive… if the senior or RR want thier own forum let them have it… generally newbys (like me) dont really want that level of detail or the nuts and bolts of investing … yet. This site has been a wealth of information and I have learned so much… I am not an RR yet but will be in a few months. One thing I dont like is when a good question is put out and inevitably after three or four post it becomes side tracked and goes off course with a bunch of crap and name calling that goes on and on for pages…
You can look at www.topgunproducers.com they have some sort of entry level deal that gradually over time increases but there are some areas that the people in that forum must approve you first. I joined that site but honestly it may be good for people in the industry it really wasnt that good for newbys.... also seems to focus mainly on insurance not investing even in the FA forum.... also the guy running it is an ego maniac, hes so full of his self, I got sick after reading just a few of his post.... hope this site never subscribes to that level of snobery. Finally I think i have posted two threads here and got some great replys, some wonderful PM,s and of course some of the senior rear ends on here bashed me just like every other newby who dares post a question... as i am sure i will get bashed for this postFerris I would like to meet you!
Hate is a strong word.. and you dont even know me. Somehow hiding behind a silly name and avitar is probably a good idea for you, i dont imagine having to face someone in person using your real identity and running your mouth would be a good idea as it would probably get your ass kicked but then again probably not becasue mostly spineless pathetic small people act the way you are online because in real life your miserable and havent got the guts. You sure seem to be a miserable litttle man Thank you for making my point