Should all content on this site be publicly visible?

Background and objectives: 

Currently all posts into forums, blogs, news items etc are publicly visible - they will appear in search-engine results (Google etc.) This is probably what we want - this poll is to confirm that. Currently there are no obvious facilities for any kind of private discussion areas, but that option does exist.

If you vote no, please add a comment to describe what private discussion area(s) you think are needed.

77% (30 votes)
23% (9 votes)
Total votes: 39
    Login to post comments
I think every saver thinking

I think every saver thinking of putting his/her money on the Isle of Man should
be given the opportunity to study the posts on this site, so that they can see what to expect
instead of peace of mind, when somethings go pear shaped, and the regulators duck and dive
and only have their own butts to care about.

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 13/11/2012 - 14:13
I'm fully in agreement with

I'm fully in agreement with Anrigaut. Leave this web site alone.Confidential matters can be aired on the other DAG site (


Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 12/11/2012 - 22:31
I have to admit to being

I have to admit to being somewhat bemused by this poll and the comments below. This site has always been publicly visible and anything posted here is – and always has been - 'open to all and sundry'. So the question posed by ng is not about 'going public', but rather the opposite – whether there should be an area for private discussion.

It was precisely the belief that there was indeed a need for a private area reserved to those who lost money with KSF, where information that we would not wish to be public knowledge could be posted and discussed, that led to the setting up of the other DAG site ( over 3 years ago. This has served its purpose well and I see no reason to reinvent the wheel! At the same time, it seems to me that it remains useful that our views can reach a wider public through posts on this site which are picked up by search engines. As I see it, the two sites running in parallel now complement each other well.

For these reasons, I voted yes in the poll.

I do realise and understand that not all depositors/bondholders were willing to submit the proof of status required to register on the site, but am still at a loss to see how else we could have ensured – or could now ensure - that the private discussions were and are really that. I don't know exactly what sort of option ng has in mind, but I think we need to be clear that restricting access to parts of this site to registered members will not prevent them being publicly visible if registration remains open to anyone.

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 12/11/2012 - 22:01
Hi OnceBitten, I did vote no

Hi OnceBitten,

I did vote no a few months ago, and I still feel the same and agree with you. Our data should not be open to all and sundry.

If someone wants to respond to articles in the press or media that is their right. Or if they wish to express a view in the press or media, fine. But our site should be for us only, especially certain information that we would not wish to be public knowledge.

Gordon 45

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 12/11/2012 - 18:55
Maybe I don't fully

Maybe I don't fully understand all the "advantages" of going public, but to me, on the face of it, I can't see why a special-interest group like this should feel it is necessary or useful.

I realise we are all using pseudonyms, but surely the kind of thing that is discussed, is "private" to those who LOST MONEY with KSF?

Perhaps I am missing something.... Apart from my money.

Like everyone else here.

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 12/11/2012 - 08:24