Poll: Do you object to seeing public analyses of the finances of big business ?

Oh come now, you never posted anything that upon later consideration you wish you hadn't? I'll even answer that question for you. I know you have, and you know I have, and we both know that each other knows that.

Jamie is a human as the rest of us and was clearly upset. Could you call it unprofessional? Sure. Have you ever done something unprofessional due to passion? I have. I imagine that if Jamie could have wind back the clock and not have posted that he would have. GOM isn't some faceless mega-corporation, it's just a couple of guys. Just how long do you really think it is Right to pick him or them apart over it.

If you wish to hold this stance, then I imagine that you would not object to someone going back through every thing you ever posted regarding your SL enterprises and scrutinizing them endlessly. I have less than zero interest in doing so, but are you beginning to see my point?

I am not Ricky nor can I speak for him. But I know that were I in his shoes and subject to this crap, I'd likely give notice to the community that I was shutting down in 30 days, refund all L$ on deposit - as he has clearly said he would - and get out of such a petty and picayune community. I actually have reason to believe that Ricky is more tolerant of this crap than I'd be.

But damn, folks.

I belive UK law is quite correct on this one. The gist of it says you can speculate what you like. You can express an opinion. But you can't present anything as fact, except where you can prove it.

As for do you have a right to look into the finances of a business? Well, I'm not sure.

Any UK company has to send their summary accounts (Balance sheet, profit and loss) to companies house each year to be filed. These records are then open to public scrutiny. So in theory you can view the records of any UK company. But is that right? I'm not sure. I don't think companies or businesses should have to give any information whatsoever to any individuals except that required by law, as it's the company's matters.

I think the law generall says "You have a right to see the gist of how a company is doing financially, without getting into any real detail, and you have the right to see any information a company holds on you, but that's your lot". And I think that's a good stance to take.

I don't even have anything against GOM particularly one way or another, I have just found their public behavior distasteful and unbecoming of a discrete financial company

So far the vote is going in the way of its ok in all but small businesses. I am interested in hearing the reasoning behind this from those who voted that way. Why do you believe a small business deserves more finanacial privacy than a larger resident business? I am going purely on size of business here. Scrutiny of those which enter the subject of their own businesses finances is another matter.

It was the closest to my true opinion of "it's ok" period..no matter the size of the business. If it's a public SL business, analyze away!

the only thing I can think of is if it's some type of business on a private island with restricted visitors, or if there are vendors that will only sell to a certain group. Not sure if that exists. I guess my point is that all SL businesses are public and that was the closest choice to that. (in other words...it should have been an option)

I don't think that there should be a requirement to share info with the public though

So far the vote is going in the way of its ok in all but small businesses. I am interested in hearing the reasoning behind this from those who voted that way. Why do you believe a small business deserves more finanacial privacy than a larger resident business? I am going purely on size of business here. Scrutiny of those which enter the subject of their own businesses finances is another matter.

Just so you know, Jsecure, in the US there is a huge distinction between privately held firms and publicly held (stock selling) corporations. Publicly held corporations in the US have to file quarterly "open books" accountings of their actiivities for public record. Here is a firm that specializes in putting these public records online. Warning: not safe for the easily bored. This isn't to say that there isn't a whole lot of "creative accounting" in the various filings, but they are public record.

Privately held firms have no such reporting requirements in the US. I have no idea what Canadian law is on the matter.

But you can run a business as a 'sole trader' in the UK. Then your finances are not 'open books', and its treated pretty much the same as an employee's wages.

because there was no choice saying it's ok to specualte on anyones income. this is an internet supported community. information and discussion should be open. why should businesses be protected by miystification of their earnings?

Damn, wish I had a company in the USA, I could do whatever I wanted

The key is the difference between a business and a company.

because there was no choice saying it's ok to specualte on anyones income. this is an internet supported community. information and discussion should be open. why should businesses be protected by miystification of their earnings?

I never said that smaller businesses aren't open for scrutiny, I just said there isn't a choice that met my opinion so I chose the one closest. Smaller businesses are certainly open for analysis, however getting statistics on them would be much more difficult.

It becomes worse when people start to speculate or bring up grossly exaggerated figures. Then you force people to either reveal private information about their real earnings, or the wrong numbers remain undisputed.

Anyway, you can just ask yourself: How would you feel if people here would start to discuss how much you may make in your (RL) job? Maybe somebody finds out if you own one house or car. Should we collectively discuss wether or not it is fair that you live in such nice house or own such expensive car? And so on...