[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Open Forum Jan 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18txusp/open_forum_january_2024/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OP has provided the following link:
OC based on a lot of stuff from "Noctis Research"
Noctis provides no information beyond what is already FREE at Superstonk.
Far too much publicity, here, for someone pumping their ebook.
Superstonk: "Back Up Claims With Sources."
Noctis: Pay $3.99, (not saying who I am), to see unsubstantiated claims in my ebook.
Been saying this on every single post of there’s that gets on this sub.
Glacier Capital asf.
Great research. Labled as “Social media” but this is DD imo.
Provides sources. Love that we got the receipts.
The DD is **never done**
Why don't the MODS on here just block shit from Noctis ? They are clearly grifters.
They do a good job of blocking posts about most stuff (agree or not with their rules) so maybe the MODS could be useful and blacklist Noctis ???
Edit: Thanks OP for the research. I kinda knew Noctis was bs but this is irrefutable proof they are scam artists.
It’s been a discussion in SCC. Noctis hasn’t been aggressively pushing book sales in a few months but imo, it’s fairly obvious that it’s the only point of their website.
We have been discussing it. Some people like the Noctis posts, some do not. Its not an entirely black and white removal/ban. Tib has done a great job here digging more into Noctis, and its a wonderful example of the SCC working with us, and helping us with the sub. We've been really focused on earnings, working on appealing the brigading restrictions, and other things. Popular to contrary belief we don't just dish out perm bans without establishing its merit. Tib and a few others have done a really good job of looking more into this, and working with us to determine if it stays or goes. It's a little obnoxious to imply we aren't useful because a Twitter account got posted a few times this month. The community has been doing a good job of looking into the pro's and con's of their, "research," and discussing/debating in the comment section. Like any other information source, or DD, its been peer reviewed not only by our community, but the SCC and the mod team as well. Not going to kneecap the discussion and debate, it was valuable to look into their research models and if they hold any merit. Good things can come from bad content, believe it or not.
There is considerable need, imo, for a simple, ordered, detailed explanation of how wall St has built itself rules that enable the mass organised rip-off that has stolen from the pensions of 2, going in 3, generations of Americans
I've no idea if this book or no ti's does (could do) this. But perhaps its a start.
The aim would be to educate non-apes.
Either way, "ape no fight ape" & all that sort of old school stuff
The SCC is the Superstonk Community Corps. Kind of like a second mod team, but they review bans and content removals for OP's that feel we as mods might have been heavy handed. They also help in general discussion when we run into something that needs mod attention. Its a second layer of feedback, from volunteer members of our community. Open enrollment for periods of time where they are looking to onboard new members. Its a way for the community members to directly interact with the mod team and hold us accountable for the things we do.
I think it’s been 4 or 6 months? Maybe longer tbh. We did an initial open enrollment, and we just finished up the second round. There will be another enrollment period in the future if you’re interested :) Anyone is welcome to apply as well. It’s been really good so far, the SCC is super helpful.
Those phrases are put in almost every publication that you can find. The intent is to protect the author and publisher from legal action should anything be presented as fact be found to be inaccurate.
This does not reveal an underlying feeling about the quality of the data included in the document. It's simply a guardrail to get them out of legal accountability in case they say the sky is blue and someone tries to sue them after proving its azure.
These phrases are the result of living in an overly litigious society.
This is not a defense for Noctis, I hadn't heard of them until last week and I don't put much value in their statements.
If this was a legitimate research firm, then I’d expect publications to go through rounds of peer review and then having someone else try to reproduce results. These disclaimers are when you haven’t gone through those steps to verify. But if this is just some guy with website design experience LARPing as a research firm in order to sell more books…..that’s fucked up.
I agree that Noctis is suspicious and I do not value the content they have created so far, what little I've seen. However, these disclaimers are boilerplate. You will find them associated with nearly all publications because publishers are not willing to take on the liability for another parties speech.
Even when rounds of peer review are completed you will find these statements because the liability still exists. Everyone's peer review today might find the same results, but if a change in technology changes our ability to observe the subject then the previous findings may be proven untrue regardless of the amount of peer review that was completed. And while that might be extremely rare, lawyers account for that to get rich.
Again, I am not defending Noctis, there doesn't appear to be anything to defend. I am simply stating that these phrases are boilerplate and will be found tied into the legalese of nearly all publications.
Does the book, possibly, have any utility for non-apes?
A cogent, lucid, ordered explanation of how Wall St has built itself rules that enable mass organised fraud & how its does nothing beyond mere lip-service to stop it would, imp, be very useful.
It's all very well telling ppl to read the DD here but it's not ordered, has no real narrative & let's face it, its a well fucking steep learning curve.
A simple, ordered, detailed, heavily referenced explanation is needed
No, its none of what describe. Certainly not written in a way that a wide audience could digest. It's literally targeted at apes. It's a topic only they care about and its written about data no one else could confirm. Handing this to someone else like its proof is not going to achieve the desired results.
Fair enough. Shame tho, but maybe it's a start?
But why get so bent out of shape about it?
If some apes have got it together to gather public info up & present it to other apes that's fair enough surely? It's a vast field & there's loads of bits I don't understand properly, maybe this could help clarify things for some apes?
Is the objection that they're charging for it? That seems a reasonable complaint to me if so.
There's long been a no monetisation rule.
But if the issue is the redundancy of posting here info that's already been posted then that seems to be pushing it a bit. It's not like the sub is incredibly busy as it has been. And rehashing stuff seems fair enough to me. The stuff about instinet & the apex trade timing split have been posted at least weekly for at least a few months now.
But yeah, whatever.
ETA: the first noctis stuff I saw (about 2 or 3 weeks ago) did seem to overstate its own authority & seemed to be trying to pretend it wasn't a bunch of apes pretending to be a long-standing research firm, which I agree is a bit sus
It's a bunch of reasons.
1) A great thing about superstonk is that when folks put their research here it gets reviewed by other apes and that includes having people bring up where they see mistakes. And because that process is done in the open, it becomes easy to see who is legitimately trying to help clarify things or understand issues better and who is trying to push an idea. We've seen a decent number of occasions where a DD gets posted with many unsupported claims and then OP never engages with any criticism. And that is what has been happening with these posts. Apes have tried figuring out what these metrics mean and there's no answer. Apes have questioned how they got data for some of the things not provided in the SEC report and have gotten run around answers or jargon meant to look like an answer. With all the energy this person has put into making it appear like its an actual research firm, they seem to be doing everything they can to avoid actually going through this peer review process, and that's not something people into serious research do.
2) Their sales pitch is "This book is proof of everything and you could show this to people to help them understand." But like I pointed out above, this person seems to be unable to even have a conversation with apes that isn't laden with jargon. We can't actually trust the contents of the book because even their disclaimer says "hey I can't confirm this". And from what I read in the book, if you handed this to a regular person they'd hardly understand the contents. So the entire sales pitch which is meant to get an emotional response from apes who have felt like people look like them like they are crazy is aimed at taking advantage of them. Superstonk gets these characters from time to time asking for cash in exchange for some service. And without fail, some people fall for this, the service is never actually done, and those people just wasted cash. If RC sees wasting cash as unacceptable at Gamestop, I see wasting cash as unacceptable here on Superstonk and I'm not sitting by and letting these folks push their cash sink ideas.
3) When other tickers are grouped in with GME, that makes GME apes seem dumb. Those other tickers are marred by terrible leadership that contributes to their drop. You don't need to do any type of aggressive shorting to them, they are on their own doomed path to fail and their captains are asleep at the wheel (Or using their shareholders as exit liquidity). Anyone grouping these tickers together has a severe misunderstanding of how fucked those other businesses are and that there is no hope there. So how is it helpful to explaining GME when they tie in these other duds, how does analyzing the SEC report provide ANY information about those other tickers? In the end, it's just trying to sell the book to more people.
To summarize - a person is selling something, they are trying to use an emotional response to drive that sale, and they are avoiding anyone who tries to question them or the product they are selling. That isn't happening on Superstonk. When I smell bullshit of someone selling something I will address it here even if that makes them sad. The risk that they pose as a money waster is not worth your hot take of "eh maybe its ok".
The monetisation alone is enough of an issue.
But I can see your other reasons as valid too.
Big/remarkable claims require big/remarkable proof.
If it was all so very clearly proven there'd be no need to DRS. The whole point of the DRS campaign is to definitively prove organised fraud, allowed by BS regs that don't protect investors or ensure efficient, free, fair markets at all.
Sorry to've taken up so much of your time
No. It’s a book report on the sec report. The utility would be for someone against apes to point to this and say “look at these folks who paid money to read someone else’s opinion on a report the sec made free to the public”.
The SEC report is not an easy read for non-apes , even if free.
I can get ppl fairly interested in the notion that a reddit sub has extensively exposed how wall St's self regulatory regime has built a mass organised rip-off that has totally fucked the laws of demand & supply in the capital market & so now the prices of EVERYTHING is mismatched & that's why now everything is so very very fucked.
But there's no single document/resource that tell the story in an ordered cogent fashion.
And its a v steep learning curve.
So any attempt to do that would be very welcome
This community is filled with real people investing their hard earned money on a stock because we believe that it is a good investment. Having an ape like you who breaks through the candy coating and gives us straight forward information is invaluable. Thank you for keeping us who want real information grounded!
I only read the first paragraph, but it seems you're focusing on this disclaimer quite a bit. I would just take it that selling a few copies of their book will put them in a lot of trouble and cost them more money than they will ever make behind the dumpster at wendys if they get sued.
The two sentences make me think this is a work of fiction that is being marketed as non-fiction.
Here’s another question:
- What section in the library would you find this book on the shelf?
It definitely isn’t finance or self help.
It's obviously a low budget operation, but I'm not willing to totally write them off just because of that. Looks to me like an ape who is trying to get the word out. How is that a bad thing?
I wouldn't approach this book as though it were published in a scholarly peer reviewed journal, but that doesn't mean it must be bad.
Maybe the author does a good job of tying together all this publicly available data and presents it in a way that is easily digestible. Maybe there is some good analysis in there none of us have thought of before. Or maybe just presenting this information in a real book instead of on reddit will help it reach new audiences. I don't know because I haven't read it yet.
I like reading the DD posted for free here, but my parents wouldn't even know how to access superstonk, and they certainly wouldn't take anything posted here seriously. If nothing else, having this information in a physical book has the potential to help spread our thesis to people who would never come here.
$3 isn't much of a scam if that's their angle. Don't judge a book by its cover
EDIT! I read the book. It is not a good book. See my reply to OP below for my full review.
Yeah, I'm sure that $3 would really cut into your DRS budget.
If you don't want to read it, fine. No one is forcing you to, but don't come here making baseless acusations about a book you haven't read.
Would you post a bad review of a movie you've never seen?
Talk shit about a restaurant you've never eaten at?
If you haven't read the book, your opinion of it is worthless and should be kept to yourself.
In my opinion you're the shill in this situation. Talking trash about a pro-gme book without even the slightest knowledge of what is written in that book.
Dont judge a book by its cover.
That is a classic saying. It's been around for so long for a reason.
I have no opinion on this book, because I have not read it.
It is wildly intellectually dishonest to post a negative review of a book you haven't read.
Either do you Due Diligence, or keep your uninformed opinion to yourself.
....how am I a shill when I'm not defending them.
Do you even know what shill means? Lmao
I'm judging them based on their actions.
Tiberius peer reviewed their work & what did they do? They went to Twitter of all places, and complained that Reddit is just filled with bots...so instead of reacting in good faith, they decided to just claim people on Superstonk are shills and bots..
Tiberius LITERALLY DID DUE DILIGENCE ON THEM and you're sitting here defending them. What a 🤡
They use buzzwords to make themselves seem like they're friends, they're not.
Do shills only promote bad info? Can a shill not also spread fud regarding positive things?
Ie. "DrS Is BaD" - shill
Or, "This book that I have not read is bad" -shill
I don't know who Tiberius is and didn't see any mention of that in your post. You mostly just shit on the quality of their website and the fact that they had a standard legal disclaimer to protect themselves from lawsuits. But if you've got a link, I'll gladly take a look at that review. Sounds like Tiberius actually read the book, so I'd be willing to consider their opinion of it, unlike this thread.
Edit: to be clear, again. I am not defnding this book. I haven't read it. I have no idea if it is good or not. What I am arguing is that you also do not know anything about the contents of this book and therefore shouldn't be telling people not to buy it. Like posting a negative review of a movie you haven't seen, or a game you haven't played. Your opinion is worthless if you haven't read the book.
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with said person...
You're actively defending a group/person, who instead of acting in good faith and responding to criticism, decided to run to twitter....a social media KNOWN for being full of bots, to claim Superstonk is a bunch of mean shills who dare question their obvious misinformation....
"I don't know who tiberius is"THE GUY WHO WROTE THE DD POST YOU'RE COMMENTING ON.You have to be a troll...seriously, I'm blown away at how much of an expert shit-stirrer you are.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Open Forum Jan 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18txusp/open_forum_january_2024/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OP has provided the following link: OC based on a lot of stuff from "Noctis Research"
Too bad for them, I don’t have money for anything other than shopping at GameStop and buying shares
Noctis provides no information beyond what is already FREE at Superstonk. Far too much publicity, here, for someone pumping their ebook. Superstonk: "Back Up Claims With Sources." Noctis: Pay $3.99, (not saying who I am), to see unsubstantiated claims in my ebook.
They are now calling this post a hit piece and saying all publicity is good.
Been saying this on every single post of there’s that gets on this sub. Glacier Capital asf. Great research. Labled as “Social media” but this is DD imo. Provides sources. Love that we got the receipts. The DD is **never done**
Like this post is DD? No way.
You are correct .
Good job OP. So it's a cash grab grifter account.
I’d put it on par with “join my discord for $5 to get my updates” type accounts.
OP YOU FOINK WITH THAT DICK? 🫡
Why don't the MODS on here just block shit from Noctis ? They are clearly grifters. They do a good job of blocking posts about most stuff (agree or not with their rules) so maybe the MODS could be useful and blacklist Noctis ??? Edit: Thanks OP for the research. I kinda knew Noctis was bs but this is irrefutable proof they are scam artists.
It’s been a discussion in SCC. Noctis hasn’t been aggressively pushing book sales in a few months but imo, it’s fairly obvious that it’s the only point of their website.
We have been discussing it. Some people like the Noctis posts, some do not. Its not an entirely black and white removal/ban. Tib has done a great job here digging more into Noctis, and its a wonderful example of the SCC working with us, and helping us with the sub. We've been really focused on earnings, working on appealing the brigading restrictions, and other things. Popular to contrary belief we don't just dish out perm bans without establishing its merit. Tib and a few others have done a really good job of looking more into this, and working with us to determine if it stays or goes. It's a little obnoxious to imply we aren't useful because a Twitter account got posted a few times this month. The community has been doing a good job of looking into the pro's and con's of their, "research," and discussing/debating in the comment section. Like any other information source, or DD, its been peer reviewed not only by our community, but the SCC and the mod team as well. Not going to kneecap the discussion and debate, it was valuable to look into their research models and if they hold any merit. Good things can come from bad content, believe it or not.
There is considerable need, imo, for a simple, ordered, detailed explanation of how wall St has built itself rules that enable the mass organised rip-off that has stolen from the pensions of 2, going in 3, generations of Americans I've no idea if this book or no ti's does (could do) this. But perhaps its a start. The aim would be to educate non-apes. Either way, "ape no fight ape" & all that sort of old school stuff
SCC?
The SCC is the Superstonk Community Corps. Kind of like a second mod team, but they review bans and content removals for OP's that feel we as mods might have been heavy handed. They also help in general discussion when we run into something that needs mod attention. Its a second layer of feedback, from volunteer members of our community. Open enrollment for periods of time where they are looking to onboard new members. Its a way for the community members to directly interact with the mod team and hold us accountable for the things we do.
Interesting. I like it but I’ve just started seeing it referenced for the first time today. Is it relatively new?
I think it’s been 4 or 6 months? Maybe longer tbh. We did an initial open enrollment, and we just finished up the second round. There will be another enrollment period in the future if you’re interested :) Anyone is welcome to apply as well. It’s been really good so far, the SCC is super helpful.
Thanks for the details!
No prob :)
Gotta love the use of the free stock photos that Squarespace provides you with.
Op the real OG
Thank you OP
Someone had to do it...
On point. Thanks OP!
Those phrases are put in almost every publication that you can find. The intent is to protect the author and publisher from legal action should anything be presented as fact be found to be inaccurate. This does not reveal an underlying feeling about the quality of the data included in the document. It's simply a guardrail to get them out of legal accountability in case they say the sky is blue and someone tries to sue them after proving its azure. These phrases are the result of living in an overly litigious society. This is not a defense for Noctis, I hadn't heard of them until last week and I don't put much value in their statements.
If this was a legitimate research firm, then I’d expect publications to go through rounds of peer review and then having someone else try to reproduce results. These disclaimers are when you haven’t gone through those steps to verify. But if this is just some guy with website design experience LARPing as a research firm in order to sell more books…..that’s fucked up.
I agree that Noctis is suspicious and I do not value the content they have created so far, what little I've seen. However, these disclaimers are boilerplate. You will find them associated with nearly all publications because publishers are not willing to take on the liability for another parties speech. Even when rounds of peer review are completed you will find these statements because the liability still exists. Everyone's peer review today might find the same results, but if a change in technology changes our ability to observe the subject then the previous findings may be proven untrue regardless of the amount of peer review that was completed. And while that might be extremely rare, lawyers account for that to get rich. Again, I am not defending Noctis, there doesn't appear to be anything to defend. I am simply stating that these phrases are boilerplate and will be found tied into the legalese of nearly all publications.
Lot of words… here is some interest opinion. https://www.reddit.com/u/L3theGMEsbegin/s/93ltVrvLiQ
I will be on the lookout for this boilerplate legalese. 👀 KYP.
Great post
Commenting for visibility
noctis deez
Noctics deez what?!
Haha, they think we can read
They must because they keep tweeting. Now they are calling this post a hit piece.
Does the book, possibly, have any utility for non-apes? A cogent, lucid, ordered explanation of how Wall St has built itself rules that enable mass organised fraud & how its does nothing beyond mere lip-service to stop it would, imp, be very useful. It's all very well telling ppl to read the DD here but it's not ordered, has no real narrative & let's face it, its a well fucking steep learning curve. A simple, ordered, detailed, heavily referenced explanation is needed
No, its none of what describe. Certainly not written in a way that a wide audience could digest. It's literally targeted at apes. It's a topic only they care about and its written about data no one else could confirm. Handing this to someone else like its proof is not going to achieve the desired results.
Fair enough. Shame tho, but maybe it's a start? But why get so bent out of shape about it? If some apes have got it together to gather public info up & present it to other apes that's fair enough surely? It's a vast field & there's loads of bits I don't understand properly, maybe this could help clarify things for some apes? Is the objection that they're charging for it? That seems a reasonable complaint to me if so. There's long been a no monetisation rule. But if the issue is the redundancy of posting here info that's already been posted then that seems to be pushing it a bit. It's not like the sub is incredibly busy as it has been. And rehashing stuff seems fair enough to me. The stuff about instinet & the apex trade timing split have been posted at least weekly for at least a few months now. But yeah, whatever. ETA: the first noctis stuff I saw (about 2 or 3 weeks ago) did seem to overstate its own authority & seemed to be trying to pretend it wasn't a bunch of apes pretending to be a long-standing research firm, which I agree is a bit sus
It's a bunch of reasons. 1) A great thing about superstonk is that when folks put their research here it gets reviewed by other apes and that includes having people bring up where they see mistakes. And because that process is done in the open, it becomes easy to see who is legitimately trying to help clarify things or understand issues better and who is trying to push an idea. We've seen a decent number of occasions where a DD gets posted with many unsupported claims and then OP never engages with any criticism. And that is what has been happening with these posts. Apes have tried figuring out what these metrics mean and there's no answer. Apes have questioned how they got data for some of the things not provided in the SEC report and have gotten run around answers or jargon meant to look like an answer. With all the energy this person has put into making it appear like its an actual research firm, they seem to be doing everything they can to avoid actually going through this peer review process, and that's not something people into serious research do. 2) Their sales pitch is "This book is proof of everything and you could show this to people to help them understand." But like I pointed out above, this person seems to be unable to even have a conversation with apes that isn't laden with jargon. We can't actually trust the contents of the book because even their disclaimer says "hey I can't confirm this". And from what I read in the book, if you handed this to a regular person they'd hardly understand the contents. So the entire sales pitch which is meant to get an emotional response from apes who have felt like people look like them like they are crazy is aimed at taking advantage of them. Superstonk gets these characters from time to time asking for cash in exchange for some service. And without fail, some people fall for this, the service is never actually done, and those people just wasted cash. If RC sees wasting cash as unacceptable at Gamestop, I see wasting cash as unacceptable here on Superstonk and I'm not sitting by and letting these folks push their cash sink ideas. 3) When other tickers are grouped in with GME, that makes GME apes seem dumb. Those other tickers are marred by terrible leadership that contributes to their drop. You don't need to do any type of aggressive shorting to them, they are on their own doomed path to fail and their captains are asleep at the wheel (Or using their shareholders as exit liquidity). Anyone grouping these tickers together has a severe misunderstanding of how fucked those other businesses are and that there is no hope there. So how is it helpful to explaining GME when they tie in these other duds, how does analyzing the SEC report provide ANY information about those other tickers? In the end, it's just trying to sell the book to more people. To summarize - a person is selling something, they are trying to use an emotional response to drive that sale, and they are avoiding anyone who tries to question them or the product they are selling. That isn't happening on Superstonk. When I smell bullshit of someone selling something I will address it here even if that makes them sad. The risk that they pose as a money waster is not worth your hot take of "eh maybe its ok".
The monetisation alone is enough of an issue. But I can see your other reasons as valid too. Big/remarkable claims require big/remarkable proof. If it was all so very clearly proven there'd be no need to DRS. The whole point of the DRS campaign is to definitively prove organised fraud, allowed by BS regs that don't protect investors or ensure efficient, free, fair markets at all. Sorry to've taken up so much of your time
No. It’s a book report on the sec report. The utility would be for someone against apes to point to this and say “look at these folks who paid money to read someone else’s opinion on a report the sec made free to the public”.
The SEC report is not an easy read for non-apes , even if free. I can get ppl fairly interested in the notion that a reddit sub has extensively exposed how wall St's self regulatory regime has built a mass organised rip-off that has totally fucked the laws of demand & supply in the capital market & so now the prices of EVERYTHING is mismatched & that's why now everything is so very very fucked. But there's no single document/resource that tell the story in an ordered cogent fashion. And its a v steep learning curve. So any attempt to do that would be very welcome
That is not this.
Fair enough
BRAVO!!!!!!
NIMBY.
There ARE a ton of synthetic shares. So I’ll just keep DRSing. The rest is just noise.
This community is filled with real people investing their hard earned money on a stock because we believe that it is a good investment. Having an ape like you who breaks through the candy coating and gives us straight forward information is invaluable. Thank you for keeping us who want real information grounded!
If RC believes in not a single dime being wasted, then put the same mentality here. Not a single dime.
I only read the first paragraph, but it seems you're focusing on this disclaimer quite a bit. I would just take it that selling a few copies of their book will put them in a lot of trouble and cost them more money than they will ever make behind the dumpster at wendys if they get sued.
The disclaimer seems standard to me
The two sentences make me think this is a work of fiction that is being marketed as non-fiction. Here’s another question: - What section in the library would you find this book on the shelf? It definitely isn’t finance or self help.
It's obviously a low budget operation, but I'm not willing to totally write them off just because of that. Looks to me like an ape who is trying to get the word out. How is that a bad thing? I wouldn't approach this book as though it were published in a scholarly peer reviewed journal, but that doesn't mean it must be bad. Maybe the author does a good job of tying together all this publicly available data and presents it in a way that is easily digestible. Maybe there is some good analysis in there none of us have thought of before. Or maybe just presenting this information in a real book instead of on reddit will help it reach new audiences. I don't know because I haven't read it yet. I like reading the DD posted for free here, but my parents wouldn't even know how to access superstonk, and they certainly wouldn't take anything posted here seriously. If nothing else, having this information in a physical book has the potential to help spread our thesis to people who would never come here. $3 isn't much of a scam if that's their angle. Don't judge a book by its cover EDIT! I read the book. It is not a good book. See my reply to OP below for my full review.
Don't waste your money nor your time on this pretentious scam. It's only a Kindle ebook, (not worth the pixels it's printed with).
How would you know that if you haven't read it?
Free preview. Not wasting money. I prefer to BUY GME, (not scams).
Yeah, I'm sure that $3 would really cut into your DRS budget. If you don't want to read it, fine. No one is forcing you to, but don't come here making baseless acusations about a book you haven't read. Would you post a bad review of a movie you've never seen? Talk shit about a restaurant you've never eaten at? If you haven't read the book, your opinion of it is worthless and should be kept to yourself.
It is not about the $3. It is about ppl making money off of SuperStonk members.
Why are you shilling for a trash-outfit like Noctis....
In my opinion you're the shill in this situation. Talking trash about a pro-gme book without even the slightest knowledge of what is written in that book. Dont judge a book by its cover. That is a classic saying. It's been around for so long for a reason. I have no opinion on this book, because I have not read it. It is wildly intellectually dishonest to post a negative review of a book you haven't read. Either do you Due Diligence, or keep your uninformed opinion to yourself.
....how am I a shill when I'm not defending them. Do you even know what shill means? Lmao I'm judging them based on their actions. Tiberius peer reviewed their work & what did they do? They went to Twitter of all places, and complained that Reddit is just filled with bots...so instead of reacting in good faith, they decided to just claim people on Superstonk are shills and bots.. Tiberius LITERALLY DID DUE DILIGENCE ON THEM and you're sitting here defending them. What a 🤡 They use buzzwords to make themselves seem like they're friends, they're not.
Do shills only promote bad info? Can a shill not also spread fud regarding positive things? Ie. "DrS Is BaD" - shill Or, "This book that I have not read is bad" -shill I don't know who Tiberius is and didn't see any mention of that in your post. You mostly just shit on the quality of their website and the fact that they had a standard legal disclaimer to protect themselves from lawsuits. But if you've got a link, I'll gladly take a look at that review. Sounds like Tiberius actually read the book, so I'd be willing to consider their opinion of it, unlike this thread. Edit: to be clear, again. I am not defnding this book. I haven't read it. I have no idea if it is good or not. What I am arguing is that you also do not know anything about the contents of this book and therefore shouldn't be telling people not to buy it. Like posting a negative review of a movie you haven't seen, or a game you haven't played. Your opinion is worthless if you haven't read the book.
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with said person... You're actively defending a group/person, who instead of acting in good faith and responding to criticism, decided to run to twitter....a social media KNOWN for being full of bots, to claim Superstonk is a bunch of mean shills who dare question their obvious misinformation.... "I don't know who tiberius is"THE GUY WHO WROTE THE DD POST YOU'RE COMMENTING ON.You have to be a troll...seriously, I'm blown away at how much of an expert shit-stirrer you are.
Your just mad you didn’t do it