Well, you CAN get a machine and install Linux on it. Some stores even sell machines pre-installed with Linux. Not as many as a few years ago of course for a very simple reason: consumers didn't like Linux and kept coming back and asking for Windows. So, yes, it's a free market, and the general consumer chooses to pay for the MS software every single day over the free alternatives.
Admittedly, there's a LOT of reasons that they make that choice and only a few of them are "they think the software is better". Nonetheless, a market where many of the alternatives are free is about as good a definition of a free market as I can think of.
Don't be a moron. Zimbabwe has one of the largest standing armies in Africa, precisely to ensure that Mugabe can crush any opposition. The CIO (think KGB) focus on internal dissent, "disappearing" and torturing dissidents. The police are totally partisan, killing and murdering non Zanu-PF supporters and assisting in farm invasions. The elections are synonymous with fraud, and the media is almost completely under the control of the ruling party.
Since the ballot is meaningless, your assertion that they can use that to remove Mugabe is idiotic. Since suppression and force are so heavily used by the security services, your claim that they can use force is even more pathetic.
Without "external manipulation" as you put it in your ignorant screed, Zimbabwe has seen millions of it's citizens flee, hundreds of thousands starve, it's economy get destroyed, and it's future economic output sold to countries like China and Russia for jet fighters that sit broken and rusting.
Speaking as a ex-Zimbabwean myself you can take your pig-ignorance and stuff it. If you ever get slammed down by brutal state oppression you will see exactly how much chance you have to rebel.
Yes, really. My example was a compiler which makes my team twice as efficient, I said nothing about it's speed. A compiler's speed is a small portion of it's overall efficiency.
True economic growth builds on itself, increasing the economic capacity, increasing the amount of productive work that each person can perform. Even with a finite pool of people, by constantly building better and better tools, and increasing the amount of work each one can do growth will continue. Take three people needing to dig a hole. One has a spade, one has a mechanical excavator, and one has a drag line.
Each man spends the same amount of time, and yet accomplishes extraordinarily different results. Now consider the future and what other tools might be available. Consider completely automated mines with just a caretaker staff complement, automatic factories, and even self-driving delivery vehicles.
To look at all that, millenia of technological revolutions, and proclaim that someday innovation must cease, and growth with it seems the height of arrogance to me. Is everyone just going to throw up their hands and say "hey, we've got enough, let's stop trying"?
Most of the posts here seem to be suggesting that HFT be scrapped in one form or another. I have a somewhat contrarian view; who cares? Arbitrage has always been a very technical field that normal day traders never got involved in much anyway. The HFT's now just make human arbitrage impossible, and scoop up a little cash by keeping markets consistent. You see, arbitrage exists because there's discrepancies, and HFT helps smooths those discrepancies out.
If you're a value investor buying shares in a company whose growth you believe in and intend to hold on to them for years, then HFT does not affect you at all. If you're a day trader trying to guess the direction of the stock market, they don't affect you either: you're still screwed; just like you would have been a decade ago. If you're a day trader trying to arbitrage, sure, these have put you out of business. But I suspect that's a rather small group.
This is the kind of shit that has madmen and economists thinking you can forever grow an economy in a finite world with finite resources
Umm, you can. Sure, there are far too many people getting paid well for completely non-productive work, but if I spend two weeks creating a compiler that makes me and my team twice as efficient I have not detracted from anyone else, but have grown the productive capacity of the world by a small amount. Economics is not a zero sum game.
Additionally, those "finite resources" you mention include the 120-odd petawatts of solar energy slamming into the Earth, and the massive tidal energies caused by the Moon's influence. Whilst both those are technically finite, they are not so in the context of this conversation. Any of that energy used for productive use is completely additive, taking away nothing.
I know I'm focusing on just one small aspect of your post, but this idea that economics is zero-sum and that there isn't real productive growth going on needs to be stomped.
Absolutely. A company I work for has an "enterprise system" (i.e. bloated piece of crap) written for them by Accidenture. If we wanted to move databases it would be fantastic, it's all set up to make that transition as painless as possible. Wonderful stuff indeed.
Except, um, we've never wanted to switch databases and likely never will, certainly not in the software's lifespan.
And the cost of this "design" we will never use? Slow, difficult to maintain code.
I'm not saying that you should tightly couple your DB code, far from it, but you don't have to go as overboard as some do. If it's decoupled enough to mock out, then it's decoupled enough for me.
Most pharma companies would prefer the timings to be much shorter, so they can start profiting sooner (plus it costs a lot). The hard reality is that sometimes problems only crop up after years of usage, which is why clinical trials need to be so long. Even then, they're sometimes not long enough. Then the regulator must wade through the reams of documentation to ensure the trial was in fact done properly.
So I guess they're too long for better profits and too short for minimal risk. Which indicates that they're probably not too far off optimum.
Well, it doesn't have to be a signed offer, nor does there have to be money changing hands. Those just make it easier to prove that there was a contract. Technically there must be an offer and an acceptance. Well, sometimes not even that, just evidence that you appeared to accept the contract would be sufficient. So, if I threw up a warning on the page stating that everything past page 1 was to be paid for, and then you scrolled past page 1, you would have entered into a binding contract with me, as long as I had proof that the warning was displayed and that you "accepted" it by moving past page 1.
Look at my blog and whilst I do indeed use Microsoft technologies, I think it's pretty unfair to label me a Microsoft apologist. I also find it interesting that you use this "Microsoft apologist" label to hand wave away the evidence I presented, a clear cut case of attacking the person, not the argument.
I have not disputed that their costs have been lowered. I have focused on performance issues because I know for a fact that performance is the primary reason they switched. You keep focusing on other areas, which whilst important, were not of primary importance in their selection criteria. I thought you were genuinely interested in getting information, which is why I tried to explain to you the main reasons they switched.
If you looked at my LinkedIn profile, then you know where I'm contracting. How the hell do you figure you know the inside details better than me?
Hmmm, I'm not sure how you think I'm changing my original point, but okay.
The #1 reason for switching has to do with performance. The system they've chosen is very stripped down in comparison with TradElect, allowing for greater speed. It also is more flexible, which is useful since the LSE operates other exchanges trading engines as well. Reliability is a major factor as well, agreed.
Whilst the LSE is 5th by market cap, they also run trading for Borsa Italiana, small parts of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. In total managed market cap that puts them at #2 behind the NYSE. No idea where you got that 9th figure.
I also don't know where you're getting this idea that perf was unimportant, but you can forget it. I can assure you that in the stock exchange business, speed is king. They would happily suck up somewhat increased operational costs if they could speed up the trading, since their profits would soar. The problem with TradElect is that it doesn't scale too well, so their costs rise faster than profits as they boost it's performance. With the MIT acquisition they're getting an even better deal: increased speed plus hopefully lowered costs.
Increased speed encourages companies and brokers to work with you, it encourages smaller exchanges to run on your systems, it increases the money you can make from co-location. Not only that, it obviously also allows you to greatly expand your listings base should you choose to do so, and go after massively increased volumes. From their own press release: "commitment to strive for performance enhancements and efficiency in the markets we operate, ultimately delivering value to our clients". It doesn't mention TCO or costs anywhere there.
Okay, well to anyone who's ever had to work with Accenture code, it would tell them a lot.
I agree wholeheartedly that it has nothing to do with MS vs Linux, I think it has to do with another shoddy Accenture implementation. Even the.NET decision has nothing to do with it IMO, I'm a firm believer that algorithms and design have far more impact than OS or language choice.
Oh, and calm the hell down. It's a discussion, not a flamewar.
The LSE's existing staff are MS-based. My point was that since the software they were looking at was Linux-based, that was actually a point against it when they were evaluating. They went with it anyway because the speed advantages were too good to resist, and it was proven technology. I promise you that the LSE care nothing for MS vs Linux. If there had been an MS-based system with the same performance and reliability, they would have been happy going with that. There wasn't, so they didn't.
As for "the company in charge of it", the current system is owned and developed by the LSE. It was handed over to them by Accenture some years ago. Since they now own the new system as well, I'm not sure exactly who you think they'll "complain at when things go bad" that they don't have now.
So, in summary, the reason they bought this software was that it would have been too expensive and risky to get their existing systems to the performance characteristics required, which is no surprise to anyone who has ever had to deal with Accenture-developed code.
It had nothing to do with TCO, maintainability or anything like that. It has to do with the fact that the software they're switching to is the fastest in the world. The fact that it runs on Linux is actually a disadvantage, since most of their skills are MS-based. But they don't care because the software is so fast and customisable.
Wrong. There is no requirement to "exploit it's profit possibilities", and it is almost impossible for any shareholders to hold directors liable for business decisions. They can hold them accountable by firing them, but they would be unable to sue them unless they can prove conflict of interest or lack of care; both of which are pretty damn difficult to prove, trust me on this.
Directors have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company, not the shareholders, and best interests do not have to include maximum profit.
Your 60% shareholder could indeed run the company as a religious institution. Not a charity, sure, he would not be able to recklessly give away assets, but he could specify that the company would spend a large percentage of profits on charitable works.
Almost right. Goals do not come into it, but if they place their interests ahead of the company's then yes. However, rational beliefs and mindset do not count as interests. Now we can argue whether religion is irrational or not, but the courts do not view it as such. It would depend on the articles of incorporation, but even if profitability was the #1 priority (I know for Bible.com it was pretty high on the list), the directors could just say that it is their considered belief that their actions are for the long-term good of the company, and the court would effectively say "oh, that's alright then, thanks", and dismiss the case if no evidence of irrationality or conflict of interest could be shown.
Correct, which is exactly one of the reasons why courts are not keen to get involved in fights between shareholders and boards. Boards are given great discretionary powers by the shareholders. If the shareholders are not happy with the boards performance they may fire the board, or sell their shares.
Since they have so much power over the board, it's tricky for them to convince a court that they should be compensated for decisions they don't agree with.
How about "not commonly"? Certainly very few articles of incorporation I've ever read have contained much to do about profits or shareholders value. Funnily enough, it's normally the less successful companies that do. The most successful companies strive for a purpose beyond mere lucre, and just happen to make truckloads of cash along the way.
Many, many companies make unprofitable decisions. Merck famously decided to work on a cure for river blindness despite the knowledge that the sufferers would be unlikely to afford the treatment. They then decided to make it available, for free, to anyone in the world in perpetuity. Should their shareholders have taken them to court? It was an action in accord with their company values, but not pure profit motive.
Some companies are explicitly run for their employees, some to improve the environment, some to advance technology. Companies are created to serve a purpose, and usually the best way to achieve that purpose is usually to run a healthy profit. But investors know the purpose of the company when they invest. If the #1 priority is not "maximise shareholder value", they are going in with their eyes wide open. IBM's core values do not include shareholders, Microsoft have them down at #6, and don't address profits or value. Apple doesn't mention shareholders either, and nor does Google. Ironically, Worldcom had shareholder value front and centre.
As for directors duties; there are two common law duties that directors have to shareholders. The duty of loyalty requires that directors put the interests of the company ahead of their own, and the duty of care means they must make good decisions. Nothing about profit there. Shareholders can of course sue the company if they disagree with the business decisions, but they are likely to be very disappointed. Courts are rightly reluctant to interfere in business decisions unless there are clear conflicts of interest or completely irrational decisions. If they did not take this hands off approach, directors would constantly be looking over their shoulders rather than acting in what they feel are the best interests of the company. It would have a chilling effect on risk-taking and decisions. In the US this is called the business judgement rule. Effectively, a court will assume, absent clear evidence to the contrary, that the decisions the directors take are in the best long-term interests of the company, a court "will not substitute its own notions of what is or is not sound business judgment".
An atheist who believes in permanent judgement and punishment for past sins?
Weird.
I believe that when people do good it should be appreciated and not thrown back in their faces. Clearly this part of my illustration passed you by.
But then I'm an atheist, so I don't need heaven and hell to scare me into being good.
Words fail me. Wrong on so many levels. Arrogant and preachy, and you missed your mark completely: just because I believe in forgiveness does not make me religious.
Consider a badly-behaved child. You punish them, and try to change their behavior. After some time, their behavior DOES change, but you now ignore the improvement and continue punishing them for their past misdeeds.
Is this fair?
Even if they are not entirely well behaved, their improved behavior MUST be noted and approved. Otherwise not only do you make them anti-social, but you also discourage future improvements by other, similarly misbehaving children.
If there's no reward for improving your behavior, why would you ever WANT to improve?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you CAN get a machine and install Linux on it. Some stores even sell machines pre-installed with Linux. Not as many as a few years ago of course for a very simple reason: consumers didn't like Linux and kept coming back and asking for Windows. So, yes, it's a free market, and the general consumer chooses to pay for the MS software every single day over the free alternatives.
Admittedly, there's a LOT of reasons that they make that choice and only a few of them are "they think the software is better". Nonetheless, a market where many of the alternatives are free is about as good a definition of a free market as I can think of.
Don't be a moron. Zimbabwe has one of the largest standing armies in Africa, precisely to ensure that Mugabe can crush any opposition. The CIO (think KGB) focus on internal dissent, "disappearing" and torturing dissidents. The police are totally partisan, killing and murdering non Zanu-PF supporters and assisting in farm invasions. The elections are synonymous with fraud, and the media is almost completely under the control of the ruling party.
Since the ballot is meaningless, your assertion that they can use that to remove Mugabe is idiotic. Since suppression and force are so heavily used by the security services, your claim that they can use force is even more pathetic.
Without "external manipulation" as you put it in your ignorant screed, Zimbabwe has seen millions of it's citizens flee, hundreds of thousands starve, it's economy get destroyed, and it's future economic output sold to countries like China and Russia for jet fighters that sit broken and rusting.
Speaking as a ex-Zimbabwean myself you can take your pig-ignorance and stuff it. If you ever get slammed down by brutal state oppression you will see exactly how much chance you have to rebel.
Yes, really. My example was a compiler which makes my team twice as efficient, I said nothing about it's speed. A compiler's speed is a small portion of it's overall efficiency.
True economic growth builds on itself, increasing the economic capacity, increasing the amount of productive work that each person can perform. Even with a finite pool of people, by constantly building better and better tools, and increasing the amount of work each one can do growth will continue. Take three people needing to dig a hole. One has a spade, one has a mechanical excavator, and one has a drag line.
Each man spends the same amount of time, and yet accomplishes extraordinarily different results. Now consider the future and what other tools might be available. Consider completely automated mines with just a caretaker staff complement, automatic factories, and even self-driving delivery vehicles.
To look at all that, millenia of technological revolutions, and proclaim that someday innovation must cease, and growth with it seems the height of arrogance to me. Is everyone just going to throw up their hands and say "hey, we've got enough, let's stop trying"?
Most of the posts here seem to be suggesting that HFT be scrapped in one form or another. I have a somewhat contrarian view; who cares? Arbitrage has always been a very technical field that normal day traders never got involved in much anyway. The HFT's now just make human arbitrage impossible, and scoop up a little cash by keeping markets consistent. You see, arbitrage exists because there's discrepancies, and HFT helps smooths those discrepancies out.
If you're a value investor buying shares in a company whose growth you believe in and intend to hold on to them for years, then HFT does not affect you at all. If you're a day trader trying to guess the direction of the stock market, they don't affect you either: you're still screwed; just like you would have been a decade ago. If you're a day trader trying to arbitrage, sure, these have put you out of business. But I suspect that's a rather small group.
Umm, you can. Sure, there are far too many people getting paid well for completely non-productive work, but if I spend two weeks creating a compiler that makes me and my team twice as efficient I have not detracted from anyone else, but have grown the productive capacity of the world by a small amount. Economics is not a zero sum game.
Additionally, those "finite resources" you mention include the 120-odd petawatts of solar energy slamming into the Earth, and the massive tidal energies caused by the Moon's influence. Whilst both those are technically finite, they are not so in the context of this conversation. Any of that energy used for productive use is completely additive, taking away nothing.
I know I'm focusing on just one small aspect of your post, but this idea that economics is zero-sum and that there isn't real productive growth going on needs to be stomped.
Absolutely. A company I work for has an "enterprise system" (i.e. bloated piece of crap) written for them by Accidenture. If we wanted to move databases it would be fantastic, it's all set up to make that transition as painless as possible. Wonderful stuff indeed.
Except, um, we've never wanted to switch databases and likely never will, certainly not in the software's lifespan.
And the cost of this "design" we will never use? Slow, difficult to maintain code.
I'm not saying that you should tightly couple your DB code, far from it, but you don't have to go as overboard as some do. If it's decoupled enough to mock out, then it's decoupled enough for me.
Most pharma companies would prefer the timings to be much shorter, so they can start profiting sooner (plus it costs a lot). The hard reality is that sometimes problems only crop up after years of usage, which is why clinical trials need to be so long. Even then, they're sometimes not long enough. Then the regulator must wade through the reams of documentation to ensure the trial was in fact done properly.
So I guess they're too long for better profits and too short for minimal risk. Which indicates that they're probably not too far off optimum.
That's a very, um, interesting way of saying "killing between one and three million people [a year], the majority of whom are young children". Who knew that the main problem with immense death, suffering and destruction was the lost productivity? Well, at least it's only kids, so not much skills and productivity is lost by that, yeah?
Well, it doesn't have to be a signed offer, nor does there have to be money changing hands. Those just make it easier to prove that there was a contract. Technically there must be an offer and an acceptance. Well, sometimes not even that, just evidence that you appeared to accept the contract would be sufficient. So, if I threw up a warning on the page stating that everything past page 1 was to be paid for, and then you scrolled past page 1, you would have entered into a binding contract with me, as long as I had proof that the warning was displayed and that you "accepted" it by moving past page 1.
Look at my blog and whilst I do indeed use Microsoft technologies, I think it's pretty unfair to label me a Microsoft apologist. I also find it interesting that you use this "Microsoft apologist" label to hand wave away the evidence I presented, a clear cut case of attacking the person, not the argument.
I have not disputed that their costs have been lowered. I have focused on performance issues because I know for a fact that performance is the primary reason they switched. You keep focusing on other areas, which whilst important, were not of primary importance in their selection criteria. I thought you were genuinely interested in getting information, which is why I tried to explain to you the main reasons they switched.
If you looked at my LinkedIn profile, then you know where I'm contracting. How the hell do you figure you know the inside details better than me?
Hmmm, I'm not sure how you think I'm changing my original point, but okay.
The #1 reason for switching has to do with performance. The system they've chosen is very stripped down in comparison with TradElect, allowing for greater speed. It also is more flexible, which is useful since the LSE operates other exchanges trading engines as well. Reliability is a major factor as well, agreed.
Whilst the LSE is 5th by market cap, they also run trading for Borsa Italiana, small parts of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. In total managed market cap that puts them at #2 behind the NYSE. No idea where you got that 9th figure.
I also don't know where you're getting this idea that perf was unimportant, but you can forget it. I can assure you that in the stock exchange business, speed is king. They would happily suck up somewhat increased operational costs if they could speed up the trading, since their profits would soar. The problem with TradElect is that it doesn't scale too well, so their costs rise faster than profits as they boost it's performance. With the MIT acquisition they're getting an even better deal: increased speed plus hopefully lowered costs.
Increased speed encourages companies and brokers to work with you, it encourages smaller exchanges to run on your systems, it increases the money you can make from co-location. Not only that, it obviously also allows you to greatly expand your listings base should you choose to do so, and go after massively increased volumes. From their own press release: "commitment to strive for performance enhancements and efficiency in the markets we operate, ultimately delivering value to our clients". It doesn't mention TCO or costs anywhere there.
Okay, well to anyone who's ever had to work with Accenture code, it would tell them a lot.
I agree wholeheartedly that it has nothing to do with MS vs Linux, I think it has to do with another shoddy Accenture implementation. Even the .NET decision has nothing to do with it IMO, I'm a firm believer that algorithms and design have far more impact than OS or language choice.
Oh, and calm the hell down. It's a discussion, not a flamewar.
The LSE's existing staff are MS-based. My point was that since the software they were looking at was Linux-based, that was actually a point against it when they were evaluating. They went with it anyway because the speed advantages were too good to resist, and it was proven technology. I promise you that the LSE care nothing for MS vs Linux. If there had been an MS-based system with the same performance and reliability, they would have been happy going with that. There wasn't, so they didn't.
As for "the company in charge of it", the current system is owned and developed by the LSE. It was handed over to them by Accenture some years ago. Since they now own the new system as well, I'm not sure exactly who you think they'll "complain at when things go bad" that they don't have now.
So, in summary, the reason they bought this software was that it would have been too expensive and risky to get their existing systems to the performance characteristics required, which is no surprise to anyone who has ever had to deal with Accenture-developed code.
It had nothing to do with TCO, maintainability or anything like that. It has to do with the fact that the software they're switching to is the fastest in the world. The fact that it runs on Linux is actually a disadvantage, since most of their skills are MS-based. But they don't care because the software is so fast and customisable.
The software was written by Accenture with assistance from Microsoft, so that would tell you all you need to know.
I think it has little to do with the Linux vs Windows, and more to do with badly designed and implemented software.
Wrong. There is no requirement to "exploit it's profit possibilities", and it is almost impossible for any shareholders to hold directors liable for business decisions. They can hold them accountable by firing them, but they would be unable to sue them unless they can prove conflict of interest or lack of care; both of which are pretty damn difficult to prove, trust me on this.
Directors have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company, not the shareholders, and best interests do not have to include maximum profit.
Your 60% shareholder could indeed run the company as a religious institution. Not a charity, sure, he would not be able to recklessly give away assets, but he could specify that the company would spend a large percentage of profits on charitable works.
Almost right. Goals do not come into it, but if they place their interests ahead of the company's then yes. However, rational beliefs and mindset do not count as interests. Now we can argue whether religion is irrational or not, but the courts do not view it as such. It would depend on the articles of incorporation, but even if profitability was the #1 priority (I know for Bible.com it was pretty high on the list), the directors could just say that it is their considered belief that their actions are for the long-term good of the company, and the court would effectively say "oh, that's alright then, thanks", and dismiss the case if no evidence of irrationality or conflict of interest could be shown.
Correct, which is exactly one of the reasons why courts are not keen to get involved in fights between shareholders and boards. Boards are given great discretionary powers by the shareholders. If the shareholders are not happy with the boards performance they may fire the board, or sell their shares.
Since they have so much power over the board, it's tricky for them to convince a court that they should be compensated for decisions they don't agree with.
How about "not commonly"? Certainly very few articles of incorporation I've ever read have contained much to do about profits or shareholders value. Funnily enough, it's normally the less successful companies that do. The most successful companies strive for a purpose beyond mere lucre, and just happen to make truckloads of cash along the way.
Many, many companies make unprofitable decisions. Merck famously decided to work on a cure for river blindness despite the knowledge that the sufferers would be unlikely to afford the treatment. They then decided to make it available, for free, to anyone in the world in perpetuity. Should their shareholders have taken them to court? It was an action in accord with their company values, but not pure profit motive.
Some companies are explicitly run for their employees, some to improve the environment, some to advance technology. Companies are created to serve a purpose, and usually the best way to achieve that purpose is usually to run a healthy profit. But investors know the purpose of the company when they invest. If the #1 priority is not "maximise shareholder value", they are going in with their eyes wide open. IBM's core values do not include shareholders, Microsoft have them down at #6, and don't address profits or value. Apple doesn't mention shareholders either, and nor does Google. Ironically, Worldcom had shareholder value front and centre.
As for directors duties; there are two common law duties that directors have to shareholders. The duty of loyalty requires that directors put the interests of the company ahead of their own, and the duty of care means they must make good decisions. Nothing about profit there. Shareholders can of course sue the company if they disagree with the business decisions, but they are likely to be very disappointed. Courts are rightly reluctant to interfere in business decisions unless there are clear conflicts of interest or completely irrational decisions. If they did not take this hands off approach, directors would constantly be looking over their shoulders rather than acting in what they feel are the best interests of the company. It would have a chilling effect on risk-taking and decisions. In the US this is called the business judgement rule. Effectively, a court will assume, absent clear evidence to the contrary, that the decisions the directors take are in the best long-term interests of the company, a court "will not substitute its own notions of what is or is not sound business judgment".
ducks flying poo
No idea why that posted as AC.
*Sigh*
An atheist who believes in permanent judgement and punishment for past sins?
Weird.
I believe that when people do good it should be appreciated and not thrown back in their faces. Clearly this part of my illustration passed you by.
Words fail me. Wrong on so many levels. Arrogant and preachy, and you missed your mark completely: just because I believe in forgiveness does not make me religious.
Consider a badly-behaved child. You punish them, and try to change their behavior. After some time, their behavior DOES change, but you now ignore the improvement and continue punishing them for their past misdeeds.
Is this fair?
Even if they are not entirely well behaved, their improved behavior MUST be noted and approved. Otherwise not only do you make them anti-social, but you also discourage future improvements by other, similarly misbehaving children.
If there's no reward for improving your behavior, why would you ever WANT to improve?