Re: Is it true that scalping doesn't work???
Hi the hare,
Really? I'm surprised. Surprised because, in this context, 'vetting' means editing and/or deleting. I'd probably delete some of your posts - but not the ones you'd want me to!
Well, you do have a history of promising to do one thing, and then doing another
I don't mind the fact that you'd delete posts if that was the price that needed to be paid to achieve your objectives. If you continually deleted great content, and left complete crap people would soon work out you wanted to promote crap. Conversely if you deleted crap, and left great content, people would understand you wanted great content. Everyone would know where they stood, and they'd post whatever it was you wanted !
So, whilst I'd relish the prospect of getting rid of great swathes of what I regard as poor content across T2W, it's probably best that I can't. As you're aware, this is purely a moderation function. Incorporating value judgements about quality is beyond the current scope of the Community Constitution and its application by the Mods. Having a lot of poor content (however one defines that) is the price we pay for having a fair and democratic moderation process. Okay, I imaginre you and a few others may contest that but, even so, don't you think the current practice is better than having one person making subjective judgements about the quality - or lack thereof - of individual posts/threads?
You are allowed to change the constitution
t2w management wrote it, its not act of parliament !
I think the fact that you don't have a single person (or entity) making subjective judgements is exactly why you are in the current position. It's a lack of leadership really, a lack of leading by example, and precisely what you'd expect when there's no genuine interest in what the sites about. It's just a bunch of guys doing a job without much passion
The members are responsible for the content. There's no way (that I know of) of making members post quality content - or stopping them from posting rubbish. Again, my definition of rubbish is likely to be different to yours; one man's meat is another man's poison etc.
That old chestnut. I'd argue that the site sets the tone, quality of its own communication with members, quality of articles it promotes, its moderation policy etc.
The thing is though Tim, its YOUR site, it not mine. You have to provide what YOUR members want, and I suspect you would not want 250,000 members like me.
If it was MY site, Id be getting medieval on people's asses, and I'd be leading by some kind of example, showing what's acceptable, and what's not.
Yeah, I like the idea, but it's contrary to the ethos of the site and, as I've outlined above, difficult to implement in a way that's fair and meets with majority approval. Suppose I or or 15 min tlb was that tzar - would you still want to participate in a forum that reflected our respective views of the markets and what we regard as 'quality content'? I suspect not.
Tim.
You suspect correctly, but its not about me, its about what your members want. If 250,000 people want el cids deranged ranting, then I'm sure you'd have a viable business. If 250,000 people want your thing, then great.
If you decide you want to be a forum for new traders, and dumb everything down then you should go for it. If you want to be a trading forum, then go for it. If you build it, they will come.
