A new forum - just for me!

Liquid validity said:
So anyone who disagrees with giving vendors, particularly unregulated brokers,
unfettered access to unsuspecting punters should leave as it endangers
the status quo for vendors?
You can't be serious...
Click to expand...

of course he's serious, he knows full well what will happen if they get a free run here.

i have personally witnessed the result of vendor cruising in a private forum whereby a vendor got in there and offered a "special t2w only offer" the members fell over themselves in droves, scrambling to buy!! :(
 
Last edited:
new_trader said:
Sensational idea! A genuine vendor should be obligated to register with a Credit card or paypal account and be charged for directed traffic!(y)
Click to expand...

Members do post l links,all the time and it needs to be thought through, properly, so that useful, informational, sources are not prejudiced.
 
pboyles said:
Actually I reported the Mr Stone thread(s), he is clearly grooming a few gullible people with the aim of getting them to deposit funds in his unregulated options business. I don't see much being done about it.

Perhaps we're taking the Neville Chamberlain approach again, 'just give him a chance to prove himself'.
Click to expand...

The Mr Stone thread is a good example of the difficulty.

When he started he immediately received an infraction for link advertising and came under the spotlight to ensure that he did not overtly promote his services (of course it's there in the background as members know because of the badge) and that what he posted would be of interest to members about binaries.

As things progressed he was close but not over the line and it wasn't long before members themselves brought up his services by asking pertinent questions about FSA regulation and such posts as yours http://www.trade2win.com/boards/first-steps/159794-mr-stone-binary-trading-4.html#post1991790 . At that stage it seemed right that Mr Stone should answer those questions and to have deleted the thread at that stage would have obviously have left them unanswered. From then on the thread became more about Mr Stone and his services as opposed to trading information about binaries.

So, is it now better to let the thread stand so that the criticism and doubt remains there for all to see, or is it better to delete it whereupon it becomes hidden and doubtless many the cry of "cover up" would follow?

In hindsight it should have perhaps been killed at the start, but that is a result of the policy of allowing vendors to post as long as they post things of interest to members (about trading, not their services) and do not overtly promote their product/services, although they may answer questions that members pose. That policy requires that a thread is given a chance (not "proving himself" as you put it).

Whether that policy is sustainable in its present form we will soon find out.
 
Splitlink said:
Members do post l links,all the time and it needs to be thought through, properly, so that useful, informational, sources are not prejudiced.
Click to expand...

some forums don't allow any linking at all, also others are now curtailing facebook, twitter and youtube linking. t2w is being left behind in protecting it's members with the amount of varied linking allowed here. t2w could have led the pack and been a leader long ago on this front. yet it drags it's heels? why?
 
Lightning McQueen said:
of course he's serious, he knows full well what will happen if they get a free run here.

i have personally witnessed the result of vendor cruising in a private forum whereby a vendor got in there and offered a "special t2w only offer" the members fell over themselves in droves, scrambling to buy!! :(
Click to expand...

Terrible security! I would expect it to be better than the Pentagon's, at least. :D

If the members were in droves, I question the privacy of that forum.
 
barjon said:
The Mr Stone thread is a good example of the difficulty.

When he started he immediately received an infraction for link advertising and came under the spotlight to ensure that he did not overtly promote his services (of course it's there in the background as members know because of the badge) and that what he posted would be of interest to members about binaries.

As things progressed he was close but not over the line and it wasn't long before members themselves brought up his services by asking pertinent questions about FSA regulation and such posts as yours http://www.trade2win.com/boards/first-steps/159794-mr-stone-binary-trading-4.html#post1991790 . At that stage it seemed right that Mr Stone should answer those questions and to have deleted the thread at that stage would have obviously have left them unanswered. From then on the thread became more about Mr Stone and his services as opposed to trading information about binaries.

So, is it now better to let the thread stand so that the criticism and doubt remains there for all to see, or is it better to delete it whereupon it becomes hidden and doubtless many the cry of "cover up" would follow?

In hindsight it should have perhaps been killed at the start, but that is a result of the policy of allowing vendors to post as long as they post things of interest to members (about trading, not their services) and do not overtly promote their product/services, although they may answer questions that members pose. That policy requires that a thread is given a chance (not "proving himself" as you put it).

Whether that policy is sustainable in its present form we will soon find out.
Click to expand...

I can see where you are coming from.
I agree, the thread should remain now.
If no reasonable answers to the points raised are forthcoming from
Mr Stone, then the thread should be locked but not deleted.
He says he will offer answers on monday.
Either that or he is hoping it will be forgotten and get buried...
 
Lightning McQueen said:
some forums don't allow any linking at all, also others are now curtailing facebook, twitter and youtube linking. t2w is being left behind in protecting it's members with the amount of varied linking allowed here. t2w could have led the pack and been a leader long ago on this front. yet it drags it's heels? why?
Click to expand...

Very true, I know of a few trading forums where any vendor link will result in a
warning then ban if continued.
 
barjon said:
Whether that policy is sustainable in its present form we will soon find out.
Click to expand...

If there was no change at all to the current policy on vendors, could that really be described as taking decisive action ?

A cess pit has been ruled out, charging for links or any other advertising is perceived as an endorsement, an lets be honest, the vendors at the very bottom of the heap are the ones who put the sites integrity at most risk.

Policing any change of policy is going to add an additional burden to an already over stretched moderation team, and as you've already pointed out it can often be a tough judgement call deciding on what side of the line a post falls.

You seam to have boxed yourselves into a corner on this one. The obvious common sense solution is the cess pit (which is why everyone else does it), but t2w won't do it because of 2 or 3 vendors, and your CEO has already very publicly rejected the idea and can't be seen to back track

You can't effectively police a zero tolerance solution even if you wanted to, and if you do increase traffic, it's even harder to police.

The policy on content generation has been vendor led, and you created a 'marketers paradise'

Ideally you'd do nothing, but now you've promised to take decisive action. To make matters worse on the very day the CEO is announcing the new policy, your staff are actually requesting members provide suggestions as to how vendors should be managed on the thread in which the new policy is shortly due to be announced !

Talk about making life hard for yourselves, good lulz though !
 
Splitlink said:
Terrible security! I would expect it to be better than the Pentagon's, at least. :D

If the members were in droves, I question the privacy of that forum.
Click to expand...

well we'll see in the new guidelines when they're published how they intend to deal with things from here on in. myself i see the status quo and steady as she goes, maybe with a tweek here and there on the vendor front. you'll see more on perceived "lulz" i feel, that's an easy target and keeps the forum sours happy :)
 
Liquid validity said:
Very true, I know of a few trading forums where any vendor link will result in a
warning then ban if continued.
Click to expand...

But they are trading forums. That's not really been t2w's agenda for the past few years. I can understand why they did what they did.

Until we know Steve's vision, it's hard to comment
 
the hare said:
. . .To make matters worse on the very day the CEO is announcing the new policy, your staff are actually requesting members provide suggestions as to how vendors should be managed on the thread in which the new policy is shortly due to be announced !

Talk about making life hard for yourselves, good lulz though !
Click to expand...
180

For the record . . .
We welcome constructive feedback at all times, before, during and after any policy changes, or changes to the site itself. There's no limit or time window, outside of which we don't want any feedback. It's always welcome, 24/7, on any aspect of the site, so long as it's constructive and offered politely and is in the best interests of the site and its members.
 
timsk said:
For the record . . .
We welcome constructive feedback at all times, before, during and after any policy changes, or changes to the site itself. There's no limit or time window, outside of which we don't want any feedback. It's always welcome, 24/7, on any aspect of the site, so long as it's constructive and offered politely and is in the best interests of the site and its members.
Click to expand...

OK - vendor solution.

The following is my proposal for vendor retention.

1/ New vendor entrant cess pit.

2/ Cess pit release once qualifying criteria met:
i Certain number of recommendations.
ii Proportionate level of reported posts.
iii Rival vendor multinic abuse ruled out by tightened registration process.

3/ Disclaimer message box (as previously mentioned by me) for all third party links.

4/ On cess pit release, vendors pay for directed traffic per click through.

5/ Mandatory vendor signature stating that any vendor links are not endorsed by
T2W and are unregulated.

6/ Even when unregulated as in software products, training, under no circumstances should a broker be permitted to register as vendor without
FSA / NFA registration number.

************************************************************

Other options are an outright ban, although I'm beginning to think this is highly
unlikely given the fact that T2W competitors such as FF do allow vendors.

A tighter policy made up of some of the earlier points, namely:
1/ Permanent cess pit.
2/ Disclaimer message box for all 3rd party links
3/ Mandatory vendor signature stating regulation or not.
4/ Mandatory supply of FSA / NFA registration number for all vendor brokers (current and new).
 
Lightning McQueen said:
how so?

most viewed thread in last 7 days and only started on wednesday (y)
Click to expand...

You could argue that it's boring due to its predictability

T2W management promise to do or announce something (then generally don't)

Usual suspects criticize t2w, receiving recommendations from usual members who tend to generally agree with them

T2W staff try to defend the indefensible, generally tying themselves in knots

Vendors jump in trying to curry favor with the sites management

Barjon jumps in with 'forget the past, give us a chance to prove we've changed' argument

Sensible members make sensible suggestions that are ignored

Lulz is generated, but nothing changes.

Site goes quiet until next management announcement :LOL: and the whole process starts again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Steve
New Forum Structure
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
20K
timsk
timsk
Sharky
Scheduled Maintenance Cancelled (Fri, 15th Feb - 11pm UK, 6pm ET)
Replies
3
Views
1K
Sharky
Sharky
Steve
Forum structure
Replies
13
Views
6K
Sharky
Sharky
Sharky
New Trading Indicators Forum (Coming Soon!)
Replies
0
Views
1K
Sharky
Sharky
L
Maybe just lucky?
2
Replies
25
Views
6K
Tor_88
T
Top