the hare
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,944
- Likes
- 1,282
A New Low?
- Thread starter The Leopard
- Start date
- Watchers 14
barjon
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,752
- Likes
- 1,863
I'll just repeat a post I made on another thread, since it applies to you jokers as well:
What is it with you, peebee? you drew the thing to attention, it was an admitted serious mistake on T2W's part which was corrected promptly and the recipients of the e-mail informed and advised accordingly.
So what do you do? Instead of giving T2W the slightest credit for the action taken you rail on about cover up and conspiracy.
I don't know why the threads were deleted - likely to be just as much about removing publicity about superfund as about T2W's embarrassment - but why start claiming some sort of devious intent?
From a personal point of view I'm pretty fed-up with your constant attacks on T2W who do, after all, give you the space to expose the scams you find despite the cost and difficulty that gives them. Sure, a few of the things you say have to be deleted for reasons which must be pretty obvious when faced with legal challenge, but most of what you come up with remains and even those which go have usually stayed for enough time for people to have taken note.
It's about bloody time you worked with T2W on these things, not against them.
What is it with you, peebee? you drew the thing to attention, it was an admitted serious mistake on T2W's part which was corrected promptly and the recipients of the e-mail informed and advised accordingly.
So what do you do? Instead of giving T2W the slightest credit for the action taken you rail on about cover up and conspiracy.
I don't know why the threads were deleted - likely to be just as much about removing publicity about superfund as about T2W's embarrassment - but why start claiming some sort of devious intent?
From a personal point of view I'm pretty fed-up with your constant attacks on T2W who do, after all, give you the space to expose the scams you find despite the cost and difficulty that gives them. Sure, a few of the things you say have to be deleted for reasons which must be pretty obvious when faced with legal challenge, but most of what you come up with remains and even those which go have usually stayed for enough time for people to have taken note.
It's about bloody time you worked with T2W on these things, not against them.
the hare
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,944
- Likes
- 1,282
Then its worth repeating that a rather significant percentage of t2w's traffic is generated through those threads exposing scams.
You lot always want to have your cake and eat it. The controversy and lulz generates traffic and new members, but there's a price to be paid. When that equation changes, the situation will no longer be tolerated.
t2w are going to have to take the lead for things to change, no one else is going to sort this out for them.
I'll also make the point that I've see pboyles publicly offer to help t2w on numerous occasions. I have no idea if his offer was accepted or declined, but the offer has been made, repeatedly
The Leopard
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,877
- Likes
- 1,021
Hah! Regard, O Rash One, the fairness and balance I bring to debates:
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/t2w-announcements/155622-new-forum-structure-2.html#post1939844
barjon
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,752
- Likes
- 1,863
Steve
Well-known member
- Messages
- 437
- Likes
- 108
Just a quick acknowledgement from me at this stage. I have been away from the desk until now and left before the first post was made. This was just a quick log in to see what had unfolded while I was away, especially in the light of the changes to the forum structure.
So i'll attend to that, then i'll read through the various exchanges on the Superfundfx subject and I will get this completed tomorrow, probably in the morning but certainly by close of play.
For those of you who want a definitive T2W answer you will have it.
Had I been here today you would have had it sooner.
Until tomorrow then.
So i'll attend to that, then i'll read through the various exchanges on the Superfundfx subject and I will get this completed tomorrow, probably in the morning but certainly by close of play.
For those of you who want a definitive T2W answer you will have it.
Had I been here today you would have had it sooner.
Until tomorrow then.
the hare
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,944
- Likes
- 1,282
wackypete2
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,211
- Likes
- 2,058
The Leopard
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,877
- Likes
- 1,021
Yes, very funny thank you.
I'll see what clock/zone works best for me and i'll use that one
just typing it up now, will post within the hour.
Steve
Say you're on Samoa time, that's 11 hours behind.
wackypete2
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,211
- Likes
- 2,058
Steve
Well-known member
- Messages
- 437
- Likes
- 108
So, finally here is my reply about the recent thread pulling.
There are clearly several issues here that need clarification, explanation or further investigation by me. With this in mind I am not going to attempt to deal with everything all in the one post, especially as I may not have formulated any new/revised policies yet. Having said this, many of the issues are interlinked so it’s not going to be easy to separate things out but I’ll try my best.
I should also say that I’m not going to get dragged into situations that have happened previously. I was not involved and it would be quite wrong to comment in any way without full possession of the facts. In any event, these things are gone and I see little point in exploring them any further. Having looked back through so many of these, I am left feeling that enough has been said on both sides.
So, I’ll deal with current situation and those that will almost certainly come up in the future, as is the nature of communities.
The best starting point is probably the very specific matter that has led to the latest series of posts, the removal of the Superfundfx thread.
The main question was why this thread was removed and I can fully understand why members may want an explanation, especially if it is something they have contributed to.
I think it is absolutely right that when action like this is taken, we should provide some background to help understanding. This is provided we are able to give this background and this depends on the situation.
If a thread is removed by T2W and it is entirely our choice, then to provide these explanations is relatively straightforward. We will have removed something for a reason and we should have no reason to avoid communicating this.
This does not mean we’ll enter into a debate about why, if the decision is made it will stand but this doesn’t mean you can’t say what you think. Nor does it mean you will be censured for what you say, provided it is within the relevant guidelines for posting. As I have said before, this is a moderation matter.
I will return to moderation at another time.
So, let’s return to the situation where it may not always be entirely our choice. I refer to the times where we are advised to remove something because of the legal implications.
This is an absolute minefield and I think you would be quite surprised at how much time and money is spent defending legally based attacks. I know I was.
Let me tell you how it works.
Whether generated as a result of a partner offer/advert or a direct series of postings by members, there will usually be a series of posts that somebody somewhere may take exception to.
On the one hand these could be innocent postings of fact with a few discussions to follow, at the other end of the spectrum it could be highly charged attacking of an individual or organisation based on either fact or speculation.
It does not really matter what the content is at this point, the important thing is that someone objects to it. This is usually on the basis that it is defamation or slander.
The first we hear is usually when we get an email laying out what the complainant expects us to do and a series of demands that will satisfy them. We have learned over the years and take a very robust approach to these demands and, like most people, we don’t respond well to threats.
This is why a lot of content that would be removed from many sites is left on T2W. But there are limits to what we can retain. These limits are quite simply defined by legal advice.
Let’s assume we have made our robust reply but the complainant is not satisfied and decides to continue with their action. The next stage (which is common in Law and certainly is not peculiar to our situation) is a search for compromise.
In any action of this nature this is exactly what the Judge would do before the door of the Court is reached. There will always be the expectation from the Judiciary that both parties have done this before the Courts get involved.
There is of course a financial reason as well. Legal action is expensive and it is very rare that there is an outright winner in cases of this nature.
So when things reach this stage we will always engage in the dialogue as we have to protect our business, our members and the individual posters. If this means that we have to take a particular action that may prove unpopular (like pulling a thread) then that’s what we will do.
We don’t have the time or money to take any of these cases as far as a Court hearing so we must always find this compromise even though it may not be exactly what we would like to do in the circumstances. This may not be what some of you want to hear but it’s the commercial reality.
This is not arbitrary. We will always fight and if the first or second rounds do not see a satisfactory result then we have to get our retained legal advisors involved. They will then tell us what to do and why. Then we do it.
They have made it abundantly clear that we should never discuss specific case and I can certainly understand why. So while I don’t like it from a transparency point of view, there will be times when the only explanation you will get is ‘legal reasons’. You will never be told the detail of those reasons because it is confidential to the parties.
This finally brings me back to the starting point of this post, the question about the Superfundfx thread and I imagine that you have probably guessed what is coming, it was removed for legal reasons.
Now, I very much doubt that this will stop the inappropriate speculation and the conspiracy theorists. However, I hope that members who are able to take a more balanced view will appreciate that I have told the story exactly as it is and the reasons for it.
As I said earlier, there is much I need to return to and I’ll take the opportunity to do this over the next few weeks especially as I have detailed discussions scheduled with both the legal and advertising people.
I’ll also do my best to reply to anything emanating from this post provided I am able to within the legal confines already explained and, of course, provided I know the answer.
Steve
There are clearly several issues here that need clarification, explanation or further investigation by me. With this in mind I am not going to attempt to deal with everything all in the one post, especially as I may not have formulated any new/revised policies yet. Having said this, many of the issues are interlinked so it’s not going to be easy to separate things out but I’ll try my best.
I should also say that I’m not going to get dragged into situations that have happened previously. I was not involved and it would be quite wrong to comment in any way without full possession of the facts. In any event, these things are gone and I see little point in exploring them any further. Having looked back through so many of these, I am left feeling that enough has been said on both sides.
So, I’ll deal with current situation and those that will almost certainly come up in the future, as is the nature of communities.
The best starting point is probably the very specific matter that has led to the latest series of posts, the removal of the Superfundfx thread.
The main question was why this thread was removed and I can fully understand why members may want an explanation, especially if it is something they have contributed to.
I think it is absolutely right that when action like this is taken, we should provide some background to help understanding. This is provided we are able to give this background and this depends on the situation.
If a thread is removed by T2W and it is entirely our choice, then to provide these explanations is relatively straightforward. We will have removed something for a reason and we should have no reason to avoid communicating this.
This does not mean we’ll enter into a debate about why, if the decision is made it will stand but this doesn’t mean you can’t say what you think. Nor does it mean you will be censured for what you say, provided it is within the relevant guidelines for posting. As I have said before, this is a moderation matter.
I will return to moderation at another time.
So, let’s return to the situation where it may not always be entirely our choice. I refer to the times where we are advised to remove something because of the legal implications.
This is an absolute minefield and I think you would be quite surprised at how much time and money is spent defending legally based attacks. I know I was.
Let me tell you how it works.
Whether generated as a result of a partner offer/advert or a direct series of postings by members, there will usually be a series of posts that somebody somewhere may take exception to.
On the one hand these could be innocent postings of fact with a few discussions to follow, at the other end of the spectrum it could be highly charged attacking of an individual or organisation based on either fact or speculation.
It does not really matter what the content is at this point, the important thing is that someone objects to it. This is usually on the basis that it is defamation or slander.
The first we hear is usually when we get an email laying out what the complainant expects us to do and a series of demands that will satisfy them. We have learned over the years and take a very robust approach to these demands and, like most people, we don’t respond well to threats.
This is why a lot of content that would be removed from many sites is left on T2W. But there are limits to what we can retain. These limits are quite simply defined by legal advice.
Let’s assume we have made our robust reply but the complainant is not satisfied and decides to continue with their action. The next stage (which is common in Law and certainly is not peculiar to our situation) is a search for compromise.
In any action of this nature this is exactly what the Judge would do before the door of the Court is reached. There will always be the expectation from the Judiciary that both parties have done this before the Courts get involved.
There is of course a financial reason as well. Legal action is expensive and it is very rare that there is an outright winner in cases of this nature.
So when things reach this stage we will always engage in the dialogue as we have to protect our business, our members and the individual posters. If this means that we have to take a particular action that may prove unpopular (like pulling a thread) then that’s what we will do.
We don’t have the time or money to take any of these cases as far as a Court hearing so we must always find this compromise even though it may not be exactly what we would like to do in the circumstances. This may not be what some of you want to hear but it’s the commercial reality.
This is not arbitrary. We will always fight and if the first or second rounds do not see a satisfactory result then we have to get our retained legal advisors involved. They will then tell us what to do and why. Then we do it.
They have made it abundantly clear that we should never discuss specific case and I can certainly understand why. So while I don’t like it from a transparency point of view, there will be times when the only explanation you will get is ‘legal reasons’. You will never be told the detail of those reasons because it is confidential to the parties.
This finally brings me back to the starting point of this post, the question about the Superfundfx thread and I imagine that you have probably guessed what is coming, it was removed for legal reasons.
Now, I very much doubt that this will stop the inappropriate speculation and the conspiracy theorists. However, I hope that members who are able to take a more balanced view will appreciate that I have told the story exactly as it is and the reasons for it.
As I said earlier, there is much I need to return to and I’ll take the opportunity to do this over the next few weeks especially as I have detailed discussions scheduled with both the legal and advertising people.
I’ll also do my best to reply to anything emanating from this post provided I am able to within the legal confines already explained and, of course, provided I know the answer.
Steve
wackypete2
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,211
- Likes
- 2,058
As Steve said what has happened in the past is past. I would think this is an issue he will address so that it happens less often in the future. Something to review is how much money is made from these partners vs. how much is lost in time, money, embarrassment, and credibility when these events occur.
Peter
The Leopard
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,877
- Likes
- 1,021
I think the criticisms, although having merit, are unduly harsh.
Compare T2W with most other places. Things are much freer here, and T2W staff / mods accept criticism much more readily than at other sites I'm aware of.
T2W isn't perfect, but it does deserve some credit .
Where do you know of that is better? Baby ******* Factory?
Whatever its faults, T2W has much to recommend it in my view.
Compare T2W with most other places. Things are much freer here, and T2W staff / mods accept criticism much more readily than at other sites I'm aware of.
T2W isn't perfect, but it does deserve some credit .
Where do you know of that is better? Baby ******* Factory?
Whatever its faults, T2W has much to recommend it in my view.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lightning McQueen
Moderator
- Messages
- 4,992
- Likes
- 827
currently they've just acted like "Baby P1ss" and are binning and banning, curtailing further discussions regarding fxcm and deleting content about them. like they only just realised after a year or more he's a multi. though it has to be said even bpips weren't banning :whistling
Last edited by a moderator:
Lightning McQueen
Moderator
- Messages
- 4,992
- Likes
- 827
so if that's right that the superfunds thread was deleted on legals, why then is it that the forum is still full of chatter on it on other threads?? the lawyers weren't that clever in rooting out stuff on their clients behalf were they. lots has been left without so much as a sign of deletion.
and why was all the feedback thread binned? the legal bits wouldn't surely have covered the t2w only discussions on the rights and wrongs of what they did.
i have a lot of difficulty buying into this at present
and why was all the feedback thread binned? the legal bits wouldn't surely have covered the t2w only discussions on the rights and wrongs of what they did.
i have a lot of difficulty buying into this at present
DionysusToast
Legendary member
- Messages
- 5,965
- Likes
- 1,501
Have any of T2Ws perpetual whiners considered 'going forth' at all?
Seriously - if the place annoys you so much, then go, leave, don't read it, allow your blood pressure to drop back down.
On the other hand, if you truly believe that T2W is intentionally partnering with criminals and you are on a crusade to right those wrongs, then why not use the legal system instead of all this pi$$ing and moaning?
How about, as I have suggested before, you create your own, more successful forum and show T2W how it can be done?
This is an internet forum, seems some people want to make demands of the place. Want to make constant accusations and expect an answer to these accusations all the time.
It is so easy to sit on your a$$ and whine about stuff - so very, very easy. It's quite a lot harder to run a business than it is to whine about one.
The failure rate for businesses is quite high but the failure rate for armchair whiners is 100%
Seriously - if the place annoys you so much, then go, leave, don't read it, allow your blood pressure to drop back down.
On the other hand, if you truly believe that T2W is intentionally partnering with criminals and you are on a crusade to right those wrongs, then why not use the legal system instead of all this pi$$ing and moaning?
How about, as I have suggested before, you create your own, more successful forum and show T2W how it can be done?
This is an internet forum, seems some people want to make demands of the place. Want to make constant accusations and expect an answer to these accusations all the time.
It is so easy to sit on your a$$ and whine about stuff - so very, very easy. It's quite a lot harder to run a business than it is to whine about one.
The failure rate for businesses is quite high but the failure rate for armchair whiners is 100%
