A new (lulz) high

[Trader333]

LM,

I am not sure why you are intent on the constant attacks and now implying that I am a liar. What I said was that I was not aware of who they were and I wasn't because it was not flagged by normal means of detection. You have also conveniently not read what I said and that was at the point where he claimed to be an employee of IG was the point where I knew something was fake and not before.

Your idea that I am somehow covering this up is laughable and pathetic as I have done an enormous amount behind the scenes to rid the boards of tons of this sort of stuff. You pick on one situation and have ignored all the others that were got rid of.

Like everyone else here, I am part time and have enough to do and don't have the time to be investigating every particular incident on the boards. I am also not a moderator and the best I could have done is report my suspicions when aware of them.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

LM,

I am not sure why you are intent on the constant attacks and now implying that I am a liar. What I said was that I was not aware of who they were and I wasn't because it was not flagged by normal means of detection. You have also conveniently not read what I said and that was at the point where he claimed to be an employee of IG was the point where I knew something was fake and not before.

Your idea that I am somehow covering this up is laughable and pathetic as I have done an enormous amount behind the scenes to rid the boards of tons of this sort of stuff. You pick on one situation and have ignored all the others that were got rid of.

Like everyone else here, I am part time and have enough to do and don't have the time to be investigating every particular incident on the boards.

I think you have missed the point, I have not said, or have meant to imply anything of the sort. all I'm implying is that you read a thread, and replied to a thread. there you must have seen a new member as your reply was right after his. his first post doesn't look like a new member style of posting to me. and as the tech mod isn't it your task to root out this kind of thing? you weren't at all curious? you would have checked him out if that's the case. then that would have been an end to it and lee's thread would not have been trolled

anyway I think it's the other way round, feels as I'm the one getting attacked here. what is wrong with being proactive? or suggesting being proactive, and why does everyone seem to beat around the bush when answers are sought? case in point this thread, I ask VielGeld about the guidelines he follows, the answer I get from him is what he thinks it should be rather than what it actually is

so why is the suggestion of being proactive ignored and shunned?, what rules are now in place that seems to require post reports to do something about rule breaking. previous guidelines for mods allowed the mod to act on sight, has this changed?

 

[tar]

LM

Proactive full job Mod = Paid .

 

[Lightning McQueen]

LM

Proactive full job Mod = Paid .

you were proactive mate, you were a little over zealous maybe but sure did root out a lot

 

[Lightning McQueen]

here's a thread case in point, doubt there's any reports at all, yet you have a promo problem, or a potential problem at least depending how the rules are interpreted. any multinics in that thread?

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/educational-resources/152768-review-ftseday-com-16.html#post2106316

a new offshoot ftse trading room is started on march 21, 2013

the ftseday thread is bumped back from the grave on apr 2, 2013 with glowing praise of the mods who were in the old ftseday room.

then the posting starts dissing the original room, and ends with an absurd posting where the defender of ftseday gives his praise and naming the new room run by the old mods.

was anybody following that?

 

[barjon]

...............it's no good getting the hump mate.....................

And why not,pray, in face face of someone constantly criticising, who can't even get his bloody facts right, who makes wild assumptions about us listening; and equally wild assumptions about our proactivity.

I've got the hump, period

 

[Lightning McQueen]

And why not,pray, in face face of someone constantly criticising, who can't even get his bloody facts right, who makes wild assumptions about us listening; and equally wild assumptions about our proactivity.

I've got the hump, period

you voted in one of his polls

cv pulls him for his uploading pics with odd looking ads

t333 must have read his 1st posting

spect you have all got the hump :cheesy:

so what about ftseday then?

 

[timsk]

was anybody following that?

Hi LM,
As an outsider looking in, like many other members I suspect, I recognise that you had a particular set of skills and abilities as a mod that you utilized to the full for the betterment of the forum. For reasons best known to you, you decided to step down from the role. No issue there - the role of a T2W Mod is a tricky and largely thankless task. However, I think you're being unfair in your criticism of the current band of Mods as, in effect, it looks to me as if you're saying they should do the job the way you once did it. That's akin to saying that another member should trade the way you trade or write in the same style you write etc., etc.

As others have said, if you feel there is a gap that needs filling on the Mod front, rather than criticising the efforts of others, contact Steve and offer to fill it.
Tim.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

I don't wish to do it tim.

but that doesn't mean that the boards need to contain stuff that should hang around or members be left to pollute the boards annoying the regular members, as we've seen recently we have had many such instances. take where a mod is given clear search terms to rid the board completely of the cookie stuffers and their quotes, but did next to nothing. take the trashing of lee's thread, there were opportunities to look at that particular member, the mods saw him, they can't say they didn't. I know not if he was looked at, but if he was then just maybe we wouldn't be here talking as we are. what about ftseday? that's just not right, right there. need I go on? I will if you like.

actually having knowledge of how it works, or at least is supposed to work is a curse rather than a blessing

 

[barjon]

I don't wish to do it tim.

but that doesn't mean that the boards need to contain stuff that should hang around or members be left to pollute the boards annoying the regular members, as we've seen recently we have had many such instances. take where a mod is given clear search terms to rid the board completely of the cookie stuffers and their quotes, but did next to nothing. take the trashing of lee's thread, there were opportunities to look at that particular member, the mods saw him, they can't say they didn't. I know not if he was looked at, but if he was then just maybe we wouldn't be here talking as we are. what about ftseday? that's just not right, right there. need I go on? I will if you like.

actually having knowledge of how it works, or at least is supposed to work is a curse rather than a blessing

Look, LM, you know as well as I do that the current policy is unsatisfactory - which is why it's all under the microscope. At the moment vendors are allowed to post unless they are clearly selling and/or overtly advertising or otherwise promoting their services.

Whatever suspicions one might have about them being here, that policy requires them to be seen to be offending in this respect. Additionally the words "clearly" and "overtly" are subjective and capable of wide interpretation. The "crossing the line" problem.

Sure, we can avoid the potential irritation of regular members (only a handful of them) by acting early on the whim of moderators' suspicion alone and it may come to that - but it isn't yet.

 

[Shakone]

Look, LM, you know as well as I do that the current policy is unsatisfactory - which is why it's all under the microscope. At the moment vendors are allowed to post unless they are clearly selling and/or overtly advertising or otherwise promoting their services.

Whatever suspicions one might have about them being here, that policy requires them to be seen to be offending in this respect. Additionally the words "clearly" and "overtly" are subjective and capable of wide interpretation. The "crossing the line" problem.

Sure, we can avoid the potential irritation of regular members (only a handful of them) by acting early on the whim of moderators' suspicion alone and it may come to that - but it isn't yet.

You could be right, maybe it is only a handful, I don't know. There's a handful that are vocal, there may be more who are silent and even more who gave up posting at the board for one related reason or another. Either way, as the hare said many times before his ban, you need to decide on your priorities - if you haven't already. If that means favouring vendors, so be it.

From my view LM's suggestion for more proactivity is correct, and I can understand why he feels a little bit attacked now from you guys. It's a suggestion and I think it's not the best response to say : 'If you want that to happen them become a mod and help out' (paraphrasing).


I'd say some things have improved on the vendor front. But others are just the same or worse.

A couple of questions:

Is someone responsible for reading (or at least skim-reading) every post on the board?

Why is it that on any issue like this almost all the mods and staff seem to agree with eachother and back eachother up?

 

[Shakone]

A reason why that handful thinks the mods aren't really listening:

Go to this thread:

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/dir...leverage-instant-withdrawals.html#post1050936

Barjon removed a link (well done) from a one-post wonder, but left both a .com address and the company's name. So what's the problem? Well that can now be bumped by anyone at any time, and the bumper doesn't even need to break any rules.

So the thread dies in 2010.

The thread is then bumped in 2012 by someone with few posts with a link and some support of the company.

It then dies again, and a year later is bumped with a two-poster using the company name again, and now it's on my 'new posts'.

Will it be in my new posts again next year?

Of course that's old, so it's not really that thread that's the big problem, but rather that this sort of thing goes on, and my new posts is cluttered with old threads that I don't want to read and that are from vendor bumping.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

Look, LM, you know as well as I do that the current policy is unsatisfactory - which is why it's all under the microscope. At the moment vendors are allowed to post unless they are clearly selling and/or overtly advertising or otherwise promoting their services.

Whatever suspicions one might have about them being here, that policy requires them to be seen to be offending in this respect. Additionally the words "clearly" and "overtly" are subjective and capable of wide interpretation. The "crossing the line" problem.

Sure, we can avoid the potential irritation of regular members (only a handful of them) by acting early on the whim of moderators' suspicion alone and it may come to that - but it isn't yet.

it wouldn't be acting on any whims jon, it would be acting within the guidelines. though as we don't know how mods are to address posts that break guidelines these days, it's a moot point. and I don't believe anyone should act outside of the guidelines in respect of member posts.

the terms "clearly" and "overtly" are new terms that must have been added recently? or recently'ish? I don't have access right now this minute to the old guidelines. so if, for debates sake, for now, we assume they were not in the old guidelines, then I ask why have subjective new terms been allowed to be placed into the new guidelines? without any protest as to the unsuitability of such terms? didn't someone speak up at the time they were first aired?

 

[Shakone]

it wouldn't be acting on any whims jon, it would be acting within the guidelines. though as we don't know how mods are to address posts that break guidelines these days, it's a moot point. and I don't believe anyone should act outside of the guidelines in respect of member posts.

the terms "clearly" and "overtly" are new terms that must have been added recently? or recently'ish? I don't have access right now this minute to the old guidelines. so if, for debates sake, for now, we assume they were not in the old guidelines, then I ask why have subjective new terms been allowed to be placed into the new guidelines? without any protest as to the unsuitability of such terms? didn't someone speak up at the time they were first aired?

It's probably this line:

Posting with minimal content that is clearly designed to act as a lure towards your product.

And I believe that was in the old guidelines.

Don't know about the overtly part.

Just get a Vendor Cess Pit. Vendors are allowed to post what they want in there, but nothing in the cesspit appears in 'new posts'. Vendors can also post outside the cesspit, but any even hint of selling or advertising is cracked down on and they lose their account and all posts.

That way those who don't want to read it, don't even need to see it, and vendors can still contribute if they choose to. What's the problem?

 

[new_trader]

Didn't someone once suggest a thumbs up/thumbs down system like youtube? If a post gets a certain number of thumbs down it is hidden and flagged as spam. That could be a way forward.

 

[VielGeld]

LM, did you get my PM?

As to the rest... I honestly don't know what you guys are expecting us to say. We do our jobs the best we can with the time we have. It's not 100% perfect, but that's what you get out of a free service...

 

[Lightning McQueen]

LM, did you get my PM?

As to the rest... I honestly don't know what you guys are expecting us to say. We do our jobs the best we can with the time we have. It's not 100% perfect, but that's what you get out of a free service...

yes I did, thank you. I used current situations to illustrate the issues as I see it. unfortunately, as I typed it, events unfolded and my message seemed a bit lame and all seemed after the event type stuff.

I will of course re-edit and continue when time. it was as is usual for me a rather lengthy reply, hopefully you''ll not have to endure the guff after I've re-edited and condensed somewhat

thanks again for the pm, it does show somebody at least cares.

 

[Hakuna Matata]

let me be a mod x

 

[counter_violent]

you voted in one of his polls

cv pulls him for his uploading pics with odd looking ads

t333 must have read his 1st posting

spect you have all got the hump :cheesy:

so what about ftseday then?

Hmm, I did pull him for indirect ad linking via some image hosting site.
As far as i'm concerned, that is doing my job. Even discussed that very aspect with Jon as he was around at the time.

Just how much free time should mods give and how much digging do we need to do to satisfy?

No need to answer as you well know it's a rhetorical question.

 

[barjon]

let me be a mod x

Yeah, you can take my place I've had enough.

A couple of points before I hang up my boots:

1. No, I don't have the time nor the inclination to read every post.

2, 1.07 Vendors are welcome but they can’t sell. Any vendor representative who is prepared to share valuable information, join in discussions or deal with questions about their services will be welcomed. If they cross the line into selling the offending content will be deleted.

If "cross the line" isn't subjective I dunno what is.

3. The vendor thing won't improve markedly until the new policy/guidelines are thrashed out. You've all been told this so many times one wonders who it is that's doing the listening.

4. Mods and staff back each other up because they know for a fact what T2W's aims are - and that's a far cry from the conspiracy theory assumptions that are so prevalent on here. And also because they know how much hard work is going on behind the scenes to improve things.

5. And yes, LM, VG is probably the only one who cares - what bollox you come out with. I certainly couldn't give a toss anymore and I'll just enjoy arguing with HM and the company of the ftse boys instead.

jon