T2W Members' Choice Awards 2011 - Vote Now! Win an iPad 2

[timsk]

All this criticism would disappear if you published the vote count . . .

pboyles - if you really believe this, then your naivety is quite charming and to be applauded. However, I suspect you know full well that there is a massive chasm separating this simplistic utopian ideal from reality.

Personal experience tells me that the more open one tries to be, the more one tries to engage with the membership and the more one tries to facilitate their wishes, the bigger and deeper the hole one finds oneself in. Since day 1 in my post, I decided to do my utmost to address the legitimate concerns of members. The harder I tried, the more grief and abuse I received. The sage advice I received from my colleagues was simply not to respond. To engage in any kind of debate only ever adds fuel to the flames. The site's detractors will never be happy, there's simply no pleasing them - no matter how hard one tries. Sadly, I now realise my colleagues are right, which is why (among other reasons) I'm posting less and less. And that';s the simple reason why the results aren't going to be published. The conspiracy theorists will take great joy in making mountains out of mole hills, but the sad truth really is this simple and basic - not that I expect you, the hare & Co to believe me.

Tim.

 

[the hare]

And that';s the simple reason why the results aren't going to be published.....

Even you cannot deny that each and every year the poll results are mangled and fudged

Who could ever forget the year when a banned member was leading in the most useful member category (until new rules where hastily enforced, and the resuts fiddled to give a more palatable result) Try as you might, you cant deny that actually happened.

I appreciate you dont like to confront the harsh realaties of the business that you are employed in, but if you wanted to take your head out of the sand for a moment, you might care to take a look at forex factory. They took the sensible decision of making things transparent, and the moment they did, it became very aparent that those wicked vendor types who pay everyone's wages where up to no end of shinnagins and dirty tricks.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that a vendor who proactively attempts to influence the outcome of a similar award at a competitors site wouldnt do the same at T2W. Are you seriously trying to argue that the cloak of annonimity that you provide for these people to pull these types of stunts isnt a factor in influencing them to behave in this way ?

Its a fact of commercial life that those who advertise tend to win awards, and few would critise sharky if he chose to act like every other newspaper, magazine, or forum owner. I'd be more likely to critisise him if he DIDNT !

The reason that you take critisism is because you are trying to defend the indefensible, and when you do that, you are treating the membership with contempt, and they see it, and they act accordingly.

Thats one of the primary reasons why T2W is failing.

Just out of interest, are advertisers and the recipients of these awards given details of the number of people voting for them, and the broad demographics of those members ?

 

[timsk]

Thank you the hare - right on cue - you've provided the perfect example of exactly the sort of response I was referring to in my last post.

The big mistake that I made when I started in this job was to assume that everyone had the best interests of the forum at heart - along with that of their fellow members. Big mistake. Huge! There really is absolutely no point in engaging in so called debate with detractors who, far from caring one jot about T2W or its members - would actually take great delight in seeing it's demise. On that note, I'm out!
Tim.

 

[barjon]

...................you are treating the membership with contempt............

Hare

Much as I agree with Tim that it is a waste of time to respond to people who , quite clearly, have an agenda to discredit T2W by any means they can, I think the above is a bit rich coming from you.

You mostly spend your time on here hunting for anything you can can find to pour scorn and contempt on anything T2W tries to do. You twist anything that is said to cast it in the worst possible light, you parade those twists of yours as "facts", you draw false conclusions that you parade as "facts" and you tell downright lies which you present as "facts".

In anyone is treating anyone with contempt, I suggest you look in the mirror.

jon

 

[timsk]

Hare

Much as I agree with Tim that it is a waste of time to respond to people who , quite clearly, have an agenda to discredit T2W by any means they can, I think the above is a bit rich coming from you.

You mostly spend your time on here hunting for anything you can can find to pour scorn and contempt on anything T2W tries to do. You twist anything that is said to cast it in the worst possible light, you parade those twists of yours as "facts", you draw false conclusions that you parade as "facts" and you tell downright lies which you present as "facts".

In anyone is treating anyone with contempt, I suggest you look in the mirror.

jon

For anyone who really wants 'the truth' - it's beautifully encapsulated in this post. Absolutely spot on Jon.

 

[the hare]

You twist anything that is said to cast it in the worst possible light, you parade those twists of yours as "facts", you draw false conclusions that you parade as "facts" and you tell downright lies which you present as "facts".

If you could indulge me for just a moment, we where discussing the "members choice awards".

Is it a fact that a banned member was previously a popular choice amongs the membership in one such poll, and the rules changed part way through the vote ? (I have a few more examples that I could cite, but lets just stick to this one point).

As the polls are shrouded in secrecy, I have no idea if the banned member was leading the poll, but I think its a reasonable enough conclusion to make that the number of votes must have been sufficiently great in order that T2W decided to retropectively change the rules. If the banned member had only a handful of votes its unlikely that any action would have been required.

I dont really want to kick you when you are down, but it is perhaps worth considering that a number of members who won awards in the past, now regard T2W in a rather poor light. I appreciate that the reasons for this may not entirely be the fault of T2W, but whilst we are discusssing members choice awards, I thought I'd throw it into the mix.

You really have to ask the question why people who where once so committed to providing a positive imput at T2W had a change of heart. The reasons are quite obvious really. Perhaps one of the T2W team should perhaps ask them ?

 

[timsk]

Perhaps one of the T2W team should perhaps ask them?

Oh, believe you me the hare - we have. And guess what, often as not, your name (or one of your various multi-nicks) was in the reply, usually sandwiched between some - how shall I put this - rather 'colourful' language!

 

[the hare]

Oh, believe you me the hare - we have. And guess what, often as not, your name (or one of your various multi-nicks) was in the reply, usually sandwiched between some - how shall I put this - rather 'colourful' language!

I can think of one or two who find my presense at T2W objectionable

 

[pboyles]

pboyles - if you really believe this, then your naivety is quite charming and to be applauded. However, I suspect you know full well that there is a massive chasm separating this simplistic utopian ideal from reality.

Personal experience tells me that the more open one tries to be, the more one tries to engage with the membership and the more one tries to facilitate their wishes, the bigger and deeper the hole one finds oneself in. Since day 1 in my post, I decided to do my utmost to address the legitimate concerns of members. The harder I tried, the more grief and abuse I received. The sage advice I received from my colleagues was simply not to respond. To engage in any kind of debate only ever adds fuel to the flames. The site's detractors will never be happy, there's simply no pleasing them - no matter how hard one tries. Sadly, I now realise my colleagues are right, which is why (among other reasons) I'm posting less and less. And that';s the simple reason why the results aren't going to be published. The conspiracy theorists will take great joy in making mountains out of mole hills, but the sad truth really is this simple and basic - not that I expect you, the hare & Co to believe me.

Tim.

So to paraphrase one of the great democratic leaders of our time,

'The Hare can scream all it wants. The member awards will go on. Those who want to recognize our legitimacy can do so, those who don't want, should not'


Mugabe Quotes | Sokwanele

 

[timsk]

As for the vote count, well even Mugabe publishes election results.

My new mentor - now Gaddafi's gone.

Hey pboyles - you're slipping - you haven't mentioned MF Global. I'm sure we used to have a link to them in the old brokers section? But, I do have some good news for you. I've pleaded with the Human Resources department to amend the job application form for all prospective T2W employees in the future. It's a fairly standard affair - divided into two main sections: 'Essential' and 'Desirable'. Under the former, I've got them to add the following just for you: "Applicants MUST be clairvoyant, so they can spot all future miscarriages of justice, rogue brokers and rip off scammers etc. IN ADVANCE".

There you go - problem solved!

 

[pboyles]

My new mentor - now Gaddafi's gone.

Hey pboyles - you're slipping - you haven't mentioned MF Global. I'm sure we used to have a link to them in the old brokers section? But, I do have some good news for you. I've pleaded with the Human Resources department to amend the job application form for all prospective T2W employees in the future. It's a fairly standard affair - divided into two main sections: 'Essential' and 'Desirable'. Under the former, I've got them to add the following just for you: "Applicants MUST be clairvoyant, so they can spot all future miscarriages of justice, rogue brokers and rip off scammers etc. IN ADVANCE".

There you go - problem solved!

There was no shortage of proof that at least some of the 'partners' were up to no good long before T2W associated with them, Secker in particular springs to mind. Likewise Forex.com was fined when, last year, yet the rebate offer started a month or two ago. How much clairvoyance was required on that one?

 

[pboyles]

Actually Cohen too, there was a whole thread on the secret nazi box long before the book came out.

 

[pboyles]

Thank you the hare - right on cue - you've provided the perfect example of exactly the sort of response I was referring to in my last post.

The big mistake that I made when I started in this job was to assume that everyone had the best interests of the forum at heart - along with that of their fellow members. Big mistake. Huge! There really is absolutely no point in engaging in so called debate with detractors who, far from caring one jot about T2W or its members - would actually take great delight in seeing it's demise. On that note, I'm out!
Tim.

You're starting to sound like the Great Brother Leader, the King of Kings.

'They are filled with hatred. All they want is to destroy this beautiful city'

 

[forker]

waiting for the deletion to begin....

 

[the hare]

waiting for the deletion to begin....

I'm amazed the thread has lasted this long. However to delete pboyles post regarding Mike Bagdaddy would be an act of vandalism equivelent to slashing the mona lisa with a stanley knife. That post is simply a work of art.

 

[the hare]

"Applicants MUST be clairvoyant, so they can spot all future miscarriages of justice, rogue brokers and rip off scammers etc. IN ADVANCE".

I suspect that the majority of trading forums would be more likely to exploit the skills of a genuine clairvoyant to make market predictions.

Its kind of worrying that you didnt spot that particular opportunity

 

[EK1]

OK, the nominations are in and we now have the final top 5 candidates in each voting category.

Remember if you voted for a candidate that is NOT in the final top 5 you can vote again for any of the remaining 5 candidates if you wish.

Voting is open until December 18th and you can place your votes here: Trade2Win Members' Choice Awards 2011

 

[wackypete2]

OK, the nominations are in and we now have the final top 5 candidates in each voting category.

Remember if you voted for a candidate that is NOT in the final top 5 you can vote again for any of the remaining 5 candidates if you wish.

Voting is open until December 18th and you can place your votes here: Trade2Win Members' Choice Awards 2011

Do the top 5 candidates retain their votes or does the voting start over?

Peter

 

[pboyles]

Who are the top 5?

 

[wackypete2]

Who are the top 5?

You have to go to the awards site and click on the category to see the top 5 in each.

Peter