Tim assures us nothing has changed, and I have no cause to either disbelieve him, or to believe him.
I tend to favour an evidence based approach (like wot i do when trading) I would suggest starting a thread slagging off one of the many other vendors who previously could not be be named and shamed, and see how thats handled.
If there's been a general shift in moderation policy, or any of the other reasons Tim provided, then the thread should remain, if the threads pulled, or posts deleted, then its a reasonable indication that the rules are being applied selectively.
It may of course be an indication of other things, such as some vendors taking a more agressive stance at reputation management, but I'm sure we could design a suitable experiment to get to the bottom of this once and for all.
Whilst I more than welcome the lulz this issue provides, I am genuinely interested in knowing why t2w would stand by and allow a bunch of annonymous forum members potentially damage the reputations and carears of a group of possibly innocent people. Both current and potential advertisers must be aware of whats happening, and in an industry where exaggerated claims are commonplace, its hardly reassuring, who's going to be singled our for a mauling from the mob next ?
I've discussed the imortance of perception with Tim on numerous occassions, and we are unlikely to agree, but the fact that this thread hasnt been heavily edited, or removed from public view whilst the accusations are reviewed, does send out a very clear signal. Its not an endorsement, but its a signal.
Compare the way the accusations in this thread are allowed to stay, with the accusations a few weeks ago that a vendor had double charged a credit card. In that case the accusations where almost certainly unsubstantiated, and the thread was initially removed from public view, edited, and IIRC, completely removed (which was the right thing to do)
I think I'm correct in stating that the vendor accused of double charging a credit card runs his business as a sideline, selling a niche software component to a small market, and isnt 100% reliant on income from that business. if the worst came to the worst and his reputation had been totally detroyed, I'm sure he'd survive.
If the details provided to the court are correct, Mr B is relient on income from his training business (he's not employed by anyone in a full time capacity, nor does he trade). A number of others are also relient on this buiness for their livelihoods, and the damage that these accuations could cause could be serious.
There has to be a very good reason why t2w are showing absolutely no concern for the damage that these allegations are causing, particularly when being made against a company with a history of threatening litgation.
intriguing isnt it
Perhaps Mike has just done a Ryan Giggs and gave it up as a waste of time. Lets face it the allegations are all over the internet. I was reading about an ongoing super injunction the other day, it was discussed at the Levenson enquiry and very few details were given. However even then I was able to identify who they were talking about in 5 minutes. You cant hide stuff now by simply arguing its not true.
I think the approach these trading gurus are taking now is to bombard the internet with fake positive reviews and hope to push the truthful stuff down google. Secker is a prime example of this, he even has pages that you find when searching for 'Greg Secker scam' but of course when you read them they say he's actually a great guy. This costs a lot of money but probably less than lawyers charge.
