Private Forums

[TheBramble]

I think some of the 'issues' relating to the Private Forums discussion which currently, and frequently gets an airing on these boards is the potential inequity of the situation.

Those who have recently sought private forums have done so in order to moderate the threads themselves, ensuring no adverse view or contradiction (or 'disruption') of what they want to say will be tolerated.

While it is extremely accommodating of t2w admin to allow such facilities, it does (as Ducati alluded to in a recent post) rather give implicit sanction of the admin to whomever and whatever that private forum owner is saying/selling.

Where commercial interests are involved, it should be made clear to members requesting membership of these private boards, perhaps by a sticky threads or post, that the thread moderators are commercial entities. Whether it be tuition, trading systems, ebooks - whatever.

Even where there is no commercial aspect or involvement, there is the rather more difficult issue of bias with which to deal.

The bias is that t2w admin allow these private forum owners free rein to limit and edit what other members post. But these private forum owners are allowed to post, without those same restrictions they impose on others, in the public forums where all members share similar rights & protections.

If members feel strongly enough to desire and request their own private forum AND if t2w admin feel such a facility (and all the privileges which accompany it) are to be provided, then it is appropriate in my view these members should NOT be allowed to post freely on the Public forums.

Either you're part of the general membership - or you're not.

Anyone else have any views on this?

 

[Sharky]

Owners of private forums must abide by the site guidelines just like everyone else, they certainly do not have free rein to limit and edit what other members post without good reason. The forums aren't commercial entities - we have a simple rule and that's there no advertising allowed on the forums - and we've maintained this stance since the site began - this hasn't changed. Member run forums, like membership of T2W, is a privilege which can be revoked at any time - it certainly doesn't give you autonomy to run it as you see fit. The role of T2W Moderator extends beyond the public forums and is there to ensure that the private forums are run within the spirit of the site, and more explicitly the site forum guidelines.

 

[Sharky]

I should just add, that I'm acutely aware of the concerns about private forums. But I'm more concerned about delivering quality, moderated forums that encourage intelligent and reasoned debate. There is only so much we can do as forum administrators and moderators to achieve this goal - issues that arise are hardly ever black and white, every action or inaction we take has positives and negatives - we can only hope to choose the path that appears to derive the most benefit. I might add, we constantly review are decisions and adapt them as is necessary to achieve the goals described. Giving members the opportunity to express their concerns is an important element in this decision making process, and I welcome and listen to intelligent and reasoned debate.

 

[TheBramble]

Sharky, I think the main thrust of what I said went missing in your responses.

If the 'regular' facilities of the public forums are not sufficient or not good enough for those who want their own private forums, why would they still need the ability to use those 'regular' facilities once they have their own 'self-tailored' forums?

Either the public forums', controls, administration, moderation and facilities are good enough for them - or they're not.

As you provide us with this 'Feedback' forum I assume it is so you can review members' wishes and ideas and then decide if they warrant further consideration.

With that assumption in mind and with your permission Sharky, I'll turn this question into a Poll along the lines of:-

Should Private Forum Owners be allowed to restrict/modify/edit information flow and membership on their own forums whilst enjoying the ability to freely post on the Public Forums - Yes/No?

Are you agreeable to my posting such a poll?

 

[Sharky]

No, because your question is isn't fair imho - its framed with a bias. If you were to ask any question, it would simply be - should members be given the opportunity to have a private forum if they so choose.

Now I'm off to swimming, so will have to resume the debate tomorrow.

 

[TheBramble]

Fair? Hmmmm....

I just thought you would be interested in membership feedback such a poll would provide you, but obviously you are not.

No further debate needed. t2w admin position is clear.

Enjoy your swim.

 

[Sharky]

I've got another 5 mins..

Of course I'm interested in membership feedback, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, right?! All I'm saying is, I don't think that particular poll is entirely fair. Your essentially asking should we penalise people for having private forums, and missing the actual debate, which is whether we should have private forums in the first place.

 

[dbphoenix]

Seems I've seen this movie:

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showthread.php?t=14248

 

[Roberto]

Owners of private forums ... certainly do not have free rein to limit and edit what other members post without good reason.

What has changed, then, since February when you said "I'm unaware of what posts have been deleted, so can't comment on those"?

How is it now being enforced that owners of private forums do not have free rein to limit and edit what other members post without good reason? I'd love to be wrong about this, but if you'll excuse my saying so, it looks very much as if that's exactly what they have free rein to do; and indeed that when they do it, you are (understandably) unaware of what posts have been deleted and therefore (naturally) unable to comment.

You can see why I'm confused?

Please can you comment on my confusion, at least, even if not on my deleted posts?

 

[SOCRATES]

All this is very entertaining and funny, because only the individuals who become frustrated at not being admitted to private discussions which are by invitation only have reason to grumble. The ultimate source of their discontent, I may add, is themselves, and the way they are apt to conduct themselves. Therefore if and when they are excluded they only have themselves to blame and nobody else. Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! ~ Ha ! Ha ! Ha !

 

[dbphoenix]

Actually, it's not invitation only. Anyone who wants to join can apply. In fact, I've had more applicants today than ever before.

So I suppose that the longer these threads run, the better.

 

[Roberto]

Anyone else have any views on this?

Thought you'd never ask, Squire ...

Those who have recently sought private forums have done so in order to moderate the threads themselves, ensuring no adverse view or contradiction (or 'disruption') of what they want to say will be tolerated.

That's very clearly true of one recent case, yes.

My own impression is that's it's not true of the most recent one, though. I believe that one of the owners of that one has recently returned after a self-imposed exile because he felt unwilling to share the fruits of his labours with people who were rude to him. IMHO you can't blame him at all for that, and having a private forum might, in his case, be a nifty alternative to his not posting here at all.

My own guess is that the site's official moderators might also feel to some extent relieved of a burden of moderation, in this instance.

However, I'm making one or two assumptions in saying this, and I sense that you probably won't agree with it anyway, Tony, or at least won't regard it as detracting in any way from the points you're making (which perhaps, indeed, it doesn't).

While it is extremely accommodating of t2w admin to allow such facilities, it does (as Ducati alluded to in a recent post) rather give implicit sanction of the admin to whomever and whatever that private forum owner is saying/selling.

Indeed. The doctrine of ostensible authority rears its ugly head yet again. I know that I was far from alone in being both dismayed and disturbed that someone recently banned by another online traders' community was able immediately to appear here in the guise of "moderator" (albeit only of his own sections).

Where commercial interests are involved, it should be made clear to members requesting membership of these private boards, perhaps by a sticky threads or post, that the thread moderators are commercial entities. Whether it be tuition, trading systems, ebooks - whatever.

I agree, but that's the easy part.

Even where there is no commercial aspect or involvement, there is the rather more difficult issue of bias with which to deal.

That's the problem with the whole gescheft. IMHO the Sharkster should be tough on bias and tough on the appearances of bias.

 

[sulong]

Therefore if and when they are excluded they only have themselves to blame and nobody else. Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! ~ Ha ! Ha ! Ha !

Soc,
It ain't nice to laugh at the slow people.


If they want to scream at the dark, let em.

 

[DaveJB]

Overall, whilst having some sympathy with the worry that private boards are simply an easier way of stifling warranted criticism, I'm for them. (Which, frankly, surprises me).

The problem as I see it is this - valid criticism CAN be stifled 'unjustly' (for want of a better phrase) - which is the lesser evil in my view when compared to the 'I'm going to post a 5000 word essay on why you should prove to me that TA works' stuff that brings many a promising argu...err, discussion... to a grinding halt.

A sensible 'I don't agree, you are talking cobblers, here's my reasoning...' is never enough, is it? The thread gets destroyed - whether it's a good one or a thinly veiled advert (that comment is NOT aimed at any thread in particular btw) ... Mr Angry has spotted the TRUTH and to heck with anyone who prefers the original content.

I don't think private threads are a good thing, but they wouldn't be needed if people would make their objection then simply allow members to make their own judgement call - this is NOT a home for the chronically feeble minded, anyone coming onto a financial site should do so eyes open, pockets closed, and spend a good while observing before even dreaming of spending any money with anyone they 'meet' here. If you insist on looking fluffy and saying baaa a lot and you get sheared... well, what a valuable lesson you'll have had about human nature. (For a modest £2000 a day too!)

I think it's rather ironic that the attempts to force 'truth' (what that looks like is open to debate) from some of the better known posters has driven them to private fora like this - if anything I'd say having a private forum makes it look like you are somebody who must be pretty well regarded etc... well done, if you think somebody is really dodgy and you complain enough you'll manage to make them appear more respectable.

I hate the idea of the private forum, unfortunately I think they're necessary because there's a sad tendency to march the streets with pitchforks and burning torches. I would imagine that 80%+ of members are totally nonplussed by this.

Dave
I only need protecting from myself, thanks...

 

[SOCRATES]

Soc,
It ain't nice to laugh at the slow people.


If they want to scream at the dark, let em.

It is not related to speed, it is related to appropriate retribution for unacceptable conduct.

You are right about the screams, but it is now too late in the day to put right.

 

[dbphoenix]

I suppose one chief difference between private forums and public is that when those who ask questions in private forums do so, they are truly interested in an answer, in learning something. If the answer is unclear, there is a back-and-forth until everyone is satisfied.

On a public forum, however, the intent of questions is often not to learn something new or different but to set the stage for expressing one's own view. The reply to the question, therefore, is largely ignored, a place holder, since the individual asking the question is only waiting for the answer to be finished before he can continue saying whatever it was he wanted to say (this is why answers are so often misunderstood and even misquoted; they're not read, they're skimmed, if that). For this reason, the same questions get asked again and again, and the same "points" made again and again, regardless of the answers provided in each iteration. The questioner is not interested in information. The questioner is interested in an audience.

I'm not surprised that Roberto et al would raise the same issues as in the last go-round on this subject (see link in previous post). But addressing them, again, would be pointless, as they will be raised yet again the next time that Sharky gives his permission for another private forum to be established, no matter what response Sharky or anyone else provides.

Those with grievances must of course be allowed to air them. But no one is required to pay attention.

 

[SOCRATES]

Overall, whilst having some sympathy with the worry that private boards are simply an easier way of stifling warranted criticism, I'm for them. (Which, frankly, surprises me).

The problem as I see it is this - valid criticism CAN be stifled 'unjustly' (for want of a better phrase) - which is the lesser evil in my view when compared to the 'I'm going to post a 5000 word essay on why you should prove to me that TA works' stuff that brings many a promising argu...err, discussion... to a grinding halt.

A sensible 'I don't agree, you are talking cobblers, here's my reasoning...' is never enough, is it? The thread gets destroyed - whether it's a good one or a thinly veiled advert (that comment is NOT aimed at any thread in particular btw) ... Mr Angry has spotted the TRUTH and to heck with anyone who prefers the original content.

I don't think private threads are a good thing, but they wouldn't be needed if people would make their objection then simply allow members to make their own judgement call - this is NOT a home for the chronically feeble minded, anyone coming onto a financial site should do so eyes open, pockets closed, and spend a good while observing before even dreaming of spending any money with anyone they 'meet' here. If you insist on looking fluffy and saying baaa a lot and you get sheared... well, what a valuable lesson you'll have had about human nature. (For a modest £2000 a day too!)

I think it's rather ironic that the attempts to force 'truth' (what that looks like is open to debate) from some of the better known posters has driven them to private fora like this - if anything I'd say having a private forum makes it look like you are somebody who must be pretty well regarded etc... well done, if you think somebody is really dodgy and you complain enough you'll manage to make them appear more respectable.

I hate the idea of the private forum, unfortunately I think they're necessary because there's a sad tendency to march the streets with pitchforks and burning torches. I would imagine that 80%+ of members are totally nonplussed by this.

Dave
I only need protecting from myself, thanks...

Mr Angry is angry because of the realisation has dawned upon him at last that he has shot finally himself in the foot, as a consequence of aggravating those who should not be aggravated on the basis that they have the advantage, because they have the ability and are in a position to genuinely help him, but only if they choose to. But because of his conduct he is now excluded and is seething with rage. Funny ? Hilarious actually...Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! And never mind the money, that is the least important part of the equation. I cannot resist another giggle....

 

[SOCRATES]

I suppose one chief difference between private forums and public is that when those who ask questions in private forums do so, they are truly interested in an answer, in learning something. If the answer is unclear, there is a back-and-forth until everyone is satisfied.

On a public forum, however, the intent of questions is often not to learn something new or different but to set the stage for expressing one's own view. The reply to the question, therefore, is largely ignored, a place holder, since the individual asking the question is only waiting for the answer to be finished before he can continue saying whatever it was he wanted to say (this is why answers are so often misunderstood and even misquoted; they're not read, they're skimmed, if that). For this reason, the same questions get asked again and again, and the same "points" made again and again, regardless of the answers provided in each iteration. The questioner is not interested in information. The questioner is interested in an audience.

I'm not surprised that Roberto et al would raise the same issues as in the last go-round on this subject (see link in previous post). But addressing them, again, would be pointless, as they will be raised yet again the next time that Sharky gives his permission for another private forum to be established, no matter what response Sharky or anyone else provides.

Those with grievances must of course be allowed to air them. But no one is required to pay attention.

I thoroughly agree. And in addition, the questioner not only is seeking an audience, but uses the scenario not to be constructive and to learn, but to aggravate and pester and argue. This is very tiresome to anyone who truly understands what this profession is all about. And when this does not work, the Pms start, and when they are not responded to, out comes a helpless girl seeking guidiance and then another and another. Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! And this is replicated all around the circuit, and we all know about it. Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! And then there are invitations to tea and anything you can imagine but to no avail, because once a precedent is set, it remains. And I cannot resist yet another giggle....

 

[roguetrader]

Can't see what all the fuss is about personally.

 

[Salty Gibbon]

Can't see what all the fuss is about personally.

I echo your sentiments Roguetrader.

It is hardly a life-threatening development is it and besides, the new forum is hardly a private one when it is open to approximately 99.9% of the T2W membership.