Trade to Win or Something Else?

[jimbo57]

.

 

[Sharky]

Bickering like this is pointless and only serves to undermine the spirit of the site.

It might be an enjoyable spectator sport for some but it's clearly a waste of everyones time.

Please can we get back on topic!!!

 

[jimbo57]

.

 

[dbphoenix]

Don't you think we have of the nanny state insidiously permeating our lives enough already without you trying to bring nannying into the trading environement for good measure or just to read yourself in print, no matter what ?

Don't you know that trading is an occupation for grown ups who do not need nannying ?

Nannying is for children, not for traders.

Well...at least for some traders....but not for some of us...so please change the tune because it is repetiive and boring. Thank you.

My post had nothing to do with "nannying", Bertie, though I'm not surprised that you would misunderstand that. Inability to understand is only one of your afflictions.

As for going to great lengths to read myself in print, I've made now three posts to this thread. You've made considerably more than that, all of which have been as "repetiive [sp] and boring" as your usual.

 

[Charlton]

It's not suprising that more members are popping up with vendor tags as it's part of the registration process now, and so new members are forced to declare if they have a commerical interest. Likewise it's not suprising that a fair few members have a commercial interest, since its a community forum anyone in the industry is likely to participate. There's greater visibility now because of the tag, but that's what people wanted. We went through this whole process months ago, polled the members and the system was set up on a unanimous basis. Just because they're a vendor doesn't mean they can advertise on the forums - as is clearly stated in the guidelines - we do our best to enfore them. Obviously they'll be times when it's not black and white, and so we need to make judgements as to what is. But moderation has always been independent from any commercial aspects of the site and not influenced in any way, shape or form.

Quality of the forums is paramount - always has been. If you think things should be done any differently then tell us - but please don't imply that there is anything underhand going on between T2W and any vendors because this is a complete lie. The site is free, it's paid for by advertising, the forums are there for open discussions and not for advertising, the mods apply the site guidelines to the best of their abilities, the mods derive no financial benefit from T2W, the mods do a bloody brilliant job considering this is the case. It's really that simple.

If members want us to now scrap the whole vendor system or tighten up/loosen moderation then we'll listen - but it's not necessary to ram it down our throats or make wild accusations - there comes a point when it becomes abusive, and I don't see why I or the mods should suffer it any more than any other member of this site.

On a side note - if anyone spots a google advert (the text one) that they think looks suspect, then please report it to me or one of the mods because there is a way to filter out invididual websites - as we have already taken steps to do in the past.

I think the vendor registration is very useful for both vendors and members. Good vendors will earn and prove their reputations by the quality and quantity of their contributions to T2W discussions. Bad vendors who, either initially try to hide this status, will probably be found out before long and leave with tarnished reputations. "One-poster" vendors who try to advertise their URLs, but have little credibility and lasting power will be seen as such.

Charlton

 

[Sharky]

If you're referring to Matt aka Rossored, he's part of the "T2W Team" as is clearly stated in his signature and profile. The "Moderators" as labelled on their signature and profile do not derive any financial benefit.

 

[jimbo57]

.

 

[Sharky]

Fine, whatever. I'm not going to repeat myself about the impartiality of the moderation I've said it over and over again. We're just going in circles, if you have a suggestion about how you would like to improve the site then please share it with us.

 

[jimbo57]

[.

 

[Sharky]

Okay, so you're suggesting that the T2W Team - myself, EK1, JillyB and Rossored relinquish any moderation powers in the forums. I'd be happy to discuss this. As I said, the quality of the forums is paramount and I understand the perception is equally as important. If a majority of members share your view and are concerned of a possible conflict of interest, then I'd be prepared to talk do just that. We collectively spend a significant amount of time on the forums and this time could certainly be better spent elsewhere. It's would be up to the membership as a whole and in consultation with existing moderators who's workload would increase proportionately.

 

[dbphoenix]

It's not suprising that more members are popping up with vendor tags as it's part of the registration process now, and so new members are forced to declare if they have a commerical interest. Likewise it's not suprising that a fair few members have a commercial interest, since its a community forum anyone in the industry is likely to participate. There's greater visibility now because of the tag, but that's what people wanted. We went through this whole process months ago, polled the members and the system was set up on a unanimous basis. Just because they're a vendor doesn't mean they can advertise on the forums - as is clearly stated in the guidelines - we do our best to enfore them. Obviously they'll be times when it's not black and white, and so we need to make judgements as to what is. But moderation has always been independent from any commercial aspects of the site and not influenced in any way, shape or form.

Quality of the forums is paramount - always has been. If you think things should be done any differently then tell us - but please don't imply that there is anything underhand going on between T2W and any vendors because this is a complete lie. The site is free, it's paid for by advertising, the forums are there for open discussions and not for advertising, the mods apply the site guidelines to the best of their abilities, the mods derive no financial benefit from T2W, the mods do a bloody brilliant job considering this is the case. It's really that simple.

If members want us to now scrap the whole vendor system or tighten up/loosen moderation then we'll listen - but it's not necessary to ram it down our throats or make wild accusations - there comes a point when it becomes abusive, and I don't see why I or the mods should suffer it any more than any other member of this site.

On a side note - if anyone spots a google advert (the text one) that they think looks suspect, then please report it to me or one of the mods because there is a way to filter out invididual websites - as we have already taken steps to do in the past.

I don't approve of the manner in which jimbo made some of his posts, but then whether I approve or not is irrelevant. I'm not a moderator. And this is your site, and you can do what you like with it, especially since it's free.

However, I doubt you mean literally that the vendor system was set up on a "unanimous basis". I doubt that more than a fraction of the membership participated in the poll. But as for vendor advertising, the mere fact of the tag is an advertisement.

I made my initial post because this seems to go on and on over what once were several threads and perhaps too much attention is being paid to how the frustration is being expressed and not enough to the frustration itself. Personally, I don't understand why anyone with a "vendor" tag who wants to initiate a thread can't be required to do so in the Trading Resources forum. Nor do I understand why anyone who sports such a tag should not expect challenges.

In the meantime, can not a truce be called? Hyperbole aside, some points have been made regarding the "vendor" system which should be addressed without a lot of emotional tags.

Db

 

[jimbo57]

.

 

[Sharky]

Well there are always options. We could set it up so that vendors can only start new threads in a particular forum, but they can reply to any thread on any forum. The problem I guess is when someone with vendor status wants to participate on the site as if they were a member. They might happen to sell a system, but also might want to just discuss trading - but would be prevented from doing so as a regular member. The very fact that we have a "vendor" group now means that we can set individual permissions for that whole group. I'm happy to discuss this also. You're right the decision to set up "vendor" status perhaps had only a fraction of the membership vote on, but realistically we can only hope for so much involvement from members - and at least those that care most passionately about the site are most likely to participate.

 

[Sharky]

As part of the same consultation with members (love this Blair speak) you might also consider getting rid of moderation altogether, thus frugi and barjon etc could free up more time.

Sounds like my idea of heaven - and probably fran & jon's too!

 

[Charlton]

You cannot be serious

Sounds like my idea of heaven - and probably fran & jon's too!

Hope you are not serious

No moderation = complete mayhem

Complete mayhem = no possibility of serious and civilised discussion

No serious discussion = members leaving in droves except those who love bear-baiting and bull-fights

Unrestrained behaviour = no incentive for respectable vendors to fund the site, only snake-oil merchants

Charlton

 

[SOCRATES]

Hope you are not serious

No moderation = complete mayhem

Complete mayhem = no possibility of serious and civilised discussion

No serious discussion = members leaving in droves except those who love bear-baiting and bull-fights

Unrestrained behaviour = no incentive for respectable vendors to fund the site, only snake-oil merchants

Charlton

SECONDED.

 

[dbphoenix]

Well there are always options. We could set it up so that vendors can only start new threads in a particular forum, but they can reply to any thread on any forum. The problem I guess is when someone with vendor status wants to participate on the site as if they were a member. They might happen to sell a system, but also might want to just discuss trading - but would be prevented from doing so as a regular member. The very fact that we have a "vendor" group now means that we can set individual permissions for that whole group. I'm happy to discuss this also. You're right the decision to set up "vendor" status perhaps had only a fraction of the membership vote on, but realistically we can only hope for so much involvement from members - and at least those that care most passionately about the site are most likely to participate.

I see no reason why a vendor who wants to discuss trading on some thread or other can't do so. If he has a tag, any accusation that he's trolling for clients amounts to a "duh". After all, if he's clueless enough to make stupid suggestions, he's the only one likely to be harmed by that. On the other hand, if he actually makes intelligent and useful comments that are based on expertise and experience and maybe even data, so much the better. Or he may just want to talk. Why not? The whole "advertising" thing came up largely because of those who were trying to be sneaky about it. One could hardly accuse Richard of being sneaky.

But, yes, if they want to initiate threads, I see no reason why they can't be required to do so in the Trading Resources forum (or why Matt can't move the thread there if it's opened somewhere else, if advertising is in fact his bailiwick). Given that, however, I suggest that the moderators -- if you decide to continue having them -- back off and let the vendor take care of himself. If he has something valuable and useful to offer, there should be no problem. Peer pressure should take care of those who have some sort of neurotic ax to grind. And if it doesn't, the vendor can always employ the Ignore button.

As for the voting, only 22 people voted on this particular issue, so I have to wonder if all this turmoil is worth it given how few people care one way or the other. The big issues seemed to be tightening standards of behavior and inconsistency on the part of the moderators (this stuff is all here in this forum, posted last November, if anyone wants to look it up), as well as providing warnings before being banned and announcing these actions publicly. I suggest after nearly a year has gone by that the "standards of behavior" issue be dropped. Some people are simply congenitally obnoxious, and there's nothing to be done for it. For the moderators to get involved really doesn't help the situation given The Disappearing Post and the regular re-editing of posts. In fact, if behavior standards are moderated via peer pressure and tags are required of vendors, what is the need for moderators at all? If something intolerably egregious takes place, you or Matt can take care of it. Otherwise, perhaps letting small fires burn themselves out is of eventual benefit to everyone.

Db

 

[frugi]

Well unless you're the sort of chap who finds beauty in the morning's 57th copy of "I bid you good day citizen we are most reputation company in possession of shipment NOKIA 5510 in very adequate quality $55 please wire funds to F. Rugi." then there is definitely a need for at least basic housekeeping.

 

[dbphoenix]

Well unless you're the sort of chap who finds beauty in the morning's 57th copy of "I bid you good day citizen we are most reputation company in possession of shipment NOKIA 5510 in very adequate quality $55 please wire funds to F. Rugi." then there is definitely a need for at least basic housekeeping.

Why? If the poster has a vendor tag and the reader is dumb enough to send the money, that's between the vendor and the reader. If there is no vendor tag, one can be provided. If that's all a mod or mods is responsible for, that's much less work and much less hassle.

 

[frugi]

This isn't a matter of member protection, it's one of sheer overwhelming quantity. The people who post them are paragons of persistence. Within days you wouldn't see a post about trading in any of the forums without scrolling down seven pages. The front page would be underwater as a matter of course. I'm barely exaggerating either.