Trade to Win or Something Else?

[jimbo57]

.

 

[SOCRATES]

Socco- just to pander to your ego, nuke subs and all that - know you love it., I have not referred in the above to any of your posts. I know you love dramatic irony, but you must agree aside from my non-referral, there is a wonderful irony too, even a ‘dramatic irony’ in the fact that most of your 3k+ posts refer to yourself usually from a highly elevated position, whilst the nature of successful trading is to find a way to see the market through everybody else’s eyes?

(BTW Socco, I prepared this in Word, so the sp. errors should be largely eliminated, at least according to the Gospel of St Bill)

Ha Ha Ha ....Nooooooo !

But if it makes you happy that's OK by me.

 

[jimbo57]

.

 

[SOCRATES]

wrong again socco- read it and digest.. Your beloved price action? What elese are you trying to do but see the market how other people are seeing it, and then using that to yr possible advantage

and btw, wrong on this too

Scam Merchants - Lets g... 19-10-2006 11:47 PM SOCRATES Hello Tony ! Thanks for the reputation marks.

Paranoia old boy, paranoia

For the mods - thats not a PM, but from the user control panel.

Now dont divert this thread to talk about the ego, As you said to me before (unmoderated of course), be quiet, or as I prefer stfu

Nooooo....I am not telling you ...you do not merit to be told.

As for the Ego...well....Ha Ha Ha .

 

[jimbo57]

.

 

[SOCRATES]

I have never asked you to tell me anything, in fact, as I said above, I would far prefer if you stfu, and we can get back on topic.

Now go have yr evening sherry and a lie down old boy

Even if you did ask me, I would never tell you, so there.:cheesy:

 

[peto]

Peto, read th thread- there is a big difference between advertising and commisiions - if you dont understand this you are already out of your depth and need to do some more research. Re evidence re commissions, Sharky has already said they do this, so thats my evidence good enough for you?.

I assume that you are referring to the CPA on some of the partner mailings, which apparently bring in a small fraction of the revenue. All Members have the opportunity to "opt in" or "opt out" of mailings. If they choose to receive them (I don't) then they can probe the veracity of an advertiser's claims on the boards in the same way as they can check out the banner ads. If a Member subsequently buys from an advertiser / mailer they must realise that the promotion has been paid for, that a proportion of the price they pay (then or subsequently) will be allocated to an advertising budget, so why does it matter if it is CPA or CPM or CPC?

If you think my comments are abusive, in the trading world, you are already out of your depth

Trading is a matter of dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. This however is a forum, a community, and respect and common courtesy go a long way towards making it a pleasant place to spend some time.

 

[Kentucky Shrub]

That sounds reasonable, and would help remove the biased moderation problem that I have mentioned previously given the way T2W develops income streams.

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

Heres the solution put all threads onto members vote, have a trigger say 30-50 votes (seems to be hard core members interacting daily between those numbers, site stats will give a more exact detailing)

member mods, to step down, (now you got your free time back in a stroke)members will simply vote on whether to keep thread open or close, so trigger of say 50 when the votes hit 51% that thread shuts, archived.

this way the members who are everybody will take care of moderation by voting, this will eliminate ego of the 1 controlling the output to the many.


Content of the site will then be governed by and for the members. Trigger happy mods having a bad trip just wont need to go there. What more could you want? This is also likely to encourage greater participation / interaction of the observation of quality content for site members by its existing members.

The main point to consider would be the trigger factor, apart from this its the best solution . End of it.

to repeat

Content of the site will be governed by and for the members

 

[dbphoenix]

Content of the site will be governed by and for the members

Communist!!

))

 

[des44]

I think I have a headache coming on now.....what a long painful read.

d-

 

[jimbo57]

.

 

[jimbo57]

.

 

[jimbo57]

.

 

[des44]

No need to be a butt, Jimbo.

d-

 

[jimbo57]

.

 

[des44]

Idea: I propose a new starring system. When someone’s star rating drops down to only three stars they should be deemed unfit for social interaction and get virtually muted (unable to type messages) for, say, two months. After two months these social deviants receive all their stars back. But now they are on a different scale—an exponential one. In this case it would take fewer votes to knock your stars off. Then the “Three Strike Rule” comes into effect. Once you’ve been virtually muted three (3) times, by the community (including the newbies that so many of us fight for,) a permanent ban is issued.

I think this might keep rogue Robin hood wannabees more peaceful.

d-

PS. Perhaps such an idea will cause some to blush and maybe even want to hide their "stars" as m have been forced to already.

 

[jimbo57]

.

 

[des44]

pleez.

I see mentoring is your cause - mentoring needs above all else an understanding, even if it does give you a headache diddums

My "cause"...lol....You're excused for the blunder.

I' ll try not to make the same mistake so I'll ask....what might be your "cause?" I see you're not making many friends. So why the fuss?

Just a tip: You really should wear brighter colors, jimbo...

d-

 

[Vorbis]

Heres the solution put all threads onto members vote

I don't think this would work, some folks on here already seem to have multiple accounts. It could get out of hand!

Idea: I propose a new starring system. When someone’s star rating drops down to only three stars they should be deemed unfit for social interaction and get virtually muted (unable to type messages) for, say, two months. After two months these social deviants receive all their stars back.

I've doubts about this as well. By the time everybody had finished voting against everybody else there would be nobody left to post.

 

[jimbo57]

.