A new forum - just for me!

Liquid validity

Senior member
2,422 692
Hi Lv,
In terms of policy, I'm sure Steve would welcome any input you (or anyone else) would care to provide as to how best to resolve the issues regarding vendors.

In the meantime, if you see anyone advertising and posting spam - then simply report them in the usual way for the Mods to deal with.
Tim.
So the example I gave would only be deemed as worthy of attention due to spam?
What about the regulation issue?
I have no axe to grind with the outfit concerned, if they went down the CFD
wrapper route and gained FSA approval, fair enough.
I couldn't care less whether their options are mispriced - that is for clients to determine.

In a nutshell, I personally think any broker using a vendor badge here should be
FSA / NFA registered,
simple as that.
No regulation - no T2W membership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsh01

Lightning McQueen

Moderator
4,861 778
Perhaps you could make a contribution to the forum.

Perhaps an article or a few posts about trading.

All I see from you is whining. Perhaps I'm missing all your good posts.

Perhaps if people like you started posting articles and other info on trading, T2W wouldn't need people like me to do it.
as you well know i'm not overly successful on the trading front. why would i post on such matters to muddy the waters there. i'm not a fan of the call threads, i found the comp more interesting. though for me admin managed to kill off that by allowing hoards of outsiders in who have no interest in chat or banter.

my contribution to the boards haven't been open a lot of the time, a few years despamming this place here and there. though i recall you didn't like that either. as many others do i now help others to avoid vendors.

ok so i don't contribute to the boards in a way you see fit, who are you to judge exactly!! you got some chip there sunshine! your head so far up admins **** these days! it'll do you no good :D
 

the hare

Senior member
2,949 1,283
Tim I know it's completely failed to register with you, but even the sites own ex moderators are saying that reporting posts is a waste of time as action is rarely taken. These days I just don't bother wasting my time reporting posts, but on the odd occasion I do, I'm not sure why I bothered.

Does t2w's management actually have any sort if vision or plan ? and do YOU actually ever read the site ?

Steve has already announced that he's going to deal with the vendor issue, and he's announced on the 17th of this month (4 days ago) that he's going to announce what steps will be taken before he goes on holiday this week, so presumably today's the day !

If he's already taken the decision, why on earth are you suggesting people bombard him with further suggestions on the same day he's about to announce the long awaited solution to the vendor problem !

Surely he's already made his mind up, or are you hoping someone else gives you a policy you can announce later today.

These kinds of contradictions do little to help in finding a solution to a complex problem.
 

Liquid validity

Senior member
2,422 692
Best thing to do if you don't like it any more is to bu99er off. There's forums I used to frequent and left. I didn't leave a goodbye note - I just stopped posting. I didn't hang around for years and whine - I moved on.

There's people on here unable to move on even though they don't like the place.

They should be put out of their misery with a ban - and that would be doing them a MASSIVE favour.
So anyone who disagrees with giving vendors, particularly unregulated brokers,
unfettered access to unsuspecting punters should leave as it endangers
the status quo for vendors?
You can't be serious...

BTW, this is only a response to the post quoted - for the umpteenth time,
I have no issue with your software products, does what it says on the tin.

What I can't work out is why you chose the affiliate backslapping route
(the cause of most of the flak you have received on here) when you could
have just linked to the CME education centre, with sub links to the market
profile literature.
You still could do that.

For me that would have more integrity, lack of bias, no hard sell and above all
more credibility.
This is not an attack, just a suggestion :)
 

Splitlink

Legendary member
10,850 1,231
IMO, Pboyles has to work far too hard. It should not be necessary to argue with a vendor for more than a page, or so. Management should be on to it at once.

I, rarely, press link buttons and am unlikely to get scammed. The rubbish that is posted on this forum is what annoys us. If the vendor cannot get his clientele across to his site, he'll go away.

Put them in a separate part and charge them for every time their link button is pressed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Liquid validity

Lightning McQueen

Moderator
4,861 778
So anyone who disagrees with giving vendors, particularly unregulated brokers,
unfettered access to unsuspecting punters should leave as it endangers
the status quo for vendors?
You can't be serious...
of course he's serious, he knows full well what will happen if they get a free run here.

i have personally witnessed the result of vendor cruising in a private forum whereby a vendor got in there and offered a "special t2w only offer" the members fell over themselves in droves, scrambling to buy!! :(
 
Last edited:

Splitlink

Legendary member
10,850 1,231
Sensational idea! A genuine vendor should be obligated to register with a Credit card or paypal account and be charged for directed traffic!(y)
Members do post l links,all the time and it needs to be thought through, properly, so that useful, informational, sources are not prejudiced.
 

barjon

Legendary member
10,235 1,538
Actually I reported the Mr Stone thread(s), he is clearly grooming a few gullible people with the aim of getting them to deposit funds in his unregulated options business. I don't see much being done about it.

Perhaps we're taking the Neville Chamberlain approach again, 'just give him a chance to prove himself'.
The Mr Stone thread is a good example of the difficulty.

When he started he immediately received an infraction for link advertising and came under the spotlight to ensure that he did not overtly promote his services (of course it's there in the background as members know because of the badge) and that what he posted would be of interest to members about binaries.

As things progressed he was close but not over the line and it wasn't long before members themselves brought up his services by asking pertinent questions about FSA regulation and such posts as yours http://www.trade2win.com/boards/first-steps/159794-mr-stone-binary-trading-4.html#post1991790 . At that stage it seemed right that Mr Stone should answer those questions and to have deleted the thread at that stage would have obviously have left them unanswered. From then on the thread became more about Mr Stone and his services as opposed to trading information about binaries.

So, is it now better to let the thread stand so that the criticism and doubt remains there for all to see, or is it better to delete it whereupon it becomes hidden and doubtless many the cry of "cover up" would follow?

In hindsight it should have perhaps been killed at the start, but that is a result of the policy of allowing vendors to post as long as they post things of interest to members (about trading, not their services) and do not overtly promote their product/services, although they may answer questions that members pose. That policy requires that a thread is given a chance (not "proving himself" as you put it).

Whether that policy is sustainable in its present form we will soon find out.
 

Lightning McQueen

Moderator
4,861 778
Members do post l links,all the time and it needs to be thought through, properly, so that useful, informational, sources are not prejudiced.
some forums don't allow any linking at all, also others are now curtailing facebook, twitter and youtube linking. t2w is being left behind in protecting it's members with the amount of varied linking allowed here. t2w could have led the pack and been a leader long ago on this front. yet it drags it's heels? why?
 

Splitlink

Legendary member
10,850 1,231
of course he's serious, he knows full well what will happen if they get a free run here.

i have personally witnessed the result of vendor cruising in a private forum whereby a vendor got in there and offered a "special t2w only offer" the members fell over themselves in droves, scrambling to buy!! :(
Terrible security! I would expect it to be better than the Pentagon's, at least. :D

If the members were in droves, I question the privacy of that forum.
 

Liquid validity

Senior member
2,422 692
The Mr Stone thread is a good example of the difficulty.

When he started he immediately received an infraction for link advertising and came under the spotlight to ensure that he did not overtly promote his services (of course it's there in the background as members know because of the badge) and that what he posted would be of interest to members about binaries.

As things progressed he was close but not over the line and it wasn't long before members themselves brought up his services by asking pertinent questions about FSA regulation and such posts as yours http://www.trade2win.com/boards/first-steps/159794-mr-stone-binary-trading-4.html#post1991790 . At that stage it seemed right that Mr Stone should answer those questions and to have deleted the thread at that stage would have obviously have left them unanswered. From then on the thread became more about Mr Stone and his services as opposed to trading information about binaries.

So, is it now better to let the thread stand so that the criticism and doubt remains there for all to see, or is it better to delete it whereupon it becomes hidden and doubtless many the cry of "cover up" would follow?

In hindsight it should have perhaps been killed at the start, but that is a result of the policy of allowing vendors to post as long as they post things of interest to members (about trading, not their services) and do not overtly promote their product/services, although they may answer questions that members pose. That policy requires that a thread is given a chance (not "proving himself" as you put it).

Whether that policy is sustainable in its present form we will soon find out.
I can see where you are coming from.
I agree, the thread should remain now.
If no reasonable answers to the points raised are forthcoming from
Mr Stone, then the thread should be locked but not deleted.
He says he will offer answers on monday.
Either that or he is hoping it will be forgotten and get buried...
 

Liquid validity

Senior member
2,422 692
some forums don't allow any linking at all, also others are now curtailing facebook, twitter and youtube linking. t2w is being left behind in protecting it's members with the amount of varied linking allowed here. t2w could have led the pack and been a leader long ago on this front. yet it drags it's heels? why?
Very true, I know of a few trading forums where any vendor link will result in a
warning then ban if continued.
 

the hare

Senior member
2,949 1,283
Whether that policy is sustainable in its present form we will soon find out.
If there was no change at all to the current policy on vendors, could that really be described as taking decisive action ?

A cess pit has been ruled out, charging for links or any other advertising is perceived as an endorsement, an lets be honest, the vendors at the very bottom of the heap are the ones who put the sites integrity at most risk.

Policing any change of policy is going to add an additional burden to an already over stretched moderation team, and as you've already pointed out it can often be a tough judgement call deciding on what side of the line a post falls.

You seam to have boxed yourselves into a corner on this one. The obvious common sense solution is the cess pit (which is why everyone else does it), but t2w won't do it because of 2 or 3 vendors, and your CEO has already very publicly rejected the idea and can't be seen to back track

You can't effectively police a zero tolerance solution even if you wanted to, and if you do increase traffic, it's even harder to police.

The policy on content generation has been vendor led, and you created a 'marketers paradise'

Ideally you'd do nothing, but now you've promised to take decisive action. To make matters worse on the very day the CEO is announcing the new policy, your staff are actually requesting members provide suggestions as to how vendors should be managed on the thread in which the new policy is shortly due to be announced !

Talk about making life hard for yourselves, good lulz though !
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liquid validity

Lightning McQueen

Moderator
4,861 778
Terrible security! I would expect it to be better than the Pentagon's, at least. :D

If the members were in droves, I question the privacy of that forum.
well we'll see in the new guidelines when they're published how they intend to deal with things from here on in. myself i see the status quo and steady as she goes, maybe with a tweek here and there on the vendor front. you'll see more on perceived "lulz" i feel, that's an easy target and keeps the forum sours happy :)