A New Low?

[scose-no-doubt]

I had a multi-nic once when I wanted to see how difficult is was to set up. Arthur A. Trollington. I may request a name change lol.

 

[The Leopard]

He'd be well and truly ******

The price of cleaning up your business is the loss of one or two decent contributors.

The question is, what would the net result be? T2W is the most visually appealing and user-friendly of the major forums in my opinion. A look through the distant archives reveals that it was once frequented by plenty of people with useful and interesting things to say. There is no reason why that couldn't be the case.

T2W has serious natural advantages over the others. But it also has a curse - the curse of the vendor.

Getting rid of the vendor curse (and it really is out of control, it chokes the place like Japanese knotweed) might over time raise the tone and encourage the participation of serious traders and people who are serious about learning.

It would likely be a slow process, but it could be done. However, I suspect that such a change would not be welcome in certain quarters. So the decline will continue until the whole thing collapses under the weight of its own absurdity.

 

[tar]

We are low on mod resource at present and the number of daily reports has rocketed and there isn't the time to address every post on its own merits as used to be the case.


Paul

Why doesn't Sharky hire some mods , i thought the ad business is good enough ...

 

[the hare]

Why doesn't Sharky hire some mods , i thought the ad business is good enough ...

alternatively remove the report button.

no complaints, no need to investigate and adjudicate.

simples

 

[DionysusToast]

Mods work for free, tar...

 

[tar]

Mods work for free, tar...

i know , why not get some paid mods to make t2w a better place ...

 

[NVP]

i know , why not get some paid mods to make t2w a better place ...

professional paid Moderators ?

We will have Vendors telling the truth next ...

N

 

[The Leopard]

How would a system like this affect someone like DionysusToast. If we copied the FF model, would it mean that he wouldn't be allowed to post on the main forums outside of the 'vendors only' area?

Obviously, there are vendors and there are vendors. It would be absurd to put the likes of Toast in the same category as Davie Robertson, Slaploppy or these LTG clowns.

The problem if the forum wants to differentiate is not distinguishing between the two types. That is easy. The problem is that T2W would want to (or at least should want to) avoid giving any suggestion of endorsement by granting special status.

 

[the hare]

The problem is that T2W would want to (or at least should want to) avoid giving any suggestion of endorsement by granting special status.

But the official site policy has already been explained on a number of occasions.

"Some are more equal than others"

The special status already exists, vendors who dont need to display badges etc due to contribution, friendship etc etc. IIRC there is a member over at FF who has been granted special status. He's sells a software product, but contributed as a punter writing code for free, and going around in circles like the other muppets for years.

In many ways, thats even worse hypocrisy than the unofficial version of the same thing operating at t2w. FF have the rule and flaunt it, T2W have no such rule and are quite open about some being more equal than others.

You simply cant make everyone happy, and the tail shouldnt be wagging the dog. T2W needs to set the policies that are right for them as a business, and sod trying to please everyone else. We can then whinge and whine until the inevitable ban.

 

[timsk]

Hi The Leopard,
Thanks for the feedback.

Obviously, there are vendors and there are vendors. It would be absurd to put the likes of Toast in the same category as Davie Robertson, Slaploppy or these LTG clowns.

What test or metric would you suggest T2W applies to distinguish between 'desirable' and 'undesirable' vendors? You suggest (in the next paragraph quoted) that this is easy. For me it's easy and for you it's easy. But to come up with something that's going to satisfy the bulk of the membership, including our most verbose critics is, me thinks, a tad harder!

The problem if the forum wants to differentiate is not distinguishing between the two types. That is easy. The problem is that T2W would want to (or at least should want to) avoid giving any suggestion of endorsement by granting special status.

In principle, I agree. However, it's in T2W's best interests - and that of its members - to encourage and support (dare I say promote) its best contributors. If those contributors happen to be vendors - DT and Mr. Charts being obvious examples - what do you suggest we do? the hare's solution is to get rid of all of them but (I'm speaking personally here, not on behalf of T2W), I think this would be a very poor move and in no one's best interests.
Tim.

 

[timsk]

But the official site policy has already been explained on a number of occasions.
"Some are more equal than others"

Please provide the link to where this is written as site policy.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Timsk, I get absolutely terrorised in comparison to how others are dealt with. Also I seem to remember a certain member being banned for gay porn/goatse or some other such nonsense despite blatantly being hacked - with no recompense nor any action taken against the hacker. Waspseses treatment was a bit special too. Remember all the trouble when that guy claimed DT robbed him? I got hammered then too. The list is quite long to be honest. Granted a lot of that was before your time but still...

 

[the hare]

Please provide the link to where this is written as site policy.

cant you use the search facility ? Its been explicitly stated numerous times by several moderators.

In fact, in your post above you openly state that its in the sites interest to promote and support the best contributors, who may or may not be vendors. Personally I think its probably a sensible policy.

This is the problem, everyone working for t2w really wants a 2 tier system, but then you have to apply discretion between good and bad, and realistically noone is able to do that. Someone is always going to be unhappy.

Your current wounds are self inflicted, but as the site continues to dubm down, and you lose all pretense at being a trading site, the phase will pass as member with an intersest in trading are replaced by members with an interest in gambling. But then of course you'll face a bunch of different problems.

Sadly, Its just not possible to run any kind of community site without encountering problems. I dont understand why you get so upset about this stuff, or upsetting a few members or vendors.

 

[tar]

Does Mr charts pay a cut to t2w ?

 

[The Leopard]

Hi The Leopard,
Thanks for the feedback.

What test or metric would you suggest T2W applies to distinguish between 'desirable' and 'undesirable' vendors? You suggest (in the next paragraph quoted) that this is easy. For me it's easy and for you it's easy. But to come up with something that's going to satisfy the bulk of the membership, including our most verbose critics is, me thinks, a tad harder!

In principle, I agree. However, it's in T2W's best interests - and that of its members - to encourage and support (dare I say promote) its best contributors. If those contributors happen to be vendors - DT and Mr. Charts being obvious examples - what do you suggest we do? the hare's solution is to get rid of all of them but (I'm speaking personally here, not on behalf of T2W), I think this would be a very poor move and in no one's best interests.
Tim.

In practice, coming up with a clear set of rules is probably impossible. I would probably suggest just being openly biased and put up with the odd whinge.

As you say, anyone that's been around a little while can spot the difference between vendors.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't ban DT either. He makes some good posts, is an active member of the usual suspects that account for a huge part of the activity on the site, and he encourages discussion about methods that would probably otherwise be largely passed over here. So that is all good and I would say a genuine contribution, one that is likely to increase traffic and the enjoyment of existing members.

But what the answer is I don't know. Probably just brutalise the obvious ones - "So, you're asking about fapturbo, new member? Get the f uck out <crash>, and don't come back neither" - and the message should start getting around.

 

[timsk]

cant you use the search facility ? Its been explicitly stated numerous times by several moderators.

I'm perfectly capable of using the search facility, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to provide the link to prove your point. If you can't, then people will draw their own conclusions about your comments.

In fact, in your post above you openly state that its in the sites interest to promote and support the best contributors, who may or may not be vendors. Personally I think its probably a sensible policy.

I went out of my way to stress that my views are mine alone and that I wasn't speaking with my T2W hat on. C'mon hare, play fair!

 

[the hare]

Does Mr charts pay a cut to t2w ?

If he did, should that be disclosed ?

If I where a vendor, I'm not sure that I'd want punters knowing every tiny detail of that sort of arrangement.

The cleanest way of handling this is forcing vendors to formally advertise, and then everyone knows where they stand. T2W still has the option of providing advertising for free or a reduced rate for preferred vendor like Mr Charts.

If t2w had to sacrifice advertsing revenue to provide vendors with free ads, then it would definately make them stop and think about which vendors they where prepared to support.

If vendor X is getting free advertising in return for contributing, or paying for advertising through the nose, or getting advertsing in return for a kick back, it makes not a jot of difference. The members know without a doubt that the vendor is a vendor, and recieving preferential treatment.

The other half wits who currently sign up to spam, but choose a vendor tag wouldnt be supported until they'd either parted with some cash, negotiated a deal, or contributed.

simples

 

[counter_violent]

Please provide the link to where this is written as site policy.

Yes come on hare, we are waiting

 

[scose-no-doubt]

 

[NVP]

If he did, should that be disclosed ?

If I where a vendor, I'm not sure that I'd want punters knowing every tiny detail of that sort of arrangement.

The cleanest way of handling this is forcing vendors to formally advertise, and then everyone knows where they stand. T2W still has the option of providing advertising for free or a reduced rate for preferred vendor like Mr Charts.

If t2w had to sacrifice advertsing revenue to provide vendors with free ads, then it would definately make them stop and think about which vendors they where prepared to support.

If vendor X is getting free advertising in return for contributing, or paying for advertising through the nose, or getting advertsing in return for a kick back, it makes not a jot of difference. The members know without a doubt that the vendor is a vendor, and recieving preferential treatment.

The other half wits who currently sign up to spam, but choose a vendor tag wouldnt be supported until they'd either parted with some cash, negotiated a deal, or contributed.

simples

Agreed

its transparency we need on T2W........

I actually dont give 2 Sh*ts if someone pays T2W for advertising...so what ?

just let the poor readers know the True relationship status of Vendors and not the current status here where things are aledged to be happening

N