Community Constitution

Sep 19, 2010
2,422
692
This post is a copy of another made on a binary options broker thread.

This place is rapidly becoming known as a target rich environment for
all these sharks.
Why?
Simply because T2W do absolutely nothing about it, leaving it up to
posters to do the job instead.

Personally I think its about time a prominent broker FAQ was created.
It would outline all the things to look for:
Concrete verifiable address.
Full company details.
Regulatory details.
T&C's
Costs etc.

If nothing else, surely T2W can see it is not in their own interests,
or the legit brokers that advertise here to allow this to continue.

I know some may raise an eyebrow at legit broker, lets face it,
most have been fined for various practices at one time or another,
but at least they don't hide their identity and location...
Even saying all that, most are paragons of virtue compared to these
binary brokers.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Jul 1, 2012
437
108
This post is a copy of another made on a binary options broker thread.

This place is rapidly becoming known as a target rich environment for
all these sharks.
Why?
Simply because T2W do absolutely nothing about it, leaving it up to
posters to do the job instead.

Personally I think its about time a prominent broker FAQ was created.
It would outline all the things to look for:
Concrete verifiable address.
Full company details.
Regulatory details.
T&C's
Costs etc.

If nothing else, surely T2W can see it is not in their own interests,
or the legit brokers that advertise here to allow this to continue.

I know some may raise an eyebrow at legit broker, lets face it,
most have been fined for various practices at one time or another,
but at least they don't hide their identity and location...
Even saying all that, most are paragons of virtue compared to these
binary brokers.
We used to have broker listings and did look at this again recently. The problem is that it takes a lot of time to set up and, from previous experience, keeping it up to date is a nightmare. So I ruled it out as I don't have the resources at my disposal to make it happen.

However, this does not mean we should do nothing about the ones that continue to 'attack' us. As always with these things there are differing views. We could employ a zero tolerance policy (which we have done before) and deal with them quickly and permanently, well at least until they try again. Or we can do as PB suggested and leave them a while as they spin enough rope to hang themselves. I guess the problem with the latter is that by then someone may well have been taken in by them.

I'm toying with the idea of a vendor only mod at the moment, giving them very clear guidance as to what is acceptable and what is not and letting them get on with it. Thoughts?
 
Apr 10, 2006
2,949
1,282
I'm toying with the idea of a vendor only mod at the moment, giving them very clear guidance as to what is acceptable and what is not and letting them get on with it. Thoughts?
What's not clear for example about the guidelines relating to vendors including URLs in signatures.

A dumb bit of silicon and a line of php code can verify if a given string of characters is a valid URL. For those lacking the intellect to recognize a string of characters as a link, your stylesheet formats it as a link, and provides useful visual clues that the link is meant to be clicked !

Its about as clear as it gets, vendors can't include links to their websites. Despite that, vendors do include links, and nothing gets done about it

If a rule that is so simple isn't acted upon, or so difficult to identify I very much doubt anything that involves subjective judgement is going to be implemented successfully.

At the moment you hide behind the "lack of resources" excuse when it comes to vendor related issues. You also cut yourself a bit if slack becuase your policies on acceptable vendor behaviour are completely unknown at the moment.

Assigning a mod to the task kind of eliminates that excuse, and it also makes your policies much clearer, and you possibly run the risk of shooting yourself in the foot

For months you've been promising to do something about vendors, removal and restriction of rights and priveladges etc. you promised to publish new guidelines etc, and to date there's been very little progress from the memberships perception at least. Changes that where claimed to have been implemented (for which you recieved substantial praise) in reality just didnt happen (vendor PMs for example)

How can you expect vendors to comply with rules when a) those rules are still not published, and b) the simplest of guidelines are not adhered to, and c) interpretation of guidelines such as no advertising are interpreted in vastly different ways by moderators and staff ?

The other issue Steve is why ask members, why not simply take a decision based on your own experience and expertise

How can I as a member eve begin to give anything like any useful feedback when I have no idea what you are trying to achieve.

Making some poor unpaid volunteer for the focus of all of the sites vendor problems does not seam the way to go in opinion.

The site needs some management leadership from the top, and its sadly lacking
 
Sep 19, 2010
2,422
692
We used to have broker listings and did look at this again recently. The problem is that it takes a lot of time to set up and, from previous experience, keeping it up to date is a nightmare. So I ruled it out as I don't have the resources at my disposal to make it happen.

However, this does not mean we should do nothing about the ones that continue to 'attack' us. As always with these things there are differing views. We could employ a zero tolerance policy (which we have done before) and deal with them quickly and permanently, well at least until they try again. Or we can do as PB suggested and leave them a while as they spin enough rope to hang themselves. I guess the problem with the latter is that by then someone may well have been taken in by them.

I'm toying with the idea of a vendor only mod at the moment, giving them very clear guidance as to what is acceptable and what is not and letting them get on with it. Thoughts?
Rather than a full list, I was thinking more along the lines of a due dilligence FAQ
as a sticky in each of the Trading Brokers sub forums.
Just to get people to think about where and to who they send their money
when opening an account.
Who they are regulated by etc.
What I am driving at is a checklist to use in their own due dilligence.

I'm not suggesting T2W do that work or maintain it, as you say, too much work,
and opens up the can of worms with T2W advertising brokers who
fare less well shall we say.

Regarding the bold highlight in your quote, I agree, a record left here is a good thing.
For me though, as long as a record remains, I personally would have canned
certain binary posters by now, but thats just my view.
All quiet today anyway...

Vendor mod, maybe.
I think most step up and do their bit on an ad hoc basis by supporting mods with
post reporting and spit roasting said vendors anyway, I know I do...:)