Community Constitution

Have you considered anything like on Big Mikes Trading Forum where the more serious traders have an elite section of the forum that they pay a one off fee of $50 to be able to access? They then have regular webinars from decent traders and popular members and have more advanced threads where they share ideas etc. For example today FuturesTrader71 is doing a Q&A webinar.

Thanks isatrader, I would love to get T2W moving in that direction and once we have sorted out this vendor situation so everyone is 'happy' i'll be able to devote much more time to getting the content side of things sorted out. As far as i'm concerned there are two equally important parts to T2W, the community and the content. We have much work to do on both. Thanks again.
 
Forex Factory also have a restriction in place on thread starting. You need to make a certain number of posts (is it 50) before you can start a thread. That would get rid of the daily crap we see now from the Chinese spammers telling us about films and TV programs.

Yeah? Great idea, I posted an idea similair to this back in July 2011.....

1) Add a chat room

2) Add a Price Ticker

3) Restricted posting privileges for new members. If new members were restricted to only posting in the ‘First steps’ section (like an audition) it might discourage multi-nicks and spammers from posting and reduce the clutter caused by them. It might also encourage knowledgeable newcomers to answer newbie questions that ‘legendary’ members have grown tired of answering. It could also be used as a ‘sin-bin’.

4) Subscription Area. This is more a ‘brainstorming’ idea as I’m not sure exactly how it could work. But possibly an area where vendors who think they are good enough could ‘rent’ a section/sub-forum and earn a commission for any members that join?

5) Reinstate SOCRATES!

There you go timsk, your fault for asking me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think all the current suggestions have been raised before. The PM issue was raised a few weeks ago too.
 
Do you think it works? I thought I had read somewhere here that it was fraught with problems? Can't you have a vendors area but still allow wider posting subject to very strict rules?

There is of course a very strong argument saying that any vendor post will be geared to selling something, however subtle this might be. Even answering questions about a product or service could be construed as ultimately leading to a sale of that product or service but surely we can draw a line somewhere?

This is one of the points i'm struggling with and one of the reasons I said that vendors would still be allowed to post in the main forums. Despite what might be thought, there was no lobbying, I just could not see why a vendor could not be a member and make posts accordingly.

This has happened in the past before we became so embroiled in the current situation. So isn't there scope for both? A commercial area like FF but with some permissions to post more widely, monitored by some 'vendor policing' for want of a better term?

This problem has no easy solutions. I'm not a regular visitor to forex factory, but I can recall a time when vendors stalked threads in search of easy prey. I don't know if this was perceived as a problem, or if this was the reason why the commercial section was introduced. However, the zero tolerance policy has led to a cleanup, and in my opinion at least, an improvement in post quality. There are even trading threads !

The commercial area was transformed into a cess pit by guess who... yes that's right VENDORS ! and ironically the vendors marketing efforts are less effective as the vendor community over there has destroyed their own integrity. No one who enters that cess pit is left in any doubt that it's a buyer beware situation. Ironically t2w probably suffered as a consequence of the FF policy, as displaced vendors made a beeline to other sites including t2w.

In an ideal world i would be in agreement with you, I would argue that vendors should be able to post everywhere, and that there should be a policy on inclusion. However, that takes policing as there are vendors who take liberties. As things stand, I would suggest that you don't have sufficient resources to police such an open policy effectively, or that those resources could be far better deployed elsewhere.

Furthermore, its not an ideal world. At a time where other sites where eliminating the vendor problem, you where welcoming them with open arms, requesting submission of articles, and generally dumbing down content. Managing the transition from an environment where these people have been welcomed to a more draconian environment isn't going to be problem free. So whilst a vendor cess pit isn't ideal, in the short term, its the most practical solution. Having said that, I very much doubt that anyone has the stomach to implement it, and we'd end up with certain vendors being exempt, and you'd lose credibility.

When the vendor badge was first introduced it was simply a means to indicate that the person posting may have a commercial agenda. The philosophy at the time was that you warned members of potential conflicts, and allowed them to apply their own judgement. Sadly we seam to be moving towards a more paternal, almost nanny state state if affairs where you want to provide a safe environment, proactively protecting members.

If this was a forum for preschool children, I could understand the need, but its a site for traders, and ironically promoting the fact that you provide a safe environment probably desensitizes members to potential threats

Whatever you do, vendors who wish to exploit are going to do it. If you set a 50 post rule before allowing them to create threads, they'll just make 50 crap posts, and you'll be dealing with a mountain of spam. People already complain that they report posts and action isn't taken, so multiplying these posts by a factor of 50 is going to shift the problem elsewhere.

At the end of the day, you have to have some core principles, and if you believe that anyone should be free to post, vendors, the criminally insane, pains in the ass like me, experienced traders and noobs, then you have to just go for it and make it work rather than seeking the short term solution that creates a whole range of new problems.
 
At the end of the day, you have to have some core principles, and if you believe that anyone should be free to post, vendors, the criminally insane, pains in the ass like me, experienced traders and noobs, then you have to just go for it and make it work rather than seeking the short term solution that creates a whole range of new problems.

I am leaning toward the free-market approach and allowing anyone to post anywhere and letting members like Pboyles and gang (Who do an excellent job of exposing frauds and scammers) take care of vendors if they feel the need to do so. All T2W management and moderators should do is censor anything they think could lead to a lawsuit.

Other things can be taken care of in software. Isn't there an option to prevent a member that is harassing you from replying in your threads?

I hate the concept that members need mollycoddling.(n)
 
Are there any compelling reasons why we should not do what LMcQ suggests?

i'd like to add more and put it out there for discussion re badge linking.

the t2w policy of allowing linking via the vendor badge puts t2w at odds with moderation policy and site rules on vendor linking.

the best example at the moment where mods seem powerless due to mismatched policy is the unregulated broker threads. with brokers and broker affiliate link sites using t2w to advertise their services and openly tout for business, with not a sig link or post link in to be seen. so all ok according to the current rules. and mods can do nothing, else delete the threads, which they can't because everything is to the current rules :confused:

if we were able to see the separate vendor rules we could see which direction this is heading.
 
Yeah? Great idea, I posted an idea similair to this back in July 2011...Timsk couldn't give a sh!t about it though...
n_t,
I said no such thing.
Why make up and post nonsense like this - what possible good does it serve? It's exactly the sort of 'rubbish' that guidelines 1, 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Community Constitution are designed to address. If you can't make constructive comments - don't bother posting. If you really can't help yourself - go post somewhere else.
:mad:
Tim.
 
I am leaning toward the free-market approach and allowing anyone to post anywhere and letting members like Pboyles and gang (Who do an excellent job of exposing frauds and scammers) take care of vendors if they feel the need to do so. All T2W management and moderators should do is censor anything they think could lead to a lawsuit.

Other things can be taken care of in software. Isn't there an option to prevent a member that is harassing you from replying in your threads?

I hate the concept that members need mollycoddling.(n)

Sharky needs to be finding someone with half a clue, sacking the staff, and handing the whole thing over for whatever he can get. Alternatively, its a case of starting building from the ground up, but that's a risk given everyone's track records.

If this where my forum, one of the core principles would be, this is NOT a nanny state. Business such as Facebook deal with cyber bullying, grooming, and god knows what other cyber mischief and its handled through software.

I'd devolve power for problem solving down to members. For example FF has a system where a group of key members has the ability to temporarily ban users, a simple rule, if x members report something as spam, then posting privileges are blocked. I'm sure I and the same half dozen people all reported the same posts this morning. I don't generally bother, but I would if I knew my vote might actually help reduce the problem. If 10 long standing members whose opinions are aligned with those of the sites management all spot something as a problem, then it's probably a problem. They apply this approach to loads of stuff at FF. I'm not suggesting a washy washy democracy, just the exploitation of those of use dumb enough to help through a sense of misguided loyalty :):cheesy:

A key point for me is providing technology to allow performance claims to be validated, and encouraging vendors to use that technology. If necessary use a multi tier vendor membership type, and give greater exposure to those who are happy to share trading results. I'd also shine a bright light on those vendors who refused to participate.

T2W already has access to a platform, but I suspect they are afraid to go down this route. FF where afraid for many years, as exposure to teh light tends to kill a few sacred cows (I'm saying no more on a public forum :LOL:)

Although I wouldn't want a nanny state, I wouldn't want to proactively help unscrupulous vendors commit fraud. I certainly wouldn't want to be providing them with a link to sweep them away from the site directly into the jaws of their sales machines. Same goes for PM's too.

If a vendor wishes to submit an article that's fine, but it should at least be of a reasonable standard, and subjected to peer review before publication.

I guess I'm saying a key principle for me would be transparency.

I am of course in favor of the free market approach but one of the problems t2w possibly has is the threat of legal challenges. I've been threatened hundreds if times, but only found myself in court twice, so I don't think the problem is as great as they make out. However in the interests of transparency, I'd openly publish all correspondence and let the members decide. I'd also want to at least defend a couple of test cases in order to illustrate to membership the scale of the problem. Clearly, if you can demonstrate your blowing 30% of the sites turnover defending an action from some scroat operating out of his bedroom, membership are far more likely to act sympathetically.

I'm not anti vendor at all, if I owned a trading forum, I'd want to be forming strategic partnerships left right and centre with these people, but only if they could walk the walk. That's a very different thing from aligning with them because they provide a marketing opportunity (FX Street and Mike Baghdady being a prime example) or because they're prepared to pay a bag of sand for emailing an offer to a few members (can't think of an example for that one :LOL:)

If this keeps up for much longer I'll end up starting a forum of my own !
 
I think forex factory have, or at least had, a system whereby a senior member can temporarily ban you. However there are a lot more people on FF than T2W so maybe they were forced into it.

I myself have been temporarily banned by a senior member on FF more than once. I cant remember what for, probably criticising some vendor or other. I cant say it stopped me.
 
Correct, that is exactly my point. You said NOTHING, ZERO,ZIP,ZILCH...not even a thank you...after asking me to post a suggestion...

Tim often requests constructive criticism. At times, he's described my constructive criticism as "complete bollox"

I'm perfectly OK with that, it's nice to get some sort of feedback :) and I take it in the spirit in which its hopefully intended, a bit of robust banter.

I think asking for constructive criticism is fine, I think asking for ideas is fine, requesting input into solving issues is fine. However, I do think a more formal method of dealing with this is required. It's been pointed out several times on this thread, that the same ideas are raised and discussed time after time after time.

A good example might be someone suggesting that we impose a 50 post limit before being allowed to access the private messaging system. Whoever suggests that should clearly explain the problems that this addresses, and why they think the suggestion will work. If that suggestion is discussed by t2w's management, they should publish their thoughts on the suggestion, and the reason why it was implemented, or why it was rejected.

For example, if t2w tried something similar in 1992 and it led to thousand of low quality posts due to post building, then this needs to be made clear, and it helps us gain a better understanding of the problem and the constraints that you operate under

The current situation is like installing a suggestion box directly over the office shredder.

I'm not having a go (that would be abuse and in violation of some section of the constitution, punishable by decapitation and excommunication) but if the sites policy is to ask for feedback, it needs to be handled appropriately, or people will stop giving it. For all I know it's just a platitude, and you don't want us to give it.

That's one of the problems WE don't know what YOU want, and can only draw possibly incorrect conclusions from your actions.
 
to be honest I don't see what the big deal with vendors is... I can only think of one instance where a vendor situation has got my back up (the howard cohodas thing), and that was more to do with the fact that about half a dozen of us had tried to explain to the rest of the forum - and howard himself - why what he thought he was doing wasn't the same as the positions he was putting on, only to be ignored/banned by the T2W "team" and return to see Howard being endorsed. That p!ssed me off.

I really don't see a problem with vendors on the whole. I can see them a mile off and just ignore them, except for an odd occaision where I'll pull their strings just for fun (e.g. the Binary thread). I agree with New Trader that you can't mollycuddle people, if they want to buy a course from a man with one of those really long websites selling "the things they don't want you to know" then let them. Who cares? It's their money, let 'em do what they want with it.

So, I'm not interested in seeing less vendors. What I would like to see more of is threads on some aspect of trading that I don't concentrate on myself that isn't a technical strategy involving charts and graphs and lines. There are so so many of these it borders on ridiculous. For example, I would read with great interest someone who started a thread on:

Long/Short equity trades
Sports Betting
Volatility trading
Seasonal agricultural spreads
Long Only, Long term equity trades
Credit markets
Asset Allocation via ETFs
Energy trading (particularly spreads)
Pairs trading/Stat Arb strategies

I also enjoy reading the posts from members who have institutional roles, be it front/middle/back office on the buy side/sell side. Think Martinghoul, Meanreversion, Jack 'O clubs, A Dashing Blade... These guys have a wealth of knowledge/experience to share, and I relish the chance to bend their ear.

In return, I am happy to dish out what little I can to well meaning new-comers - on why, for instance, payrolls can go up and employment can go down, or why an "arbitrage" opportunity might not necessarily be so. Perhaps someone has a query about a piece of software I have used, or wants to know where they can find information on XYZ. I'm also happy to throw in some of my own personal views on trading, and how I approach the markets, with the usual caveats applied.

The focus seems to be on less this or less that, what about what the forum needs more of?
 
to be honest I don't see what the big deal with vendors is... I can only think of one instance where a vendor situation has got my back up (the howard cohodas thing), and that was more to do with the fact that about half a dozen of us had tried to explain to the rest of the forum - and howard himself - why what he thought he was doing wasn't the same as the positions he was putting on, only to be ignored/banned by the T2W "team" and return to see Howard being endorsed. That p!ssed me off.

.......

The focus seems to be on less this or less that, what about what the forum needs more of?

The big deal with vendors, is that it was trade 2 wins policy of embracing vendors, that has led to the current situation. The Howard Cohodas example illustrates the problem perfectly.

When you see that happening, many people (including me) are going to be thinking, What's the point of contributing if you are going to be undermined by that sort of thing.

I think that there's a belief that if they can roll back to a time before the vendor issue damaged the business, they can can move forward from that point. Personally I don't think it will work for obvious reasons. At least if they are seen to be taking action that might give them some breathing room.

I'm in complete agreement, they need to be focusing on what they want, not what they don't want. If they'd actually tell someone what they wanted, and then actually interact and give feedback, they might even get some sensible suggestions !

My analysis of this situation is that I don't think they really know what they want, and the few ideas that have been proposed by various parties tend to be totally contradictory. Under those circumstances you might as well give the crowd what they want, which is, decisive action on vendors.
 
i don't get why everyone gets so hot under the collar re dear howard. it comes up time and time again. it's not like he was allowed vending privileges on the boards, though obviously he wanted to. he was never, ever, allowed that freedom and kept on a very tight leash. he wasn't allowed to vend and members were free to diss the strategy (in a polite way of course) it is a discussion forum after all. so where was the problem exactly?
 
i don't get why everyone gets so hot under the collar re dear howard. it comes up time and time again. it's not like he was allowed vending privileges on the boards, though obviously he wanted to. he was never, ever, allowed that freedom and kept on a very tight leash. he wasn't allowed to vend and members were free to diss the strategy (in a polite way of course) it is a discussion forum after all. so where was the problem exactly?

Leaving the vendor thing aside (like I said, no real problem with vendors), the problem was that he clearly didn't understand what he was doing, and yet was invited to write an article for T2W and it was plastered all over the homepage.

So, you know, me and a few others are pulling our hair out trying to show the guy - and everyone else reading the thread - what he doesn't understand (and it's not like there is any room for subjectivity here - his strategy was akin to someone going long cable, "hedging" it with short eur/usd, and denying they are long the cross), only to have our efforts thrown back in our faces by the T2W machine.
 
i don't get why everyone gets so hot under the collar re dear howard..... so where was the problem exactly?

As you point out, his long term objective was to provide trading education.

Howard was posting practically the same material across a number of popular trading related forums (the better ones nipped his activities in the bud)

His actions where very clearly part of a longer term marketing strategy to build credibility. The article submitted to trade 2 win formed a part of that strategy.

His modus operandi of attempting to eliminate the exposure of the obvious flaws in his methods upset many people.

Despite the obvious flaws in the method, and despite considerable efforts from long standing members, some of whom are institutional traders with a far deeper knowledge of these issues, to point out these flaws, trade 2 win decided to promote an article written by this character.

Howard was given a platform to promote his nonsense. Knowledgable institutional traders where relegated to posting in threads practically under Howard's control, and Howard objected in the strongest possible terms to any critics of his method, however valid.

A number of long standing members received bans simply for exchanging views with Howard, and pointing out the absurdity of the situation. Howard refused to provide industry standard performance metrics, preferring to promote his own "home grown" metrics rendering these figures worse than useless, and despite these tricks that we've seen time after time he was protected, and subsequently promoted.

Of course after the brown stuff hit the fan, that also caused problems, because a situation now exists where even mentioning the debacle to a particular member of staff will earn you a ban. Actually there are a number of similar debacles involving that individual, and the mention of any one is likely to lead to problems.

That's why people get upset about Howard. I suppose its the most obvious recent example and therefore remembered by newer members.

You have to see this in the wider context of the "vendor problem". If this was just some idiot who had deluded himself that he had a genuine edge, it would have been good lulz, but as everyone was aware of his true motives, people did tend to get a little more upset

It's a pity really because I learned quite a lot more about options, simply from exposure to posts from others criticizing his strategy. I suspect if the situation had been managed better, I might have learned more.

Lets not forget, there's been a number of similar occurrences with vendors that ended in tears, where lessons had been learned etc, but clearly had not.

You know this as well as everyone else around here :LOL:
 
It's a pity really because I learned quite a lot more about options, simply from exposure to posts from others criticizing his strategy.
Ah - credit at long last, thank you!
:clap:
This is precisely the reason the forum exists and why Howard was tolerated for as long as he was. This was clearly explained to everyone at the time. I remember spending a lot of time going into great detail making this very point in a PM to DR although, unfortunately, it was time wasted. I made the same point to you when you launched one of your numerous attacks on the Articles. Just so I'm not accused of making vague comments that aren't backed up by linking to the source - here it is: 'The Stochastic Indicator: When it Works, When it Doesn’t & Why' discussion thread

If T2W staff and moderators only ever allowed anyone to post that offered totally sound methodologies that are supported by verified account statements - then there would be precious few members and precious little in the way of trading discussion! Haoward's threads were valuable - and still are - not so much for his contributions but for the contributions of others who saw the flaws in his methodology. A good trading discussion ensued! Sorry to labour the point - but it's one that clearly hasn't hit home - even after all this time.
Tim.
 
If T2W staff and moderators only ever allowed anyone to post that offered totally sound methodologies that are supported by verified account statements

I am obliged to state my support for statement verification.
 
tim if you got any more holier-than-thou you'd have to be driven around in the back of pick up truck with an upturned fish tank slapped on the back.
 
Haoward's threads were valuable - and still are - not so much for his contributions but for the contributions of others who saw the flaws in his methodology. A good trading discussion ensued!

Sorry to labour the point - but it's one that clearly hasn't hit home - even after all this time.
Tim.

I take the point that more knowlagable people attempted to address Howard's nonsense in his threads, and that this was beneficial

The problem of course is no such balance existed in the article that t2w published. The article did not point out the flaws in the method. A casual reader could be forgiven for thinking that the author of the article, and the views being expressed where being endorsed by t2w.

I know and understand that somewhere on the site there will a disclaimer stating this is not the case, but it comes down to perception. Howard's views where promoted via the sites home page, whilst the terms and conditions are buried someplace where nobody ever goes !

If you really believed that criticism of Howard's methods where so beneficial, why didn't you make arrangements for his article to contain a contrary viewpoint ? No end of people would have happily commented. Why deprive the membership of such an opportunity ?

And lets not forget, the article is one of the few that has been removed (then replaced by accident and removed again !) in anyone's book that has to be an admission that the article fell short of acceptable standards
 
Top