Sticky How can T2W better serve its community?

[TEAMTRADER]

I was tempted to say were you referring to Vladi-liar Put in?
But I realised that the reply was for another post....
TEAMTRADER

 

[Sharky]

It was conducted through a Skype group and a minimum of two, preferably three, sets of eyes were primarily on two charts - the Dax and the Dow as they provided good profits and all our indicators at that time were purpose made for 1m and a 5m charts to day trade. Each person had to agree a trade and the one person who controlled the broker account traded it and waited for the screams to exit. 95% of the time there were at least 3 sets of eyes on the trade and at the end of the week we decided whether to take a draw or leave it in till the middle of the month - we had to draw once a month. The money went into the nomiated account and the share was made immediately to the other 4 members - there were 5 of us initially, three traders and two investors. Traders invested only £100 each but took 30% of the profit from the pot before drawings to investors.
I had legal papers drawn up to cover everyone (in case of death or misuse). Everyone had daily access to view the trades so there was no chance of manipulation.
There was a lack of numbers so when it got down to 3 we decided to call it a day as none of us could guarantee we could be there the next day.
We needed a 'pool' of dedicated traders to cover, when one or two dropped out, and that is the lesson I learned.
If there were several people interested then there could be more than one group, all trading differing instruments - but we had no such reserve.
TEAMTRADER

Thanks for breaking it down, very interesting!

 

[trilobite]

Put in .................. and then change colour to white!

Wow, what a simple solution. Thank You.

 

[Oscar Reed]

Place feels like Dexter.

 

[Sharky]

Place feels like Dexter.

Can't say I've watched it, but do elaborate!

 

[Sharky]

It's been a while since I last asked the membership how T2W could better serve its community. So Iet me invite you now to share your thoughts and comments on this thread! 🤓

 

[BigDeal]

Small thing from me.

When someone removes a post (themselves or a mod does it) can the thread show it's been removed? ie maybe keep the post number but state 'post removed' or similar. ATM when a post is removed all future posts move up and this often results in a loss of continuity in the conversation.

 

[TEAMTRADER]

As the site is dedicated to trading to win how about getting threads dedicated to the perceived daily direction of the Dax, the Dow (there is one already), GU, EG, etc, etc.

Traders can then see the daily direction of trade that other traders are suggesting on that day and then they can post their results - thus creating interest and activity.

Templates (with indicators) can be given if a thread 'viewer' asks for the most successful strategies.

TEAMTRADER

 

[Oscar Reed]

Can't say I've watched it, but do elaborate!

Currently on Animal Kingdom.

 

[Atilla]

It's been a while since I last asked the membership how T2W could better serve its community. So Iet me invite you now to share your thoughts and comments on this thread! 🤓

I think your mods are overzealous deleting posts at their whim.

The mods feel it's ok if someone counters an argument by calling a blogger jealous, but when the response, calling them "a simpleton" back, as someone who is simple-minded for labelling the argument due to jealousy ignoring the explanation or rationale put forward, that is apparently offensive.

Not only was my first post but also the second post explaining why I called them a simpleton - as above was deleted.


Anyhow, as you can imagine I'm quite cheesed off, to say the least and time to say farewell to T2W for being sterile and sensitive-skinned about free speech and debate.

I'd say review policies on deleting posts.

 

[Trader333]

The mods feel it's ok if someone counters an argument by calling a blogger jealous, but when the response, calling them "a simpleton" back, as someone who is simple-minded for labelling the argument due to jealousy ignoring the explanation or rationale put forward, that is apparently offensive.

The rules are quite clear and you had alteady posted content where the language was not acceptable but for some reason you believe that you are exempt so they will be explained again to you.

Stating that someone is jealous is commenting on their behavior so it is not personal to them as behaviour can be changed.

Calling someone a simpleton is a personal attack on the person which is not permitted. You have a history of insulting other members who don't agree with you essentially ridiculing anyone with a different view. This is not "debate" as you imply because debate does not involve swearing at others and making personal attacks on them which is what your comments have degraded to on many occasions in the past.

 

[counter_violent]

I think your mods are overzealous deleting posts at their whim.

The mods feel it's ok if someone counters an argument by calling a blogger jealous, but when the response, calling them "a simpleton" back, as someone who is simple-minded for labelling the argument due to jealousy ignoring the explanation or rationale put forward, that is apparently offensive.

Not only was my first post but also the second post explaining why I called them a simpleton - as above was deleted.


Anyhow, as you can imagine I'm quite cheesed off, to say the least and time to say farewell to T2W for being sterile and sensitive-skinned about free speech and debate.

I'd say review policies on deleting posts.

What did I miss?
Who's a simpleton?

C'mon m8 bud ffs, get yer nut back in the game.

If you bugger off, I got no one to insult argue with !

 

[timsk]

If you bugger off, I got no one to insult argue with !

I'm quite insulted by this c_v and, consequently, I think I'll report your post!
On a more serious note - I second your plea to Atila to stay - he's a valuable asset to T2W and his departure would be a sad loss to the community.
Tim.

 

[Trader333]

On a more serious note - I second your plea to Atila to stay - he's a valuable asset to T2W and his departure would be a sad loss to the community.

I also agree with you, when engaging in mod actions it isn't personal and only about adhering to site rules.

 

[counter_violent]

I also agree with you, when engaging in mod actions it isn't personal and only about adhering to site rules.

So, if T2W members are easily offended because of mods actions ref "the rules". Does this mean the other T2W members can call them snowflakes?

 

[Atilla]

The rules are quite clear and you had alteady posted content where the language was not acceptable but for some reason you believe that you are exempt so they will be explained again to you.

Stating that someone is jealous is commenting on their behavior so it is not personal to them as behaviour can be changed.

Calling someone a simpleton is a personal attack on the person which is not permitted. You have a history of insulting other members who don't agree with you essentially ridiculing anyone with a different view. This is not "debate" as you imply because debate does not involve swearing at others and making personal attacks on them which is what your comments have degraded to on many occasions in the past.

Whilst I agree with your predicament that Mods work is indeed very difficult, I disagree with your post.

Dull and boring, sterile debate is what you will get if you treat T2W as snowlflakes to quote CV.

More often than not traders are a particular breed of character with a much higher appetite to risk. They are less snowflakes but more screw and nut, hard metal substance. Traders have a stronger temperament to tolerate stresses of various sorts. Anyone who has worked on a trade floor might understand that difference.

Your explanation on jealousy is poor imo. Most people can change but jealous people seldom can. Simple, ignorant people can get an education too, so I would disagree with your explanation of the offence you judge to have taken place.

I was aware of your dislike, calling me a bigot before. Sounds like you have been harbouring some pent-up feelings. I never thought I was different or exempt from the rules. Instead of deleting posts, you should counter them with any choice of words you like i.e calling me a bigot. I wouldn't have minded that. I recall Timsk giving me a piece of his mind once or twice before. I appreciated that and did try and change. The same goes for many exchanges with CV as well. Two great characters imo. Love them both.


Anyhow, my point remains. Deleting posts kills off robust, lively and colourful debate imo.

Review policies on deleting posts would be my advice to Sharky.

Redact or blank out whatever offends the sterile crowd so we can gasp and laugh out with amusement guessing what abuse has been hurled between two bloggers.

 

[timsk]

I also agree with you, when engaging in mod actions it isn't personal and only about adhering to site rules.

Hi Paul,
As a matter of interest, which site rule is breached by describing another member as a 'simpleton'? Perhaps I've overlooked it, (because the Community Constitution and the Forum Guidelines are overly long and complicated, IMO!!!), but it's not immediately clear to me which one(s) you have in mind?

I ask because although (to the best of my knowledge) I've not described another member as a simpleton, I quite often accuse others of being naive - as in this post to Rufus_Leakey in which I said: "As n_t pointed out in his last post, if you think that Bloomberg are merely trying to report the news faithfully and in an unbiased manner and not influence their subscribers with their opinions and agenda - then you are being spectacularly naive."

I accept that on the ladder of insults, simpleton is a rung or two up from naive but, nonetheless, R_L may have taken offence by my comment and so I too may be in breach of the site rules? This leaves me wondering where the dividing line lies between what is - and what is not - acceptable, and does backing up such accusations with evidence factor into the equation?
Tim.

 

[Trader333]

I was aware of your dislike, calling me a bigot before. Sounds like you have been harbouring some pent-up feelings. I never thought I was different or exempt from the rules. Instead of deleting posts, you should counter them with any choice of words you like i.e calling me a bigot. I wouldn't have minded that. I recall Timsk giving me a piece of his mind once or twice before. I appreciated that and did try and change

I have never called you or anyone else a bigot as that is not a word I would ever use so those are your words and not mine. If I had anything personal against you then you would have been banned permanently years ago as there were many breaches of site rules in the past that easily would have warranted it. The fact I didn't shows that it is a function of moderation only. As you already know, I edited posts made by you recently that had unacceptable language and didn't delete them so your accusation of me having anything against you other than when you post material that is offensive is simply not true and I don't have time to go through editing post after post.

 

[Trader333]

Hi Paul,
As a matter of interest, which site rule is breached by describing another member as a 'simpleton'? Perhaps I've overlooked it, (because the Community Constitution and the Forum Guidelines are overly long and complicated, IMO!!!), but it's not immediately clear to me which one(s) you have in mind?

I ask because although (to the best of my knowledge) I've not described another member as a simpleton, I quite often accuse others of being naive - as in this post to Rufus_Leakey in which I said: "As n_t pointed out in his last post, if you think that Bloomberg are merely trying to report the news faithfully and in an unbiased manner and not influence their subscribers with their opinions and agenda - then you are being spectacularly naive."

I accept that on the ladder of insults, simpleton is a rung or two up from naive but, nonetheless, R_L may have taken offence by my comment and so I too may be in breach of the site rules? This leaves me wondering where the dividing line lies between what is - and what is not - acceptable, and does backing up such accusations with evidence factor into the equation?
Tim.

Tim, the first few lines are clear in that you have to treat each member with respect. Swearing at people or issuing a personal insult breaches that. Also it states quite clearly that "This isn't a freedom of speech site"

That aside let @Sharky decide if personal insults are ok and if so then you are all welcome to call each other anything you want. Let's face it, no one wants to be a Mod here and as always it is a thankless task as there are countless accusations of having personal issues with members who are on the receiving end of Mod actions all of which are complete nonsense.

 

[timsk]

I tell you what Tim, let @Sharky decide if personal insults are ok and if so then you are all welcome to call each other anything you want. Let's face it, no one wants to be a Mod here and as always it is a thankless task as there are countless accusations of having personal issues with members who are on the receiving end of Mod actions all of which are complete nonsense.

Paul,
I assure you that I'm not having a go at you (my words not yours - but that's my interpretation of your comments), or accusing you of having personal issues with particular members. Furthermore, I understand very well what a thankless task it is to be a mod' and genuinely appreciate your efforts - and always have. Thank you!

That said, my question is equally sincere and the fact that you've not answered it and that this exchange is taking place between four or so of the most long standing members of the forum, including a former staffer (me), and a former mod (c_v) - suggests that perhaps it's time to revisit/update the site rules/guidelines/community constitution - call them what one will? That's really all I'm driving at.
Tim.