Moderation Standards and Site Guidelines

[barjon]

All members,

You will know that, although it is a commercial site, T2W is dedicated to developing and maintaining a friendly online community, where members of all ages and trading ability feel relaxed and comfortable. Our site guidelines reflect that dedication and it is the primary focus of our moderation.

Recent comments have suggested that we are not doing well enough in meeting that commitment, so we want to know what you think in order that we can rectify any failings that you identify. Some of you will have already made comments about this on other threads and although we are aware of those I hope you will participate again.

From the concerns that have been raised so far these are the questions that we think we should be asking you:

1. Do the site guidelines need more clarity regarding accepted behaviour? In particular here, some members feel that the guidelines need to be more specific in relation to thread disruption and rudeness.

2. Should moderation standards be tightened? In particular here, some members feel that we are not tough enough in maintaining a clean flow of the topic under discussion and that we should come down more heavily on disrupters even when they are not overtly rude.

3. Are our moderation standards fair? Some members feel that our moderation lacks consistency and that some members are favoured over others.

4. Should we notify members that someone has been warned about their behaviour? We do not, normally, ban before a warning has been issued and some members feel that they should be aware that such a warning has been given.

5. Should we advise members why and for how long a ban has been imposed? Some members feel that they do not understand why people have been banned and would welcome more transparency.

6. Should we do more to ensure that members know when someone has a commercial interest? There is continuing concern about people who post with an underlying commercial agenda.

Before we go on to ask you to answer those questions from your own perspective and let us have your views we want to make sure that we have covered all of your concerns in the questions we put to you.

At this stage, then, we are not seeking comments in relation to the above six questions - that will come later via a series of polls - but please let us know if you have further concerns and questions that you think we should be asking. Thanks.

jon

 

[dbphoenix]

There are actually two elements to "fair" and "consistent" in "3": (a) are the standards -- assuming that they are clear -- applied equally to everyone and (b) are they applied every time an infraction occurs (or is the application dependent on the particular moderator and/or his/her mood at the time)?

 

[Whale Song]

Yes, there certainly seem to be some strange goings on. I notice a post by fxmarkets this morning on the thread concerning the article about 'Market 'Noise': How Seasoned Traders Learn to Ignore It" mentioned quite validly there wasn't an awful lot of 'how to' in the article. Not significant enough to warrant a comment from me personally, but the pulling of a perfectly valid post commenting on the lack of delivery of the article's title is significant.

Rather underlines the poster above issues and concerns. Why is Jim Wyckoff apparently being shielded from even slightly negative comments of his one-page article when it did warrant such a comment being made?

And as for further suggestions to add to the list, I doubt many will come forward. Based on those posts that appeared (briefly) on the thread which presumably spawned this thread - those that do have concerns have their posts withdrawn fairly quickly and some even banned. For 'sounding' like someone else.

This type of secret police activity does not support the type of environment you suggest you are attempting to nurture.

I don't have a solution, but consistency and even-handedness would be top of the list for me. Why not let members themselves decide? Rather than moderators involving themselves in decisions on what is borderline or not, allow members via the bad post facility to highlight any concerns or issues. Seems to me a more member-based policing would achieve the intended aims of your original post.

 

[fxmarkets]

To be fair, I did receive a note from a Moderator explaining reasoning behind the removal of my original post or comment re headline for that article, which upon reflection , at first glance maybe ,may lead an individual to see it as something it is not and yet others may get the point after having read the article themselves, and thought, hmmm is that it.

So a Mod did give me a Nod, with a courteous explanation.


Right stick the cheque in the post lads... ... nice one...


But on a slightly more serious note for a moment, the act of moderation will always be discretionary I suppose, but maybe with posts the way forward would be action taken on a certain number of report bad posts received to trigger a decision or action to be taken.

But I have a vision that we are capable of moderating ourselves, and should promote positive interaction through enlightenment of individuals that we are loving humans pursuing a common interest. . I'll leave it there as I feel a song coming on...........

fx.

 

[rols]

Yes, there certainly seem to be some strange goings on. I notice a post by fxmarkets this morning on the thread concerning the article about 'Market 'Noise': How Seasoned Traders Learn to Ignore It" mentioned quite validly there wasn't an awful lot of 'how to' in the article. Not significant enough to warrant a comment from me personally, but the pulling of a perfectly valid post commenting on the lack of delivery of the article's title is significant.

Rather underlines the poster above issues and concerns. Why is Jim Wyckoff apparently being shielded from even slightly negative comments of his one-page article when it did warrant such a comment being made?

And as for further suggestions to add to the list, I doubt many will come forward. Based on those posts that appeared (briefly) on the thread which presumably spawned this thread - those that do have concerns have their posts withdrawn fairly quickly and some even banned. For 'sounding' like someone else.

This type of secret police activity does not support the type of environment you suggest you are attempting to nurture.

I don't have a solution, but consistency and even-handedness would be top of the list for me. Why not let members themselves decide? Rather than moderators involving themselves in decisions on what is borderline or not, allow members via the bad post facility to highlight any concerns or issues. Seems to me a more member-based policing would achieve the intended aims of your original post.

Whale Song has only been in these waters five minutes and he's already trying to muddy them. I for one will not be joining in the Snipers chorus. FXmarkets has explained his situation so perhaps now we may all be sea worthy enough to steer a course between a police state and a paranoid one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Call me Ishmael."

 

[Whale Song]

Whale Song has only been in these waters five minutes and he's already trying to muddy them. I for one will not be joining in the Snipers chorus. FXmarkets has explained his situation so perhaps now we may all be sea worthy enough to steer a course between a police state and a paranoid one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Call me Ishmael."

I had no idea there was a minimum membership period before being allowed to post on the boards. My apologies if I have transgressed any unwritten protocols and hopefully can avoid an instant ban. As you have decided to comment on my post, I feel encouraged to expand on your points made.

Muddy the waters? I think not. Clarity is precisely my aim and my goal. Simply allowing the sediment to settle once again without having achieved resolution will, like all unfinished business, simply serve to make the final blowoff just that bit more uncomfortable for many concerned. As for your apparent commitment to "not join in the Snipers chorus" - you did, by doing precisely that. Fxmarkets has not explained his position or anything like it. I am sure there will be others like yourself equally willing to assume a comfortable myopia in order to avoid that which must at some point be dealt with. However uncomfortable that might be. If you shy away from justifiable and righteous confrontation in the pursuit of all that is good and perfect then I suggest you simply remain quiet and allow those of us with the mettle to engage the unpleasantness of life to do so unfettered by your liberal compromises. All Fxmarkets did was tell us the moderators pulled his post presumably because they felt is didn't reflect THEIR take ion the article. I wonder if Fxmarkets had graded the article a rating of 1, they will have amended that to what they felt it should have been?

The article missed the mark. It did not deliver according to its title and deserved to be judged on that basis. What we are witnessing is more evidence of the gentle censorship which if left unchallenged will lead to the totalitarian state which many of us now live in. Wherever we live.

And for steering a course between police state and paranoia I leave that to your best endeavours as all compromise is weak and ultimately self-defeating. To which I might add, those who talk of compromise have even less will to effect their stated aims than they do to speak of them. In a word - little. Compromises are rarely forged on the anvil of reality, more often within the maleable minds of those who would be so easily led to the slaughter as the trip is so much more comfortable.

As Wittgenstein once said "With the tallest ladder, I would yet have only the means to reach the highest level of those with the lowest capability to understand the heights to which only they can attain without using such a ladder". And he does have a point.

As for you my young Ishmael, you're playing with the wrong whale. I think Moby Duck would be more your match.

 

[rossored]

ok, Whale Song - let's straighten this out so you can go back to doing whatever it is you feel you should do.

I pulled the post, because it read to me like like fxmarkets was commenting not on the article itself, but the title of the thread, which originally contained a few mispellings - such as "Ignorie" instead of "Ignore". So I fixed the errors, and removed the post because at that point it was no longer required.

Later on, i came across FX's re-post, and realised that his statement has misled me. So I PM'd him, explained what I'd done, he was more than happy with it, and agreed that it could have been interpreted exactly as I had done. It was nothing to do with a comment on the article whatsoever.

The end.

 

[dbphoenix]

Ironic, but not unexpected, that a thread such as this would invite just the sort of "sniping" that it supposedly was created to address.

No, WS, there is no minimum waiting time before posting, and you shouldn't be attacked for doing so if your post follows the Site Guidelines, such as they are.

As for FX' remarks and what rossored thought of them, I'd like to know how commenting on the title of a thread violates the SG. How is this any more egregious than Socrates' and Rudeboy's attacks on Brett Steenbarger's article and on psychologists (and by inference, Brett Steenbarger), particularly when the article has nothing to do with psychologists, all of which posts, as of this writing, still stand as part of what barjon calls the "public archive"? If posts are to be pulled on whims, then perhaps pre-approval of some sort is in order. Otherwise, why bother to post at all?

 

[rossored]

DBP:

FX's post read very much like "i think there are some spelling mistakes here" - not like a critique on the article, not like anything else. Just that - just as I've said. It was removed because once the spelling mistakes were fixed, the post was no longer needed , not because it 'violated' anything . You of all people should know about rigid moderation standards, given the way you run/ran the P&V forum - anything that was offtopic was deleted (by you) to keep threads on track. That's all I was doing.

EDIT: Here is fxmarket's post, if anyone is really that interested:

hmm maybe it should read,,,, "Market noise" Seasoned Traders Ignore It.

Now, bearing in mind that the thread and article title when i saw that post was along the lines of "Market Noise, How Seasonsed Traders Ignorie It", can you understand why I interpreted it the way that I did?

Now, please, let's get the thread back onto track.

 

[dbphoenix]

I understand that. And, yes, this is on track given the content of post #1.

You guys seem not to understand that how at least some members perceive you is not the same as how you perceive yourselves. This is one reason why, for example, so many criticisms are met with responses centering on how difficult it all is and how you're all volunteers, etc, rather than with the content of the criticism. I'll grant that many (most?) of these criticisms are voiced in a way to invite defensiveness, but the manner in which these criticisms are made is often the result of frustration, not from personal animosity. And when these criticisms are not addressed, or when they are addressed inappropriately (cf frugi's comment regarding superciliousness), the frustration mounts and the dialogue begins to deteriorate.

All the member knows is that a post was pulled. Whether it was his or not is irrelevant. For example, several posts were pulled a day or so ago from the VSA/Albert thread within minutes of their posting for no particular reason that I can discern. I don't much care one way or the other, which is why I never brought it up. But this sort of action suggests that no one is in control. While leaving this particular post (FX') might make him look like a fool, that is pretty much his problem, and he is free to delete his own post if he cares to do so. Otherwise, the post is simply an irrelevancy, not a violation, and if irrelevancy is a criterion, there is at least one member who posts frequently, often in series when one post would do, most of which are little more than babble. If his irrelevancies were deleted, his post count would be a mere shadow of its former self.

No one likes to hear that they invite their own criticism. However, I suggest that when that defensive impulse begins to beat (and this applies to everyone who posts), push it down or away or wherever and breathe. Then compose a response. Then throw it away. Then compose another. Do this several times before posting it and quite possibly all this wrangling will end.

 

[MasoMinos]

ok, Whale Song - let's straighten this out so you can go back to doing whatever it is you feel you should do.

I pulled the post, because it read to me like like fxmarkets was commenting not on the article itself, but the title of the thread, which originally contained a few mispellings - such as "Ignorie" instead of "Ignore". So I fixed the errors, and removed the post because at that point it was no longer required.

Later on, i came across FX's re-post, and realised that his statement has misled me. So I PM'd him, explained what I'd done, he was more than happy with it, and agreed that it could have been interpreted exactly as I had done. It was nothing to do with a comment on the article whatsoever.

The end.

I also saw the original post by fxmarkets and your post to whalesong rossored is not only rude, it's also disingenuous. What exactly was the purpose of your first sentence? It seems quite deliberately and pointedly dismissive.

Fxmarkets was commenting on the title in that he/she was saying the "How to" in the title wasn't really explained in the article itself. The spelling issues you relate are a red herring and you know it. Fxmarkets point was that the article explained 'tuning out the noise' was something that good traders 'do' rather than providing any instructions 'how to' do it. A perfectly valid post. And another perfect example of a moderator blasting their way in and doing the bit with their big red pencil when it wasn't called for.

As for your final comment "The End" is that an indication of the end of your involvement in this particular issue? Probably not as your post further down the thread continues your attack, this time on another member.

Or was it more an instruction (command?) to us all not to discuss this further? This would be the height of irony and unfortunately completely in keeping with current moderator interference levels, given that on this thread where we were apparently being asked to provide further 'concerns and questions' about issues relating to moderator effectiveness.

You have demonstrated by your initial unwarranted interference and your subsequent attempts to defend and cover your actions the seemingly biggest cause of membership unhappiness with some moderators on these boards.

 

[MasoMinos]

Now, bearing in mind that the thread and article title when i saw that post was along the lines of "Market Noise, How Seasonsed Traders Ignorie It", can you understand why I interpreted it the way that I did?

Now, please, let's get the thread back onto track.

That's the whole point. You interpreted it wrongly. You shouldn't be interpreting anything. Either a post is within site guidelines, or it is not. Period. End. Surely it doesn't have to be any more difficult than that, unless you choose to make it so?

 

[barjon]

mmm, well the whole purpose of this thread is to invite criticism and to gauge how widely those concerns are shared by our membership at large. Far from ducking the issues, the intention is to address them in a way that meets the wishes of our membership.

No-one has suggested any further concerns and/or questions as yet. I will let it run for a bit longer to give people a bit more time in case there are more issues around and then move to the second stage of putting the questions to you specifically for comment and a poll vote. Probably one or two questions a day to avoid overload.

At the risk of this particular volunteer sounding defensive we are doing our best to listen to you and to explain why we do (have done) some of the things that raise your eyebrows and I hope you welcome that even though you might disagree with the action taken.

Any more concerns, anyone :?:

jon

 

[MasoMinos]

No-one has suggested any further concerns and/or questions as yet. I will let it run for a bit longer to give people a bit more time in case there are more issues around and then move to the second stage of putting the questions to you specifically for comment and a poll vote. Probably one or two questions a day to avoid overload.

barjon - when you say "No-one has suggested any further concerns and/or questions as yet" are you saying since your first post in this thread you consider no further concerns or issues have been raised.

At the risk of this particular volunteer sounding defensive we are doing our best to listen to you and to explain why we do (have done) some of the things that raise your eyebrows and I hope you welcome that even though you might disagree with the action taken.

"explain why we do (have done) some of the things that raise your eyebrows and I hope you welcome that even though you might disagree with the action taken". What, in a similar way the Metropolitan Police may have explained their actions to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes?

This thread has all the makings of becoming a whitewash 'feelgood' for the moderators (well, at least we asked [while firmly clamping hands over our ears]) such as that we are used to from our governments. The apparent addressing of issues which is sufficient to prevent any need for expenditure of effort in actually resolving the issues.

I would be happy to be proved wrong, but allowing a moderator to set the poll questions is potentially going to be an exercise in futility and a wonderful example of how bias can be spun without seeming to be spun.

It doesn't need a poll - you already have all you need in order to "meets the wishes of our membership".

 

[barjon]

............................You have demonstrated by your initial unwarranted interference and your subsequent attempts to defend and cover your actions the seemingly biggest cause of membership unhappiness with some moderators on these boards....................

Masos Minos

You posted whilst I was composing mine

Firstly - and this is me as barjon without my moderator tag - I find it amazing that you can come out with such a sweeping judgement given your extremely limited experience of T2W (I see you only joined this month). Like whalesong you are very quick into the fray and although, as whalesong quite rightly says, there is no minimum membership period to be served before posting I would have thought a wider experience of how T2W works is in order before arriving at such conclusions.

Secondly - and this is moderator barjon - you comments have been noted for when the appropraite question is considered.

jon

 

[rols]

I had no idea there was a minimum membership period before being allowed to post on the boards. My apologies if I have transgressed any unwritten protocols and hopefully can avoid an instant ban. As you have decided to comment on my post, I feel encouraged to expand on your points made.

Muddy the waters? I think not. Clarity is precisely my aim and my goal. Simply allowing the sediment to settle once again without having achieved resolution will, like all unfinished business, simply serve to make the final blowoff just that bit more uncomfortable for many concerned. As for your apparent commitment to "not join in the Snipers chorus" - you did, by doing precisely that. Fxmarkets has not explained his position or anything like it. I am sure there will be others like yourself equally willing to assume a comfortable myopia in order to avoid that which must at some point be dealt with. However uncomfortable that might be. If you shy away from justifiable and righteous confrontation in the pursuit of all that is good and perfect then I suggest you simply remain quiet and allow those of us with the mettle to engage the unpleasantness of life to do so unfettered by your liberal compromises. All Fxmarkets did was tell us the moderators pulled his post presumably because they felt is didn't reflect THEIR take ion the article. I wonder if Fxmarkets had graded the article a rating of 1, they will have amended that to what they felt it should have been?

The article missed the mark. It did not deliver according to its title and deserved to be judged on that basis. What we are witnessing is more evidence of the gentle censorship which if left unchallenged will lead to the totalitarian state which many of us now live in. Wherever we live.

And for steering a course between police state and paranoia I leave that to your best endeavours as all compromise is weak and ultimately self-defeating. To which I might add, those who talk of compromise have even less will to effect their stated aims than they do to speak of them. In a word - little. Compromises are rarely forged on the anvil of reality, more often within the maleable minds of those who would be so easily led to the slaughter as the trip is so much more comfortable.

As Wittgenstein once said "With the tallest ladder, I would yet have only the means to reach the highest level of those with the lowest capability to understand the heights to which only they can attain without using such a ladder". And he does have a point.

As for you my young Ishmael, you're playing with the wrong whale. I think Moby Duck would be more your match.

I see Whale Song's off key chorus has expanded into a bloater of an Opera Buffa - molto pomposo!

I never mentioned anything about 'compromise' . Surely the solution is to reach a concensus i.e. a solution that suits all points of view. This will always be the superior approach.

No doubt these words will bring forth another blubbery barrage but beware Whale Song I have an army of fat ladies armed with harpoons waiting in the wings.

"What one cannot speak about one must pass over in silence"
Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

[rols]

Masos Minos

You posted whilst I was composing mine

Firstly - and this is me as barjon without my moderator tag - I find it amazing that you can come out with such a sweeping judgement given your extremely limited experience of T2W (I see you only joined this month). Like whalesong you are very quick into the fray and although, as whalesong quite rightly says, there is no minimum membership period to be served before posting I would have thought a wider experience of how T2W works is in order before arriving at such conclusions.

Secondly - and this is moderator barjon - you comments have been noted for when the appropraite question is considered.

jon

I wonder if by any chance Whale Song and Masos Minos are related. A beached whale and a Cretan - unlikely bedfellows, but possible.

 

[dbphoenix]

No-one has suggested any further concerns and/or questions as yet.

My first post regarding equity and consistency may be of interest to someone. Or not. There's always a chance.

 

[counter_violent]

No doubt these words will bring forth another blubbery barrage but beware Whale Song I have an army of fat ladies armed with harpoons waiting in the wings.

Speaking of relations, does the above sound familiar !

 

[Sharky]

It would indeed appear that Whale Song and MasoMinos are one and the same, since they share exactly the same ISP (2 out of 17 users using that ISP from a membership of 44k) - a bit too much of a coincedence wouldn't you agree? If this is the case, multiple-nicks are not allowed on this site, and we'll have to ban both nicks.