Moderation Standards and Site Guidelines

[barjon]

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

db,

yes, taken note of that - it'll be reflected in the question when it comes

jon

 

[fudgestain]

I believe that BBs only work when you allow them to be really free and easy. If you have strict guidelines enforced you just reduce adults into fragile children. Any adult should be able to cope with a few sparks flying. For goodness sake, it only words. Po-faced 'can't do this and can't do that' drives out all the bright lighting in debate and in the whole BB.

Of course it is an absolute certainty that my view will not prevail .. but then I'm not running this BB.

Do keep out the spammers and those indirectly trying to flog some service or product. Allow only paying legit advertisers using advertising panels.

 

[Directional]

I think the moderators have the right balance here at T2W. I certainly wouldnt want the lax moderation that spawns the endless trolling, flaming and personal attacks that make Elite Trader barely useful.

 

[MasoMinos]

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.

Let's assume for a second the information is true. 2 posters on this thread are saying something you don't like and have the same ISP. It's convenient there aren't a larger number of members using this obviously small-time ISP. What if it were one of the big players - would you come to the same conclusion? If another member using this same ISP also posts negatively on this thread, will they also be 'one and the same' as myself and WhaleSong (of who I have no relationship, knowledge or contact)?

I don't think there wil be many reading these posts who can't see how this is being developed, what your plans might be and the very possible outcome you're planning to manufacture.

Unless you're prepared to come up with something a little more substantive in support of your claim I'd suggest you retract it. Or of course, delete this post and ban me before too many read it.

 

[rossored]

Personally, Maso, I find it mighty strange that you have such strong opinions given that you only joined the site.... on the 21st of this month.

 

[rols]

Maso paradox?

Personally, Maso, I find it mighty strange that you have such strong opinions given that you only joined the site.... on the 21st of this month.

"All Cretans are liars."

Epimenides 6th century BC

 

[dbphoenix]

Personally, Maso, I find it mighty strange that you have such strong opinions given that you only joined the site.... on the 21st of this month.

Perhaps the issue should center on content rather than alleged "multiple nicks".

As for "free and easy", EliteTrader is an object lesson in that regard. Is that the goal?

If t2w wants to be a refuge for professional traders (or, at least, traders who behave that way), then it behooves the administration to encourage professional behavior and discourage bullying and childish rants. The issue is not whether one can "take it" but rather why one should be expected to in a professional community.

Eventually it comes back to the same question asked in therapy: what do you want?

 

[Directional]

If t2w wants to be a refuge for professional traders (or, at least, traders who behave that way), then it behooves the administration to encourage professional behavior and discourage bullying and childish rants. The issue is not whether one can "take it" but rather why one should be expected to in a professional community.

Totally agree.

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.

perhaps to reflect sentiments as per db's comments above.

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.

not necessarily IMO, we can always use the complain function if a thread is being disrupted and feel intervention is necessary.

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

perfectly fair IMHO

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.

would a name and shame policy help or be a deterrent? not sure. I dont think its necessary for others to know about warnings really - what purpose would it serve?

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.

humm.. possibly interesting in a voyeuristic kind of way - perhaps viewable in a users profile so if someone really wanted to know what happened to someone they could click their name and see what happened to them. How about a "criminal record" too - so if the same member had been repeatedly banned for the same or similar thing the bans would be viewable - a bit like points on your license "banned on 23/11/05 for spam" "banned on 22/11/05 for flaming"

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.

agreed - but tricky to implement. How do you make others aware of a commercial interest without giving them free advertising? although you could say that the surreptitious posting of comments hinting about the posters great performance and reliable methods is free advertising of a sort anyway. frequent site users may be aware of a posters offsite sales agenda but newbs or others may be sucked in.

Pressure should be put on these people to register their commercial interest and pay a fee like Elite Trader does, then perhaps the vendor would carry their commercial interest as a subtitle to their forum name ie: name of venture, type of venture "training vendor" etc.

Also perhaps exclude links to vendor website from user profiles unless they register/pay etc.

 

[fudgestain]

Perhaps the issue should center on content rather than alleged "multiple nicks".

As for "free and easy", EliteTrader is an object lesson in that regard. Is that the goal?

If t2w wants to be a refuge for professional traders (or, at least, traders who behave that way), then it behooves the administration to encourage professional behavior and discourage bullying and childish rants. The issue is not whether one can "take it" but rather why one should be expected to in a professional community.

Eventually it comes back to the same question asked in therapy: what do you want?

Why would T2W want be a refuge? Why would it want to be only for professional traders without learners and amateurs? It already has your endless and supercilious meanderings on price and volume.

 

[SOCRATES]

I have been observing all of this from a posture of quiet contemplation and reasoned deduction, and what is more, from the other side of the glass wall that separates us.

The moderators do a truly excellent job and one to be commended, if only for their fortitude and endless patience that seems to have no end.

Unfortunately for them however, they are left to deal with EFFECTS, and not CAUSES that create these EFFECTS,

These EFFECTS are by nature both irregular and transitory.

But the underlying CAUSES that create these EFFECTS are permanent or near permanent and are if not difficult, then impossible to eradicate.

These CAUSES that create these EFFECTS are ENVY, FRUSTRATION and AGGRESSION.

This is owing to a lack of proper education, meaning lack of knowledge and lack of practical ability.

This CATALISES and RESTIMULATES people to conduct themselves in the way they do, to the absolute detriment of all members.

 

[Directional]

Why would it want to be only for professional traders without learners and amateurs?

it wouldn't - but amateurs and learners can approach trading dicussion professionally surely, as can those who've been at it a while? without T2W becoming banal and vapid like ET trollfest

 

[fudgestain]

it wouldn't - but amateurs and learners can approach trading dicussion professionally surely, as can those who've been at it a while? without T2W becoming banal and vapid like ET trollfest

Well if you want the BB to be a strict classroom full of dull regimented po-faced children encouraged to bleat every time they read some big bad words then that is what you will get.

 

[dbphoenix]

but amateurs and learners can approach trading dicussion professionally surely, as can those who've been at it a while? without T2W becoming banal and vapid like ET trollfest

Nah. Far better to rail at them for being "dunces" . . .

 

[SOCRATES]

Nah. Far better to rail at them for being "dunces" . . .

Don't start !

I said KNOWLEDGE and PRACTICAL ABILITY, and not the other way round.

All of this is dependent upon the QUALITY and INTENSITY of thought applied to it and then ACTING upon it.

No correct thinking ~ no result or, the wrong result, that's all.

 

[Directional]

hehe. ok i changed my mind. lets have no moderators at all? or moderators elected by a democratic voting process

 

[dbphoenix]

Don't start !

The mods can fill in the rest of this particular script, so I'll leave it to them.

Jon, I expect you've received all the useful responses you're going to get, such as they are. Unless you want a VSA/Albert rerun, perhaps you should close it.

 

[barjon]

Ok, the first question then. It's here http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showthread.php?t=17789

Cast your votes.

jon

 

[barjon]

.... and the second question is here http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showthread.php?t=17793

jon

 

[MasoMinos]

Let's assume for a second the information is true. 2 posters on this thread are saying something you don't like and have the same ISP. It's convenient there aren't a larger number of members using this obviously small-time ISP. What if it were one of the big players - would you come to the same conclusion? If another member using this same ISP also posts negatively on this thread, will they also be 'one and the same' as myself and WhaleSong (of who I have no relationship, knowledge or contact)?

I don't think there wil be many reading these posts who can't see how this is being developed, what your plans might be and the very possible outcome you're planning to manufacture.

Unless you're prepared to come up with something a little more substantive in support of your claim I'd suggest you retract it. Or of course, delete this post and ban me before too many read it.

No response. No retraction. No apology.

Obviously some more equal than others.

 

[MasoMinos]

Don't start !

I said KNOWLEDGE and PRACTICAL ABILITY, and not the other way round.

All of this is dependent upon the QUALITY and INTENSITY of thought applied to it and then ACTING upon it.

No correct thinking ~ no result or, the wrong result, that's all.

Can I offer this as a perfect example and a case in point.

Off topic ramblings remain yet on-topic but 'interpreted wrongly' or 'felt to be extraneous' is deleted.