One on One Coaching in TO?

[Lord Flasheart]

That was why I answered. So I could tell you that currently we are not regulated.

As a small and relatively new firm on the market, we have a much greater value and level of service available than most of the larger companies.

apart from honesty and transparency

 

[Steve]

Reading all of this stuff, and many similar things before makes me think we should have a separate area for it.

If all the vendor related discussions of this nature were together then it would certainly make it easier for folks to find it. It would also keep the 'first steps' forum free for what it is meant to be.

Thoughts?

 

[Liquid validity]

Reading all of this stuff, and many similar things before makes me think we should have a separate area for it.

If all the vendor related discussions of this nature were together then it would certainly make it easier for folks to find it. It would also keep the 'first steps' forum free for what it is meant to be.

Thoughts?

Good.
I'm on the same page.

I've suggested a blanket ban in the past.
However, a vendor quarantine area would allow the awkward questions to be
asked, along with the equally awkward answers to be available to anyone doing a google search.

Thumbs up from me

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Good.
I'm on the same page.

I've suggested a blanket ban in the past.
However, a vendor quarantine area would allow the awkward questions to be
asked, along with the equally awkward answers to be available to anyone doing a google search.

Thumbs up from me

I support the ban idea,has anyone ever sold any training thats been worthwhile on this site or any site?

 

[barjon]

Good.
I'm on the same page.

I've suggested a blanket ban in the past.
However, a vendor quarantine area would allow the awkward questions to be
asked, along with the equally awkward answers to be available to anyone doing a google search.

Thumbs up from me

mmm, a lot of thought has gone into that (and is currently going into it). One of the problems is that we delete at least 50 - 75 or so threads a week started by vendors who would doubtless have to stay if there was a vendor area. It'd get clogged up pretty quickly and I guess members would not like to have to wade through all that dross when looking at "new posts" for example.

 

[wackypete2]

mmm, a lot of thought has gone into that (and is currently going into it). One of the problems is that we delete at least 50 - 75 or so threads a week started by vendors who would doubtless have to stay if there was a vendor area. It'd get clogged up pretty quickly and I guess members would not like to have to wade through all that dross when looking at "new posts" for example.

Why? Most of the vendors are nothing but spammers adding links. There's no reason for them to stay. Also how would you identify vendors who intentionally do not use the vendor badge? You can't put all vendors in a quarantine area if you don't know who they are. Might be extra work for the mods/admin.

Just a point for thought, but if you banned all new vendors who do not use the badge how many actual real potential members might you lose due to mistake? 1 in a 100? New members who sign up have to manually click on the "I am a vendor" button and state what they are vending. How many actual real potential members do that? That's not a mistake, that's a decision.

Peter

 

[wackypete2]

IMO, if you want to clean up the site you have to get tough. If that means alienating someone here or there then tough luck. If you are hell bent on trying to never alienate potential new members by being too soft on spammers, scammers, and vendors, then it's s waste of time trying to fix things.

Peter

 

[R.Charnock]

How about starting an entirely new site called Trade2Lose, where vendors compete to make the most outrageous claims for their strategies, post PhotoShopped account statements and spam each other to death?

 

[R.Charnock]

Sorry, I meant 'Tarde2Loose', of course.

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Thing is,if we ban them altogether who will I take my anger out on

 

[pboyles]

Thing is,if we ban them altogether who will I take my anger out on

...and who will I practice my skills on?

 

[pboyles]

How about starting an entirely new site called Trade2Lose, where vendors compete to make the most outrageous claims for their strategies, post PhotoShopped account statements and spam each other to death?

Limit it to 89 members only.

 

[Steve]

You are right about getting tough Wacky Pete, we have been too soft in the past and not only with some elements of the vendor community. We have also been too soft with some members who behave in a way that is unacceptable, but that's another subject.

I have spent a long time working on how I want to take the site forward and the bottom line is simple, it is about the members. And if it is about the members then we have a duty to protect them from the garbage that is out there masquerading as good product.

What we can't do is have a complete vendor ban for two reasons. First of all that would be a glaring omission as vendors are a major part of the world of trading. One of the reasons people come to sites like these is to check out vendors so to have nothing would be silly. Secondly (and those who are polarised will never agree with this) not all vendors are scammers and it is wrong to declare that they are.

What we need to do is control the vendor input. Yes, this may well mean that a huge number are discarded but at least there will be some that remain and where the tough questions and answers referred to can be dealt with sensibly. I'll look forward to some more contributions on this and then put some ideas up.

 

[barjon]

Why? Most of the vendors are nothing but spammers adding links. There's no reason for them to stay. Also how would you identify vendors who intentionally do not use the vendor badge? You can't put all vendors in a quarantine area if you don't know who they are. Might be extra work for the mods/admin.

Just a point for thought, but if you banned all new vendors who do not use the badge how many actual real potential members might you lose due to mistake? 1 in a 100? New members who sign up have to manually click on the "I am a vendor" button and state what they are vending. How many actual real potential members do that? That's not a mistake, that's a decision.

Peter

pete

It'd be pretty difficult to frame rules which allowed some vendors to stay but not others although I suppose you could continue the present policy that posts must be deemed of interest (about trading) or answering members questions.

As for the hidden vendors - they are usually picked up and required to badge or be banned. Reports are the key here.

There are some vendors who post interesting stuff about trading which is entirely divorced from their product/service. Would you deny them to the main boards and confine them to the vendor area, or what?

jon

 

[Shakone]

pete

It'd be pretty difficult to frame rules which allowed some vendors to stay but not others although I suppose you could continue the present policy that posts must be deemed of interest (about trading) or answering members questions.

As for the hidden vendors - they are usually picked up and required to badge or be banned. Reports are the key here.

There are some vendors who post interesting stuff about trading which is entirely divorced from their product/service. Would you deny them to the main boards and confine them to the vendor area, or what?

jon

Who are the vendors that contribute to the forum? As I see it, in individual terms, it is NVP, DionysusToast, and Mr Charts (although less so recently than the other two). I'm guessing that's a small % of the total number of vendors. As a company, you have the FUTEX guy, the Capital Spreads guy and Jason from FXCM.

In terms of 'new posts' either (a) remove them from that, or (b) have two sections, normal new posts, and beneath that vendor new posts. Shouldn't be too hard.

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Who are the vendors that contribute to the forum? As I see it, in individual terms, it is NVP, DionysusToast, and Mr Charts (although less so recently than the other two). I'm guessing that's a small % of the total number of vendors. As a company, you have the FUTEX guy, the Capital Spreads guy and Jason from FXCM.

In terms of 'new posts' either (a) remove them from that, or (b) have two sections, normal new posts, and beneath that vendor new posts. Shouldn't be too hard.

I think there should be a clear distinction between vendors of software and coaches/trainers

 

[Steve]

I have no intention of banning vendors from the main boards, this should be about contribution not status. Nor should we prevent vendors from answering questions about their own products as indeed a number of them do at the moment. This is why I said that an overall ban would be unworkable.

But as Jon says, a number of things are in place but we are not making the most of them and we need to be much clearer about what we will and will not tolerate.

Take this current example, it is not adding anything of value about trading and nor (at the moment at least) is it an established vendor dealing with members questions or concerns.

Actually, we can't be certain what it is. This is why I am thinking that when the discussions are of this nature and our existing members have some concerns then we ought to have an area dedicated to it.

At least then we could develop a clear and simple vendor policy and deal with what actually happens according to this policy.

I think the genuine vendors would welcome this as they are all tarred with the same brush at the moment.

 

[wackypete2]

pete

It'd be pretty difficult to frame rules which allowed some vendors to stay but not others although I suppose you could continue the present policy that posts must be deemed of interest (about trading) or answering members questions.

As for the hidden vendors - they are usually picked up and required to badge or be banned. Reports are the key here.

There are some vendors who post interesting stuff about trading which is entirely divorced from their product/service. Would you deny them to the main boards and confine them to the vendor area, or what?

jon

Suppose you just confine new vendors to the vendor section until they can show they actually have something interesting to contribute other than just peddling their wares. There are several vendors here that contribute plenty and shouldn't be confined to a vendor area. That's fair since they have given positive contributions to the site (even the controversial ones, lol!). My view is that a vendor section shouldn't be a permanent banishment for all vendors.

Peter

 

[wackypete2]

Sorry, didn't see Steve's post. I just woke up and haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet.

Peter

 

[barjon]

.................Nor should we prevent vendors from answering questions about their own products as indeed a number of them do at the moment.....................

This bit is not entirely clear cut, Steve. Yes, we do have threads started by reputable companies to answer members questions which are good, but they do get misused from time to time as those companies make "announcements" or otherwise puff their product. Not always easy to control that.

It's also a common tactic for "wannabee" companies to start a thread to announce their product and invite members questions. We tend to clear those away, so we're not really treating everyone equally.