Reported post action

[The Leopard]

.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

Really LM! Do you honestly expect that post to still be there?

It was deleted very quickly. I was good enough to point out that the deletion was very sloppy, because a post of mine which quoted it was not deleted .

I doubt my post is still there, but I will have a look.

ok then, which thread? that might do, depending on how quick it was deleted of course, google don't cache that quick

 

[The Leopard]

.

 

[The Leopard]

.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

oh yes i remember now, i did ask prev and i found nothing in cache.

cheers

 

[barjon]

As for the reason behind the ban, someone ( a new member) suggested that Pboyles was banned because his incessant exposure of scams was costing this site money.

The same poster also stated that Pboyles was actually told this by an employee of the site.

This is extraordinary. I refer of course only to the admission .

What a load of town. The evidence pb comes up with is often irrefutable and if I thought T2W's integrity was so low as to want to block or hide it then I would not be modding nor would I bother with the site.

 

[The Leopard]

What a load of town. The evidence pb comes up with is often irrefutable and if I thought T2W's integrity was so low as to want to block or hide it then I would not be modding nor would I bother with the site.

Fair enough Jon. I am sure you are sincere in what you say.

I rather think it best if I don't comment further.

 

[tar]

delete this thread and ban wacky ...

 

[the hare]

Once again, I would urge all mods and admin to visit the site and view the video on their homepage. If you do not need a bucket handy, there is something wrong with you. Unless you are extremely dim or extremely naive, it will make your flesh crawl.

I had to laugh at the claims of 500% returns per week and more !

Its even more amazing to be told 500% per week was achievable trading 2 hours a day whilst simultaneously cleaning the house and looking after the kids. Even the great MB would struggle to match that absurd claim

Given the constraints of leverage, and market volatility, but assuming absolute trading perfection, perfect entries and exits, 100% win rates, and no drawdowns I'm not even sure that it's even theoretically possible to make 500% over five two hour sessions ?

 

[the hare]

What a load of town. The evidence pb comes up with is often irrefutable and if I thought T2W's integrity was so low as to want to block or hide it then I would not be modding nor would I bother with the site.

But t2w has blocked and hidden irrefutable evidence. The MB bankrupcy documentation being a prime example.

Those documents where in the public domain, available from the new york district court, and they where available for download at a number of your competitors. t2w for whatever reason surpressed that information.

I dont blame t2w for covering themselves, nor do I mind them removing information that cannot be substantiated (and an awful lot of the accusations on the MB thread fall into that category, and yet they are allowed to remain now)

I could provide other examples where irrefutable information, available in the public domain was blocked. For example, complaints that where upheld by advertising standards against t2w partners. On one occassion an official warning issued by the FSA no less warning investors against an unlicenced company was blocked (IIRC again a t2w partner)

I've given you 3 exmples that you'll ignore because it doesnt fit in with your world view, I'm sure pboyles could give you many more, but you wont acknowledge it.

I'm not quetioning anyones integrity, nor am I saying that t2w lacks integrity for blocking irrefutable information. I'm just pointing out that it happened.

The integrity issue is a matter for individuals to consider, and we all have our own moral boundaries. Some may think t2w lacked integrity, and some may be comfortable with the position they took.

However its disengenious of you to suggest that publically available information, that is irrefutable, and in the wider interest of the sites membership is never blocked, because it is, and its blocked quite frequently

I should also add that those members who bring this information to the attention of the membership have on occassion been banned for doing so. I acknowledge that technically the ban may have been for a breach of the guidelines, but the guidelines are usually breached precisely because t2w has removed any other alternative methods of expressing an opinion (for example, closing a thread)

 

[barjon]

Hare and Leopard

Ok, I've found out a little more about this episode which kicked off whilst I was sunning myself in Madeira.

Leopard is not wholly wrong about the sort of conversation that took place, but not in any implication (intended or otherwise) that T2W was being in any way devious.

Firstly, you will be aware that things have to be pulled or blocked because of legal implications and you might not be aware that just because something is in the public domain that does does not necessarily represent a satisfactory defence against defamation.

It was in such circumstances that pb was asked to desist in posting on a particular thread and not to re-open a similar one if the first was deleted or closed. He chose not to comply with that request and was banned temporarily.

I hope this clarifies things somewhat, but I would ask everyone to leave it at that for the time being.

Jon

 

[the hare]

Firstly, you will be aware that things have to be pulled or blocked because of legal implications and you might not be aware that just because something is in the public domain that does does not necessarily represent a satisfactory defence against defamation.

I'm reasonably up to speed with defamation law, having been on the end of a few threats of litigation (and not a one ended up in court)

Furthermore I will happily concede that there are occassions where this should be done.

However, lets take just as an example where that was certainly NOT the case, and the example I've chosen is the warning that was published on the FSA website about the activities of a certain company, who was operating an unlicenced investment scheme. The UK governments own financial services watchdog where advising members of the public NOT to do business with this particular company.

Spammer A pops up at t2w with the usual, "has anyone heard of X", spammer B replies, "yes, theyre the dogs nads" and spammer C comments that they made him "500% in an afternoon"

Along comes a t2w member and posts a link the the relevant warning on the FSA website. No comment was made, no opinion was passed, noone was advised not to invest. Just a single link the the FSA warning. No defamation, just a link to a UK goverment department website.

That link was removed practically immediatly, questions as to why the link was removed where also removed, people asking a perfctly legitimate question as to why the link had been removed where bullied, and even banned.

There was no defamation, just a link to the FSA website, no comments where made adverse or otherwise.

Whilst this was going on spammers A,B and C where joined by their counterparts spammers D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y and Z and a few others too. A multitude of spammers are allowed to promote an illegal investment scheme which had been throughly investigated by the FSA, but regular members where prevented from diseminating that information.

I am happy to believe that the company in question might have threatened litigation, but under the circumstances I wouldnt have held out much hope of them making anything stick. Who actually advised you on this matter ?

If I publish an unsubstantiated accusation on my website, for example Mr X had anal sex with a mountain goat, and someone posts a link to that accusation from t2w then its perfectly understandable why t2w may capitulate if Mr X threatens litigation. Its even understandable that t2w might remove it on the grounds of decency, fairness and good taste.

But when the entity issuing a warning, on the basis of an investigation is the UK governments financial watchdog, and issuing a notice intended to protect the public then thats quite another matter altogether.

The company in question was no doubt furious that their attempt to spam their product had been temporarily de railed in this way, but t2w also has a duty of care to its members as well as its advertisers.

Noone was even allowed to post "There is information regarding this company at the FSA" Of course you'll claim it was a misunderstanding, or heavy handed moderation, or that lessons have been learned etc.

I have no problem with t2w covering their own asses, its in everyone's interest that they do so, but this constant claim that threads are removed due to threats of litigation dont really hold water.

I could give at least one other example where a vendor politely asked for a critical thread to be removed, and without threatening litigation, or even getting slightly miffed, and the thread was promptly removed. I am 100% confident that the particular vendor would probably verify here in public that was the case, and he expressed amazement at the time at just how easy it was to get the thread pulled.

Once again you fail to address the key point. pboyles started another thread because the previous thread (the 5th in a string of threads that had previously been deleted) had been closed.

He has 2 alternatives, he either allows you to silence him, or he speaks his mind, and of course, its obvious which path he's going to choose.

Its the modern day cyber equivelent of throwing a woman into a pond, if she swims she's a witch, and gets burned at the stake, if she drowns, she was innocent.

 

[tar]

wow the hare your post is too long who cares , life is short i dont think t2w is worth that much ( with all due respect to members ) :cheesy:

 

[The Leopard]

wow the hare your post is too long who cares , life is short i dont think t2w is worth that much ( with all due respect to members ) :cheesy:

Can you summarise your post please? Can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

 

[the hare]

who cares

noone

 

[Lightning McQueen]

wow the hare your post is too long who cares , life is short i dont think t2w is worth that much ( with all due respect to members ) :cheesy:

but tar, whilst you have the intelligence to see a scam or deception in play and steer clear, obviously a lot of people cannot. after all, the evidence of new members turning up here after being fleeced by unscrupulous vendors is huge. the last thing anyone wants is it to happen right here on our doorstep. the post maybe long, but the points made are good.

the press can print it, the fsa can warn about it. but t2w can't link to it or discuss it, without some uk lawyer jumping up and down screaming defamation on his client in the far east for example. there's something very wrong with the law in the uk.

 

[neil]

Trade2Win makes money via advertising - where do you get the peculiar idea that your education is important or that scam artists are not welcome:whistling

 

[tar]

but tar, whilst you have the intelligence to see a scam or deception in play and steer clear, obviously a lot of people cannot. after all, the evidence of new members turning up here after being fleeced by unscrupulous vendors is huge. the last thing anyone wants is it to happen right here on our doorstep. the post maybe long, but the points made are good.

the press can print it, the fsa can warn about it. but t2w can't link to it or discuss it, without some uk lawyer jumping up and down screaming defamation on his client in the far east for example. there's something very wrong with the law in the uk.

I wouldn't be bothered that much let nature to run its course ... more scams ... the forum will go down which mean less ads , then action will be taken that's for sure . like in trading , over supply price goes down then demand will pick up :|

 

[barjon]

I'm reasonably up to speed with defamation law, having been on the end of a few threats of litigation (and not a one ended up in court)

Furthermore I will happily concede that there are occassions where this should be done.

However, lets take just as an example where that was certainly NOT the case, and the example I've chosen is the warning that was published on the FSA website about the activities of a certain company...........................................

I could give at least one other example where a vendor politely asked for a critical thread to be removed,...............................

Hare

I can't recall the two examples you quote off-hand, but I'll take your word for it. Even if there was no good reason for the deletions (beyond what you might have seen on the face of it) you can't point to a couple of moderating ****-ups as evidence that T2W has an underlying agenda to act like that across the board. If it had, then how come the boards abound with much criticism against dodgy vendors?

One of the problems I have found goes something like this:

1. A thread is started that is little more than an advert for a service (sic) being sold.

2. This is quickly followed by a series of posts from members that it all looks dodgy together with some evidence of the company's misdeeds.

3. Co-incidentally other members report the initial post complaining that it is just an advert that shouldn't be allowed.

4. Mods look at it and determine that it is indeed an advert in contravention of the guidelines and delete it (and consequently the thread).

5. As a result some members are happy to see the thread gone whilst other members sniff conspiracy and see the deletion as "protecting" the company from legitimate criticism.

Can't win really

jon

 

[wackypete2]

Jon,
The problem with that is the thread removal usually comes after (LARGE#) of pages of posts showing evidence of misdeeds. At that point the issue of advertising is no longer relevant. IF the thread was removed after maybe 3 or 4 posts then most people probably wouldn't complain. I realize that's not always possible but at some point it's no longer advertising.

Peter