VSAtrader / Socrates discussion

[dbphoenix]

Personally I have never tried using the 'report bad post' button as Rosso has suggested above, and has encouraged us to do if there is a problem. So perhaps we should all try and remember to make considered use of this facility from now on and see how things go.

The problem with the "report bad post" function is the same at t2w as everywhere: by the time the "bad post" is dealt with, there may be ten or twenty or thirty further posts which are motivated by the "bad post", after which the moderator points out all the work which he/she has to do cleaning up all these posts, as has happened here.

Far simpler to address the cause rather than the symptoms. Moderators say they don't know where to "draw the line". I suggest that if they don't know what is, for example, "insulting", they should look to the result of a particular post or series of posts. Here, for example, we are working our way toward 250 of them.

Just a suggestion.

--Db

 

[dc2000]

Cheers Counter I missed that post lets hope he's back soon

as for the bad post button I know what you mean but its clear that some of our posts are being reported so I guess what goes around comes around

Forgot to say before
This part of the site guidlines interests me

"Please don't pretend to be an expert if you aren't one. Humility is better than arrogance"

Can you be an expert in trading if you dont trade? I suppose its possible but shouldnt the recipient of any trading advice be made aware whether the originator trades or not.

In fact Mods thats not a bad idea
It might be of use to add a symbol under a members name something along the lines of this person is an active trader. The way it would work is if a person wishes to post specific trading thoughts or give advice in a way that they might be seen to be a professional trader they must first provide evidence to T2W staff that they have an active trading account. or something like that

 

[barjon]

What's the betting this thread gets closed on some pretext or other?

We've already witnessed unjustified post deletion. And the moderator responsible has refused to respond to a reasonable request to explain why they operated outside of site guidelines.

I'm sure many of is have also fallen foul of any number of the unwritten 'rules' to which only the moderators are privy. And are on the very brink of being banned. Or they could also invent a reason after the fact for the banning, along with scenario. That seems to work well in many cases.

ott

Don't tempt me

I've had a look through the deleted posts - which include 3 from Socrates by the way - and can't find any deleted unreasonably "outside site guidelines". Many more that hover on the line could have gone the same way.

Maybe you won't be prepared to believe it, but there are no "unwritten" rules, no hidden moderators agendas and no banning unless justified (usually following a warning).

I might also point out that it is true that the Socrates thread, Journey From the Basement, had extra moderation in relation to personal attacks and off-topic comment. This was because many people found it extremely interesting and were fed up with the excessive number of diversions. It is not true, though, that he enjoys any special privileges.

Cheers

jon

 

[zupcon]

Incredible

It is not true, though, that he enjoys any special privileges.

For the record I enjoy soc's posts, but I really cant let such a comment go without comment. This is complete nonsense and you really should be ashamed of yourself. If your in a hole stop digging.

 

[sulong]

It is not true, though, that he enjoys any special privileges.

Cheers

jon

There seems to be some sort of a group denial going on here.

 

[dc2000]

I got to share this
I have let a friend ( not a trader) read an excerpt of "The market wizard"

The response " Sounds like this guy's cheese has slipped of his cracker"

 

[dc2000]

Barjon can I ask the three of Soc's that were deleted were they deleted because of something Soc said or was it for something that Soc had quoted

 

[frugi]

DB -

It is perhaps somewhat ironic that you feel Socrates was given special privileges in the "Journey to the Basement" thread when you enjoy a similar freedom in your private forum. In both cases the rules pertaining to the thread / forum are clearly stated and those that do not wish to abide by them are free to post elsewhere on the site. You moderate your forum very tightly and I imagine you do so for precisely the same reasons that we chose to moderate the Basement thread very tightly. (Actually I wasn't a mod then, but I understood exactly why the decision was taken at the time.)
Granted, you can't ban people, but surely you can see the similarity of objective?

Everyone -

It seems to me that the main thrust of the accusations of "moderator bias" is that Socrates enjoys a greater freedom of speech than other members. At any rate, this is the only possible interpretation of the accusation to which I am prepared to give any attention, although I do not agree with it.

But, it may be the case that we have overlooked some posts which transgress our guidelines. In fact almost certainly that will be the case, as we simply do not have the time to read every single post.

Also , if the "report post" button is not used we will have no idea that a certain post has caused offence. Yet, much later, accusations flood in of offensive posts remaining undeleted.

It is quite possible that some posts of this nature may have been penned by Socrates. So I invite those that are concerned that Socrates enjoys special posting privileges to find any of his posts that they feel transgress our site guidelines, or indeed common decency, and post the links to them here. If we agree, they will be deleted. Is this fair? (cue accusations of a sudden shift to an anti-Socrates bias due to an unexpected swing in the hidden agenda. )

 

[Bigbusiness]

If Socrates had been given a private board in the first place, a lot of these problems would not exist. It is clear that he was given special treatment, and while that might not be the case any more, he does get away with what he calls polite rudeness. So why can't he have a private board and let the rest of TTW get on with it?

 

[dbphoenix]

DB -

It is perhaps somewhat ironic that you feel Socrates was given special privileges in the "Journey to the Basement" thread when you enjoy a similar freedom in your private forum. In both cases the rules pertaining to the thread / forum are clearly stated and those that do not wish to abide by them are free to post elsewhere on the site. You moderate your forum very tightly and I imagine you do so for precisely the same reasons that we chose to moderate the Basement thread very tightly. (Actually I wasn't a mod then, but I understood exactly why the decision was taken at the time.)
Granted, you can't ban people, but surely you can see the similarity of objective?

Everyone -

It seems to me that the main thrust of the accusations of "moderator bias" is that Socrates enjoys a greater freedom of speech than other members. At any rate, this is the only possible interpretation of the accusation to which I am prepared to give any attention, although I do not agree with it.

But, it may be the case that we have overlooked some posts which transgress our guidelines. In fact almost certainly that will be the case, as we simply do not have the time to read every single post.

Also , if the "report post" button is not used we will have no idea that a certain post has caused offence. Yet, much later, accusations flood in of offensive posts remaining undeleted.

It is quite possible that some posts of this nature may have been penned by Socrates. So I invite those that are concerned that Socrates enjoys special posting privileges to find any of his posts that they feel transgress our site guidelines, or indeed common decency, and post the links to them here. If we agree they will be deleted. Is this fair? (cue accusations of a sudden shift to an anti-Socrates bias due to an unexpected swing in the hidden agenda. )

Frugi, I don't share your sense of irony in this. A private forum is just that. A public thread is something else entirely. Surely you understand the difference. In any case, the Site Guidelines apply regardless of the venue, and abuse is abuse. Whether it goes on in private or in public is irrelevant to whether or not the guidelines are being observed. If Socrates wants to initiate a private forum in which he abuses all comers freely and there are those who welcome that sort of thing and the moderators are willing to let it all hang out, then I wish happiness to everyone involved. This is not nearly the same thing, however, as posting to a public thread, then being attacked by someone who is uncontrolled.

Unless I am mistaken, no one who opens a thread is given special privileges, except, of course, Albert. If the moderators were required to moderate Albert's thread "tightly", shouldn't that have been a clue? Were there no Site Guidelines then? If so, and members could be banned for "rudeness" (or whatever), why couldn't the originator of the thread be banned for same?

As for providing examples of posts, you must have enough after all this time. If you don't, and you truly believe that you don't know what any of us are talking about, then I suggest that we all have lives, just as you do, and almost any means of spending one's evening has to be better than devoting it to creating an Albert Scrapbook. If you're interested in posts, review the 220+ right here. If you find all of Albert's posts acceptable, then we will all have a clearer understanding of the current standard. As for reporting more, I've reported and reported, yet little or nothing is done (and then only by jon). Forgive me if I suspect that these reports end up in the same place as those little Customer Feedback cards that one finds in hotel rooms.

If you continue to insist that everyone who objects to Albert's behavior is misguided, then there's really no point in continuing the exchange, is there?

--Db

A final note before I move on from this. Whether the moderators truly don't know what everybody is talking about or know what everybody is talking about but disagree with it or know what everybody is talking about and agree with it but don't know what to do about it is only a tangential issue. A lot of people seem to be upset about what they perceive to be inconsistent and inequitable application of the Site Guidelines. Whether their perceptions are "correct" or not is immaterial. They have them. I suggest that someone at least ask why they have them. At the very least, perhaps the members and moderators won't then be on opposite sides and can work toward some solution that makes t2w a better site.

 

[nine]

>>>>It seems to me that the main thrust of the accusations of "moderator bias" is that Socrates enjoys a greater freedom of speech than other members. <<<<<

>>>>It is quite possible that some posts of this nature may have been penned by Socrates. So I invite those that are concerned that Socrates enjoys special posting privileges to find any of his posts that they feel transgress our site guidelines, or indeed common decency, and post the links to them here. If we agree, they will be deleted. Is this fair? (cue accusations of a sudden shift to an anti-Socrates bias due to an unexpected swing in the hidden agenda.<<<< )

I don't think that anyone has been biassed about Socrates. He is quietly and politely very insulting to large numbers of people at times - but careful in his approach. Very english. And I am sure that his posts can be damned annoying for those wanting to have a serious discussion in some threads (but I am over that most of the time).

As a resident Aussie I prefer to call you what I think you are to your face. Not PC. Not restrained. But definitely more honest than some.

I note the americans have a different form of offensiveness. Isn't globalism fun.

The offer seems fair to me. I'll press the complaint button if the post gets up my nose.

 

[SOCRATES]

This thread has run to 232 posts, and with this one, to 233, isn't it amazing ?

Nearly everyone who has posted has overlooked the significance of the OBVIOUS yet once again.

This thread was intended to be a discussion between two counterparties, namely VSA Trader and myself.

Yet, all sorts of people who have nothing to do with the topic originally under discussion see fit to interfere and make irrelevant comments on matters that do not concern them. What is even more annoying is the fact that excepting very very few participants, and several silent observers who are privy but do not comment, the rest do not have a true handle on the discussions as they are not in total, privy to all the underlying facts.

This was a discussion between a vendor who is not an owner and an owner who chooses not to be a vendor.

Everybody else is a bystander.

And bystanders have the right in a public board to read what is discussed, but not the right to interfere and derail discussions not directly pertinent to them.

Despite several requests we have been plagued by several members on this thread persisting in interfering repeatedly.

Then when they are responded to as is befitting, considering the circumstances, they now become offended, I ask you !

If it were not so inappropriate, it would be really rude and really ill mannered.

The remainder of the discussion, really, would not be appropriate to take place in a public forum.

It would, if it would ever have to take place, best conducted in private behind locked doors, and I am able to assure you all, not to my detriment as some persistent individuals have insidiously implied.

Those are the facts of the matter, which for my part, now remain closed.

I now expect this to be the end of the matter.

 

[dbphoenix]

Sorry, but on the offchance that a moderator reads this, I can't help but respond.

This thread was intended to be a discussion between two counterparties, namely VSA Trader and myself.

Really? Does the following sound like somebody who's eagerly anticipating such a discussion?

I wish that Socs would start a thread of his own and post a worthy topic for us all to examine, but he just flys around dumping on other peoples threads, and insulting them too. I take offence to this.

Regards Sebastian

Yet, all sorts of people who have nothing to do with the topic originally under discussion see fit to interfere and make irrelevant comments on matters that do not concern them.

And bystanders have the right in a public board to read what is discussed, but not the right to interfere and derail discussions not directly pertinent to them.

And so forth. And yet Albert is incapable of understanding that any of this applies to him, his interference, his irrelevant comments, his "derailment" of discussions that are not "pertinent" to him. He, in other words, has the right to interfere wherever and whenever he likes, but no one has the same right to interfere with him, even though all of this is occurring on public boards.

Albert takes self-involvement to the level of an art form.

--Db

 

[westernforce]

New to this forum I may be, but my say I will have.

It seems as if the paradoxical demonstration of his stupendous redundancy is totally unmitigated by his despicable degeneration.
His wit is exceeded only by his humility which is made conspicuous by its absence.

Whilst profound at the English vernacular he may be, at periodic intervals he becomes intoxicated in the exuberance of his verbosity.

 

[nine]

lol

 

[Over the Top]

I've had a look through the deleted posts - which include 3 from Socrates by the way - and can't find any deleted unreasonably "outside site guidelines". Many more that hover on the line could have gone the same way.

Can you tell us which specific guidelines were breached by pratbh's post of Bertie's trip to Gib? Or the claim that he was thinking about/had installed poison gas in his windows on the advice of his MOSSAD contacts? It's common knowledge he used to claim his 'Star Chamber' (which he also referred to as the Kremlin) had a Halon gas system installed. Bit over the top for a bungalow in West Worthing IMO. Pratbh was banned round about the time these posts were deleted.

If they (the posts) are factually incorrect - they could have been addressed by SOCRATES himself and then dealt with openly, rather than buried in trade2win's own Alma tunnel.

And before anyone claims sanctity of anonymity and preservation of privacy, I believe it's fair that other members have the opportunity to assess the sort of person who makes grand claims to excellence in this particular field of trading, given the nature of this site. It's an opportunity many a few years back would have welcomed.

 

[Over the Top]

It is quite possible that some posts of this nature may have been penned by Socrates. So I invite those that are concerned that Socrates enjoys special posting privileges to find any of his posts that they feel transgress our site guidelines, or indeed common decency, and post the links to them here. If we agree, they will be deleted. Is this fair?

Not at all. You moderators jump in with both feet on everybody else when a post gets even just close (or not even anywhere near) published guidelines, yet SOCARETS appears to feature in quite a number of members' minds as having not (past tense) had the same unwarranted attentions. You should have been on top oh him in equal measure to the rest. It appears not many think you have.

Given the latitude with which you all have applied your moderation skills each with your own innovative interpretations of the site guidelines, how are we mere mortals to know what could be considered 'bad'; or 'not bad'?

Plus it's not our job to go through 2000 of his posts to pick out the baduns. That's your job. Goes with the territory. Goes with the glory.

Can't take a joke - shouldn't have joined.

 

[pb]

This thread was intended to be a discussion between two counterparties, namely VSA Trader and myself.

Yet, all sorts of people who have nothing to do with the topic originally under discussion see fit to interfere and make irrelevant comments on matters that do not concern them. What is even more annoying is the fact that excepting very very few participants, and several silent observers who are privy but do not comment, the rest do not have a true handle on the discussions as they are not in total, privy to all the underlying facts.

If it is in a public board, you can expect 'all sorts of' people to join in. For the record, you destroyed dbphoenix's price volume thread in spite of his repeated requests. You had no business there, by your own logic, you destroyed it nevertheless. I don't remember you being banned for that, do you?

Everybody else is a bystander.

So were you, in all the hundreds of threads you derailed, but who is to tell you that?

And bystanders have the right in a public board to read what is discussed, but not the right to interfere and derail discussions not directly pertinent to them.

Despite several requests we have been plagued by several members on this thread persisting in interfering repeatedly.

All these things apply very nicely to yourself Albert in case you haven't noticed, I couldn't have said it better myself. Please bear in mind your own words before you jump into the next thread with your useless comments.

The remainder of the discussion, really, would not be appropriate to take place in a public forum.

I think everybody has now got a little tired of your usual cycle of:
"I will reveal all when the time comes and I am waiting for the right moment to punish all those who did so and so",
and then
"I changed my mind, I will not say anything in public because of secret reason number 35."

Say something new. Surprise us.

PS. By the way Albert, I am sure you have noticed, I am now trying to be 'politely rude' to you as they call it. Let's see how long it takes for me to be banned now. Not long is my guess.

 

[Over the Top]

If Socrates had been given a private board in the first place, a lot of these problems would not exist. It is clear that he was given special treatment, and while that might not be the case any more, he does get away with what he calls polite rudeness. So why can't he have a private board and let the rest of TTW get on with it?

Because he appears to crave precisely what is going on here. Attention. Bigbusiness, have you every brought up children. They go through a phase where they like to hang on to things, if you know what I mean.

SOCATES wa offered and of course could have had a private board, but with so few wanting to join or being allowed to remain (actually, ALL would have been allowed to remain regardless of, or probably precisely because of, argumentation) it did not meet his requirements for a big audience. He loves all this and I'm pleased to be bringing him this pleasure.

Almost as much as the half-price lunch at Macari's every Tuesday.

 

[Over the Top]

This thread was intended to be a discussion between two counterparties, namely VSA Trader and myself.

Then it should have been via PM. Don't abuse the facilities of this site or ask for guidance if you're unclear in any way - that's why we're all here. To help each other.

And bystanders have the right in a public board to read what is discussed, but not the right to interfere and derail discussions not directly pertinent to them.

Seems rights are not the issue on this board. Anything on the boards is up for discussion by anyone. And coming from Bindweed Bertie that's a little rich.

Despite several requests we have been plagued by several members on this thread persisting in interfering repeatedly.

Is this cathartic for you Bertie or are we supposed to think you're not really talking out loud? I ask ony for confirmation and totally within the context of member exchange as limited by current site guidelines.

The remainder of the discussion, really, would not be appropriate to take place in a public forum.

Never should have been. Take it offline. This thread has however been usefully turned into a discussion of far more interest to the members and hopefully the administration and moderators of this board.

Those are the facts of the matter, which for my part, now remain closed.

How can a 'fact of the matter' remain closed? I don't understand. Did you mean to say you wouldn't have anything else to say on this matter, in this thread? In which case you wont reply. Or did you mean something else entirely which you will expound upon at length? Do you use old posts and just cut & paste? I only ask as it seems there is a consistent style to your posts which I much admire (in line with site guidelines for ironic, not rude, praise of another member.)

I now expect this to be the end of the matter.

If only the world would always meet our expectations. I wish you well Bertie, you've been excellent companion along the way. Adieu!