Baruch's thread closed - this sucks

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by mgkrebs, Jun 2, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mgkrebs


    FX_Cowboy et al, please do NOT discuss companies that are non-sponsors at ET as that provides them free promotion, free advertising (and I'm sure some members of the various firms will be glad to use the opportunity to jump in and tell you how great their company is). First, it's not fair to our paying sponsors, and second it's against ET policy. Thanks

    Has this always been policy?

    If not, when did it become policy?

    Are you saying that every broker, software publisher, author etc that is reviewed and archived here is a sponsor. I thought this board was about the free exchange of ideas and information.

    Your sponsors will only lose potential customers if this is actually official ET policy. Sponsors should defend their products on merit, and not have to rely on censorship.

    Obvious free promotional posting is ok to police, but actual opinions from users should be allowed, regardless of whose product it is.

  2. Actually, Baruch asked for his thread to be closed because he disagree with a policy that many break every day here at ET.

    However, Magna is the moderator of the Journal thread and either decided to enforce this policy (based on post in Barauch thread) as of late or got a complaint from someone.

    I've lost track of how many traders every day here at ET posts links of companies or individuals with a fee-based website that aren't sponsors...

    Heck...I'm just as guilty. I post direct links to non-sponsors but can't remember if I've done such in the Journal threads.

    Actually, what about my charts as attachments...charts via non-sponsors ???

    I've done that in the Journal threads.

    That's obviously not in violation because I've never received any warnings.

    I guess its ok to post non-sponsors charts that has the non-sponsor name or logo on the chart as long as we don't discuss their products...

    Such as saying they have the best data ???

    In other forum threads along with the Journal threads.

    I'm a little confused myself.

    Maybe its ok for others to talk about it but not the thread starter ???

    If this really was a policy...all or most of the threads in the Journal forum would be policed and received the same warning from Magna in the open like in Baruch's thread.

    If not...why not ???

    Thus, my guess it must be a recent new policy that allows all prior conversations and links about non-sponsors in the Journal forum to be grand-father in (warnings not given about past conversations).

    Therefore, we can talk about non-sponsors in the Journal forum...

    We just can't post direct links to those non-sponsors ???

    Yet, there was a warning given by Magna that said do NOT discuss companies that are non-sponsors prior to an explanation by Magna that said A discussion on ******* (with link).

    Maybe we can't post direct links to non-sponsors that are in the same business with a sponsor of ET ???

    Maybe we can talk about non-sponsors just as long as a sponsor doesn't complain.

    The last paragraph above makes sense because I just quickly reviewed some of the other Journal threads to see what links are being posted by the thread starters to non-sponsors and those thread starters have not received any warnings out in the open via the same way of what occurred in Barauch thread...

    (It is possible Magna gave those other thread starters a warning via private message)

    However...those links posted to other companies don't seem to be competitors of any sponsors here at ET.

    Another possibility...maybe we can talk about a non-sponsor...

    We just can't talk about their services or products...

    Which is obvious because they are getting free advertising.

    For example...if I were to quote and/or mention Ruth Roosevelt in a Journal...

    That's ok because I didn't post a link nor mention her fee-based trader consultation business...

    Right ???

    Or is mentioning or quoting Ruth Roosevelt a no no.

    What about Steve Nison and his Japanese Candlestick business.

    What happens if someone discusses his books or seminars in the Journal threads ???

    If we say Steve Nison info isn't worth a penny...its ok ???

    If we say its good...its not ok ???

    Should be ok as long as there isn't a sponsor that is a competitor.

    Maybe there's more to the story about Baruch's thread here that we don't know about because based on what has been occurring in other threads...

    Things don't add up about this policy.

  3. Thank God it was closed. What a worthless, money losing collection of jibberish and nonsense.

    You could learn more from sitting on the freeway watching traffic merge.
  4. Just plain stupid censorship ...
  5. Absolutely agree. If there is a rule that says that we can't mention any company that is not an ET sponsor then half the threads on ET need to be deleted. Maybe Bruto didn't find it helpful, but then he didn't have to read it. It was a nice place for currency traders to converse. Because it was Baruch's journal all the flaming idiots stayed away because they knew that Baruch could request their post be deleted. All of ET should be such a cordial environment...except chit chat, got to let the flamers have an outlet.
  6. Terrible. I guess I can't mention that I trade Microsoft, because they are not a sponsor.

    This smacks of communism - only "official" companies may be mentioned. Heven forbid I reveal to the world a. what broker I use, b. what trading platfrom I use, or past experiences with said products and services.:mad:
  7. Magna

    Magna Administrator

    There have been lots of misconceptions and misunderstandings as to what went down so I thought I would clear things up. But before I get into the details I think it best to create a context. The context being Elite Trader, a site created and administered by Baron. No, it wasn't mgkrebs, nor metooxx, nor TRADERguy, nor TorontoTrader2, nor Baruch.... who put up the money, the incredible amounts of time, the programming skill, the leadership skills, and the ongoing daily effort to keep ET functioning. We are all guests here and many people on this board forget that. If any of the above would like to start their own site, or maybe start their own magazine, or their own radio station, or their own television show.... and after charging advertisers to cover their costs of operation/salary, they want to provide anyone who cries "censorship" a free means to promote their product, then that is their right. Somehow I suspect if they went to the time, trouble, and expense of actually doing that they wouldn't be so generous allowing for free promotion in competition with their advertisers. And please understand that almost all spam gets started by people asking an "innocent" question which opens the floodgates. I've confronted spammers literally hundreds of times over the years and they always have the same response, "Geez, I was just clearing things up and answering questions..."

    Anyway, now onto what happened. A discussion of a non-sponsor started, complete with link, and after receiving a number of complaints from members I posted a gentle warning:
    Rather than contacting me privately via PM to discuss things Baruch took it public, challenged ET's policy, boldly stated it was HIS thread and that, essentially, he could do whatever he damn well pleased:
    After explaining that another company was being discussed/promoted I reminded him that he was a guest at ET and, frankly, had no business making those demands:
    To this he replied that he couldn't accept those "terms" and that he wanted the thread closed, which I did. That was not my original intention whatsoever, I only wanted to follow up on complaints and remind people that spirited discussions of non-sponsors, complete with links, may step over the bounds and that as moderator I am called upon to make judgment calls. Sometimes I err on the side of caution and would rather remove things before they go on too long. If that offends someone then they are certainly free to carry out their discussion on another venue such as Yahoo or Silicon Investor or MoneyTec or any of the other forums for financial discussion to be found on the internet.
    Actually I'll tell you what smacks of communism, oh melodramatic one. Being a guest at someone's hard-earned business that he's built over many years.... and telling him how he must run things.
  8. I agree with you. It was a great thread for FX traders to exchange ideas. I really miss that thread. Maybe we can start a similar thread...

  9. I have no problem with the policy within limits. Blatant marketing by the company or it's agents should be blocked; and that is my understanding of the policy.

    Limiting casual references or links in the course of a typical exchange of ideas or experiences is ridiculous...
  10. dbphoenix


    I find it difficult to believe that no one understands what Magna is talking about.
    #10     Jun 9, 2004
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.