Accepting Proposals for New Forums

I am taking suggestions for new forums you’d like to see here on C2. If you’d like to see a new forum, let me know the subject. Also, if you propose a forum, I’d like for you to volunteer to be the forum’s administrator, which will make you responsible for keeping the forum a pleasant place for all inhabitants. Technically, this isn’t strictly necessary, but it will be helpful to me if some of the new forums were administered by C2 users other than me.



This is an experiment, so let’s see how it works out. Either post your suggestions publicly in this thread (letting me know, too, if you are willing to act as the forum administrator) or, if you prefer, email me privately: matthew@collective2.com with the subject: New Forum Idea.

Compartmentalize and enable the administrator to classify a forum as either Futures, Options, Stocks, Futures and options, Futures Options, Forex, for the really crazy forex options that nobody uses or knows how to use. Yeah. Even a forum for all of these or the ability to classify a thread as one of these.



Other topics might include system development, technical…



I think that’s a good start.

Oh, yeah, and ETF’s.

I would like to moderate a forum called New Traders and Vendors Forum, and pin it near the top. The forum should be free of marketing pitches, and primarily focus on helping new traders & vendors to:

…1) Use features of C2

…2) Find resources and ideas for trading

…3) Introduce themselves/Meet others



But the only moderation is should need, is removing spam or things that are relatively unuseful to newer C2 folks.



I had started something like this awhile ago ("U New to C2"). I am willing to donate its useful contents as a starting point. But I need to edit is somewhat, and would need some editing/rearranging/cleanup help that only MK has the authority to do…



To make room for this and others, I suggest you un-pin "TradeBullet and Collective2" forum float freely. No one has posted to it in 50 days.

BRILLIANT! And something that asks vendors that the posting requirements are to be free from any advertisement whatever for each person. Kind of like a terms of service agreement for the forum that each vendor using this particular forum needs to agree to before posting. I think it could get really out of hand, otherwise.

Oh, yeah, this should be a link on the opening page to take you to the beginner’s forum.

Great idea gentlemen. Also it has to have rules about bashing vendors. That might also get out of hand. I also believe it is despicable behavior to shamelessly promote your signal in forums.



Thanks Rick Haines developer of the following signal. [LINKSYSTEM_27416498]

No. Beginners forum is not to discuss systems at all. Brief intro. There can be other forums for discussing specific systems. Every system has their own anyway. That much won’t change. They can see the chart on vendors who post anyway.

Correct. it should not even be focused on any traders or systems.

FYI Richard,



It is SO nice to see that the "mechanisms" to your system held up VERY well - despite the seemingly overwhelming, recent lows!



gA



[LINKSYSTEM_31190907]

A forum to discuss the mutterings of the oracle Jack Hershey.

Matthew,



I would like to propose a forum dedicated to constructive criticism – a Safe Haven where unsolicited commentary is unwelcome. The forum would be open to active C2 system developers only (test systems would certainly be welcome as well), and developers would volunteer their own systems for constructive critique and commentary. From what I have seen in the forums, this would not be hard to achieve, if the bashing and other static were reduced. As I am myself not a system developer, and have but limited expertise in the nuances of trading, I would make an unbiased moderator, and volunteer for the task.

Daniel…you’ve completely missed the boat on why C2 is here. Vendor’s already have the ability to control their forum. Nothing more in this area is needed.



As I am myself not a system developer, and have but limited expertise in the nuances of trading, I would make an unbiased moderator, and volunteer for the task.



You’re totally clueless in this regard, Daniel. Here’s why: you have no credibility and you certainly have no idea when you need to be credulous. You’ve already lost your mind thinking there was anything to MMO, so the thought of you giving “unbiased” moderation is quite ridiculous. The moderator must have some idea what they are talking about. That’s why it’s always chaotic to watch Congress question Bernanke when they have absolutely no idea about economics or macroeconomic theory. Your credibility is completely shot from the fact that you have no idea what constitutes a “NUANCE” of trading. This does not qualify you in any regard whatsoever to be a moderator. It’s like asking a 5 year old to interview the president. It’s always hokey and does not get anywhere. If someone tells you they trade based on their knees hurting when it starts to rain or get cold, you would have to be critical, which you have not been by your defense of MMO. Don’t kid yourself that just because you have no idea how to build a trade system that that makes you a viable candidate for such a forum.



I know exactly how it would go, too. It would go, hey, I’ll put myself up for critiqueing, then only invite my friends to critique my system. At that point you’ve lost your mind again, and prove just how clueless you’ve become in the last several days by your posts on the forum.



Unbiased does not imply only positive criticisms, and harsh criticisms are not always biased. By your lack of distinguishing between what is biased and what is unbiased (from the past few days), you’ve clearly proved to the whole site that you have no shred of credibility in this regard.



The most constructive criticisms in this whole site are on my analyst page. You have nothing in your analyst page that constitutes any meaningful discussion of pros and cons to trading system development. This lack of knowledge is equivalent to the nationalized radio broadcasts of Iran saying they have no nuclear weapons. It may be true on the surface, but this does not imply that they don’t want them. The same goes for you when you volunteer yourself to defend worthless systems.



It’ll come back to you as well if you appear that the system could work when it has no reasonable and adequate basis.



Which shifts to somebody who knows what a reasonable and adequate basis is. Someone who is a professional…like me. I bet you saw that coming, too.



I don’t need this forum that you’re describing. The collective mind will decide how and when they want to lose their money if there is not someone like myself there to criticize and point out what is lacking in an academically rigorous backtest.



As if on cue, Beau makes my point for me.



The moderator must have some idea what they are talking about.



Actually, this is not the case. The moderator need simply stand back and make sure that the rules of the forum are followed, much as MK does now in most forums. In my case, for the very reasons offered, I would have little to contribute to any discussion. At most, I would offer a bit of encouragement to those who seemed unsure of themselves.



I don’t need this forum that you’re describing.



I agree with you, and that’s probably for the best, Beau. You are not interested in peer review; in fact, I doubt whether you would consider most of C2’s vendors “peers.” Your system is not currently accepting susbscribers anyway, and appears to be a finished product, ready for sale. Good luck to you!



In the meantime, C2’s own recommendations would be taken seriously in the proposed forum. “Flame” messages – that is, messages which attack a person – would not be tolerated. Arguments are fine (even encouraged) – but they must be matters of substance, and not mere namecalling.

The moderator must have some idea what they are talking about.



Actually, this is not the case.




Incorrect. I made my point by describing the kind of person that would agree with the trading system described by that woman. That doesn’t make the point any less relevant.



Actually, this is not the case is a lame way of saying I’ll go along with whatever they say. Your idiocy in this regard is plainly evident here.



You are completely unprepared for such an interview because you lack the necessary qualifications. You wouldn’t even know what questions to ask with regard to talking to a vendor.



I don’t know why you even have an interest in this subject. Go spend a few years developing systems, then we’ll have something to talk about.



If Matt’s doing the job fine we don’t need another forum for this.

I still make the proper analogy as it relates to someone with zero experience in trading system development orchestrating this suggested forum: “It’s like a 5 year old interviewing the President.” That’s essentially your level of knowledge about trading system development to me and basically all the vendors rated high on the c2 score.

I have no objection agains that forum and I have no objection against you as moderator.



I think that the forum has some danger that either people will be too polite to each other, or that critical posts are not tolerated. How do you envision a discussion about the mood osciallator system on that forum? IMHO people should be allowed to criticize a system for "flawed logic", whether you agree with it or not, but then other people may feel insulted because of this.



Anyway, if someone feels that you are not doing a good job as moderator, they can start their own forum or thread elsewhere.

I’m not sure what dangers excessive politeness might pose, but critical posts would be central to the forum, as long as they were intended constructively. On the assumption that any vendor might believe their system could stand a bit of improvement, and further, that most system developers are willing to help each other in this regard, the proposed forum provides a moderated (read “policed”) meeting place to conduct such an exchange.



In the event that Cari, in your example, chose to ask for such input from the C2 pool, her MMO systems could be picked apart to the extent that the participants chose to provide input. The only restrictions would relate to calling Cari on her qualifications, state of mind, ancestry, or anything else of a personal nature, as these are not relevant to the system under discussion. If Cari felt insulted by the commentary relating to her system, well, she asked for it, and I would have nothing to say on the matter. Conversely, streams of invective should probably be limited, as they become decreasingly substantive with continued use.



Calling a system (or its vendor) “insane” contributes nothing. Suggesting that a system is based upon “flawed logic” is a useful beginning, but requires substantiation. The former is insulting, while the latter is potentially interesting. This is the difference, and one upon which a constructive dialogue may be based, and conducted in a civil manner. It is my hope that you and other system developers would concur.

Sounds good, but perhaps we should see how it works.

No, Daniel, that’s a professional opinion, not just a name for that woman. You fail to distinguish between harsh criticism and what is constructive. That was constructive to get the point across to any of the morons on the site that would be duped by someones insanity. I’m not going to change my verbage when something like MMO is so clearly out of synch with what a rational person would base a trading system on.