C2 Members -
Based on user feedback, we’re going to start trying to “police” the forums more diligently, and start removing any new messages that contain ad hominem attacks on C2 members. This means that we will remove posts that contain mere name calling, or serve no legitimate purpose other to inflame argument.
It is not my goal to stifle legitimate intellectual debate, or even to temper criticism of trading systems. In fact, one of the reasons I’ve been so hesitant to interfere with forum posts before now is that I think criticism of trading systems – even harsh criticism – is often warranted and serves a useful purpose. When an obviously unprofessional system vendor appears at C2, guaranteeing that his system will surely make X dollars each day, he deserves withering criticism. Part of the mission of frequent users of the site is to protect the unsophisticated. (And, sadly, sometimes the “unsophisticated” are the vendors making foolish and outlandish claims.)
So, by all means, please continue to feel free to post legitimate (but polite) criticism of systems or trading methods. But written attacks on people, or posts that are mostly venomous, will be removed, in an attempt to make the forums a friendlier and a more useful resource for C2 members.
Matthew
I think this will be well received.
I agree.
Matthew -
You might also want to consider policing for outlandish performance statements. Not only do these reduce the legitimacy of C2, they are probably illegal in many places, without disclaimers, warnings, and “fair and balanced” description of gains AND losses.
I’m surprised the NFA, SEC or CFTC hasn’t had a problem with that, either in the forums, the system descriptions or the system names themselves.
Kevin
Matt - I have to agree. The "Springer" style attacks have not been very useful. Particularly of late, they have seemed to dominate the forum and chat to a point where I have become distracting. Or, maybe you can add a virtual "slap" button to the new site?
Why stop there, Matthew?
How about implementing my suggestion on the new site to prohibit commentary from anyone on any system until at least 50 trades have been made or 2 1/2 months have past (whichever comes last) for that system?
People should not be allowed to trash a vendor’s system or post adverse commentary about a vendor or his system haphazardly before a system even gets going good. Allowing commentary like this before a vendor can have a chance to build a decent track record first is just wrong. And it needs to stop!
(Let me stop there before I start cursing. I get angry about this every time I thing about it).
So, can we get this feature implemented or what?
Usually systems get trashed by others because of something the vendor says or does. I’ve seen it be about the system name, system description, or posts by the vendor to his own forum. Why should a vendor be allowed to say what he wants for 50 trades or 2.5 months without the chance for others to rebut?
I have always thought that it would be in the best interests of everyone on this site, whether they be Vendors or Customers, that NO system be allowed to sell subscriptions for a minimum period of time. 3 months, 4 months, 6 months or whatever.
If Vendors want to tout their own systems in the interim, fine. But we all know that many of these “wunderkind” and their systems crash and burn within that time period. Let Customers watch and wait. The systems’ performance in that period will tell them more about the product than any amount of words, by the Vendor or the Community.
If you’ve got an outstanding system, what’s the harm? If you don’t, the community will protect you from foolishly investing your hard-earned money until at least a LITTLE performance is available with which to judge.
My 2 cents…
You could learn a lot from what Keith and Skip says. Suppressing rebuttals while making unsubstantiated claims on your own new system it thoroughly unreasonable. Your anger is unwarranted, opening your ears would be refreshing. When you see E-Bay doing this, then it might be a reasonable request.
Another suggestion is to establish a policy at C2 that requires ALL new systems that register to remain “private” and not viewable to the public for a minimum period of time. If a Vendor insists that he/she need “time” get “get their system going” - fine. Let them do so in private. This would also eliminate people trashing Vendors who use this site as a laboratory to experiment with different methodologies before they are ready for PrimeTime. Today - ALL their mistakes are available for public consumption. Is that in the best interest of C2, its Vendors and potential subscribers?
Would C2 perhaps lose a little revenue in establishing these policies? Perhaps. But it also might generate a longer term Value that gets broadcast around the 'Net that C2 offers better systems more often.
Thoughts?
THIS is probablty the primary cause of "attacks."
First, there are several individuals sitting here with dismal performance and very well known untrue claims, and continue to prattle on in the chat and in the forums about their prowess.
Second, why should anyone be allowed to remove posts that disagree with their questionable claims in their forums? There are several here who use this to turn C2 into their private unfettered propaganda machine. I thought this was prevented a couple of years ago?
When censorship is practiced while questionable claims are made, then that is a bigger problem.
How about making the forums and chat area about trading issues, systems, and opinions, rather than self-promotion, falsification, denigration or similar polarizing commentary.
Your suggestion not allowing vendors to sell a system before a certain time period has ellapsed has a lot of merit. Some responsible vendors have done this voluntarily.
Matthew, what is your opinion about that?
I like this idea about not having a system be allowed to take subscribers for a period of time. I have suggested in the past to turn on "0" subscriber as a default to disallow subscribers.
I would also like to be able to "erase" trades within that same period and start over without being a test system.
I have discussed this in the past, and what I was told was simply to create a "test" system, which I have done, but still… Who here has not started a system, and then wanted to erase and start over, or simply do something else altogether?
This would be a terrific implementation, and it would have saved me from having to create many what turned out to be unwanted systems cluttering up the place.
Your suggestions are aimed at keeping subscribers from shooting themselves in the foot. I don’t believe “hiding a system” for a while will keep them from doing that. Potential subscribers see a system annualizing 1000 percent, 0 drawdown and they’re on it. They get burnt a few times and they either move on, or learn how to pick winning systems.
I think a learning center makes sense. There’s a been a lot of useful information in the Forums over time that could really help a subscriber evaluate whether a strategy is the real deal or a flash in the pan. A compilation of those in a Subscriber Learning Center might help.
Because a vendor needs a fair chance to establish his system first. There should be a certain time frame established where the vendor is allowed to “Market” his system as well as build a track record before someone can point out flies in the ointment. Take for instance a bill board sign on the highway that advertises the following: “Grand Opening! Best Products In Town!”. How would you like it if this were your message on the bill board to potential customers and someone stops their car, gets out and writes out a huge message across the bill board that says “Grand Mistake! This Business Will Sell You Shoddy Merchandise!” and you (the small business owner) haven’t even seen your first customer yet nor have you ever been in business before (so how does the heckler know whether you will sell shoddy merchandise or whether you really do have the best products in town when your business presence hasn’t even been established yet?). But, you have already paid for the sign. Does the heckler have a time machine maybe? And,do you think that you will have a huge influx of customers coming through your doors to experience your Grand Opening or do you think just a trickle will show up (if that much) after your advertising has been defaced before the your first customer walks through the door? Or, does a food critic criticize a brand new restaurant food based on it’s advertising before he even eats there?
If you want a “blackout period” to develop your track record, then go on record saying neither developer or potential subscribers can post about a system until 50 trades or 2.5 months. But don’t advocate allowing only one side (the vendor) a chance to “market”.
And there is a snake oil salesman who sells lousy merchandise, and wants the BBB, television and the newspapers to have no right to investigate the salesman until they con a few hundred people
Seriously, you need to live in the planet called "Reality Check." No wonder you are angry - you want everyone to do it the way you think is fair - and for everyone else to have no opinion
The opinion is supposed come after the product is sampled – not before.
So you have 10 salesmen making fabulous claims that turn out to be false.
So based on the previous 10, you know with 100% assurance that the 11th salesman is lying too? Who are you to judge someone based on the previous performance of others?
The "sample" is your performance. It speaks for itself. If you need "salesmen" to hype it, then you should let naysayers call them out.
You are making my point. Wait for the performance then criticize, if you must, the product. Don’t presuppose the product is going to be bad before you even try it. Give the sales person the benefit of the doubt first. Don’t denounce him before you even try what he is pitching.
