Recently C2’s policy for system’s public availability was changed to following:
"Because this system is not currently accepting subscribers, Collective2 is not displaying your system to anyone except you and your subscribers. This policy helps prevent Terms of Service violations, as many system vendors have been using C2 to solicit new subscribers to platforms other than C2. Please remember to respect C2’s Terms of Service. Any customer acquired through Collective2 should not be solicited to move elsewhere."
As I understand even if I don’t violate current ToS my system’s public availability if forcefully removed from public by C2, only because I don’t accept any new subscribers. I think I have a right to show my system publicly without the limitation. There is nothing in ToS shows that I must have my system opened for subscribers. If I wanted test system I would create it.
Any comments?
Eu
Tango is one of the systems that I follow regularly, but unfortunately that isn’t possible anymore under this new policy. So I agree with you on this. I would not mind, however, if it is somehow clearly indicated that a system is not accepting subscribers.
No problem. First, some background for the new policy: a growing number of people were circumventing C2’s Terms of Service (TOS) by creating systems that were essentially advertising for their non-C2 managed account programs or non-C2 systems. It was growing more difficult to police this.
So I implemented a policy where systems that don’t allow subscribers (i.e. a vendor sets his Max Subscribers number to zero) are not visible to the public. The thinking is: if you don’t want subscribers, then why should you mind keeping the system hidden from subscribers?
Of course there are lots of reasons why you might not want to allow subscriptions, but still want to keep your system visible – and not all of them are nefarious violations of the TOS. So I am happy to exempt systems from this limitation on a case-by-case basis. Shoot me an email with the name of the system(s) and a confirmation that you will respect the spirit of the C2 TOS, which discourages vendors from trying to solicit C2 customers to other platforms; and then I will take care of it ASAP.
MK
- Some people are probably using C2 to develop a track record to prove trading prowess. Others may want to have it viewable for the fist 6 months and not yet feel ready for subscribers If it is invisible, then that is kind of hard to attract attention.
Some people only fsubscribe to a system after watching it for a few months.
Spending $200 a year already seems like a reasonable cost to allow a C2 vendor to have a viewable public audit of his system. Other sites are free to vendors, after all.
2) From the new TOS: "Collective2 is not displaying your system to anyone except you and your subscribers. " So if a system allows a max of 8 subscribers, then he is now invisible unless he allows NEW subs? That seems kind of harsh. You are preventing OTHER C2 people from bookmarking or observing the site (My Analysis). Some subs may drop out, and the vendor probably wants others to know about it for future. They may change the max subscribers later, but now have to wait until people start noticing his system.
3) A potential subscriber may not be thrilled that C2 was hiding some of the good systems from view. there are already few to choose from.
Of course there are always trade-offs. In this particular case, only a small percent of systems here on C2 choose to cap their subscribers – so this policy affects very few. And those that restrict subscribers for any legitimate reason (other than wanting to circumvent C2’s anti-solicitation policy) can simply send me an email asking to have their system shown to the public. I haven’t denied any request yet.
Thank you. It’s fixed lightening fast with my system.
The thinking is: if you don’t want subscribers, then why should you mind keeping the system hidden from subscribers?
Well… Actually you implemented a way of hiding systems at C2. At the moment any failed system might be hidden if you set 0 subscribers limit.
And nobody will request you to make it visible. Good part of C2’s history will be lost.
by creating systems that were essentially advertising for their non-C2 managed account programs or non-C2 systems. It was growing more difficult to police this.
Well… I would agree that C2 became popular so the site start having other side of popularity. I’m not sure what you can do against the kind of violators. They always will use C2 as advertising platform.
Eu
Well… Actually you implemented a way of hiding systems at C2. At the moment any failed system might be hidden if you set 0 subscribers limit.
And nobody will request you to make it visible. Good part of C2’s history will be lost.
You are very clever man, Eu. Hats off.
This is a pretty good example of the Law of Unintended Consequences at work.
MK:
Earlier today, 28-Oct-2008, I had changed the name and set the subs allowed number to "0" for [LINKSYSTEM_30763562] - since I am not renewing the listing fee.
I read Eu and your posts, then I got the standard notice. I do not mind if this is viewable and am requesting that you allow for this.
Thank you,
Gilbert
Can you eliminate this option just for any "failed" system that is killed? Failed systems should always show up then.
The failed systems do show up though, if you go to Broadsword Macro you can still click on the ‘user has 5 other systems’ link and it will show you all my systems there, you won’t be able to go into the details of it, but you can’t hide the fact that the system ever existed which is quite right.
that sounds reasonable. It was obvious some people were using this as cheap advertising. But some people also want to use C2’s unique position to build a track record that no other timing service covers.
I have added some additional logic which will show all systems which are killed or have lost money. This should prevent 86% of the cases where people try to hide failed systems through this mechanism.
Does this affect people with max subs = 0, or also people who have decided to cap their subs???
Some systems trade illiquid instruments, and they necessarily keep it to a handful of people. But hiding their system prevents them from attracting "replacement" or "waiting list" prospective new customers.
I must step in here and say that C2’s TOS regarding subscribers not directing customers to other sources of their trades - including their own sites - is really the height of hypocrisy.
On the page presenting each system, C2 has placed a headline and text explicitly stating: IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN (This system), WE HAVE SOME OTHER SYSTEMS YOU SHOULD CONSIDER…
Note that it does NOT say "That you should ALSO consider…
Now as a (former) system developer on C2, what should my attitude be about that? What should YOUR attitude be? C2 is using your results to attract potential subscribers to C2, then clearly, on your OWN page, directing them to other systems with a headline and a direct link!
Yet YOU are asked not to communicate with your subscribers regarding other sources for your trade information?
We can agree to disagree.
Here’s the reality. I spend more money than you probably imagine attracting customers to Collective2. This benefits both C2 and system developers. But the business model breaks down when system developers attempt to piggyback on C2’s marketing efforts, by sending the clients attracted by C2 over to another business.
As I said in my last post about the subject, if you have a system where you are not allowing subscribers for some reason, but want it to be visible, just send me an email and I’ll oblige you.
Finally, I see nothing wrong with recommending to traders that they trade a diversified portfolio. And yes, of course C2 wants that diversified portfolio to come from within the C2 universe. This hardly seems shocking.
