I think that a it would be a tremendous service to all the subscribers if the system developers were required to meet a minimum standard of performance before being permitted to post on the forum, similar to the minimum standard needed to feature a system, or be listed on Grandma’s list. For example, why not require the developer’s system to be: 1. profitable; 2. beating the S&P ?
If that’s too restrictive, then simply require the system to have beat the S&P at least once in a 24 hr. period.
This would greatly reduce the posts by the jokers and jesters who wish to shamelessly promote their losing systems at the expense of the subscribers. I think all members would applaud setting a standard.
Let the developers with non-profitable systems use the Chatter box if they want to make a comment.
Additionally, this standard might compel those developers to spend more time re-working their systems and less time chattering, and increase the quality of trading systems on the C2 site.
I agree with you, and I think this should apply to losing systems also… they should be held to a standard of accountability before being allowed to make the “losers list.” Right now, any system can purposely make a bad trade and lose all its capital, but it takes real talent to not close out a winning trade until it’s gone sour.
this forum is already too quiet. Why restrict the forum from vendors who pay money, when anyone can generate a free account WITHOUT a system and post?
I still think no one should be able to post who is not verified. There has been a history of people creating shill IDs used to falsely defend pump up their system. It is way too easy…
"Why restrict the forum from vendors who pay money, when anyone can generate a free account WITHOUT a system and post?"
I agree.
I’m simply addressing the issue of abuse of the forum. Whether or not a registered member has a system or not , and is paying or not should not mediate whether or not that member can abuse the forum. It’s the proclivity for abuse , and I think system developers with losing systems have a high proclivity. Limiting the developers with losing systems would also limit the abuse by the shills that you mentioned too, unless their systems were good and profitable.
> Limiting the developers with losing systems would also limit the abuse by the shills that you mentioned too, unless their systems were good and profitable.
Thinking along these lines you would have been banned from posting for three months. Right? Moreover if you have a 7K drawdown you will need
to stop posting right?
What would you do with Pal? Some systems way up, some systems way
down.
MK has bigger fish to fry and better ways to spend his time then working on any such inane program.
and if you limit it to systems that beat the Dow, this would be an awfully quiet place
And further, since people can post with any free account, they can pose as someone else, and still say whatever they want in "defense" of their real system
I suggest a cutoff point of say a Collective2 Rating of 750 as the minimum standard. Afterall, what is the use of this rating, if not as a proof of the merit of a trader. Has he not earned the right to post or not to post based on C2’s own rating?
Sort of ironic there Palsun.
Your rating is by virtue of how long ago you established a system, since ratings used to start at 995 (those systems are long gone though, or am I mistaken?).
I wonder if you’d be over 750 if you had to start over? I have no idea, it would be interesting to see. I wonder how you’d feel about it, in that case?
Anyway, these boards are too quiet. As long as the general boards aren’t used for system marketing I don’t see any problem with anyone posting their trading thoughts.
>Your rating is by virtue of how long ago you established a system, since ratings used to start at 995 (those systems are long gone though, or am I mistaken?).
It is my understanding that the ratings seems to based on the performance of one’s latest system.
>wonder if you’d be over 750 if you had to start over?
You bet.
>Anyway, these boards are too quiet. As long as the general boards aren’t used for system marketing I don’t see any problem with anyone posting their trading thoughts.
You are missing the point. It is question of whether they have earned the right to post or not. It is a privlege. It should not be abused. That seems to be also Mr. Raymond Ferreri’s point. Considering that only 20% of the professional money managers manage to beat the S&P 500, I defenitely think that he has earned the right, unlike others.
So, subscribers like me will not have the right to post? Thanks.
And what if I am subscribed to a system of a vendor who is not allowed to post, and I have a question. Would he not be allowed to answer in public?
IMO the function of C2 should be to let the subscribers make a well-informed choice. Censorship does not serve that purpose. Sometimes I read posts on systems boards, sometimes I don’t. I would not appreciate it if C2 interfered with that.
Perhaps I would see that differently if there was a tremendous daily amount of attention-drawing posts. I don’t experience that. If that is ever going to happen, I would rather suggest to confine the posts on the ‘new’ list to posts on the general forums.
If I was in charge, this system would not post
>So, subscribers like me will not have the right to post? Thanks.
I did not say this, nor did I imply this in any way. A subscriber has earned the right to post by subscribing and paying for the subscription to a system(s).
>And what if I am subscribed to a system of a vendor who is not allowed to post, and I have a question. Would he not be allowed to answer in public?
There should not be any restrictions on a system vendors own forum where the vendor (who created the forum) can post at will and also delete posts which are deemed to be offensive to others or to himself. To post in the general collective2 forum, a system vendor has to earn that right by demonstrating his productiveness which would be ideally reflected in the C2 Rating…
>IMO the function of C2 should be to let the subscribers make a well-informed choice. Censorship does not serve that purpose. Sometimes I read posts on systems boards, sometimes I don’t. I would not appreciate it if C2 interfered with that.
All rights rest on the fact that man is a productive being. rights presume that man is a productive being. Rights presume that men can live together without anyone’s sacrifice. If a man merely consumed objects provided in a static quantity by nature, every man would be a potential threat to every other. In such a case, the rule of life would have to be that which governs the lower species: seize what you can before others get it, eat or be eaten, kill or be killed: the law of the jungle.
If one detaches the concept of “rights” from reason and reality, however, then nothing but conflict is possible, and the theory of “rights” self-destructs. Just as bad principles drive out good, so false rights, reflecting bad principles, drive out proper rights - a process running wild today in the proliferation of such self-contradictory verbiage as “collective rights,” “economic rights.” “subscribers rights,” “vendors rifhts,” “fetal rights,” “animal rights.”
“Collective rights” means rights belonging to a group qua group, rights allegedly independent of those possessed by the individual. Thus we hear of the special rights of businessmen, workers, farmers, consumers, the young, the old, the students, the subscribers, the females, the race, the class, the nation, the public. The spokesmen of such groups present demands that violate legitimate rigfhts, either of individuals outside the group and /or those inside it. The demans range from financial favors or special powers to outright slaughter. Like the theory of “economic rights,” all such collectivist variants reflects the ethics of self-sacrifice; all the variants divide men into benefeciaries and servants, masters and slaves, and thus negate the concept of “rights,” substituting for it the principle of mob rule.
A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the “rights” of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement; and are merely the application of these individual rights to a specific undertaking…
A group as such has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. “Individual rights,” in short is a redundancy, albeit a necessary one in today’s intellectual chaos. Only the individual has rights.
I have not seen much of this abuse you are talking about. But I do find the timing of your suggestion interesting, after your system mirrored and underperformed the S&P almost from the beginning and only recently seems to be on a hot streak. I find this ironic that it appears that your post is doing exactly what your suggestion is supposed to prevent; abusing the forum to draw attention to a system.
I think that is just silly to require a profitable system before allowing someone to post to the forum. There were long discussions about Sharpe Ratio, for example. There is no reason that someone with a losing system, or no system for that matter, would have less understanding about the Sharpe Ratio than someone with a winning system, and as such has less to offer to a discussion like that.
What you are saying is that just because someone has a system which is not profitable means they are inferior and their voice does not deserve to be heard and nothing they say can be worthile listening to. Just because someone has a profitable system, give him the right to tell someone he is not allowed to speak because he is not worthy?
And what do you suggest is done when someone has a profitable system and then it blow up like so many on C2? Should C2 delete all the posts from a vendor like that, because now they don’t deserve to be seen anymore?
- Fanus
ha ha ha ha ha… I could not help laughing 
Thank goodness, you are not in charge. Thanks for a good laugh. You have lightened my day.
>And what do you suggest is done when someone has a profitable system and then it blow up like so many on C2? Should C2 delete all the posts from a vendor like that, because now they don’t deserve to be seen anymore?
C2 should preserve the original C2 rating when the post was made along with the post and should update the C2 rating based on its latest value in the latest post accordingly, if the trader is allowed to post currently as evidenced by passing a minimum set standard.
"To post in the general collective2 forum, a system vendor has to earn that right by demonstrating his productiveness which would be ideally reflected in the C2 Rating… "
1) The original post implied NO forum posting, not even his own
2) I see little of the shameless pumping of systems the original poster implied
3) As others said, do we prevent someone from reporting a problem in autotrading forum? A C2 problem affecting his system? Replying to someone’s question?
I believe this whole thread is unnecessary. Censorship is unnecesary. We already get insufficient activity on these forums.
Anyone pumping their systems on the GENERAL forums should be dealt with, as MK has clearly stated this is unacceptable.
"A subscriber has earned the right to post by subscribing and paying for the subscription to a system(s)."
But, as Ross pointed out, a vendor can also be a subscriber. Especially when his system is performing badly he would have all reasons to subscribe to another system.
In the quoted sentence you assume that one can earn the right to post by paying. Vendors pay too.
If a reader thinks that the vendor’s performance is important in weighing his post, he can easily go from the post to the system and judge that for himself.
We can endlessly debate ‘rights’. IMO every man and woman has the natural, born right to speak and there is no need to earn it. If someone is a good trader then he will be rewarded by an increase of his capital and perhaps an increase in the number of subscribers. There is no reason to add artificial rewards to that.
As others said, do we prevent someone from reporting a problem in autotrading forum?
No.
A C2 problem affecting his system?
Report problems link.
Replying to someone’s question?
The question should be posed after using the search function; if the answer is still not available after using the search function, one should use info@collective2.com etc.
>But, as Ross pointed out, a vendor can also be a subscriber. Especially when his system is performing badly he would have all reasons to subscribe to another system.
In this case he has earned that right.
>We can endlessly debate ‘rights’. IMO every man and woman has the natural, born right to speak and there is no need to earn it. If someone is a good trader then he will be rewarded by an increase of his capital and perhaps an increase in the number of subscribers. There is no reason to add artificial rewards to that.
You are missing the point again. Since each man is obliged to be self-sustaining, no one has right to the actions or products of other men (unless he earns that right through a process of voluntary trade). A right is not a claim to assistance or a guarantee of success. If what one seeks involves the activity of other men, it is their right to choose whether to cooperate or not. A man’s rights imposes no duties on others, but only a negative obligation: others may not properly violate his rights.
The right to life is the right to a process of self-preservation; it does not mean that other people must give a person food when he is hungry, medicine when he is sick, or a job when he is unemployed. The right to liberty does not mean that others must satisfy a person’s desires or even agree to deal with him at all. The right to property does not mean the right to be given property by the government, but to produce and thereby earn it. The right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: pursuit is not necessarily attainment. Otherwise, one could claim that his fellows, by withholding their favors are destroying his happiness and thereby infringing his rights. What then would become of their rights?
If rights are defined in rational terms, no conflict is possible between the rights of one individual and those of another. Every man is sovereign. He is absolutely free within the sphere of his own rights, and every man has the same rights; but it does require that this sphere be defined so as to prevent abuse of the rights of man.
