A suggestion to the administration - page 22
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
[...]I don't understand something simple - M explain :)) Who or what allows a moderator to delete or edit posts? Only his conscience? IMHO this is 200% nonsense. I hope you still think about the questions that I'm asking for half a day. Who has the right? Why? Where are the guarantees?
Your question - what to do I will have to ignore - as I don't know the answer.
Only God can give guarantees. Allowed by the Metaquotes, as if you didn't know it yourself. Implicitly recommended by members who joined Uncle Fedor's posts in the spammer thread (i.e. supported him). Explicitly recommended by Mischek in this thread. It all makes sense.
Uncle Fedor is probably thinking about his own moderator's actions today.
And about the question that you anticipated: if you don't know, and something has to be done anyway, then you just have to accept what was proposed. Time will correct the problems.
Mathemat:
Uncle Fedor is probably reflecting on his own moderation today.
All that remains is to accept what is offered. Time will correct the problems.
I don't think so.
But the site owners know better what they want to read on the site and who they want as authors.
And the escalating activity of anonymous bots led to this decision. It can also be reconsidered.
Funny thread, it's been a long time since we've had such a heated debate.
It's so funny to see you arguing here :)))))
It is indicative that the most ardent opponents of the innovations are those who have been repeatedly banned for breaking the rules and registering again.
This is logical - a thief's hat is on fire.
It may as well be revisited.
No way, Mikhail Andreyevich, you will have to revise something or find another snot collector on the internet
Only God can give guarantees. Allowed by the Metaquotes, as if you didn't know it yourself. Implicitly recommended by members who joined Uncle Fedor's posts in the spammer thread (i.e. supported him). Explicitly recommended by Mischek in this thread. All logical.
About Uncle Fedor' s own moderatorial actions today, he's probably pondering right now.
And about the question that you anticipated: if you don't know, and something has to be done anyway, then, then you just have to accept what was proposed. Time will correct the mistakes.
What I mean is, where's the guarantee that one day a moderator won't get the bark on his tail and .... you need a guarantee against that.
There is a principle here - do no harm. I think that in order to have all sorts of topics like sell ... or about loki and stuff like that. We just do not participate in them. Well, those who are interested, let them talk - that's their right. Why deprive them of it? Just so someone doesn't get pissed off? Stupid, don't you think?
I personally believe that it is necessary to limit only offtopiki and flooding, well, mat with insults combined with personalities, such as "and who are you.
If there's no such thing in the thread thread - then alas and ah - the moderator rests. Well, that's how it is. You should ban politics and stuff. That's what should be done. And not to appoint moderators as floodsters - the main trouble with this forum is FLOOD.
No, no way, Mikhail Andreyevich, you will have to revise something or find another snot collector on the Internet.
Your dialogues do not comply with point 1 of the rules.
Stay close to the topic of the thread, Mr. Topicstarter.
No way, Mikhail Andreyevich, you will have to revise something or find another snot collector on the internet
What makes you so sure? I suspect that you need communication - I do not understand one thing, well, there's Skype, there are plenty of all sorts of gadgets. This forum is not a poor man's place. It's no place for someone who doesn't like someone. Alas, if you don't like it, you have to take it. :(
It is indicative that the most ardent opponents of the innovations are those who have been repeatedly banned for breaking the rules and registering again.
This is logical - a thief's hat is on fire.
I don't have a suggestion, but a question:
can public moderators ban or not?