A suggestion to the administration - page 42
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
No comment.
Here is the level of discussion and the refinement of logic.
Characteristically inherent in all freedom fighters.
Well done.
You, baby, have piled up a lot of questions for me (above). I will allow myself to leave them unanswered for the following reasons:
- most of them are either rhetorical or legal.
- You use a method of argument which I personally call "circum-Talmudic": that is, you cut your interlocutor's statements into separate sentences, overlay each of them with rhetorical questions, pick on the author's semantics, that is, the concrete definition of some words (and all words in all languages have many meanings), thus trying to blur the author's thought, to belittle the interlocutor. That is, you dissipate the internal logic of the paragraph of other people's statements by applying packs of seemingly "logical" but completely useless questions.- I usually charge (a small fee) for legal advice. You would be able to find all the answers yourself on legal websites, but it will take you some time. The exception is sometimes friends and girlfriends.
- I could make an exception for you, and elaborate on EVERY suggestion and question you make, despite their demagogy, but ... You are not my girlfriend (boo-ha-ha, at least for now).
I had to do it for the judicial defence of figuratively speaking "girlfriends" (until that very famous Ukrainian website pravda.com.ua became specifically orange-nazi). And on the side of the accuser in defamation was a group headed by an honoured lawyer of Ukraine:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/4b1aad9e4541b/ (partly in Ukrainian dialect). The case ended up with nothing.
You see, all such tricks may work on forums, but in the REAL COURT .... Real judges don't like this kind of chatter and demagogy.
Why am I saying that although RomanS is partly right - this forum is virtual and there are official accusations of insult and slander ("spreading defamatory information about ... anonymous nickname") cannot be brought against anyone, but for the sake of order - the rules of this forum SHOULD be as similar as possible to those of the real world, with clear criteria for "libel", "flooding" and the like, and an open or semi-open appeals procedure.
You, baby, have piled a lot of questions for me (above). I will allow myself to leave them unanswered for the following reasons:
- most of them are either rhetorical or legal.
- You use a method of argument which I personally call "circum-Talmudic": that is, you cut your interlocutor's statements into separate sentences, overlay each of them with rhetorical questions, pick on the author's semantics, that is, the concrete definition of some words (and all words in all languages have many meanings), thus trying to blur the author's thought, to belittle the interlocutor. That is, you dissipate the internal logic of the paragraph of other people's statements by applying packs of seemingly "logical", but completely useless questions.- I usually charge (a small fee) for legal advice. You could find all the answers yourself on legal websites, but it would take you some time. The exception is sometimes friends and girlfriends.
- I could make an exception for you, and elaborate on EVERY suggestion and question you make, despite their demagogy, but ... You are not my girlfriend (boo-ha-ha, at least for now).
I had to do it for the judicial defence of figuratively speaking "girlfriends" (until that very famous Ukrainian website pravda.com.ua became specifically orange-nazi). And on the side of the accuser in defamation was a group headed by an honoured lawyer of Ukraine:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/4b1aad9e4541b/ (partly in Ukrainian dialect). The case ended up with nothing.
You see, all such tricks may work on forums, but in the REAL COURT .... Real judges do not like this kind of chatter and demagogy.
Why am I saying that although RomanS is partly right - this forum is virtual and there are official accusations of insult and slander ("spreading defamatory information about ... anonymous nickname") cannot be brought against anyone, but for the sake of order - the rules of this forum SHOULD be as similar as possible to those of the real world, with clear criteria for "libel", "flooding" and the like, and an open or semi-open appeals procedure.
No comment.
Here's the level of discussion, the refinement of logic and wording.
Which is characteristic of all freedom fighters.
Well done.
The main element of discipline is not moderating, but rather the creation of clear rules of conduct with an extremely clear list of prohibited actions, as well as the CLASSIFICATION of topics, which is completely absent in MQL4 forum (MetaQuotes' mistake).
AlexEro, as a "somewhat lawyer" you should also understand that no amount of precisely defined rules of conduct is a guarantee of their violation. The RF Criminal Code has long since become a set of documents which the average person without a legal education is unable to digest and interpret correctly without the help of a professional.
The current Forum Rules are clear and concise enough to understand, on a simple level, what can and cannot be done. These are the same rules for regular human interaction, but augmented with a few specific rules of the host of the resource.
The vast majority of visitors (though not all) abide by these rules. For those who violate them, there are various forms of influence - from telling a forum member to edit a post, to the most severe, banning. Moderating, alas, is necessary - if only because not everyone reads these rules carefully when registering.
About the classification of topics: there is a movement, the five forum is well on its way to this. Fourth, probably requires a significant redesign of the forum engine.
The procedure for appealing to the forum admin against the actions of moderators has not been worked out and spelled out. Personally, as a lawyer to some extent, I see obvious holes that moderators will stumble upon that will lead to unfairness on this forum. As a consequence creative thought will suffer. I can think of a dozen useful threads on this forum that MIGHT have been cut or slaughtered by "moderators" on the basis of "oh, that's rubbish. Everyone knows it isn't".
1. The appeal procedure is probably still to be written - if it doesn't exist. We'll speculate and probably do it soon, as soon as we agree.
2. The point I highlighted should not be the leading consideration in moderating and sweeping. If someone proves that two times two is five, I know that's not true, but that's no reason to ban the person. If I see that it's blatant flubbing and sophistry aimed at taking the thread off topic, I'll probably still try to do something about it - warn the forum member or just mop up the flubbing.
But the only thing that should remain necessary is to check posts or threads for compliance with the Forum Rules.
MetaQuotes wants its product to be considered a "pro"? Well, let them approach the forum with a pro approach. This forum is an essential part of the promotion and life of their products and MQ, has not yet got rid of the illusion of understanding the forum as an "imposed add-on" that it once expressed here.
I'm not aware of that, but a link would be better, AlexEro. And the current activity is clearly not in line with the understanding of the forum as an unnecessary add-on. Rather the opposite.
I'm not aware of this, but a link would be better, AlexEro. And the current activity is clearly not in line with the understanding of the forum as an unnecessary add-on. It's more like the opposite.
More than a year ago, MetaQuotes said that it spends money on traffic and there is nothing to complain about a free forum for a free product. That was an arrogant thing to say. And just like now I told MQ that the forum is at least an essential part of marketing. You can find the link yourself.
And then finally after N+1 months MetaQuotes started to get it, especially in the run-up to the MT5 release, when an influx of new users and heaps of new questions are expected.
This forum is probably the LAST of the popular forums with no classification of forum topics and themes, no moderator-admin moderation hierarchy .
I agree, yes, now MetaQuotes has started, but the firm is cruelly mistaken if it hopes THEN (when the forum is cluttered with useless topics and statements) to correct the matter with HARD RULES. As an example I can bring up the GREATEST forum of Protodeacon Andrey Kuraev, when at first the moderators did what they liked, according to the rules of the forum it was practically impossible to complain against them, and then all this developed into a conflict of Kuraev himself with the moderators, and ... These moderators ALL themselves left the forum, including the administrator. By the way, it was the second time - at first Kurayev had the same story on the forum, which is now called sitota.ru. Similarly with the forum of Spider on trading and forex - there Paul banned everyone who did not like the backbone of the old guys (sponsors). So what is it now? All that's left are the same old puffer buddies without a single new thought. The same can be said about the creative photography forum club.foto.ru. The same story with tightening of rules was (not just once) on largest American forum of pro-traders, investors and economists all over the world community.marketwatch.com - the last tightening of rules there ended with a BIG "Goodbye favorite forum, all good things come to an end sometime" - by most serious participants, and sometimes VERY, VERY informed, information from which you can not get and read anywhere else, and if you do, it will take you years to find. That's what forums in general are good for.
So they are not forums, but degenerated into some kind of get-togethers of moderators. Need more examples?
Free creative thought loves freedom, which includes a certain amount of flooding, squabbling and philosophising. The question is whether the forum owner will be able to work out and the moderators stick to the rules and criteria that everyone understands.
This forum is probably the LAST of the popular forums with no classification of forum topics and themes, no moderator-admin moderation hierarchy .
Oddly enough, the forum engine has little to do with its popularity and credibility. There is such a forum of waveformers - fxo3 (hung out there for a while somewhere in 2003-2005). It was even more spartan and unstructured than our foursome. It lived and developed, there were brilliant personalities there (for example, sir Jar Pyramidych //\\\, one of the apostles of the Wave Principle in runet alone), and among the traders' forums it was probably the most authoritative (it was founded around 1998 or even earlier).
But it all ended when they changed the engine and made a structured forum. Now it is almost dead. I do not know the reason and it is unlikely it has to do with forum structuring. But it's a fact that structuring it didn't help at all...
So that grandma said two words, is there a point in starting this very structure - with a core of old men and the rest of the more or less active participants who are satisfied with the current structure.
Similarly with the forum Spider trading and forex - there Paul banned all who do not like the backbone of old (sponsors). So what is it now? All that's left is these same old puffer buddies without a single new thought. That is, they are no longer forums, but have degenerated into some kind of get-togethers of moderators.
I rarely go there now, except for some literature. It used to be a good forum, but I can't say anything now.
Free creative thought likes freedom which includes a certain amount of flooding, squabbling and philosophizing. The question is whether the forum owner will be able to work out, and the moderators to adhere to, the rules and criteria that everyone understands.
Yes, I agree with you there. The main thing - do no harm by overzealousness in following the letter of the Rules. But it can't be written in the rules, right?
Mathemat:
So grandma said twice about whether there is a sense to start this very structuring - with a core of old-timers and other more or less active participants who are satisfied with the present structure.
That's where you're getting it wrong. It's like rhetorically asking "do we need structural programming"?
After all, in MQL4-5 there is a clear description structure (even in the textbook and in the manual), there is a structure of interaction between blocks and sub-programs, there is a hierarchy of data: variables, arrays, and now also structures? There's also an informal structure in the methods of thechanalysis, there's entry level maths and then there's the hi-end.
This forum just *must* have a classifier of topics and themes - at least according to the language description and the level of commonly-occurring problems.
Mathemat:
I rarely go there now, except for some literature. It was a good forum, but I can't say anything now.
There you go. Why don't you go there to speak out? Because your spirit is not free there, trapped - either by the rules themselves, or by the APPLICATION of seemingly normal rules.
"The spirit walks where it pleases."
(C) Him.
AlexEro:
As an example I can bring up the BIG famous forum of Protodeacon Andrey Kuraev, when at first the moderators did whatever they wanted and it was practically impossible to complain against them by the forum rules, and then it all developed into a conflict between Kuraev himself and the moderators, and .
So they are no longer forums, but have degenerated into some kind of get-togethers of moderators. Need more examples?
Free creative thought loves freedom, which includes a certain amount of flooding, and squabbling, and aloof philosophizing. The question is whether the owner of the forum will be able to work out and moderators stick to rules and criteria everyone understands.
I remember that even Swinosaurus got a little nervous, and he gave up appearing here for this very reason. The administration does not care about the appearance of such cadres. The only thing they paid attention to was spam. On the contrary, I'm glad that this forum has finally become self-governing.
AlexEro, I don't think you'll mind if a post with foul language or open insults between two or three forum members will be deleted by the public moderators? And having a strong word in posts is not an initiation into some mystery of the great hidden thought in forex.
I think you exaggerate the role and consequence of having moderators on the forums. No one is going to throw a spanner in anyone's wheel. And someone's "smart" thoughts to banish either.
But the forum has to be clean. And thank God there are people who have agreed to do this work.
AlexEro, I don't suppose you'd mind if a post with foul language or open insults between two or three forumers was deleted by the public moderators? And the presence of strong language in posts is not an initiation into some mystery of the great hidden thought in forex.
Of course, NO, I won't mind. Will they (the moderators) be able to ? We have just seen Sweeten completely misinterpret (in a legal sense) my words in relation to SProgrammer and call me bad words (I immediately forgave her for that). Will the moderators be able to cope with this sometimes scrupulous JUDICIAL task - who is right and who is wrong? In order to do so, they need to put up a VERY detailed, legally correct list of acts with definitions.
I think the MQ firm doesn't quite understand that
(a) calm, poised, legally savvy moderators are a good thing,
(b) BUT, BUT! Behind every unjustly cut by a moderator will be an "offended" person, who then won't come here again.
(If you are an anti-money laundering whore, and you do not know how to make a profit, you cannot be an anti-money laundering trader, and you cannot be an anti-money laundering trader.)
One thing I can't understand - who told you that moderators would handle scrupulous judging tasks? Have you at all understood what exactly the moderators' tasks are?
This follows from the DEFINITION of the moderator and from my inner notion of fairness and freedom of speech:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80
Moderator (from Latin moderor - moderate, moderate) - a user who has more rights than ordinary users on public network resources(chat rooms, forums, echoconferences), in particular at least one of the rights:
The exact list of moderator's powers and duties varies from site to site. Most frequently, the moderator is responsible for ensuring that users follow the site's rules.
Types of Moderation
Moderation can be accomplished in several ways:
- Advantages:
content and quality of the resource is under control; no vandalism or "rubbish" information - "contamination" of the resource is only possible due to technical problems allowing an intruder to publish messages bypassing the moderator.- Disadvantages:
Low timeliness - posts appear in the public domain only after verification; subjectivity - a moderator can refuse to publish a post based on his or her own subjective judgment of the information posted or the participant.- Advantages:
responsiveness - all posts are made available to the public as soon as they are published.- Disadvantages:
Possibility of flooding, spamming and vandalism; the need for a moderator to be present at all times.- Advantages:
responsiveness - all posts appear immediately after publication; there is no subjectivity of the moderator (one person or group of people).- Disadvantages:
need for additional software to allow filtering and voting; possibility of bypassing automatic rules; possibility of flash mobs - "minus" or "plus" individual participants and posts.Forum moderator
A forum moderator is appointed by the forum administrator. A forum usually has more than one moderator.
A moderator is assigned to an entire forum or to some forum sections. Within their own forum, a moderator usually has the right to:
In some forums, moderators have only a fraction of these rights. But the right to delete posts and/or threads is mandatory; someone without this right is not, by definition, a forum moderator. On some forums anyone can see IP addresses.
A forum moderator (unless they are also an administrator) generally should not have the authority to moderate others or delegate their authority.
Unlawful actions by a moderator may be reported to an administrator. However, some administrators will ignore such complaints or automatically support the moderator on the basis that "moderators are always right". There is usually no one to complain about the actions of a forum administrator (you can only leave the forum).