A suggestion to the administration - page 43
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
This follows from the DEFINITION of the moderator and from my internal idea of fairness and freedom of speech:
There you go. Why don't you go there to speak out? And because your spirit is not free there, clamped - either by the rules themselves, or by the APPLICATION of seemingly normal rules.
Of course, the application.
I've been looking for a forum where I could feel normal for a few years. I found it, here it is: mql4.com.
P.S. By the way, I came here... er... with a little scandal. You won't find a trace of it, it's been cleaned up. And it is remembered by those who registered here not later than me, i.e. November 2006.
P.P.S. No legal literacy is required of local public moderators. What is required is the common sense inherent in most normal forumers, and in addition, a tough crackdown on rudeness and outright violation of the Rules.
That's what you think, I understand. But what does your inner notion of fairness and freedom of expression have to do with the rules of this forum?
Directly, no. This is f-o-r-u-m. I am expressing here my understanding of the solution to the well-known problem of this forum, based on my own forum and legal experience.
And for this, I use the freedom of expression provided to me by the legislation of Russia and the USA on the domain mql4.com by MetaQuotes.
.......
1) The initiative to appoint public moderators does not belong to MQ
2) There was no talk of tightening the rules
3) It is the responsibility of the new moderators to curb rudeness and profanity.
4) The duties can just as easily be removed from them as they were given. Moderators are well aware of this, and since they have been given the authority even though they didn't ask for it, having the authority of moderators they have a higher psychological weight in statements than others and won't risk losing that weight by being brutal and vicious.
So it's time to start enjoying the new life on the forum without nastiness and abominations, instead of practicing legal insinuations.
Directly, none.
Those are golden words. And most importantly - to the point.
This is f-o-r-u-m. I am expressing here my understanding of the solution to a well-known problem on this forum, based on my own forum and legal experience.
Please give voice to this well-known problem.
There is a suspicion that you are talking about a different problem from the one that the question was raised by the questioner.
And for this purpose, I use the freedom of expression, provided to me by the legislation of Russia and the USA on the domain mql4.com by MetaQuotes.
Of course, the application.
I've been looking for a forum where I could feel normal for a few years. I found it, here it is: mql4.com.
P.S. By the way, I came here... er... with a little scandal. You won't find a trace of it, it's been cleaned up. And it is remembered by those who registered here no later than me, i.e. November 2006.
P.P.S. No legal literacy is required of local public moderators. What is required is the common sense inherent in most normal forumers, and in addition, a tough crackdown on rudeness and outright violation of the Rules.
If there are visitors who really understand what will lead to the appointment of ordinary forum members as moderators, and as I understand, here by and large this is the question from those who are against. As I wrote earlier I started to search for a new forum (just like Matemat ha-ha) knowing that there would be nothing interesting here and today at the weekend I've come across this one and found http://www.mt5.com/ru/video_news. I found this forum even though it is called MT5 and as they say it has nothing to do with MT. I like this news video.
I think they do not understand what they are trying to achieve. They do not lead to anything in the end. We will be a small circle of people we know well.
Let's be clear: most popular forums die precisely from tightening the rules. I have given examples of the most famous ones.
This forum BEFORE now has not suffered from stricter rules. It was FREE. That is, everyone did (said) what they wanted. This has continued up to the point which in jurisprudence is called the abuse of the right. This means that many forum users began to abuse freedom of speech: for flooding, for self-promotion, for selling their own software. Part of the "blame" for this, or rather a mistake, lies with the owner. Now the owner intends to introduce more extensive moderation on the forum, without restricting moderators' rights and without granting users the right to appeal against moderators' actions. This is a mistake that has been repeated in various variations for 3000+ years in the world legal system.
Personally, I am trying to constructively warn the forum administration against repeating others' mistakes.
Honestly, there has been no tightening up. The work of the moderators is something you don't notice.
You can always appeal. When a post is deleted, the message remains that the post has been deleted. By whom and for what. So I don't understand you. Although you have already broken the rules of the forum more than once with your posts, but no one has deleted your posts. As it is not strange.
Just everyone has the right to speak out, and no one in this will not interfere (unless, of course, these statements are not directed against a particular visitor, that is a member of the forum).
Honestly, there has been no tightening up. You don't even notice the moderators' work.
You can always appeal. When a post is deleted, the message about the post being deleted remains. By whom and for what. So I do not understand you. Although you have already broken the rules of the forum with your posts more than once, but your posts have not been deleted. As it is not strange.
Just everyone has the right to speak out, and no one in this will not interfere (unless, of course, these statements are not directed against a particular visitor, that is a member of the forum).
That's - that's it. Against - he's about to get banned. :-) .
Nobody's going to ban him. You're welcome.