I received the following PM that raises a very good point which I want to address here in light of recent posts:
xxxxxxxx wrote on 09-19-03 08:16 PM:
I have a procedural question... regarding the policy of no pay, no advertising.
I agree that Baron should be compensated, etc. What strikes me as a conundrum is how does a firm defend itself from posters who attack them. In an open forum, shouldn't they be able to give their side of the story without paying or is this site saying that a firm can't defend itself without paying up? (I am not refering specifically to the current situation in [this] thread, it is simply what raised the question in my mind.)
Their are so many hidden agendas here that who knows when a post is negative about a firm what the reason for the post or if there is an ulterior motive? As a member and reader here I hope that the playing field is at least level. Just like in trading all I want is a fair shake, not preferential treatment.
In short, how does a firm defend itself, give their side of the story, "set the record straight", etc. without being considered spam? I suggest it's quite possible, as long as the respondent is sensitive to the
no free advertising mandate, quickly and without fanfare rebuts any false information,
and stops right there. No little plugs for his company, no telling of new "features" of the firm, no payout specs, no claims of BEST IN THE INDUSTRY, etc. etc. Yes, it requires discipline and restraint as the temptation is huge to use every such opportunity to make a plug, even if one of the intentions of those plugs is to just "help other traders".
Is this all 100% clear-cut? No, it's a judgment call on my part but I've been doing this for quite awhile and have a nose for these things. And I prefer to err on the side of caution when in doubt. Given changing times and evolving community standards the Supreme Court, in their "definition" of pornography, said they can't say exactly what it is, but they know it when they see it. In the same vein, I know spam when I see it, and my previous post quoted
many instances of such. I allowed those to stand, although a strong argument could be made that I should have removed them all, but I was bending over backwards, trying to give trader12345 every benefit of the doubt. Finally, enough was enough.