its not as serious as banned, its the slightly less misdemeanor of a warning, & you told me the reason cos you highlighted it in the pm as “Flaming” & then quoted my post:
my post: “Read the links, ignore evrything else - read his comments on ff.com, read others comments on ff.com…bp.com allow the OP to ban ppl from posting. What a crap site, great for fools and foolers.”
i wld have preferred to have pm’d you this response as you suggested, but i did not have permission. do i agree with this warning? well i need further clarification as you didnt bother to specify exactly why:
“3. Disagreements are allowed. Flaming is not. B[B]latant attacks[/B] on any trader are grounds to have you BANNED from the forum. Also, [B]inappropriate language[/B] or subject matter will not be tolerated. That includes [B]foul language[/B], or content of a sexual or discriminatory nature.”
I will split this out for yours & my convenience:
"Blatant attacks on any trader are grounds to have you BANNED"
Not sure if it is this the reason (you didnt go into specifics - but wld have saved some time if you had), but in my defence…I have not attacked a trader & if it was for this i am sure you wld have quoted my prev post where i provided evidence that the OP (a commercial vendor) had lied / deceived & been banned from other trading forums whilst grooming his newbie followers on this site. He is a seller, refuses to admit it, & yet continues to provide dog faeces signals to unbeknowing poor naive/ignorant souls.
“inappropriate language” / "foul language"
english oxford dictionary - [U]‘crap: extremely poor in quality’[/U]
well babypips is a website, not a trader so ‘i guess’ you must discount the above as a violation (an assumption), so lets put the next possible violation into context: your the only trading forum i know who allow the thread starter to ban other members from airing their views, pretty much the antithesis of an ‘open’ forum. Fair enough, ‘flaming’ shld be reported & posts deleted. And having read a lot of great threads on this site i admit my comment should have, like your warning, been more specific. Unfort trading like most business is full of scammers / sellers of goods which are ‘extremely poor in quality’ & i think (so does most industries) its the market places’ right to do as much as it can to protect the customers. Unfort babypips (a potential market) seems to be adamant that an increase in traffic i.e. a scammer / seller of extremely poor quality goods/services outweighs that cheeky little right we call free speech. I guess the 1 scammer = at least x newbies is the business model you prefer as you protect your bottom line. Righto.
But my biggest grievance: that the ‘extremely poor in quality’ euphemism i used is in bp’s opinion more foul than the forum sub topic name ‘holy grail’ when used (tongue firmly out of cheek) in a trading context.
(i sent a message a few days ago re some of the above points via the “contact us” link, no response as yet)