Review Moderation or Kindergarten?

[AsstModerator]

The FPA has some standards for content of reviews. I try to get my moderators to edit out the profanity. Anything really over the top doesn't get approved.

Many companies want negative reviews and forums posts taken down. Removal is a rare thing and is covered here...

https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/comm...sts-at-the-forex-peace-army-be-removed.42569/

One reason I wrote that FAQ item was to reduce a certain type of complaint from companies. It can be summarized as "WAAAHHH!!!! Bad reviewer said something that hurt my feelings! Make the bad review go away!"

I'm trying to run a useful site for forex investors, not a kindergarten. Sometimes factual reviews hurt. Sometimes a reviewer misunderstands, exaggerates, or even lies. That's why I had the programmers set up a way for companies to submit comments which tie directly to reviews. This way both sides get their say. The FPA also does mediation for free.

Recently, an inoffensive negative review came in. The company asked the FPA to investigate and remove the review. The request wasn't based on what the reviewer posted. Instead it was because the reviewer had used some very harsh and offensive language in a private email. I read the email. It really was vile and offensive. The reviewer admitted to sending an offensive email because he was very angry. If what was in the email had come in as a review, it would not have been approved. If what was in the email had been posted in the forums, I'd have banned the user and deleted or edited the post. Instead, the review was written in perfectly acceptable language.

Here's were I want your input in drawing the line.

Pretend you are a client of a company. You and the company get into a heated disagreement. In a private email, chat, or phone call to the company, you lose your temper and say something untrue and deeply offensive. Later, you calm down and submit a simple negative review.

Should I...

a. Punish you for being a bad person by never letting you leave any review for the company.

b. Make your review sit in a corner and only approve it later.

c. Make you report to FPA HQ for a spanking before approving your review.

d. Tell the company that FPA review moderation is not part of kindergarten.


I hope most people pick choice d. Otherwise, I'll have companies sending me hundreds of emails with things ranging from "I don't like your company." to "I'm going to desecrate your mother's grave." as proof that the reviewer has been a bad person and shouldn't ever be allowed to post reviews.

 

[AsstModerator]

If anyone thinks choices b and c aren't creative enough, please go ahead and offer suggestions.

 

[XLena]

This is a "good company" that provides false information? Why not start with yourself and honestly specify all their data. And just return the "bad people", "bad money".

AsstModerator Note: To the best of my knowledge, the info the company provided about the angry email received is reasonably accurate. I do not have the reviewer's permission to repost the email he sent to the company, and the contents of that email are not something I want posted at the FPA.

 

[doctorcomputador01]

To be trader you must be 18 year or older , the trader put a complaint in FPA using acceptable language , in the phone he can say what he want. Here the most important is if the broker is transparent and honest , not is the client is a priest or a mobster.

 

[mparama]

I think that what ever happens, concerning private email, outside the FPA between traders and companies should not involve FPA as there would be cases when traders are rude with the companies and viceversa companies that are rude with traders and should be very hard for FPA to manage it. What should really matter for FPA, for the "Open Cases" is to get all the tecnical documentations from traders and companies to solve disputes and not enter into the field of private mail echange.
Different is the case when on this site are used offensive tones, in this case FPA should stop it and decide what to do.
For me definitely pick choice is "d"

 

[goldencookie001]

Brokers should be legally bound to NOT disclose private communications with clients. That being said FPA should strive to keep everything relevant. The facts about how a broker dealt with a client, how an EA performed, etc.... are relevant. Whether or not the client cursed in a fit of rage, smashed his computer keyboard, or went out bar hopping that night looking for fights are not relevant. Only the facts man!

 

[mavhacii]

The private communication should not be FPA's issue. In private communication, trader or company might say something out of frustration. What matters is the limit of operation(trading) is done within the correct boundary. If client provided negative review within FPA's approval range, then the company should counter it with proper details (facts & figure). I'll go (d).

 

[ditabi21]

FPA does a great job in exposing these miserable thieving forex scammers..

The people who work for and run these scam companies are the scum if the earth. Miserable a*holes that prey on good hard working people.

I have good reason to believe that u-nex global solutions SRL and associated companies such as zurichprime are prime examples of such scam thieving so called forex scammers..

They hide away in obscure countries and claim many customers. Use false broker names, do not offer demo versions..

Give false dealing signals in order to deplete your account then aggressively demand more deposit in order to rectify their mistakes..
I wish more could be done to stop these filthy scammers..

 

[MarkNZ]

This is an interesting question. We all do our best to be as unbiased as possible in any analysis of a dispute and consider the facts placed in front of us that pertain to the dispute.

If something goes to FPA court for a vote and an FPA member has sent a vile communication to a company as part of the dispute, i'd want to have it as part of the consideration as it might answer why a company has dug its heals in.

If it was simply a company getting upset as a private (albeit truly nasty) email from a client, but the client then posted a review that was acceptable to FPA posting rules then that is not FPA's problem, let them sort it out for themselves.

I have voted "D" as the good team at FPA are not "Mothers" to the world wiping snotty noses and sorting tantrums. FPA is asked to, and do their best to, fulfill reviews of the facts placed in front of them that are facts, not tantrums!

now.... should this have come to FPA as part of a dispute that FPA would vote on to determine whether a company should be voted as a scam etc...
If some of that evidence shows that a company has sent a communication to the client that is truly vile and foul, we would take that into account in our "guilty/not guilty" decision as we would expect a company to never act like that as it must at all times offer a professional service which includes all of its communications.
Should a company receive a vile communication from a client as part of their interaction with them, the question then remains, should we also offer the same negative view of this that we most certainly would have if the company had been the party sending out a vile email?
If I was a head of a company and I received as part of an ongoing dispute a message from the complainant that they would (purely as an example) "murder all my family" or threaten my children, that would sway me as a company to help my client less.

Assistant Moderator I can see why you have placed this before us as a situation to consider. It should be an easy one but sometimes it is not. But, as the situation is currently only a negative review and not a vote of any guilt pertaining to a transaction, the answer to how FPA should handle it is definitely "D"

 

[FreddieC]

Thanks for the opportunity to vote!