[BluffTHIS!]

Phil,

The issue I raised doesn't have to do with whether individuals or companies are competing directly with 2+2 or not per se, but rather whether they are getting a free ride instead of being required to pay for advertising on the site, either directly or via sponsoring forums. Rakeback affiliates don't compete directly with 2+2 either, but they are not allowed to discuss their business directly or have posters do it for them, except in a paid context. Is there a reason why those coaches and coaching sites should be treated differently? It's not money out of my pocket, but it is for 2+2.

Also note your statement, "these sites whilst being miles better than 99% of books on the market". While that is your opinion, and possibly a correct one, its validity can't really be judged easily when the strategy advice in question isn't more readily (i.e. cheaply) available so that it can be more fully reviewed and critiqued. Look at all the books that have correctly been trashed on 2+2 over the past years for their inaccurate strategy advice. And then imagine that one of those authors instead of selling print material in a single book or article form, instead provided same via a subscription format only at much more than the cost of a book. And then that posters here touted that service. That erroneous would be getting both free advertising here, and a free ride for the most part from serious review and criticism. I don't mean to imply that the sites you mention are providing erroneous advice, but simply that in addition to getting free advertising here on 2+2 that affiliates are required to pay for, they also are providing their services in a way, calculated or not, to be mostly free from critical review, and on a site dedicated to touting only correct strategy advice.