The statement of the obvious, at MFO

catch22

Just my opinion. Interesting.

However, this is an all inclusive statement regarding opinons. @David_Snowball; will you need to legally segregate your monthly commentary or other comments to general discussions?

The new statement just below the categories area:

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

Regards,
Catch

David_Snowball

Hi, catch!

Hard to say. This disclaimer appears only on the discussion board page. I've been wondering if I should include something in the monthly commentary, especially when I don't control the content (e.g., in the Elevator Talks and guest features). Not sure and not sure, even if I did, whether it offers any legal traction. I'll ask around.

Morningstar, by the way, has a disclaimer for their discussions which allows that the conversations are "for entertainment purposes only." I wonder if we should create new "roles" when people sign up. Instead of just "moderator" and "member," we could tag moderators, members, entertainers ("the content of this post is likely laughable"), curmudgeons ("this post was written amidst mumbling about 'scalawags' and 'humbugs'"), sages ("the best stuffing incorporates sage, accordingly the author suggests you stuff it") ...

In pursuit of constant improvement,

David

catch22

@David_Snowball

You noted some very good examples of a modern "hold harmless agreement".

Well, I am not an attorney; nor do I portray one here or within any other media format.

The new statement caused me to consider the possibilites of MFO becoming a legal entity. But, this event would have its own legal considerations, aside from the "new statement".

Enjoy the remainder of your weekend and the outdoor warmth.

Catch

David_Snowball

Thanks, catch!

hank

I still like Twain's disclaimer better:

“Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.
BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR
per
G.G., CHIEF OF ORDNANCE”

― Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huck Finn

heezsafe

I was unaware The Mutual Fund Observer was anything but an "it." Does this mean The MFO has been granted person-hood? When, if ever, can we expect him/her to break the long silence and finally express an opinion about something? So many questions. Mysterious.

@David_Snowball
As to the "role-playing" idea, I should think it would be better to have MFOers designate their role not when they sign up or sign in but when they post a new discussion, since some here have the facility/desire to wear a different hat from time to time. Between choosing the category and making a title, you would create Role with adjacent thin window with drop-down menu, where the poster would choose his/her role for the purpose of that post.
Since some roles (curmudgeon, provocateur/gadfly, and the like) would be more likely to express comments that would engender "hurt feelings," chip and Accipter could provide a feature to the "Save Comment" process for particular role-players, whereby those with hurt feelings are directed by automatically appended linkage to a place for consolation.

Here is an example (with an Iowa theme, "coincidentally"), written by Scott Greenfield on his blog Simple Justice, that demonstrates how this can be done:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/28/youre-ugly-and-you-dress-funny-too/
Although Scott values respect and civility as much as MFO does, he also realizes-- as a Bostonian, let alone criminal defense attorney-- it just isn't in his DNA to massage blog entries so that feelings will never ever be boo-hoo hurt. So, if this should happen, rough-and-tumble Scott provides a blue button, on the right side of every page, which provoked readers can click for assistance (do try it yourself--- the result is pleasurable).
[obviously, I'm just Sunday (a)musing here. Time for bed. Bye.]

davidrmoran

Smart, brief, clear, and unimprovable in tone.

I myself might add something about encouraging fairmindedness, substantiation, and assumption of good faith, also put 'strongly' in front of 'encourage'; but then I tend to the wordier.

LLJB

I think this is a great idea!! I think it is so great I want to put a "blue button" in the hallway with a sign below it that reads "Understanding that I love you and respect you more than words can describe, I will never be perfect with my word choice, neither do I have any hope of reliably guessing your emotional state nor your reaction to mine. Therefore, anytime you're offended or disturbed by anything I say, you can push the blue button, but do so at your own risk". I just have to decide whether the result of pushing the button should be funny, consoling, romantic or possibly even more offensive. Maybe it should rotate so its a surprise. (Hopefully this is my entertaining side).

davidrmoran

Many here may know Ritholtz's charming (also perfect in its way) request:

\\\ Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things ... neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

David_Snowball

Hi, guys.

We're open to tweaking the text. I'm under a fair amount of pressure from folks with "J.D." after their names to take "certain sensible, conventional precautions" as our visibility grows. It's new stuff to think about.

David