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.
The site is called Mutual Fund Observer, not Political Observer. The other alternative is to stop visiting the site and find another investment forum. There are plenty out there.
Correct. There are cases when politics does affect investments but those should be policy discussions with the direct connection rather than the bickering and personal sniping we have now. I would favor the no politics solution.
Ditto me No politics, unless it has a direct impact on investing. People can discuss their ideas about the impact of politics on the markets etc but let us not discuss our personal political opinions
Hey, eliminate OT category. That's easier. Can't keep it and nitpick what is OT and what is not. We all have our pet peeves about which OT posts we like and don't like.
A few thoughts: Generally, guidance on appropriate posts on a website comes from the top. As Professor Snowball seems to prefer leading by example rather than by issuing a set of guidelines, it is up to posters to guard their own speech. Basic questions I have found helpful on other sites: 1. Does your post contribute in a positive way? 2. Does your contribution encourage others to visit the site or turn them away?
The rise in ad hominem/ad feminam attacks (I include here telling people to "chill out" or "get lost") and the usual weekend spray getting started routinely by Wednesday I find more than disheartening.
Quite a bit of the language that appears on the Discussion board is more suitable to a private forum -- say, your living room -- than a public one. You can disagree without being disagreeable. It is not necessary to respond to people you disagree with. You can walk away. Fighting with strangers on the Internet is the least valuable use of time.
The OT section of the Discussion forum, to my mind, should be used very sparingly, not as a default for "whatever I feel like posting."
Finally, the spurious claim that "politics is connected to everything, so we must discuss politics without end" is nicely countered by a stronger claim: more central to life is energy. That does not mean that license is thereby given to turn MFO into a food forum with a nonstop discussion of brownies and BBQ.
MFO would be well served by having an active moderator ready to wield Roy's big eraser. Those from the FundAlarm days will recognize the reference. In the meantime, it is up to individual posters to guard their own speech.
To the topic of the thread, OT discussions and the blocking thereof, I would favor a moratorium of, say, 6 months, with a careful reintroduction (if it seems necessary), accompanied by real and actual posting guidelines.
For the major brawlers will not guard their own speech. We have seen that. And OT has been abused. And the site has suffered for it.
Feh. It's tough. This is an investing website with discussions revolving around investing. Primarily mutual funds and ETFs, but also stocks and other instruments on the Off Topic board.
Politics are very often going to impact our investment decisions. Nature of the beast, what. We just need to do our best to stay on topic and not drift when we discuss it.
That's been particularly hard over the past year due to the polarity in the nation. A lot of emotions are very raw.
Talking politics makes few converts; it does make many enemies. In the spirit of Charlie Ellis, it is a Loser's Game.
Winning at this Loaer's Game would be to talk about the influence of political decisions on the marketplace without praising or denigrating the political parties that proposed these priorities. The blame game is never easy to assign without controversy, and also falls into the Loser's category.
Imperfect government policies happen regardless of their origin. So we collect data, and modify our rules of engagement accordingly. That's the nature of politics, the nature of the marketplace, and the nature of just about every decision we make as individuals.
Politics does have an impact on investment decisions. If government enthusiastic spending causes an increase in the inflation rate, the FED will increase interest rates. An increase in basic interest rates will have a ripple affect on business decisions. Business leaders will have less money to commit to expansion projects. In general, with some sector exceptions, prices will suffer in the overall equity marketplace. Markets anticipate and react quickly to perceived events.
Inserting polarizing comments on MFO is yet another Loser's Game because it wastes both time and space. Derogatory comments immediately are an unnecessary source of conflict that lessens the investment value of the exchange.
It wastes the submitters time during its creation, and it wastes the readers time when he is forced to recognize its non-informative character. It wastes space by disrupting the smooth flow of constructive exchange that is encouraged on this website.
What the posters of belligerent commentary fail to recognize is that it lowers their reputation as fair investment information contributors. They are playing the Loser's Game on MFO.
@Edmond- Hey, I realize that we don't see everything eye-to-eye, but I appreciate your ability to see things from different perspectives without throwing hand grenades. I prefer to not to initiate contentious discussions, but if someone else starts, then I'm certainly going to fight back.
I'll repeat: people on this board tend to say a post is "too political" when it is political belief they personally disagree with. When the political point is something they approve of, they either say nothing or voice their agreement. Even in the examples Ted posted on another thread about Morningstar posters commenting about MFO's so-called politicization, those same Morningstar posters have made their own conservative anti-Climate Change political statements in threads like "Greens: Making It Up." socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/372089/3819652.aspx#3819652 They are also having their own debate about Obamacare right now: socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/372330/3822110.aspx#3822110 I think censorship is never the answer.
"I'll repeat: people on this board tend to say a post is "too political" when it is political belief they personally disagree with."
@LewisBraham- Yes, that's exactly my take also. These very same people have no qualms about starting a contentious discussion, but then take great exception when others respond with a different perspective, or worse yet, actual facts.
@MFO Members: David has set the guidelines in his "ruthless moderation" post. Any MFO Member should not have any trouble following them ! The Guidelines Are: The "Off-Topic" board is designed to allow members to raise and discuss issues of personal finance and economics which directly bear on the performance of their mutual fund portfolios, as well as to issues that relate to investment analysts and journalists. Outside of those narrow confines, topics related to politics are inappropriate. Regards, Ted
I didn't say I was. That is your perception. In that regard peer pressure will not work here as one person's reasons for calling a poster on their comment may not be reasonable.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
Take These Political Subjects Here:
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites
Correct. There are cases when politics does affect investments but those should be policy discussions with the direct connection rather than the bickering and personal sniping we have now. I would favor the no politics solution.
>> These types of political discussions belong on social media websites, not a mutual fund forum !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Regards, Ted
Dude, dude, next time don't originate threads of your very own about the so-called "president's" speech. I mean, why are you and others whining now??
A: Because they are great at starting these things but resent being confronted with either real facts or differing opinions.
Basic questions I have found helpful on other sites:
1. Does your post contribute in a positive way?
2. Does your contribution encourage others to visit the site or turn them away?
The rise in ad hominem/ad feminam attacks (I include here telling people to "chill out" or "get lost") and the usual weekend spray getting started routinely by Wednesday I find more than disheartening.
Quite a bit of the language that appears on the Discussion board is more suitable to a private forum -- say, your living room -- than a public one. You can disagree without being disagreeable. It is not necessary to respond to people you disagree with. You can walk away. Fighting with strangers on the Internet is the least valuable use of time.
The OT section of the Discussion forum, to my mind, should be used very sparingly, not as a default for "whatever I feel like posting."
Finally, the spurious claim that "politics is connected to everything, so we must discuss politics without end" is nicely countered by a stronger claim: more central to life is energy. That does not mean that license is thereby given to turn MFO into a food forum with a nonstop discussion of brownies and BBQ.
MFO would be well served by having an active moderator ready to wield Roy's big eraser. Those from the FundAlarm days will recognize the reference. In the meantime, it is up to individual posters to guard their own speech.
For the major brawlers will not guard their own speech. We have seen that. And OT has been abused. And the site has suffered for it.
Feh. It's tough. This is an investing website with discussions revolving around investing. Primarily mutual funds and ETFs, but also stocks and other instruments on the Off Topic board.
Politics are very often going to impact our investment decisions. Nature of the beast, what. We just need to do our best to stay on topic and not drift when we discuss it.
That's been particularly hard over the past year due to the polarity in the nation. A lot of emotions are very raw.
I do not want to be a moderator.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
Talking politics makes few converts; it does make many enemies. In the spirit of Charlie Ellis, it is a Loser's Game.
Winning at this Loaer's Game would be to talk about the influence of political decisions on the marketplace without praising or denigrating the political parties that proposed these priorities. The blame game is never easy to assign without controversy, and also falls into the Loser's category.
Imperfect government policies happen regardless of their origin. So we collect data, and modify our rules of engagement accordingly. That's the nature of politics, the nature of the marketplace, and the nature of just about every decision we make as individuals.
Politics does have an impact on investment decisions. If government enthusiastic spending causes an increase in the inflation rate, the FED will increase interest rates. An increase in basic interest rates will have a ripple affect on business decisions. Business leaders will have less money to commit to expansion projects. In general, with some sector exceptions, prices will suffer in the overall equity marketplace. Markets anticipate and react quickly to perceived events.
Inserting polarizing comments on MFO is yet another Loser's Game because it wastes both time and space. Derogatory comments immediately are an unnecessary source of conflict that lessens the investment value of the exchange.
It wastes the submitters time during its creation, and it wastes the readers time when he is forced to recognize its non-informative character. It wastes space by disrupting the smooth flow of constructive exchange that is encouraged on this website.
What the posters of belligerent commentary fail to recognize is that it lowers their reputation as fair investment information contributors. They are playing the Loser's Game on MFO.
Best Wishes
(JC - I hope you reconsidered and started using your Amazon/MFO link again.)
I think censorship is never the answer.
@LewisBraham- Yes, that's exactly my take also. These very same people have no qualms about starting a contentious discussion, but then take great exception when others respond with a different perspective, or worse yet, actual facts.
The Guidelines Are:
The "Off-Topic" board is designed to allow members to raise and discuss issues of personal finance and economics which directly bear on the performance of their mutual fund portfolios, as well as to issues that relate to investment analysts and journalists. Outside of those narrow confines, topics related to politics are inappropriate.
Regards,
Ted
Thank you, sir. Well said!
Regards- OJ
Regards,
Ted