It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
And, along with that, a statement of parameters for the "off-topic" board. Perhaps:This site has always been lightly moderated thanks to all of you. We'd really like to keep it that way so before hitting the reply or submit button I would like to ask everyone to think about whether their contribution adds value to this site. Is it positive? Is it helpful? Will it make people want to return to this site and be part of this community? Nothing wrong with healthy debate but let's keep it civil, refrain from personal attacks, and remember this site is what you choose to make it. Thank you!
I would be more than happy to take nominations of people who you'd trust with the magic eraser, who'd also have the time and willingness to wield it.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.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
Comments
standsit.@David_Snowball- I vote for Dex!
I would say close down the off topic area. I've noticed the vitriol and games have seeped into the MF Discussion area.
In the main forum if a person introduces politics the post should be deleted.
@David_Snowball- I hereby withdraw my vote for Dex!
Nothing's broken IMHO. We're all allegedly adults here ... if someone doesn't want to follow a certain topic if it veers into crazyland, it's their choice to move on. By the same token, someone rushing to say "shut the topic now" because of a single post they don't agree with isn't helpful, either. And besides, people learn really quick who the trolls and troublemakers are, and just tune them out.
I say leave things as they are and let community actions police themselves.
If posting is a problem, how about limiting the overall number of posts by any given poster within, say a 24-48 hour period? -- After all how many truly "wonderful ideas" can any of us have during the course of one day.
A lot of the posts/new threads I see (whether political or investing related) have relative little merit. (Same is certainly true on the M* board, or any internet forum).
Effectively, nudge all posters to understand that posting is an economically "scarce" commodity and this may re-train them to consider the merits of each post that they make...
Poster A: President Trump said in his speech last night that he will push for building new nuclear plants across the country. GE and some others should benefit from this. I might pick up some shares.
Poster B: You can't believe anything Trump pushes. His minions just want to push this boondoggle so GE can kickback $$ back into his pocket.
That is a example of personal politics versus how policy will affect your investments.
But how about:
Poster B: Up to this point Trump's administration has made numerous proposals that have virtually no chance of being approved by the Republican controlled Congress.
Now that is a factual statement, but somehow I don't think that it would meet your approval.
I think the issue here is rather staying on topic. Folks who go off on political tangents that have little to do with investments clog up the board for others who then have to scroll down thru multiple off topic remarks.
If there was a way to let that person know anonymously that they were straying too far off topic too often, that might help.
I guess we could also start thumbs upping or downing like Facebook so people who wander off topic would get the message
@sma3- Man, is that ever the truth. We subscribe, but I refuse to enter into that pool of merde.
One major difference here: it's true, we do tend to wander off point probably a bit more than is necessary. But with very few exceptions, the exchanges of competing viewpoints or arguments are conducted in a civil manner. There are only one or two posters who obviously initiate comments so as to irritate those of differing viewpoints.
Most often these types of exchanges simply involve references to links of competing viewpoints, or the presentation of facts which may contradict a statement that someone has made.
Not even remotely comparable to the filth slung at the WSJ.
That said, political posts are not the only "off topic" threads here. For instance, a recent thread presented an obituary on NBR's former co-host Paul Kangas. Its a fine thread. I felt no need to post, and his passing certainly does not present any "investing opportunity" that I can fathom. But so what. Some people want to weigh in/memorialize him. No harm in that. But if the future "standard" for threads is going to be "investment discussions", well, eulogizing a guy who retired several years ago, probably doesn't meet that standard either...
An earlier poster claims the pol threads "monopolize" the boards. That is a gross mischaracterization. That's like saying the highest-rated TV program or most-attended movie are "monopolizing" TV ratings or cinemas -- which would be an awkward way of saying some TV programs, some movies, and some threads (political threads) which one doesn't like are popular with other folks. SO WHAT! Stating the obvious, internet postings boards, unlike say a newspaper, do not have a finite space. There is no "crowding out" of threads that are investment-related by OT threads.
For those who apparently appalled at political posts, well, don't read/participate in them. No one is forcing your eyeballs to click on political threads. Most threads on this forum I don't participate in -- but it would never occur to me to start a crusade to ban them... Its rather grating to have people insist on censoring other folks' speech. If folks have a problem with a free exchange of ideas -- exchanges which they have the choice to participate/not participate in -- well, that strikes me as their problem.
In the example JohnChisum cited in which Donald Trump plans to push for nuclear energy and therefore it is a good time to buy GE stock, what if posters want to discuss why nuclear energy is dangerous to people and the environment and therefore you shouldn't invest in GE? What if GE gave money to Trump's campaign or some other political candidates and posters want to discuss how they won't invest because of that? I suspect such discussions would be deemed "too political." The fact is investing has real world ramifications that go well beyond the simple and rather brutal profit motive. To deny people the right to discuss those ramifications is not being apolitical. It's intentionally sticking one's head in the sand.
Also, just as the investment world impacts the political world, so the political world impacts the investment one. There is now $8.7 trillion invested according to various ESG principles: https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-14/sustainable-investments-surged-by-third-to-8-7-trillion-in-2016o Clearly, some investors care about the politics of money, and their concern goes beyond the libertarian ideology of the profit motive. Denying them the right to discuss those political ramifications is denying them the right to discuss why they invest the way they do. It is no different than denying posters on a sports blog the right to discuss the racial politics of quarterback Colin Kaepernick's decision not to stand for the national anthem. Sure, it's political. It's also part of the game.
What should be prevented is ad hominem personal attacks, not political discussion. Such cyber bullying actually inhibits free speech, and is tantamount to shouting fire in a crowded theater. But there is already a system here for addressing that.
The world posited in which individual dissent is silenced via "peer pressure" or "moderators" is not one I would want to live in. And it raises that age old question: Who will watch the watchers?
I will say this. If we are going to have moderation, it should not be all about trolling, offensive language, otherwise being a pest, etc. It should also benefit in terms of controlling content, not to encroach on anyone's "freedom", but to provide value in terms of not wasting one's time.
Discussing Scotch Whiskey should be OT. However, less so than "6th best start to March". "Freedom" is as much about one's "opinion of freedom". I can make the argument if I drink good whiskey it can relax me so I make better investing decisions, similar to the one who writes and / or links the article about "6th best start to March" which IMNSHO (NS = not so) does diddly to help me invest.
Moderation is not cutting out the F-word from a post. I think it is valid to call some people the F-word, because that's what they have done to investors. It is about not having to see every single article out there linked on MFO when I come to MFO to actually avoid the BS and noise and spend my time learning something worthwhile. Increasingly that doesn't happen because I get overwhelmed with links to nonsense and I'm sure I miss out something that I should actually see. I want *this* kind of moderation and I will trade it gladly for some of my fartistic (not a typo) freedoms.
Should all references to President Donald Trump (including statements made by him) be banned from the board? These seem of late to have generated the greatest amount of "heat" from various factions. A simple software filter should be able to block most of the comments that mention his name.
The thought occurs to me there may be other potentially divisive names for inclusion, but Trump would be a good start.
A thread, frequently having no overt "political" overtones, will be moving along nicely until someone adds a comment that has an unnecessarily sharp edge to it. That comment is in turn replied to, typically leading to an escalation of heated commentary. At some point the person who initiated the disagreement becomes cornered by the presentation of facts unhelpful to their position, or perhaps just overwhelmed by a list of links which presumably undermine their position.
Outgunned, so to speak, this person then either retreats into wounded silence, or loudly complains that MFO is "becoming too political" and such things should be banned. I could comb through recent discussions and find many examples of this sort of thing.
Above for example, JohnChisum: To which I reply:
But how about: At which point John sort of disappears. And he is one of the most vociferous advocates of imposing restrictions on commentary.
Ted is another such. He reserves the right to introduce non-financial off-topic matter himself, but then heatedly objects when such discussions "get out of hand", at least in his judgement. He justifies his right to do so by the fact that he initiates a huge number of financially related posts as well. Sorry- I don't buy that one.
DanHardy's comment, above, must surely be one of the most cynical comments yet, as he is certainly one of the most egregious initiators of controversy: He's "noticed", indeed. A comment worthy of a politician.
I suggest that there may just be an element of self-serving in some of those who would ban controversial discussions.