Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

ruthless moderation

Hi, guys.

If you'd prefer ruthless moderation, we'd need to agree on two things:

1. the rules

2. the person responsible for ruthlessly enforcing the rules.

Right now, we lack both. In general, I count on folks on the board to act with civility and good humor. That works out about 93.82% of the time. The only 6.18% include some combination of intentional and unintentional provocation; sometimes folks are looking for an excuse to start a slap-fight, other times the vagaries of mediated communication lead people to think the poster is being disrespectful. Others have noted that evenings and weekend seem to be especially challenging times for maintaining civility and humor.

In theory, I'm moderating the board. In practice, I'm stretched so thin that you can nearly see through me. The short version is that I'm carrying a load at the college that's about 50% above full-time (no, I don't get paid extra) and am still putting in nearly 60 hours a month (down a bit from my peak, mostly because of the college's demands) behind the scenes at MFO. Chip and I do review every thread that someone flags as abusive and I do try quiet counseling with folks, but that's the extent of it.

As to the question of rules, the Informal Economist suggests:
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!
And, along with that, a statement of parameters for the "off-topic" board. Perhaps:
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.
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.

As ever,

David

«1

Comments

  • I don't see that it's broke and needs fixing. People can always skip. I don't see frank trolling or domination. I do often see substantive corrections to misunderstanding assertions, a good thing. And the majority of it is peripherally related to investment decisionmaking. msf (just one example, maybe the best) has posted all manner of stat (and other) analyses and references that I certainly learn from.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • And I'm certain that you know where I stand sit.
  • "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."

    @David_Snowball- I vote for Dex!
    :)
  • David,
    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.
  • "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."

    @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.
  • I don't see the need for 'ruthless moderation'.

    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...
  • We would have to define politics as a subject that has no bearing on investments. A new administration policy or regulation might affect the markets one way or another. The conversations that are purely political or those that evolve into personal sniping are the culprits and should be targeted. This forum is not big enough for a moderator. It should be up to members to stand up and say that the poster/discussion is out of bounds. Peer pressure in a nutshell.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @JC, Good point about relation between politics and investing, and the effects of each on the other. But I certainly would not want certain people here to decide what constitutes 'purely political.'
  • I just happened to notice... isn't "Ruthless Moderation" one of them thar oxygen morons? Methinks David was playing with words...
  • It's not that hard to separate. Keeping personal politics out of the discussion is key. For ex:

    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.
  • edited March 2017
    @JohnChisum
    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 dont think the "abuse" that I have seen here even approaches the rancor and vitriol on other forums. Even posting with your real name does not stop people at the WSJ from awful comments. I have stopped reading any of the messages there

    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
  • edited March 2017
    "Even posting with your real name does not stop people at the WSJ from awful comments."

    @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.
  • Although I must say some of the worst ones are really really imaginative in their vituperation of Obama and the democrats. I wonder if most of those folks have a life offline
  • It's broke and needs fixing. The political discussions have monopolized the board to the point that investing topics are taking a backseat now. That's fine for The Huffington Post but not MFO. I nominate BobC as moderator although I'm not sure he would have the time.
  • @willmatt72- What has BobC. ever done to you? :)
  • Old_Joe said:

    @willmatt72- What has BobC. ever done to you? :)

    True. Poor guy;-)
  • edited March 2017
    An observation: The pol threads seem to often generate disproportionate postings and views. That suggests a lively debate of ideas & more time spent on the site by those involved in such threads. I tend to find myself "on" MFO for longer periods, just putzing around, "in the area". I suspect others may behave the same way. Maybe MFO isn't interested in more visits/visitors? It's not a matter of "quality" vs "quantity" of threads -- "quality", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. -- There are any number of "ON-topic" threads started which apparently generate no/little interest. -- Those are certainly not "quality" posts by an objective measure (views/replies).

    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.
  • edited March 2017
    I think some of the member cited examples on how ruthless moderation might work are precisely the reasons it shouldn't exist. It should be acknowledged that limiting discussions to how to make the most money off of X fund or Y stock is actually embracing a specific political ideology as opposed to preventing the site from becoming "too political." It is the libertarian political ideology embedded in the profit motive--profits before people, before the environment, labor, consumer safety and a functioning democracy.

    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?
  • While I understand freedom of speech, I understand the need for moderation. Just because MFO is on the internet does not mean it is "public". We are not a news-paper. We are more like US Chamber of Commerce which is NOT a government organization and can decide what it wants to put "out there".

    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.
  • Please leave as is. We're big boys and girls. We have our moments, but then we're back to Mutual Funds. Just my two cents.
  • It's commonsense to have some sort of moderator on a board. Unfortunately, not all people are able to police themselves. Anyone with experience on the internet should know this. I noticed someone earlier used the word "ban" and "censoring" for political posts. I don't recall anyone saying that or suggesting that. Let's not get hysterical and blow things out of proportion. The problem is - the OT threads have sapped all the energy from the Discussion Board, leaving very little commentary/insight for investing-related topics. This is primarily an investing website, or so I thought. There's nothing wrong with having a moderator for a discussion board. Many do.
  • edited March 2017
    Just a quick thought:

    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.
  • @hank Well, since Maurice's avatar for this site is a portrait of Trump beside an American flag, would he then therefore be banned from participation as every one of his comments has an image of the Donald next to it? Or what about references to the "Trump bump" in stocks Ted often posts, it seems to some members, specifically to rub it in the faces of liberals? Should those too be banned? I hope not.
    I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It
    Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  • @Edmond- Thank you for a serious and well thought-out evaluation of the controversy, and a closely reasoned recommendation for leaving things alone. Your perspective is of a quality that would have been appreciated by the founders of our country. That's a very serious compliment, and one that I don't make lightly.
  • @hank- Now, don't go tempting me. I can think of lots of ways to refer to President Donald Trump without mentioning his name. As you well knew.:)
  • A phenomena which seems to be ancillary to this conversation: In many of the more controversial discussions that are the subject of this thread I've frequently observed an interesting pattern.

    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:
    It's not that hard to separate. Keeping personal politics out of the discussion is key. For ex:

    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.
    To which I reply:

    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.
    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:
    I would say close down the off topic area. I've noticed the vitriol and games have seeped into the MF Discussion area
    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.