Please, take a breath.

[ERD50]

Secret?

Early Retirement & Financial Independence Community - Community Rules

I didn't mean to say that the rules are secret, I meant to say that the enforcement of the rules seems to be secret. And I don't mean that in a 'conspiracy theory' sort of way, just that they are not made public (AFAIK).

People tend to respond to what they see/know to be enforced. If everyone is doing 65 in a 55 zone, and no one ever seems to get pulled over, people will keep doing 65.

Likewise, if someone says in a single thread over a short period of time:

Screw you and the [-]piglet[/-] horse you rode in on.
Yeah, you're a ****ing saint, aren't you?
If you right wingers want [moderator edit] in public,

and the poster keeps on posting, it makes one wonder what the real 'rules' are. Those comments are personal attacks and offensive.

Is that a single infraction, or three infractions?

Again, if people see rules being broken, and no enforcement, it will encourage others to break/bend/test the rules. Things tend to work that way.

And I'm not trying to pick on the mods here - it's a tough job and they are probably doing an exemplary job. I'm really trying to help by saying that some public info might help make their job easier - people will see examples of rules being broken, enforcement, and 'click' - the light bulb will come on (for some).

-ERD50

 

[ziggy29]

Getting rid of the Soap Box is tempting. But given the political climate and in a political election year, it at least allows the mods to isolate the toxic political sludge into one place. I fear that if it were removed, the politics and the insults and disrespect it brings would bleed back into other forums. At least with this setup, those wishing to avoid it completely have a solution: avoid the Soap Box.

Plus, as already mentioned, there can sometimes be a fine line between political issues and how they can affect the quest for FIRE and engaging in full-contact politics for its own sake. It's hard to discuss the future of health care, Social Security or other economic issues impacting that quest without at least some reference to it.

The real shame is that some people can't look at political disagreement without assuming the people on the other side must be either stupid, malevolent or both. And it's that attitude that tends to turn political discussion into a sewer.

Having said all that, I don't understand the mindset of some people to have to drag politics into everything and everywhere. There are plenty of sites devoted to political debate. Why feel the need to drag that crap into places where it doesn't belong?

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

It is true that the threshholds for enforcement of existing rules (and their interpretation) are not always clear cut.

Just as real-world cops might give you a break on a speeding ticket, or judges might disagree on a verdict, our rules are subject to things such as past history of offenses, longevity of the user (2 posts with a vulgarity over 1500 posts might be viewed differently from 2 over 4 posts for a new user). There are countless unique factors that go into any serious moderator action. Complaints and private messages add another layer. And some times it's "just because" that's the way the mods want to handle something.

What I can clarify is that we discuss virtually all non-trivial actions amongst ourselves, we consider a lot of factors, and we generally shy away from doing anything restrictive unless we really feel the need.

Not a perfect system, and we have all seen what happens if things get too nasty for too long (or if things get over-policed). We're doing our best. I can assure everyone that if you have even a vague notion of civility and the community rules, your chances of ever running into a mod action are next to zero. You almost have to try to get moderated around here compared to lots of other boards.

I hope that helps give you a sense of the usual MO.

 

[haha]

All over the world people are killing one another over politics. I believe that for the most part, this is because politics are important, and not just because these people have not yet been introduced to correct thinking. Political decisions affect every one of us. So far perhaps less so in the USA than elsewhere, but that is not guaranteed to persist forever.

I don't understand adults who have no interest in politics- whether it be the near range infighting in a company, zoning and land use decisions in a town, or tax and "income redistribution" policies nationally, or foreign policy and war internationally.

At worst, political discussions on this board can give us a laboratory to gauge how people who we already know quite a bit about just by reading their thoughts over a period of time will view national political issues. People have complained that political discussions are uninformative. IMO that is an oxymoron. A broad minded person can learn many things from what might at first glance appear to nothing more than a shouting contest. S/he might observe what is said and how it is said. S/he can infer why it is said, and make other inferences from who it is said to.

I believe I have said before, this board is a valuable laboratory. And of course that fact cannot be destroyed - even if everything but Bogle-isms were to become unspeak, that alone would be useful knowledge to some people.

Ha

 

[ziggy29]

I don't understand adults who have no interest in politics- whether it be the near range infighting in a company, zoning and land use decisions in a town, or tax and "income redistribution" policies nationally.

Is it a complete disinterest in politics or is it seeking a refuge from it when we're bombarded with it everywhere else?

The fact that some people don't want politics discussed here doesn't mean they have no interest in it. They may have no interest in seeing it HERE, even if some might be interested in it elsewhere. One of the best ways to balkanize a mostly harmonious online community is to start injecting politics in it. You start seeing people who used to like and respect each other start disliking each other. I can't count the number of times I've seen that elsewhere.

So in the end, I guess I'd say there's enough other places to get riled up over politics, and I don't see why it's so darned critical to argue them *everywhere* and in all places. I enjoy a good and reasonably civil political discussion, but sometimes I want to go to a place where I can GET AWAY from it when I start feeling 'politics fatigue.'

I can already get my fill of Bush sucks/Obama sucks or whatever else in any number of other places. I for one like the idea of a 'politics free zone.' If I ever decide I want to engage in some political discussion, I can turn to one of dozens, if not hundreds, of other sites online.

 

[Texas Proud]

1) The TITLE 'Soap Box' is just wrong, IMO. This is supposed to be (I think?) a discussion forum, and the term Soap Box is generally used to describe someone that is just talking with no regard or desire for feedback or debate. You don't 'stand on a Soap Box' to discuss something face-to-face, you stand on a Soap box to make pronouncements. So why be surprised when some people do this? The title is asking for it.

Just a note.... I guess you have not been to Hyde Park in London on a Sunday morning... where they DO have the real soap boxes.... I used to go visit just to see what people wanted to 'pronounce'.... well, it was a discussion more than a pronouncement.... well, except for some who were just talking in the air.... if they made a statement that was not in the norm, someone in the crowd would challenge what was said and it was a back and forth with some 'yeas' and 'nays' from others.... you could tell who had the better argument and when someone made a good point or someone else was being unreasonable... sometimes they got heated... but the people all knew what it was for and would walk away if they did not like how things were going.... why can this not happen HERE?


As an aside... I found one of the most interesting was a Muslim guy who blamed every bad thing in the Middle East on America.. .and this Communist was 'arguing' with him... after about 15 minutes it kind of petered out... I went up to the Communist (I did not know at the time he was one) and asked him about his beliefs.... well, to my surprise he then told me he was a Communist but that the Muslim was just spouting such stupid things he wanted to see what he would say... so funny.....

 

[Texas Proud]

Likewise, if someone says in a single thread over a short period of time:

Screw you and the [-]piglet[/-] horse you rode in on.
Yeah, you're a ****ing saint, aren't you?
If you right wingers want [moderator edit] in public,

and the poster keeps on posting, it makes one wonder what the real 'rules' are. Those comments are personal attacks and offensive.

I have to agree with this.... as I have said, some of the long time posters can 'dismiss' someone they do not agree with with a very snide comment like the above and move on... they got their panties in a knot (yes, inflammatory ) and did not want to continue the discussion.... but wanted to get in their last 'hit'....

To me... this is just background noise... it makes me wonder about the person for a minute or two... but then I move on and forget it...

I recommend this to others...

 

[haha]

So in the end, I guess I'd say there's enough other places to get riled up over politics, and I don't see why it's so darned critical to argue them *everywhere* and in all places. I enjoy a good and reasonably civil political discussion, but sometimes I want to go to a place where I can GET AWAY from it when I start feeling 'politicsfatigue.'

Well, of course you use inflammatory speech "get riled up over politics"; "so darned critical", etc.

Really it is all OK to me, you just contributed to my data gathering.

And by the way, if putting the soapbox on ignore doesn't do it for you, perhaps you might enjoy reading about self control, self determination, and the roots of democratic societies.

Respectfully yours,

Ha

 

[ziggy29]

And by the way, if putting the soapbox on ignore doesn't do it for you, perhaps you might enjoy reading about self control, self determination, and the roots of democratic societies.

Hey, I'm cool with having the Soap Box around as a "containment field" when I don't want to be riled up over politics. I'm just saying that even people who are interested in politics may not *always* be in the mood to debate it or wade through all the incendiary discussion, and that having a desire to not see political stuff here doesn't necessarily mean they are apolitical.

In reality, as long as the Soap Box keeps the other forums politics-free, that's good enough for me. I may even go in there from time to time if I'm in the mood.

 

[Wags]

Enough of the whining and complaining.

You asked for the ignore features (it was granted to you)and now those are not enough. Again it is plain and simple if you do not want to read it then don't.

If I may borrow a post from the GREAT Haha on thread Ground Rules

There used to be a group called The Legion of Decency. They wanted the abolition of pornography, which by their definition included most anything that showed a man and a women in any situation other than praying.

Why did they want this? It wasn't that pornography ran out and held a gun to their heads and made them look at it.

I was because to them it was sexually appealing, but morally challenging. And they couldn't handle the dissonance this produced.

I would think that people who are all heated up over more and more ways to hide threads or posters or life itself from their daintly eyes suffer from the same problem. They are attracted to these topics, or these types of expression, but at the same time they are distressed by this.

Isn't that something that can be best handled by self restraint? Or self knowledge? Or by compassion for oneself and for others?

What would the Buddha say?

Ha

End of HaHa's post.

With that being said I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

God Bless Us All

 

[VaCollector]

Before reading this post I didn't even KNOW there WAS a Soap Box .....but I DID know what day it was!!....uhhh, but that was yesterday....or was it the day before??

 

[REWahoo]

Enough of the whining and complaining.

Physician, heal thyself.

Edit: Ooops, I forgot the

 

[Danny]

Lets take a collective deep breath and do our part to make the forum a better more mellow place - Deep Breathing exercise

More Breathing exercises that help to keep mental diseases away

 

[ERD50]

Ahhhhh.

I'm taking a breath before posting again to this thread.

Hmmmmmm.

Feels good.


-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

I agree with clifp a few posts above. I would like to point out a few things that I thing are contributing to some of the issues:

1) The TITLE 'Soap Box' is just wrong, IMO. This is supposed to be (I think?) a discussion forum, and the term Soap Box is generally used to describe someone that is just talking with no regard or desire for feedback or debate. You don't 'stand on a Soap Box' to discuss something face-to-face, you stand on a Soap box to make pronouncements. So why be surprised when some people do this? The title is asking for it.

2) Also in the Title: 'Headline News'? Don't we already have plenty of sources for news? Again, it seems to be asking people to just regurgitate headline news, w/o any thought behind discussion/debate, or 'what can we learn from this'.

Maybe the forum 'Other Topics' just needs to be split - 'General Topics not related to ER' And 'Political and Current Topics not Related to ER', or 'Hot Button Topics not related to ER' ( to help people who wish to totally ignore the 'hot button' topics), or something. What's in a name? Sometimes a lot.

3) FEEDBACK! I'm not sure I know what threads anyone is talking about. What threads caused trouble, where, which posts were OK, which are viewed as inflammatory? I'm sure many won't even bother to try to figure it out, so we don't get feedback on what is right/wrong. I am also confused about the infraction system here, because there is no feedback. How does anyone learn what is right/wrong when it is all secret?

As an example, after this '3 infractions and measures will be taken' was set up, I saw a thread where a long time poster engaged in very direct, obscene, degrading personal attacks, attacks on the OP, not the subject matter - it must have been four or five separate posts in that thread from him like that - yet, did anything happen? It appears not, he kept posting. All we saw was 'moderator edit' on the worst of it.

That thread was so bad, I would have been embarrassed if anyone looked over my shoulder - it would have been 'what the heck are you reading!!??'. It sends the message that personal, obscene, degrading attacks ARE OK, no problem, the mods will just edit the worst of it, have a nice day.

I'm not thrilled with the practice of shutting down threads because *some* poster/s push the rules. Sometimes, that means they 'win', and the rest of us who actually wanted to discuss the topic respectfully are left out. Punish the 'offenders', not everybody in the same thread.

Suggestions:

1) Mods should LABEL any posts that resulted in infractions - we will all see what is considered trouble. Maybe even show a count of how many times that post was reported as a problem (whether it resulted in infraction or not - at least we would know if the mods were made aware of the problem).

2) I'm sure this will be controversial, but think about it: It sounds like the mods have a little spreadsheet they share, so they can track the '3 violations in 120 days' rule. I say make it public. No, not to humiliate any specific posters, but so that we can see what is being tolerated, what is not, and also - maybe some of us will report offensive, disruptive posts that don't appear on that list. That should help clean the place up.

-ERD50

I am reminded by your comment of the charming short novel Candide, in which Voltaire commented on the case of British admiral John Byng -- executed for failure to fight the French with the utmost vigor -- thusly: "in this country, it is found requisite, now and then, to put an admiral to death, in order to encourage the others". (Trans. Smollet)

As Rich notes, moderation is inherently subjective. There is a fine line to walk between policing behavior and squelching discussion. We do our best, but you will never find the mathematical precision you seek between offense and outcome.

 

[ladelfina]

If there were no economic issues there would be no politics. I've been thinking about some challenging things that I would like to post here, but I know I will get rotten tomatoes from a certain quarter. Should I post it or not? Should I post it on the Soap Box, which it seems half the people have tuned out? It's not strictly a retirement argument, but purely economics, and it affects FIRE quite a bit. There's no one else I can discuss these ideas with.

I wish people would not be so sensitive, on the one hand, and so aggressively juvenile on the other. I used to appreciate the board for its breadth and tolerance; it was quite like a real conversation with people kicking thoughts around. I guess its growth means more cops and hall monitors, and I do appreciate their efforts. I just wish they weren't necessary.

If you get rid of the Soap Box, you're not going to get rid of the issues, but some people like the ability to tune it out. I'm torn as to whether "separate but equal" is the way to go.

I've seen other blogs where comments can be individually rated both positively and negatively. If people unanimously love a post it might get a +10; if they unanimously hate it, a -10; if there's a mixed reaction, zero out of 10 votes. I don't know if that's a possibility for the ER forum or not, but it could be a way for the offended to register disdain without resorting to name-calling, and would also give collective feedback to posters, as well as people viewing posts, in a more immediate and spontaneous way than the current private "thanks" and the thread star ratings.

 

[retire@40]

I see the cancer has spread to this thread.

This is why we need to keep the soapbox. It will help contain the cancer so it doesn't spread to other locations. If it happens to spread, then it may just require a surgical ignore here or there.

This is why I pushed so hard for the "ignore thread" and "ignore forum" feature. I'm very glad we have this new ignore weapon against the cancer. The cancer can be ignored as if it doesn't even exist, unless it tries to infect other areas.

Time to put this thread on ignore now.

Over and out.

 

[clifp]

1) The TITLE 'Soap Box' is just wrong, IMO. This is supposed to be (I think?) a discussion forum, and the term Soap Box is generally used to describe someone that is just talking with no regard or desire for feedback or debate. You don't 'stand on a Soap Box' to discuss something face-to-face, you stand on a Soap box to make pronouncements. So why be surprised when some people do this? The title is asking for it.

3) FEEDBACK! I'm not sure I know what threads anyone is talking about. What threads caused trouble, where, which posts were OK, which are viewed as inflammatory? I'm sure many won't even bother to try to figure it out, so we don't get feedback on what is right/wrong. I am also confused about the infraction system here, because there is no feedback. How does anyone learn what is right/wrong when it is all secret?

I'm not thrilled with the practice of shutting down threads because *some* poster/s push the rules. Sometimes, that means they 'win', and the rest of us who actually wanted to discuss the topic respectfully are left out. Punish the 'offenders', not everybody in the same thread.

Suggestions:

1) Mods should LABEL any posts that resulted in infractions - we will all see what is considered trouble. Maybe even show a count of how many times that post was reported as a problem (whether it resulted in infraction or not - at least we would know if the mods were made aware of the problem).

2) I'm sure this will be controversial, but think about it: It sounds like the mods have a little spreadsheet they share, so they can track the '3 violations in 120 days' rule. I say make it public. No, not to humiliate any specific posters, but so that we can see what is being tolerated, what is not, and also - maybe some of us will report offensive, disruptive posts that don't appear on that list. That should help clean the place up.

-ERD50

I agree with everything in ERD (edited) post. I especially echo his suggestion to make the moderation more visible. While I agree that long-time active contributors get and deserve more latitude than say drop in annuity saleman, the perception is that they can post damn near anything they want.

I've learned that through discussion with current and past moderators that isn't the case. However, because much of the moderation is done behind the scenes it looks non-existent. Lets keep the level of moderation where it is but make the enforcement more visible.

I also appreciate the work that moderators do to make this my favorite discussion forum on the net. A big mahalo. I hope Andy is increasing your pay at a least double the rate of inflation

P.S. I now fully appreciate the wisdom of the moderator emeritus guys!

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

II've been thinking about some challenging things that I would like to post here, but I know I will get rotten tomatoes from a certain quarter. Should I post it or not?

Have you considered that the noise filtering and virtual ignore features apply in two directions? You could post, anticipate lots of good replies and likely some not so good ones. At your end, why not just ignore the noise, almost as if it didn't exist. Don't dignify them by reacting to them.

In my view, most of the habitual trolls, antagonistic posters, and weirdos are basically seeking attention and little more. Remove the attention (good or bad) and they don't get their rewards.

You know the kinds of replies you were hoping for. Assume the others are invisible. Just another way to look at this.

 

[ERD50]

As Rich notes, moderation is inherently subjective. There is a fine line to walk between policing behavior and squelching discussion. We do our best, but you will never find the mathematical precision you seek between offense and outcome.

I agree, and I think my point is not coming across.

Moderation will be subjective - I am not expecting precision. And it's not about seeing someone hung out to dry as an example (other than to learn from), what I suggested was, a feedback mechanism so that people can at least observe what posts were considered infractions, and which were not. A way for people to understand how the rules are being administered - it's all hidden from view now. If someone stops posting, is it because the mods shut them down for a while, or did they just go away for a while? We can't know. So we never know if a certain post triggered action, or not.

I will also say that I think the idea of giving long time posters more leniency is exactly backwards. The early poster maybe just needs a bit of 'counseling' to learn the lay of the land. The seasoned poster here should know how to interact. Everyone can make a mistake and slip, but I thought that was what the ' 3 infractions in 120 days' rule was about?

I've seen other blogs where comments can be individually rated both positively and negatively. If people unanimously love a post it might get a +10; if they unanimously hate it, a -10; if there's a mixed reaction, zero out of 10 votes.

I've seen that on some other forums, and personally, I don't really like it. You never know what the '+' was for, especially if several comments were made in the same post. And it can turn into a popularity contest - detracting from the value of the content.

But as I mentioned, I think a count of 'This post has been reported for violation of the rules of conduct' could be valuable. If 20 people all reported a post, I think that would mean something. It has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with the content, just a matter of whether they appeared to violate the guidelines.

And a follow up note on the post, something like: 'This post was rated in violation by the mods' would give people feedback about how the mods are viewing things. We could learn.

-ERD50

 

[haha]

I think my Catholic grade school was less rule bound than what many would apparently like to see here.

As for ratings- why would anyone expect a post that got more yeahs to be better in any way other than most popular? What raings would Galileo have gotten? Oh yes, we know don't we?

Ha

 

[Wags]

Dr. Laura Says: Stop the Whining!

YouTube - Dr. Laura Says: Stop the Whining!

It appears that this forum has turned into The Legion of Decency.


But guess what I am not taking my basketball and leaving.

Folks, It's time to quit with the whining and continue with the posting.

God Bless Us All

 

[Purron]

Hey Everyone,
I've been active here since I made the decision to retire early last November. I guess this makes me pretty much a "newbie". This has been a great place for me to get advice and have some of the social interaction I lost when I quit working.

Even though I'm new here, I have noticed some negativity of late. Really, it's no different than some of the negative waves that flowed through my office when I was working. Usually, this situation came about due to uncertainty or stress. At least in my office it was. Be it a merger or a new manager, when things were unsettled and uncertain, people tended to go off on each other more. Given what's happening in the economy and political arena, I can understand why folks here are touchy.

I find this a good place to communicate with others and get advice on so many topics. Frankly, I have not been troubled by the political stuff because I don't choose to read much of it or get into arguments. I do care about politics but choose not to air my opinions here. Others do and that's OK.

Anyway, I hope this passes. I do like this place and look forward to sharing more with folks here.

 

[ladelfina]

Have you considered that the noise filtering and virtual ignore features apply in two directions? You could post, anticipate lots of good replies and likely some not so good ones. At your end, why not just ignore the noise, almost as if it didn't exist. Don't dignify them by reacting to them.

In my view, most of the habitual trolls, antagonistic posters, and weirdos are basically seeking attention and little more. Remove the attention (good or bad) and they don't get their rewards.

You know the kinds of replies you were hoping for. Assume the others are invisible. Just another way to look at this.

Rich, you are right on, and that's what I had been doing. But it's not pleasant feeling like a target either. Whether it's the crappy economy or the phase of the moon or whatever, there seems to be more crankiness and piling on, and the aggression is creeping into the longtime, 'rational' posters. Look at retire@40's post just after my previous one here. Who is "the cancer" and why would anyone even call someone "a cancer"? Why expend the negative energy on it?

I don't remember how much I agreed or disagreed with R@40 in the past, but somehow something has brought out a new level of nastiness in him and in others that's just freaky. I know for sure that I have appreciated some of R@40's posts in the pasts, so to ignore him because of his recent post here is cutting off my nose to spite my face. I doubt he is referring to me, but that is not the point. The more people put threads and posters on "ignore" then the less possibility there is to exchange ideas and the more limited the board becomes as more people throw the baby out with the bathwater.. that's just IMHO. How hard is it really to just gloss over what you don't agree with, or what doesn't interest you? Surely there are more narrow forums about [I was going to list insultingly banal topics here] where people could browse "risk"-free. The interesting thing to me about the ER forums has been the level of challenge. If that went away, it would be like losing a friend.

Everyone's got their own problems, their own prejudices, and their own schtick, and similar to what Haha said (perhaps elsewhere?), I tend to prefer to celebrate all of it. The tide on the board seems to have recently turned against that philosophy!

 

[outtarentals]

I hope we keep the Soapbox since some of the potentially flammable subjects discussed are so important to er's that they will probably come up anyway in other threads. This way people can take it or leave it.

I find the Soapbox easier to take than watching some of the "news" channels. There are some very quick wits here and it's quite entertaining at times even though at times it seems like a dysfunctional family - there are a few that you'd rather not invite to Thanksgiving Dinner - but they come anyway and start an argument right in the middle of everything.
The moderators deserve gold stars.