Is LF moving away from investment discussions to more general discussions?

[csearle]

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.

C.
PS Read it here, no idea whether he really said it or not.

[SalvorHardin]

Although I'm strictly more interested in analysis than political debate, I do find that so much of finance and economical affairs is driven by politics, so it seems logical that folk like us end up discussing these matters from time to time.

Indeed. IMHO a major problem when it comes to discussing investment and financial matters whilst ignoring politics is that politics often has a major impact on investment and financial matters.

If people can discuss topics like scenario planners ("if this happens, then maybe this happens"), rather than to promote their own ideology (and to convince themselves that they are correct), it would be much less contentious.

Brexit is a classic example. All too often we see ridiculous hyperbole. "Brexit will destroy the economy" is one of my favourites, along with claims that it will not reduce GDP / economic utility in the short term.

No-one that can consistently predict GDP with any degree of accuracy over more than a few months. Major economic, political and Black Swan events always produce winners and losers, many of whom come as a surprise to the vast majority.

But all too often things descend into the gutter, becoming more like Twitter or even Polite Discussions.

[Gengulphus]

Although I'm strictly more interested in analysis than political debate, I do find that so much of finance and economical affairs is driven by politics, so it seems logical that folk like us end up discussing these matters from time to time.

Ah well! There's the rub. Also applies to so many matters beyond investment trusts.

Then again what exactly is the LF's definition of "politics"? (Not to mention "Politics")

IMHO they don't need one!

The reason why I think that is that what belongs on the Polite Discussions board is basically described in the item:

"Polite discussion
The Polite Discussions group is for discussion of subjects people often feel strongly about. To join or leave it, follow the forum name to your profile settings to select the group."

on index.php (*). I.e. subjects that should go to Polite Discussions are identified not by characteristics of the subjects themselves, but by the typical characteristics of discussions about them.

Major political issues do tend to be caught by that, of course - but that's generally because if a political issue doesn't provoke strong feelings and major disagreements, it doesn't become a major political issue!

(*) Though given more space, I would expand "The Polite Discussions group is for discussion of subjects people often feel strongly about." to something like "The Polite Discussions group is for discussion of subjects people often feel strongly about, and that they have major disagreements about that frequently become heated." in order to exclude subjects like their own children or the undesirability of murder.

Gengulphus

[XFool]

Although I'm strictly more interested in analysis than political debate, I do find that so much of finance and economical affairs is driven by politics, so it seems logical that folk like us end up discussing these matters from time to time.

Ah well! There's the rub. Also applies to so many matters beyond investment trusts.

Then again what exactly is the LF's definition of "politics"? (Not to mention "Politics")

IMHO they don't need one!

The reason why I think that is that what belongs on the Polite Discussions board is basically described in the item:

"Polite discussion
The Polite Discussions group is for discussion of subjects people often feel strongly about. To join or leave it, follow the forum name to your profile settings to select the group."

on index.php (*). I.e. subjects that should go to Polite Discussions are identified not by characteristics of the subjects themselves, but by the typical characteristics of discussions about them.

Major political issues do tend to be caught by that, of course - but that's generally because if a political issue doesn't provoke strong feelings and major disagreements, it doesn't become a major political issue!

OK. But that simply moves matters to a 'definition', or rather a personal opinion, of what constitutes say "major disagreements"! IMO it is entirely possible to politely have "major disagreements" without frightening the horses or causing anyone to have a heart attack. Indeed, these may the the most interesting and stimulating discussions - rather than those consisting of people simply saying: "Oh you are so right", "I couldn't have put it better myself", "Have a rec, old chap". (Didn't TMF have a 'Duelling Fools' thread?)

This appears to be a minority opinion.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Ah well! There's the rub. Also applies to so many matters beyond investment trusts.

Then again what exactly is the LF's definition of "politics"? (Not to mention "Politics")

IMHO they don't need one!

The reason why I think that is that what belongs on the Polite Discussions board is basically described in the item:

"Polite discussion
The Polite Discussions group is for discussion of subjects people often feel strongly about. To join or leave it, follow the forum name to your profile settings to select the group."

on index.php (*). I.e. subjects that should go to Polite Discussions are identified not by characteristics of the subjects themselves, but by the typical characteristics of discussions about them.

Major political issues do tend to be caught by that, of course - but that's generally because if a political issue doesn't provoke strong feelings and major disagreements, it doesn't become a major political issue!

OK. But that simply moves matters to a 'definition', or rather a personal opinion, of what constitutes say "major disagreements"! IMO it is entirely possible to politely have "major disagreements" without frightening the horses or causing anyone to have a heart attack. Indeed, these may the the most interesting and stimulating discussions - rather than those consisting of people simply saying: "Oh you are so right", "I couldn't have put it better myself", "Have a rec, old chap". (Didn't TMF have a 'Duelling Fools' thread?)

This appears to be a minority opinion.

I completely agree old chap. Do have a rec [My bad]

I think Duelling Fools was to debate a company or financial issue. And the arguments were structured and civil. When posters use phrases such as "woolly liberals" or other personal slights to "score points" it's not a debate anymore.

AiY

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

Although I'm strictly more interested in analysis than political debate, I do find that so much of finance and economical affairs is driven by politics, so it seems logical that folk like us end up discussing these matters from time to time.

Indeed. IMHO a major problem when it comes to discussing investment and financial matters whilst ignoring politics is that politics often has a major impact on investment and financial matters.

If people can discuss topics like scenario planners ("if this happens, then maybe this happens"), rather than to promote their own ideology (and to convince themselves that they are correct), it would be much less contentious.

Such a forum would be a nice place to go.

Brexit is a classic example. All too often we see ridiculous hyperbole. "Brexit will destroy the economy" is one of my favourites, along with claims that it will not reduce GDP / economic utility in the short term.

I agree. I really wish it, that is the economic up and down sides, could have been discussed more objectively. Whilst at times I'm sure my comments sometimes plumbed the depths of the gutter, I was also very interested, in the financial side of the debate.

I made a slight attempt to rise above this here Brexit, an apology and a few questions, but the thread didn't go particularly far. Perhaps I started the thread in the wrong board - maybe they are always doomed when started in PD? Maybe here Macro and Global or The Economy would have been better locations, with strict moderation to keep it there. It's hard to know really, but I'd certainly have appreciated hearing more, particularly about increased State Aid from more objective commentators.

Matt

[richfool]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I've certainly never had any issues with people posting, for example on Investment Strategies, about the affects of Covid on Investments, or the dividends on their income generating investment trusts, as many including myself did, nor for that matter the possible affects of a no deal Brexit on various types of investments. I.e the affects of various situations on various types of investments.

I was referring to the increasing number of posts on the Polite Discussion board, and the apparent, to me, reduction in posts on the Investment Trust board, even Investment Strategies board and the High Yield Shares & Strategies board. I was basing my perception on what I saw when I looked at New Posts each day. Instead I saw more posts on PD board, and new threads arising about things like what Boris had for breakfast (joke), I think it was: "Is it time for Boris to go?" Nothing to do with investments.

Obviously I won't see posts on the PD board anymore, now that I have removed my access to that board. Perhaps that will give me greater peace of mind.

[richfool]

New Topics/New Posts (since the row above), and yes, those are the stats for the Investment Trusts and Unit Trusts board.

Mc2fool, I was referring predominantly to Investment Trust board posts, though yes, I would include other Investment boards.

If you are looking at board statistics, you may in fact find that quite a lot of those posts were in fact mine, as I sought to step up posts to stimulate activity on the IT board. Some may be on Investment Strategies too, if for example they were about renewables. I have been posting fairly actively until as recently as the 20th December. So your comparison figures will of course include my posts.

For example, looking at the Investment Trust board, list of previous posts, I note I initiated (was OP) on 7 of the 25 topics listed on that first page, i.e. 7/25. And 6 of the 25 on the second page (6/25), - (an average of about 25%), - as well as actively participating on most of the other threads. So if you are measuring posts numbers, they will reflect my own not insignificant input. Input that I was making to try and stimulate posts/activity.

[mc2fool]

New Topics/New Posts (since the row above), and yes, those are the stats for the Investment Trusts and Unit Trusts board.

Mc2fool, I was referring predominantly to Investment Trust board posts, though yes, I would include other Investment boards.

To be clear, there is no Investment Trust board. There is an Investment Trusts and Unit Trusts board.

If you are looking at board statistics, you may in fact find that quite a lot of those posts were in fact mine, as I sought to step up posts to stimulate activity on the IT board. Some may be on Investment Strategies too, if for example they were about renewables. I have been posting fairly actively until as recently as the 20th December. So your comparison figures will of course include my posts.

For example, looking at the Investment Trust board, list of previous posts, I note I initiated (was OP) on 7 of the 25 topics listed on that first page, i.e. 7/25. And 6 of the 25 on the second page (6/25), - (an average of about 25%), - as well as actively participating on most of the other threads. So if you are measuring posts numbers, they will reflect my own not insignificant input. Input that I was making to try and stimulate posts/activity.

There seems to be an echo in here ... viewtopic.php?f=21&t=26989#p369902 ...

[richfool]

To be clear, there is no Investment Trust board. There is an Investment Trusts and Unit Trusts board.

I think we all know what we are talking about.

[Gengulphus]

Ah well! There's the rub. Also applies to so many matters beyond investment trusts.

Then again what exactly is the LF's definition of "politics"? (Not to mention "Politics")

IMHO they don't need one!

The reason why I think that is that what belongs on the Polite Discussions board is basically described in the item:

"Polite discussion
The Polite Discussions group is for discussion of subjects people often feel strongly about. To join or leave it, follow the forum name to your profile settings to select the group."

on index.php (*). I.e. subjects that should go to Polite Discussions are identified not by characteristics of the subjects themselves, but by the typical characteristics of discussions about them.

Major political issues do tend to be caught by that, of course - but that's generally because if a political issue doesn't provoke strong feelings and major disagreements, it doesn't become a major political issue!

OK. But that simply moves matters to a 'definition', or rather a personal opinion, of what constitutes say "major disagreements"! ...

In fact, ultimately to just two personal opinions, namely stooz's and Clariman's. Less ultimately, to the personal opinion of the moderator who deals with the report. All tempered by the existence of the moderators' forum, where they can sort out major differences of opinion, and by Room 101 allowing ordinary users an appeal to stooz and Clariman if they feel that the moderators have collectively got it wrong in a major way. Note though that getting it wrong in a major way is not the same thing as differing from one's own personal opinion in a major way: basically, any decision they make will differ from some users' personal opinions in major ways. Nor in some cases is it even the same thing as differing in a major way from the collective view of the site's users - e.g. where questions of potentially being sued or driving away the advertising that mostly funds the site are concerned.

Gengulphus

[Howard]

To be clear, there is no Investment Trust board. There is an Investment Trusts and Unit Trusts board.

I think we all know what we are talking about.

Are you bringing some of your polite discussion approach to this thread?

Why not just wait and see if you can attract others to the Investment Trusts and Unit Trusts thread by raising interesting issues and not being too combative?

regards

Howard

[richfool]

To be clear, there is no Investment Trust board. There is an Investment Trusts and Unit Trusts board.

I think we all know what we are talking about.

Are you bringing some of your polite discussion approach to this thread?

Why not just wait and see if you can attract others to the Investment Trusts and Unit Trusts thread by raising interesting issues and not being too combative?

regards

Howard

Why the need for provocative/sarcastic remarks? This isn't the Polite Discussions Board!

You might like to look at my level of involvement on existing topics/threads* on the Investment Trust board before you make such comments, (sarcastic or otherwise, - * as evidenced a few posts back):

For example, looking at the Investment Trust board, list of previous posts, I note I initiated (was OP) on 7 of the 25 topics listed on that first page, i.e. 7/25. And 6 of the 25 on the second page (6/25), - (an average of about 25%), - as well as actively participating on most of the other threads. So if you are measuring posts numbers, they will reflect my own not insignificant input. Input that I was making to try and stimulate posts/activity.

[richfool]

I will ask for this thread to be locked, as I have expressed my thoughts and perceptions, have received some sensible responses, but have no wish to engage in semantics, sniping, or turn this thread into yet another battle ground.

[Clariman]

Moderator Message:
Locking does make sense. These long running topics here end up going round in circles