The demise (or otherwise) of The Polite Discussion Board

[csearle]

If instead you posted via a nom-de-plume then I cannot for the life of me see how you could be harmed by the words of another here.

I agree with your post above with the possible exception of this bit. There are some, clearly not johnhemming and clearly not me, whose nom-de-plume is a kind of surrogate for themselves with all the character and meaning that it has accumulated over time. So for example when I think of "Lootman" I feel I kinda know you and have the appropriate respect (in your case we met so you're perhaps not the best example in my case), so let's take Gengulphus, who I presume I've (unfortunately) never met. That nom-de-plume has great meaning in my mind. That meaning could conceivably be damaged here by the words of others. Although the actual person behind the nom-de-plume remains largely unknown their surrogate could be harmed and by association themselves.

Chris

[Gersemi]

Personally I prefer to use an alias when posting here because it is an investment site. I don't want to just tell anybody details of my finances.

[88V8]

Although the actual person behind the nom-de-plume remains largely unknown their surrogate could be harmed and by association themselves.

Luni used to get a lot of stick. I don't suppose he goes around suing people.
I don't think the forum should kowtow to the semi-professional offendees who seem to crawl out of every piece of woodwork nowadays.
Easy for me to say of course, as I'm not running it.

Do agree with those who would think it imprudent to be identifiable on a forum where we discuss our money.

V8

[Lootman]

Do agree with those who would think it imprudent to be identifiable on a forum where we discuss our money.

That is true but just a part of it. Given the hostility shown towards some on PD, it would not be totally shocking if someone tried to harass or intimidate another poster in real life, if they had the identification information to do that.

There have certainly been cases like that on Facebook, which has the requirement for people to use their real names.

Even on TMF there was a woman there who, for a while, seemed to follow me from board to board taking potshots at me. If there has been an option to hide my posting history I would have taken it, since she was apparently using that to follow me around.

As it happened she gave up the stalking after a while, and is not on TLF as far as I know. But you have to worry just a bit that someone you are disagreeing with on an online forum might be crazier than you think.

[csearle]

Even on TMF there was a woman there who, for a while, seemed to follow me...

Well you are a good-looking fellow. It is to be expected.

Seriously though I get your point. C.

[SteMiS]

Those who want TLF to stick to investment don't have to post (or indeed read) any other boards.

I've always seen PD as a bit of a pressure valve. I'm sure the mods do too as, occassionally, threads appear with the comment "this is all getting a bit too political, off it goes to PD...." (or something similar). It's not surprising though that it can get a bit 'robust' there as people often hold political views quite strongly, on both sides of the argument. I've had insulting stuff implied about me (including by posters on this thread) and I've no doubt they'd throw the same accusation at me but I don't take it too personally and I think I've only reported a handful of posts. The line can be thin though.

I am personally identifiable; I've posted stuff about myself and linked to my twitter account (which is in my name but the @ is my TLF user id, same as my TMF). I'm not sure why people get so secretive about it all.

The truth is that TLF isn't a major player in the investment discussion board world. I've posted a few times on investment related topics (I'm a full time non retired private investor) but there generally isn't much response (unless you are strict HYP devotee). A list of the top boards would be dominated by non finance discussion.

It really depends what is important to those who own TLF. The more they try to squeeze it into a finance/investment mould, the lower will be the traffic. But on the flip side I guess they'd have an easier life.

[Lootman]

The truth is that TLF isn't a major player in the investment discussion board world. I've posted a few times on investment related topics (I'm a full time non retired private investor) but there generally isn't much response (unless you are strict HYP devotee). A list of the top boards would be dominated by non finance discussion.

By my calculation you have posted 67 times to investment boards. Out of 3,106 posts in total. The vast majority of the difference between those two numbers will be your contributions to PD which, on face value, comprise about 98% of your total posts. So readers can certainly understand that you are perhaps more vested in its continuation than most here.

I must admit that I post to PD more than I should. It's like a bad habit that I can't resist. And it's not even that I am that interested in politics (as you are fond of pointing out, I don't vote). I just like to lampoon (what I see as) sloppy thinking and logic. As evidence of that I have no political life outside TLF: no voting, no party membership, no twitter, no facebook, no commentating elsewhere. TLF is my sole social media presence and so I figure I am entitled here.

I am personally identifiable; I've posted stuff about myself and linked to my twitter account (which is in my name but the @ is my TLF user id, same as my TMF). I'm not sure why people get so secretive about it all.

Given that you have heard various arguments from others here about the desirability of anonymity, what do see as the benefit of revealing your true identity? Not that you really have unless a Twitter handle counts (and I did not know about that).

Not criticising; just curious. Do you think it adds credibility?

[csearle]

Not criticising; just curious. Do you think it adds credibility?

Actually in a way I think it maybe does. (Sorry, I realise you didn't ask me the question). Although as I've elsewhere argued, one's moniker becomes an extention of oneself, by explicitly connecting one's utterances with an actual identifiyable person it removes the temptation I think - a bit - to digress from what one truly believes for the sake of, say, winding people up (ehem, not that you would ever conceive of that ). So I think that outing oneself as to who one is in real life has some benefit. (Although of course in my case I am always looking over my shoulder in case a disgruntled recipient of my decisions should wish to take me out.) C.

Edit: Can I just say that if anyone does take me out all that will happen is that by the law of supply and demand the cost of electricians will go up.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Not criticising; just curious. Do you think it adds credibility?

Actually in a way I think it maybe does. (Sorry, I realise you didn't ask me the question. Although as I've elsewhere argued, one's moniker becomes an extention of oneself by explicitly connecting one's utterances with an actual identifiyable person it removes the temptation I think - a bit - to digress from what one truly believes for the sake of, say, winding people up (ehem, not that you would ever conceive of that ). So I think that outing oneself as to who one is in real life has some benefit. (Although of course in my case I am always looking over my shoulder in case a disgruntled recipient of my decisions should wish to take me out.) C.

Alright, alright ... I'm Spartacus ... I know Dobby will iron hands

AiY

[Lootman]

by explicitly connecting one's utterances with an actual identifiyable person it removes the temptation I think - a bit - to digress from what one truly believes for the sake of, say, winding people up (ehem, not that you would ever conceive of that ).

Moi? Shirley you cannot be sherioush.

Although in a moment of tragic weakness that I will of course forever regret, I might just have succumbed to overwhelming temptation. Lord, make me chaste, but not yet.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

I never went to Oxford or Cambridge. Their loss. Indeed I never went to University. Health issues to one side I've managed well enough without.

Humour me a moment please ... actually you've done quite well up to now so I should be quiet whilst ahead.

I believe (and am convinced will be corrected) that Oxford and Cambridge invented the "Balloon Race". For the youngsters amongst us, including me, a "Balloon Race" consisted of an imaginary balloon full of [say] ten people. The balloon is slowly losing altitude as there's a tear in the fabric. So everyone in the balloon has to make a case for why they cannot be thrown out to keep the balloon aloft. Many modern TV game shows are based on this principal. As the balloon continues to fall all the occupants are thrown out based on the votes of those watching. It was a way of teaching young people how to debate and assert their point as ladies and gentlemen of course.

I can't recall whom it was, but a previous post mentioned Duelling Fools from TMF. Two Fools would take opposing positions on a financial subject. Each would put forward their points for their position in a series of posts.

There's room, in my opinion, for us to set up a debate which many may want to join. Not a free for all.

Could this be manufactured on this forum without a huge input of time? I really don't know the limitations of the software and/or the input required. If it creates time or cost then it's not workable which I completely accept and endorse.

It's a suggestion, that's all

It's not a direct suggestion for PD - but more a means to invoke some financial conversation. If it would help with thoughts about PD that's fine.

Take care

AiY

[tjh290633]

I believe (and am convinced will be corrected) that Oxford and Cambridge invented the "Balloon Race". For the youngsters amongst us, including me, a "Balloon Race" consisted of an imaginary balloon full of [say] ten people. The balloon is slowly losing altitude as there's a tear in the fabric. So everyone in the balloon has to make a case for why they cannot be thrown out to keep the balloon aloft. Many modern TV game shows are based on this principal. As the balloon continues to fall all the occupants are thrown out based on the votes of those watching. It was a way of teaching young people how to debate and assert their point as ladies and gentlemen of course.

I've never heard that suggestion. Both universities have a long tradition of debating in their Union Societies. That has often served as an apprenticeship for future Prime Ministers and other prominent politicians. The other forum is the Junior Common Room, where everybody can have a go. Some become JCR Presidents and other officers. We had one called the Rear Admiral, whose function I will leave you to guess, but his responsibility was for the Fleet and the Submarine. Sadly the Fleet is no more, but the Submarine continues. A certain C. Ojukwu who led the Biafran uprising held the post in my first year.

College undergraduate societies had many functions. Which one belonged to depended on many factors. They had many rituals which had to be observed. One had the requirement that a new member should show his appreciation in "a few well-chosen but broken words". His speech concluded with the first "er" or "um". One law student went on for ages. Most managed a second or two. Starting with "Well...." was usually a good sign. I should add that it was a play reading society, whose motto was "We take our literature lightly".

Polite discussion does not have to be confined to that demised board. It should be a feature of every board.

TJH

[csearle]

We didn't have a debating society at my Poly (or maybe we did but no-one talked about it). To set up a series of debates here with pro/contra opinions would need some serious administrative input. I can easily pull out of a hat the names of the main protagonists for Brexit/Remain, and could maybe quickly determine those for Political Discussion/No political Discussion, but are we disciplined enough to keep it civil?

Chris

[Lootman]

universities have a long tradition of debating in their Union Societies.

And many schools, at least back then. My school was divided into 8 "Houses" and each House had various teams for sports and the like, including debating.

For whatever reason I ended up on our House debating team. We would know in advance the day, time and location of the debate, and the topic. What we would not know until the day of the debate was which side of the motion we would have to argue. This was really instructive as it meant you had to research the topic ahead of time AND be willing and able to argue for either side of the motion.

As to who won the debate, that was clear too. The audience (and these were popular events) would vote at the end, and were encouraged to vote for who debated the best rather than one's personal viewpoint on the issue.

Contrast that with PD where everyone arrives with their own personal agenda and afterwards claims that they "won".

[AsleepInYorkshire]

We didn't have a debating society at my Poly (or maybe we did but no-one talked about it). To set up a series of debates here with pro/contra opinions would need some serious administrative input. I can easily pull out of a hat the names of the main protagonists for Brexit/Remain, and could maybe quickly determine those for Political Discussion/No political Discussion, but are we disciplined enough to keep it civil?

Chris

Chris, Thanks for the heads up. It was always worth my suggestion. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

I won't sulk for long

By the way we don't have a suggestions board

Take care

AiY

[Gengulphus]

By the way we don't have a suggestions board

I'm afraid you're wrong: we do have a suggestions board - and you're on it!

Gengulphus

[johnhemming]

As to who won the debate, that was clear too. The audience (and these were popular events) would vote at the end, and were encouraged to vote for who debated the best rather than one's personal viewpoint on the issue.

Some groups go for votes at the start and the end and see whether the debate changes anyone's views.

[Mike4]

As to who won the debate, that was clear too. The audience (and these were popular events) would vote at the end, and were encouraged to vote for who debated the best rather than one's personal viewpoint on the issue.

Some groups go for votes at the start and the end and see whether the debate changes anyone's views.

If the start vote was 50/50, then everybody was convinced by the debate and everybody changed their minds, the end vote would be the same 50/50

[SteMiS]

The truth is that TLF isn't a major player in the investment discussion board world. I've posted a few times on investment related topics (I'm a full time non retired private investor) but there generally isn't much response (unless you are strict HYP devotee). A list of the top boards would be dominated by non finance discussion.

By my calculation you have posted 67 times to investment boards. Out of 3,106 posts in total. The vast majority of the difference between those two numbers will be your contributions to PD which, on face value, comprise about 98% of your total posts. So readers can certainly understand that you are perhaps more vested in its continuation than most here.

Not really. I provided a pretty clear explanation for the difference in those two in my post. The mistake you are making is assuming that TLF is the only place I post, or even the only place I post on non finance related matters (although interesting that you took the trouble to trawl through my posting history to make some sort of ad hominem 'point' about my motivation). If TLF disappeared, it wouldn't materially affect my life.

I am personally identifiable; I've posted stuff about myself and linked to my twitter account (which is in my name but the @ is my TLF user id, same as my TMF). I'm not sure why people get so secretive about it all.

Given that you have heard various arguments from others here about the desirability of anonymity, what do see as the benefit of revealing your true identity? Not that you really have unless a Twitter handle counts (and I did not know about that).

Not criticising; just curious. Do you think it adds credibility?

Not particularly. At the end of the day, everything I've said about me could be a pack of lies. I think the only credibility people really establish on BBs is that based on the things they've previously written. Even the posters on TLF I most respect are totally unknown to me outside their writings on TLF.

I actually changed my name on twitter after a discussion about people hiding behind anonymous profiles. I didn't want to be one of those people. I'd always like to feel that whatever point I make in a post I'd feel equally comfortable making in person. Being identifiable (even if its not straightforward to do so) kind of helps keep me to that principle...I think.

[johnhemming]

I actually changed my name on twitter after a discussion about people hiding behind anonymous profiles. I didn't want to be one of those people. I'd always like to feel that whatever point I make in a post I'd feel equally comfortable making in person. Being identifiable (even if its not straightforward to do so) kind of helps keep me to that principle...I think.

My view is similar, but I have always used my own identity. I have had death threats and one person was convicted as a result. However, I do not myself see a good reason for me to be anonymous. I can understand why other people wish to be "off the record".