The demise (or otherwise) of The Polite Discussion Board

[AsleepInYorkshire]

If I were a moderator I would lock this thread until one of you helped with my daughters homework

I know - it pays to be patient AiY

AiY

[didds]

If I were a moderator I would lock this thread until one of you helped with my daughters homework

I know - it pays to be patient AiY

AiY

Ive obliged so you guys can carry debating the fiture of PD!

didds

[stooz]

Hi Everyone.
I have enjoyed this discussion but its gone off topic into discussing litigation.
And thank you all as it has been educational and enlightening - I have learnt something.

I also note the discussions have been polite and fair.

Noting that; You will see above there are those that agree that PD could decent into "im right "you're wrong". And this is part of my current reason for its absence. the litigation aspect is not a current matter or one brought by a member here, but an unrelated topic that I am investigating proactively rather than from a specific complaint. So may I ask that there be no more speculation, as you will honestly not find any evidence. But I am reading the above links to expand my knowledge and rights as an owner within the remit of the letter of the law.

What PD offered does not fit into the above - people did not 'learn' albeit get an opportunity to see others views. This was unlikely to change views, but may have weakened or strengthened their own view.
There was little question and answer, clarification and sharing of knowledge.

Comparing that to every other board here - beside some light communal discussion. When I take a step back; the site has:

• A question and answer approach
• an opportunity to learn and share knowledge
• a focus on financial matters so that knowledge can form financial understanding to be discussed with an appropriate adviser (we don't give advise - we are not qualified to give it!)
• an active set of members that are come across educated, knowledgeable and articulate

The finance site is the start point and main point but there is no reason non finance can not co exist; The other boards are off topic but wider points to share; both as taken from TMF, and to keep like minded members interests going and build social contact with the same members without the need to try and 'meet' elsewhere to continue a topic not finance related.
I like finance and motorbikes. I dont wish to frequent 2 forums with different online 'friends' to talk about both for example.

Aside taking the TMF forum, We have attempted to merge in my previous entity of stoozing where I grew from TMF to build stoozing.com - also since struck down with legal matters - I cant mention credit card info as I am not a qualified giver of advise, despite it not being advise in my opinion.. - so much content has since had to be shed.
for reference - I grew from TMF in the credit card room, and dealing with debt boards - hence their presence here and I value their worth in the support they give to those that use them. I felt honoured to know my knowledge went on to help a lot of other people.

So what I am saying is - this site was build as an emergency response to the closure of TMF.
Along the way we have learnt and listened and adopted in small areas but now is the time to close off a difficult part of the site and rethink its future. Not only PD but we will take a look at everything on the site as well. currently PD did not match the general culture and nature of the rest of the site.

just just to give you an idea of what we are throwing around...
in POLITE discussion (it was never "political discussion")

all posts deleted over 2 days old - any argument is brief and short lived.
all threads automatically close after 24 hours - lie a school timed debate ( you have 1 hour to argue the case for and against x...)
a new board with a different approach, maybe a new title, may be a proper thought out set of rules or moderation rather than reactionary.

just ideas at this stage!

Either way its time for a spring clean, a proper look at the direction of the site and what we want our ethos to be/remain as, and our USP.
This isnt going to be just my opinion either I will be reading posts from mods and you the members as to what draws you here and why you would want to stay.

This for one - is one such USP - the easy and direct access to its owners. and that we listen and amend to your will - (as long as it fits the ethos and desires of the whole community.)

Another is the biscuit bar - (I dont like the name anymore, it doesnt make sense!) but its a shared space for the whole community to input on the site as a community. (I also dont think it should the 1st place you find in the list...) - just my own views and I do listen and /try/ not to enforce my own agenda!

Currently I tot up more pleasure in the PD removal than demand for a return, but as above - I think it will return but maybe in a new suit. (pun intended).

[Lootman]

(*) In my view the reason people rarely change their mind or admit to being wrong on PD is because political matters are not really about facts, but rather about values and preferences. And values are more embedded and structural than mere facts.

I approach things differently which is that I am trying to identify what the truth is. There are situations where values and preferences are relevant, but working out what really is going on is a separate process.

The key point here, I think, is to differentiate between pure "politics" and "reality" - insofar as that is possible, of course.
Some situations ARE pure "politics", some are, ultimately, about reality. In the latter case, "political" opinions can get in the way. IMO.

That might be fine if we all agreed on what is "reality" but we do not. Broadly speaking your reality will be the sum total of what you believe to be true and what you see as facts. Someone else may have a different set of facts and beliefs. For example someone who gets all their news from the Guardian will have a different reality than someone who gets all his news from the Telegraph. And what informs which of those two papers you read? It is your world view which causes you to see one of those papers as more "real" than the other.

So reality isn't something immutable "out there". Rather it is part of the conceptual framework through which we view the world. And that is why people disagree - each has a different reality, and their politics both informs that view and reinforces it though confirmation bias.

In the markets it is simple. If I take the winning side of a trade that you were on the other side of, then I was right and you were wrong, period. With politics you never get that clear resolution. Which is why you and I (say) could spend a year trading "facts" and "statistics" and still end agreeing on nothing. That is also why some discussions become heated - because a challenge to your politics is also a challenge to your world view and to the values you hold most dear.

[johnhemming]

So reality isn't something immutable "out there". Rather it is part of the conceptual framework through which we view the world. And that is why people disagree - each has a different reality, and their politics both informs that view and reinforces it though confirmation bias.

However, if you put sufficient effort into understanding why people disagree with you and deliberately get information from a range of sources I think it is possible to get closer to an objective reality. However, that requires putting effort into a broader understanding.

One advantage practical electoral politicians have is that at times they go down a street talking to people who are willing to answer the door. That provides a wider range of experiences than just your acquaintances on a day to day basis.

[Clariman]

Further to Stooz's post above, I'd like to summarise a key aspect of our current thinking.

We want to re-focus the site to become a community with a shared interest in personal finance and a mutual desire to help each other, by sharing our wide collective knowledge and experience. We want to rid the site of invective and rid it of argument for argument's sake. If you want to argue about politics, from left or right, brexit or remain, then go and find somewhere else to do it. That is not core to the purposes and nature of this site.

TLF inherited some great things from TMF but some negative stuff too. It is time to leave the negative behind and focus on the great community that this is. Whether we do this by closing PD permanently or re-opening it with a regular purging of all posts is yet to be decided, but the fundamental aim is as described above.

Thanks for your continued support.

Clariman
P.S. This must be a first that I have written a shorter post than Stooz on any subject matter

[Sorcery]

I have to admit to being a frequent reader of polite discussions and I think I will miss it. Where are the Brexit success or failure of, going to be discussed if not PD or a future PD2? The Brexit discussions were perhaps the most bad tempered, the rest mild really, they could have occurred on any board because they were polite, but if political probably would be off topic elsewhere. The old TMF used to have a political discussions board that was conspicuous by it's lack of contributions and yet polite. Not sure why PD is such a goto board for so many here. Brexit and or the Pandemic?

I think I have learned from other's contributions on PD even if they are correcting my version of the "facts".

It took a while to find this thread, I thought I had been personally banned from PD

TLF inherited some great things from TMF but some negative stuff too. It is time to leave the negative behind and focus on the great community that this is. Whether we do this by closing PD permanently or re-opening it with a regular purging of all posts is yet to be decided, but the fundamental aim is as described above.

I would allow a polite political discussions board, If it's unmoderated then it ought to be hassle-free. It already requires an opt in. Purging of posts seems to me to be counter productive, in that it's useful to compare a poster's view now with their past postings and hold them to account for the differences. Purging gives inconsistency a free run.

[XFool]

!*%%$! - Lost the whole thing at the stroke of a key.

The key point here, I think, is to differentiate between pure "politics" and "reality" - insofar as that is possible, of course.
Some situations ARE pure "politics", some are, ultimately, about reality. In the latter case, "political" opinions can get in the way. IMO.

That might be fine if we all agreed on what is "reality" but we do not. Broadly speaking your reality will be the sum total of what you believe to be true and what you see as facts. Someone else may have a different set of facts and beliefs. For example someone who gets all their news from the Guardian will have a different reality than someone who gets all his news from the Telegraph. And what informs which of those two papers you read? It is your world view which causes you to see one of those papers as more "real" than the other.

Yes, yes! But straightaway, as usual, you frame it simply as politics.

So reality isn't something immutable "out there". Rather it is part of the conceptual framework through which we view the world.

Well, this could all get very deep. "What is reality?", "What do you mean by reality?", "What do you mean by meaning?" etc. etc. While recognising this (insofar as I can) I still like to think that people who say "The Earth is flat", or "The Sun orbits the Earth" are just plain wrong and that this is demonstrable.
In other words - It is possible to be 'wrong'!
In politics, nobody is necessarily wrong. They just disagree. (Because, as you say, it is based on personal values.)

And that is why people disagree - each has a different reality, and their politics both informs that view and reinforces it though confirmation bias.

Quite so. But, I repeat, in some situations there is an ultimate judge that decides. Reality.

In the markets it is simple. If I take the winning side of a trade that you were on the other side of, then I was right and you were wrong, period.

Not sure that is necessarily true! It is frequently assumed this must be true, but IMO, in some situations, both sides could be right in time. (e.g. One may be operating short term, the other operating long term.)

With politics you never get that clear resolution. Which is why you and I (say) could spend a year trading "facts" and "statistics" and still end agreeing on nothing. That is also why some discussions become heated - because a challenge to your politics is also a challenge to your world view and to the values you hold most dear.

Yes, yes! Of course with political interpretations, opinions, views. But I keep on returning to the same point: Not everything is politics, or determined by politics, albeit it shapes people's interpretations of reality - particularly where there is uncertainty, or little apparent prospect of achieving certainty in the foreseeable future.

A much more striking case is where people cleave to an ideological belief in the face of contradictory real world facts.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Further to Stooz's post above, I'd like to summarise a key aspect of our current thinking.

We want to re-focus the site to become a community with a shared interest in personal finance and a mutual desire to help each other, by sharing our wide collective knowledge and experience. We want to rid the site of invective and rid it of argument for argument's sake. If you want to argue about politics, from left or right, brexit or remain, then go and find somewhere else to do it. That is not core to the purposes and nature of this site.

TLF inherited some great things from TMF but some negative stuff too. It is time to leave the negative behind and focus on the great community that this is. Whether we do this by closing PD permanently or re-opening it with a regular purging of all posts is yet to be decided, but the fundamental aim is as described above.

Thanks for your continued support.

Clariman
P.S. This must be a first that I have written a shorter post than Stooz on any subject matter

Can we have a Maths Homework Board please

I know ... I know ... I know ... I'll very discreetly disguise this post as a really big thank you to Stooz, the Moderators and you. The community, of which I'd like to be included in, has been allowed to air their thoughts and clearly the team behind the scenes who keep it all running have spent time considering solutions.

Take care

AiY
Distressed maths homework parent

[XFool]

Further to Stooz's post above, I'd like to summarise a key aspect of our current thinking.

We want to re-focus the site to become a community with a shared interest in personal finance and a mutual desire to help each other, by sharing our wide collective knowledge and experience. We want to rid the site of invective and rid it of argument for argument's sake.

"invective" - Yes. But "argument for argument's sake" - AKA "debate"? What is so 'wrong' with that?

And, unless membership is drawn up very tightly indeed (Possible - Membership only open to Telegraph readers?), so that everyone is more or less of the same mind on pretty well most things, how can there not be disagreements?

[Clariman]

Further to Stooz's post above, I'd like to summarise a key aspect of our current thinking.

We want to re-focus the site to become a community with a shared interest in personal finance and a mutual desire to help each other, by sharing our wide collective knowledge and experience. We want to rid the site of invective and rid it of argument for argument's sake.

"invective" - Yes. But "argument for argument's sake" - AKA "debate"? What is so 'wrong' with that?

And, unless membership is drawn up very tightly indeed (Possible - Membership only open to Telegraph readers?), so that everyone is more or less of the same mind on pretty well most things, how can there not be disagreements?

You miss the point XFool. It isn't that everyone has to agree with one political view. It is more fundamental than that. The question we are asking ourselves is "what reason is there to have any purely political discussion on this site at all?"

We only have it, because we brought it over from TMF and we have done our best to make it a more positive place than its predecessor was on TMF (LoST) but we have struggled to do so.

[XFool]

You miss the point XFool. It isn't that everyone has to agree with one political view. It is more fundamental than that. The question we are asking ourselves is "what reason is there to have any purely political discussion on this site at all?"

I don't believe I miss that point, Clariman. As I said, I was not subscribed to PD. My question is: Why does TLF seem to deem any kind of strong debate/disagreement/discussion as "purely political discussion"?

We only have it, because we brought it over from TMF and we have done our best to make it a more positive place than its predecessor was on TMF (LoST) but we have struggled to do so.

I accept that wrt PD itself.

[Clariman]

Xfool you were questioning my rejection of "argument for argument's sake". Polite disagreement about 'on topic' matters is not argument for argument's sake.

However the contents of PD is largely that.

[XFool]

Xfool you were questioning my rejection of "argument for argument's sake". Polite disagreement about 'on topic' matters is not argument for argument's sake.

However the contents of PD is largely that.

"Polite disagreement" sounds like a brief conclusion, rather than an extended debate. I believe it is possible to have an extended debate that is not impolite (outside PD), indeed, I can see no reason why this should not be possible. Unfortunately, in my experience, this opinion may not be generally shared by TLF moderators.

[BellaHubby]

I'd like to see the PD board continue, if only it could be done without all the pain. I don't think I've ever really contributed but it was interesting to see others' views.

I think the biggest problem was some posters insisting on always having the last word and that tended to raise the temperature.

I've no idea if it's technically possible, but how about limiting each poster to 2 posts per day on any thread in PD? Hopefully we would then get reduced traffic and more reasoned and considered posts.

bh

[csearle]

The existence of PD enables relatively forceful moderation so that if people wish to discuss issues such as the politics of "The Hydrogen Economy" as an extension to the science of it then that is possible.

I would call it "unforceful" moderation in that if people wanted to discuss overtly political things then I could just move them to the secluded PD (the right place) and no-one's carefully thought-out content, time, and effort went to waste.

Now, as it currently stands with all this very, very unfortunate talk about litigation, my only option is (forcefully) to delete any posts that I feel are overtly political because I have nowhere left to "send" them. So well done. Some will like it, some will miss it, and some, like me just experience it as disgruntled contributors unhappy about their posts being deleted. Great result.

Chris
(Also someone who doesn't choose to use a pseudonym.)

[scotview]

Been trying to keep up with this discussion.

A'm nae the maist articulate one here (my broad Buchan accent can be a bit limiting) would just like to extend my sincere appreciation to the moderators, they work tirelessly, are very professional (in my opinion) and I hope the LF discussion board continues well into the future.

Hope this message is nae oot o' place.

[XFool]

...Is that you, Jazzer?

[Clariman]

A'm nae the maist articulate one here (my broad Buchan accent can be a bit limiting) would just like to extend my sincere appreciation to the moderators, they work tirelessly, are very professional (in my opinion) and I hope the LF discussion board continues well into the future.

Hope this message is nae oot o' place.

Fit a braw thing tae spik aboot ye loon. Thanks.

[SalvorHardin]

You miss the point XFool. It isn't that everyone has to agree with one political view. It is more fundamental than that. The question we are asking ourselves is "what reason is there to have any purely political discussion on this site at all?"

We only have it, because we brought it over from TMF and we have done our best to make it a more positive place than its predecessor was on TMF (LoST) but we have struggled to do so.

In the end TMF UK gave up on the message boards in large part because of the extra moderation required for LoST after the Brexit vote (and other boards, such as Bert's Investors Sanctuary, where LoSTers would post and get recs). I got some info. about this from TMF staff who I knew through the socials - moderation was a big issue.

TMF's excuse of wanting to use different software for the boards was flimsy IMHO. At the time TMF USA used the same layout for its boards, and still does so to this day. They have similar moderation problems, though the 1st amendment and American case law regarding libel means that possible legal problems are minor. Also TMF USA has economies of scale that TMF UK didn't possess.

I suspect that many PD posters never or hardly ever post anywhere else on TLF, but have made thousands of PD posts They're here for the bunfight. If people could post about these matters dispassionately, say as if they were scenario planning it would work, but very few can.

If it was me running the site I'd shut PD. Then watch out on the economy and macro boards which are likely to attract refugees. Too many people believe that macroeconomic forecasts are scientifically accurate and post as if they are gospel, whereas they're more like a mixture of tea leaf reading and astrology.