The Lemon Fool

Is it possible to discuss this please?

Perhaps I'm over-thinking?

Is the board succeeding with "polite debate?" or not?

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:
Is the board succeeding with "polite debate?" or not?

My own view on this is that it was a mistake to remove the 'hidden' nature of the Polite Discussions board when it was changed to be the 'Current News & Affairs Board'.

I think there's merit in allowing spaces to exist for the types of debates regularly seen in that area of the site, but I think the benefits of removing the 'hidden' nature of that type of discussion area are far, far outweighed by the downside of drowning out what is supposed to be a 'Shares, Investment and Personal Finance Discussion Forum' by the nature of the high-volume and often aggressive debates going on there.

I strongly believe that more should be done, using the site-tools already available to do so, to promote the things that bring us together, and don't give equal prominence to the regular types of non-financial debates that choose to divide us....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Itsallaguess wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:
Is the board succeeding with "polite debate?" or not?

My own view on this is that it was a mistake to remove the 'hidden' nature of the Polite Discussions board when it was changed to be the 'Current News & Affairs Board'.

I think there's merit in allowing spaces to exist for the types of debates regularly seen in that area of the site, but I think the benefits of removing the 'hidden' nature of that type of discussion area are far, far outweighed by the downside of drowning out what is supposed to be a 'Shares, Investment and Personal Finance Discussion Forum' by the nature of the high-volume and often aggressive debates going on there.

I strongly believe that more should be done, using the site-tools already available to do so, to promote the things that bring us together, and don't give equal prominence to the regular types of non-financial debates that choose to divide us....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Agreed.

I think the site would be better if it got back to its personal finance roots rather than being a general discussion forum for whatever people want to moan about at the time.

I don't view the boards separately. I click the view "unread posts" option in the Quick Links menu at the top.
So I see everything. Whether I want to or not.

If something political takes my fancy I will have a look but it invariably descends into evil Tories/Brexit is awful/woke is going to eat us/BBC is Tory or Labour biased/Trump is awful etc.
Even a thread on Australian trade deals became politicised in a way it shouldn't. Brexit. Johnson threw British farmers under the bus (not the one with £350m on the side though). It didn't quite get into "thick racist Northern brexiteers didn't know what they were voting for" territory but give it time.

Several posters have said they intend to post less and a few good ones have actually stopped posting as much as they used to.
The place is worse off for their lack of input on personal finance matters.

I agree that the site should stick to its stated purpose 'Shares, Investment and Personal Finance Discussion Forums'

I doubt anyone's mind is ever changed by political or current affairs debates on this forum and it just muddies the waters and raises the temperature.
I suspect also it creates a lot of avoidable work for the moderators.

Stick with 'Shares, Investment and Personal Finance Discussion Forums'

absolutezero wrote:I think the site would be better if it got back to its personal finance roots rather than being a general discussion forum for whatever people want to moan about at the time.

I don't view the boards separately. I click the view "unread posts" option in the Quick Links menu at the top.
So I see everything. Whether I want to or not.

Jeez, read them a different way then! The board software allows you to subscribe to topics, and view them via the subscription list or via notifications.

If there are discussions going on that you don't want to get involved in, then simply don't go there.

To want part of the site removed because you read your way through it in a (forgive me) dumb way, strikes me as rather selfish.

Scott.

I'm quite happy for there to be a respectful and considered discussion about CAN here, which I will read.

However, for those who do not like the CAN board, I suggest that you completely ignore it. There are many boards on TLF that I never look at, unless someone tells me that I need to take action on it. There are plenty of ways of accessing the boards without reading anything on CAN.

The reason we have a Current Affairs board is to allow people to discuss a wide range of topics, some of which might have a bearing on financial matters, some of which will not. However, many people like to discuss these things and if we did not have the CAN board, they would bubble up on other boards on the site. Better to have them in one place.

Clariman

Clariman wrote:
I'm quite happy for there to be a respectful and considered discussion about CAN here, which I will read.

However, for those who do not like the CAN board, I suggest that you completely ignore it.

But would you agree that anyone wishing to do so has had that task made much more difficult by the decision to remove what used to be the 'hidden' nature of that board Clariman?

I would think that if there should be any hurdles put in place in relation to the subject of aggressive political debate on a 'financial discussion site', that those hurdles should be put in place for those wishing to access such areas, and not put in place for those that wish to ignore them....

Many people are wanting to do exactly what you're asking of them Clariman, but you've actually removed one of the key tools that enabled them to do so in the simplest possible way....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Itsallaguess wrote:

Clariman wrote:
I'm quite happy for there to be a respectful and considered discussion about CAN here, which I will read.

However, for those who do not like the CAN board, I suggest that you completely ignore it.

But would you agree that anyone wishing to do so has had that task made much more difficult by the decision to remove what used to be the 'hidden' nature of that board Clariman?

I would think that if there should be any hurdles put in place in relation to the subject of aggressive political debate on a 'financial discussion site', that those hurdles should be put in place for those wishing to access such areas, and not put in place for those that wish to ignore them....

People are wanting to do exactly what you're asking of them Clariman, but you've removed one of the key tools that enabled them to do so in the simplest possible way....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I'd be very happy to ignore it. As I used to when it was hidden.
As for the poster above thinking my way of viewing the site is dumb. Says it all really.

Itsallaguess wrote:

Clariman wrote:
I'm quite happy for there to be a respectful and considered discussion about CAN here, which I will read.

However, for those who do not like the CAN board, I suggest that you completely ignore it.

But would you agree that anyone wishing to do so has had that task made much more difficult by the decision to remove what used to be the 'hidden' nature of that board Clariman?

I would think that if there should be any hurdles put in place in relation to the subject of aggressive political debate on a 'financial discussion site', that those hurdles should be put in place for those wishing to access such areas, and not put in place for those that wish to ignore them....

Many people are wanting to do exactly what you're asking of them Clariman, but you've actually removed one of the key tools that enabled them to do so in the simplest possible way....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I'm ambivalent about whether it is hidden or not, but really it isn't hard to ignore it! But then it was never hidden from me as an Admin anyway.

A hidden board causes other problems, as you know. Sometimes a poster who did not want access to Polite Discussions (CAN's predecessor) or who didn't know it was there, would start political discussions elsewhere on the site. When a Mod, quite correctly, moved that topic to the Polite Discussions board the user would complain "what happened to my post. Why have you deleted it?" to which the answer was that it had been moved to PD which then prompted the user to complain again "but why have you moved my post to a board that I have chosen not to see?" to which the answer was that is the only board where we allow political discussion. "Well I don't want to join that board but I do want to have my say about ABC [political topic]". Well sorry you can't - make your choice - no politics or join the board where you can talk about it. With CAN being visible to everyone we no longer have that particular problem.

Clariman

absolutezero wrote:As for the poster above thinking my way of viewing the site is dumb. Says it all really.

What it says is that the board software is offering you tools to facilitate reading the boards is a number of ways, yet you're ignoring them and choosing the simplest way possible, thus confronting you with parts of the site you don't want to see.

How would you describe it?

Scott.

Clariman wrote:I'm ambivalent about whether it is hidden or not, but really it isn't hard to ignore it! But then it was never hidden from me as an Admin anyway.

A hidden board causes other problems, as you know. Sometimes a poster who did not want access to Polite Discussions (CAN's predecessor) or who didn't know it was there, would start political discussions elsewhere on the site. When a Mod, quite correctly, moved that topic to the Polite Discussions board the user would complain "what happened to my post. Why have you deleted it?" to which the answer was that it had been moved to PD which then prompted the user to complain again "but why have you moved my post to a board that I have chosen not to see?" to which the answer was that is the only board where we allow political discussion. "Well I don't want to join that board but I do want to have my say about ABC [political topic]". Well sorry you can't - make your choice - no politics or join the board where you can talk about it. With CAN being visible to everyone we no longer have that particular problem.

Yeah. But I'd like to point out - one more time - that it all depends on one's definition of what is and is not "political discussion"!

Clearly, alternative definitions are available.

swill453 wrote:

absolutezero wrote:As for the poster above thinking my way of viewing the site is dumb. Says it all really.

What it says is that the board software is offering you tools to facilitate reading the boards is a number of ways, yet you're ignoring them and choosing the simplest way possible, thus confronting you with parts of the site you don't want to see.

How would you describe it?

Scott.

The easiest way of my seeing all the unread posts in one place.
Not 'dumb', as you said. Which sums up the whole problem with the political debates on here (of which this is an extension).
The other side is 'dumb'/wrong etc.

What's your problem with how I choose to view the site?

absolutezero wrote:If something political takes my fancy I will have a look but it invariably descends into evil Tories/Brexit is awful/woke is going to eat us/BBC is Tory or Labour biased/Trump is awful etc.
Even a thread on Australian trade deals became politicised in a way it shouldn't. Brexit. Johnson threw British farmers under the bus (not the one with £350m on the side though). It didn't quite get into "thick racist Northern brexiteers didn't know what they were voting for" territory but give it time.

You seem to have a major bee in your bonnet about people expressing political views you don't agree with.

absolutezero wrote:Several posters have said they intend to post less and a few good ones have actually stopped posting as much as they used to.
The place is worse off for their lack of input on personal finance matters.

Why would anyone stop posting because the site contains discussions they don't want to take part in ? Why don't they....just not take part in them ?

I don't always agree with some of the stuff posted in Beerpig's Snug, but I don't ask the site to close it down...

absolutezero wrote:What's your problem with how I choose to view the site?

To repeat what I already said, since you ask - because it's causing you to request to remove bits of the site you don't want to see, to the detriment of those that do want to see it.

Changing your method of viewing would seem to be the obvious solution.

Scott.

swill453 wrote:

absolutezero wrote:What's your problem with how I choose to view the site?

To repeat what I already said, since you ask - because it's causing you to request to remove bits of the site you don't want to see, to the detriment of those that do want to see it.

Changing your method of viewing would seem to be the obvious solution.

Scott.

I have not requested removal of anything.
I have suggested the ability to block politics (as we had before).
You can interpret 'return to its roots' as you like.
But as far as removal is concerned, direct referenced quotes please.

Clariman wrote:However, for those who do not like the CAN board, I suggest that you completely ignore it. There are many boards on TLF that I never look at, unless someone tells me that I need to take action on it. There are plenty of ways of accessing the boards without reading anything on CAN.

The reason we have a Current Affairs board is to allow people to discuss a wide range of topics, some of which might have a bearing on financial matters, some of which will not. However, many people like to discuss these things and if we did not have the CAN board, they would bubble up on other boards on the site. Better to have them in one place.

Clariman

I think I have an issue with CAN. My perception is that politics creeps into every thread. It's relentless. And I feel it ultimately creates exclusion, not inclusion. But then we come full circle in the discussion to the work we as a community ask our moderators to do. I deliberately try not to report posts as I just feel it's a "chore" for the moderators. I've had this discussion before that moderation should start with the community posters. The reality is always going to be less than this perfect vision.

I read the site by using the "new post" option. If there's another way of reading the site then I'd welcome information on how to do that. I think the idea of setting up boards I want to include in a viewing screen seems more time consuming than simply being able to block a board. I accept I have the "ignore poster" option.

Thank you for listening

AiY

absolutezero wrote:I have not requested removal of anything.
I have suggested the ability to block politics (as we had before).
You can interpret 'return to its roots' as you like.

It's how I interpreted "I think the site would be better if it got back to its personal finance roots rather than being a general discussion forum for whatever people want to moan about at the time." Is there a different interpretation?

Scott.

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:I read the site by using the "new post" option. If there's another way of reading the site then I'd welcome information on how to do that. I think the idea of setting up boards I want to include in a viewing screen seems more time consuming than simply being able to block a board. I accept I have the "ignore poster" option.

Thank you for listening

AiY

I just look at the main page that lists all forums and check to see if the icon beside the ones I like shows that there are new posts (red). If there are, I open that board and use the same feature to tell me which topics have new posts. I ignore the ones I'm not interested in but read those that do interest me. What could be easier?

So I don't go anywhere near boards that don't interest me. And on boards that do interest me I don't go anywhere near topics that don't interest me.

absolutezero wrote:

swill453 wrote:

absolutezero wrote:As for the poster above thinking my way of viewing the site is dumb. Says it all really.

What it says is that the board software is offering you tools to facilitate reading the boards is a number of ways, yet you're ignoring them and choosing the simplest way possible, thus confronting you with parts of the site you don't want to see.

How would you describe it?

Scott.

The easiest way of my seeing all the unread posts in one place.
Not 'dumb', as you said. Which sums up the whole problem with the political debates on here (of which this is an extension).
The other side is 'dumb'/wrong etc.

What's your problem with how I choose to view the site?

You can view all the unread posts, but you do not have to read them all. I read all those on the main boards which interest me, and the rest I look at the titles and move on. I guess that of the posts on the unread list, which may run to 3 pages, I probably read 5 or 6. The rest, like Laughing Lemons, are not of interest, so I do not read posts there.

TJH