Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

Formerly "Lemon Fool - Improve the Recipe" repurposed as Room 102 (see above).
Clariman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3268
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:17 am
Has thanked: 3077 times
Been thanked: 1557 times

State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451421

Postby Clariman » October 19th, 2021, 8:33 pm

The 'disengagement' topic in the Snug appears to have been prompted by a respected member's announcement that they intend to take a break from the site. They were not the first user to leave, nor the first to announce a break - and they won't be the last. Sometimes posters leave forever, sometimes they take a break, and sometimes they stay and lurk. At the same time we get new members.

It is a shame when users leave and it is frustrating for the site's owners when there has been no discussion about any real or perceived issues with the site. Furthermore, the most recent announced departure made it clear that they wanted no discussion of their departure. Nevertheless I did PM them to ask what they thought had changed. For reasons of privacy I won't quote their response, but the gist of the brief PM was that the site was no longer the good-natured investment community that it was at the outset. If that is, indeed, the case then we are all collectively to blame.

I can assure you that Stooz and I have not taken the site in a different direction, nor do we have any plans to move in any direction. Our initial objectives remain unchanged. We wanted to provide a vehicle for keeping the Fool community together after TMF announced the closure of its discussion boards. Five years later those who wish to remain part of that community - or who wish to join it - are very welcome. When some posters here are not as good-natured as we would like them to be, it is deeply frustrating - and it is their point-scoring or baiting behaviour that drives some good people away. We do our best to deal with this with our team of moderators and the site runs pretty well. It is certainly a far more polite place than most social media and discussion sites I have ever come across.

But there is only so much we can do as owners, Admins, and moderators. We need the community to respect the rules. If someone posts something that breaks the site rules, report the post - do not engage with it. If someone is clearly just looking to create an argument, don't engage with it - report it or ignore it.

So overall, I am happy with the way that the site is running but I would really like any point-scoring or argumentative baiting to disappear.

It is sad when people leave the site, especially when they are valued contributors, and I would dearly welcome many of them back. However, the world moves on. People come and go. It is part of life's rich tapestry.

Clariman

Clariman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3268
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:17 am
Has thanked: 3077 times
Been thanked: 1557 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451423

Postby Clariman » October 19th, 2021, 8:41 pm

The above is a statement of how I feel about the site. Below, I will respond to some specific comments that were made on the disengagement discussion.

ReformedCharacter wrote:I wonder if there are too many non-investment boards and that TLF might be improved by pruning some of them, specifically those that tend to generate acrimonious disagreements and point scoring. There are of course other forums available elsewhere. Reducing the number of boards should make moderation easier too. After all, the description in the banner at the top of the page is Shares, Investment and Personal Finance Discussion Forums and it seems that the boards that generate most acrimony are those which aren't about Shares, Investment and Personal Finance.

The above comment was supported by some, but vehemently disagreed with by others. My position on this is that one of the great features of the Fool community is the wealth of knowledge covering so many different subject areas. The site would be much poorer without this breadth of discussion in my opinion. The one exception to this is the political discussions on CAN. I would give consideration to getting rid of that. However, there are some positive reasons for retaining it too.

C

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451424

Postby Lootman » October 19th, 2021, 8:43 pm

I will assume there that you are referring to IAAG, rather than the instigator of the "Disengagement" topic who was someone else. As I mentioned elsewhere IAAG is/was far and away the most thanked Lemon and a former moderator. I regret his departure.

He never actually cited which specific behaviors or locations drove him away. I could guess but won't. He referred to "acrinomy" but that can happen both on investment boards (HYP) and on non-investment boards (CAN), and others I feel sure.

Since IAAG did not want subsequent discussion I hesitate to discuss further. But if we are to learn from these experiences and misfortunes then it might be important to better understand the who, why, what and where of the errant behaviour. Otherwise nothing changes. You are in a unique position to clarify that.

Clariman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3268
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:17 am
Has thanked: 3077 times
Been thanked: 1557 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451427

Postby Clariman » October 19th, 2021, 8:48 pm

Lootman wrote:I will assume there that you are referring to IAAG, rather than the instigator of the "Disengagement" topic who was someone else. As I mentioned elsewhere IAAG is/was far and away the most thanked Lemon and a former moderator. I regret his departure.

Yes and me too.

He never actually cited which specific behaviors or locations drove him away.

Indeed he did not.

Since IAAG did not want subsequent discussion I hesitate to discuss further.

Me too

But if we are to learn from these experiences and misfortunes then it might be important to better understand the who, why, what and where of the errant behaviour. Otherwise nothing changes. You are in a unique position to clarify that.

Agreed, but I only got a brief response when I asked. Like you, I feel I need to respect his wish not to discuss, which is why I didn't refer directly to any poster in my original post and why I have not pushed for more information. So I think we need to leave any conjecture about one individual's reasons for leaving.

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4764
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 4814 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451430

Postby csearle » October 19th, 2021, 8:52 pm

I get on well with Itsallaguess. I hope he is only taking a break. Same with Snorvey. We are not all blessed with an insight into all the other stuff going on in their lives. For me this place is a home-from-home that I love. I suspect it has become that for many others, probably including the guys above. If it appears to steer off into a direction that you don't like, be patient, sooner or later enough feedback will accrue to influence the site owners to tweak it back.

However you love/like/loath this site, please try to express in on Improve the Recipe to help make it better.

Thanks,
Chris

mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7812
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3017 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451436

Postby mc2fool » October 19th, 2021, 9:22 pm

Clariman wrote:When some posters here are not as good-natured as we would like them to be, it is deeply frustrating - and it is their point-scoring or baiting behaviour that drives some good people away.

I'll bet that that vast majority of such issues are by the same small number of posters, and the vast majority of reports about posts by them.

You know who those repeat offenders, trolls, point scorers, baiters, flamers, wind-up merchants and (yes) rabid bigots are.

Just kick them off the site.

Yes, they may sign up again from a different email address and with a different username, and if they do so and behave themselves then fine. If not, kick them off again.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451437

Postby XFool » October 19th, 2021, 9:26 pm

Lootman wrote:Since IAAG did not want subsequent discussion I hesitate to discuss further. But if we are to learn from these experiences and misfortunes then it might be important to better understand the who, why, what and where of the errant behaviour. Otherwise nothing changes. You are in a unique position to clarify that.

I agree with this, from a practical point of view. (Though I can also foresee pitfalls...)

Unless we really know what we are talking about - with examples? - there can be no real understanding, no real possibility of corrective feedback (in both directions?). It is all rather vague; arousing suspicion, doubt and uncertainty.

Rightly or wrongly, I also wonder if there is a degree of misunderstanding and misinterpretation (even possibly error?) behind at least some of this. e.g. I have been 'credited' with formenting strife on a TLF board which typically I don't even read, let alone post on. :?:

JohnB
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2497
Joined: January 15th, 2017, 9:20 am
Has thanked: 677 times
Been thanked: 997 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451445

Postby JohnB » October 19th, 2021, 10:28 pm

Clariman wrote:It is a shame when users leave and it is frustrating for the site's owners when there has been no discussion about any real or perceived issues with the site.


Perhaps its because that much of the dissatisfaction is about moderation, and we are explicitly not allowed to discuss that.

Clariman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3268
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:17 am
Has thanked: 3077 times
Been thanked: 1557 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451447

Postby Clariman » October 19th, 2021, 10:36 pm

JohnB wrote:
Clariman wrote:It is a shame when users leave and it is frustrating for the site's owners when there has been no discussion about any real or perceived issues with the site.


Perhaps its because that much of the dissatisfaction is about moderation, and we are explicitly not allowed to discuss that.

As I have made clear countless times, if anyone has any issues with moderation, they can contact me at any time. Strangely, despite the clamour to discuss moderation nobody seems bothered enough about it to PM me.

C

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2311
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 592 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451448

Postby SteMiS » October 19th, 2021, 10:38 pm

Clariman wrote:The one exception to this is the political discussions on CAN. I would give consideration to getting rid of that. However, there are some positive reasons for retaining it too.

The role of CAN, as I understand it, is to be a place to which to segregate political discussions (which by their very nature, can stimulate strong passions on both sides) so they do not 'infect' the rest of the site.

The counter argument, I think, is that the introduction of politics into otherwise non political discussions can lead to the discussion being transfered (sometimes it appears, without any notification) to CAN, a place into which some posters would rather not venture.

I suspect if CAN was abolished then you'd see more politics in other areas and maybe make the life of moderators harder. I'm guessing a certain leeway is allowed in CAN that wouldn't be in other areas because, well, people know what they are getting in CAN (a sort of caveat emptor, or more accurately, cavete intrantes).

The downside to that of course is that the nature of CAN can lead to the expression of some quite bigotted and borderline racist views. As someone whose social life involves people from all over the world, I'll make no apology for being quite intolerant of that.

It seems however that some commentators simply have a problem with the repeat expression on CAN of what they consider 'unauthorised views'; who they dress up as anti wealth, 'left wing' or even worse, Guardian readers. The posters who hold those views are smeared as not proper investors, who don't post enough about investment (unlike simsqu, he's okay) or, even worse, investment contributions that are 'just not useful'.

Perhaps they'd prefer this site just became an echo chamber and some sort of political screening implemented before access is granted....? :lol:

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451450

Postby Lootman » October 19th, 2021, 10:43 pm

mc2fool wrote:I'll bet that that vast majority of such issues are by the same small number of posters, and the vast majority of reports about posts by them.

You know who those repeat offenders, trolls, point scorers, baiters, flamers, wind-up merchants and (yes) rabid bigots are.

Just kick them off the site.

Not sure how helpful that is. Each one of us can probably claim that we know who the handful of errant Lemons are. But we probably also disagree on who those are. What we typically see is two camps in opposition to each other e.g. HYP'ers vs total returners, Leavers vs Remainers, active vs passive investors, socialists vs capitalists etc. Who you see as disruptive largely depends on subjective factors.

mc2fool wrote:Yes, they may sign up again from a different email address and with a different username, and if they do so and behave themselves then fine. If not, kick them off again.

Actually the two factors are email and IP addresses. That is all any site owner knows about a user, and both are infinitely variable, so kneejerk banning is not the solution. TMF banned any number of popular Fools on various pretexts. That encouraged some to try and game the system in an attempt to banish adversaries who were winning too many debates against them. But in the end the TMF boards collapsed, hinting that more fascism and censorship is not the solution.

JohnB
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2497
Joined: January 15th, 2017, 9:20 am
Has thanked: 677 times
Been thanked: 997 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451452

Postby JohnB » October 19th, 2021, 10:44 pm

Clariman wrote:
JohnB wrote:
Clariman wrote:It is a shame when users leave and it is frustrating for the site's owners when there has been no discussion about any real or perceived issues with the site.


Perhaps its because that much of the dissatisfaction is about moderation, and we are explicitly not allowed to discuss that.

As I have made clear countless times, if anyone has any issues with moderation, they can contact me at any time. Strangely, despite the clamour to discuss moderation nobody seems bothered enough about it to PM me.

C


Mailing a moderator who's position you disagree with is not the same as discussing the issue with the group. And its hardly a discussion when the power balance is so uneven. We individually have little chance of getting moderation policy changed, especially if we don't know others think the same.

When I see bad moderation, I doubt its worth querying it.
Last edited by JohnB on October 19th, 2021, 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Clariman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3268
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:17 am
Has thanked: 3077 times
Been thanked: 1557 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451453

Postby Clariman » October 19th, 2021, 10:46 pm

I intended to make a response to this comment earlier but forgot.

Obviously, the owners of the site need viewing numbers and contributors so it is hardly in their interests to do too much about this sort of thing but in recent times there has not been that much on 'Shares, Investment and Personal Finance Discussion' despite the fact that that is what the leader board tells us that TLF is all about.


The owners of this site need nothing. We don't need numbers, we don't need contributors, we don't even need the site to be honest. But we set it up for the general good of all and "yes" it has been a fun project. It would be a shame if it all ended and I see no reason why it should, but don't think this is anything like a commercial venture where we "need" numbers. The site needs some numbers and voluntary subscribers to make it self sustaining, but the owners need nothing.

Clariman

mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7812
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3017 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451456

Postby mc2fool » October 19th, 2021, 10:52 pm

Lootman wrote:
mc2fool wrote:I'll bet that that vast majority of such issues are by the same small number of posters, and the vast majority of reports about posts by them.

You know who those repeat offenders, trolls, point scorers, baiters, flamers, wind-up merchants and (yes) rabid bigots are.

Just kick them off the site.

Not sure how helpful that is. Each one of us can probably claim that we know who the handful of errant Lemons are. But we probably also disagree on who those are. What we typically see is two camps in opposition to each other e.g. HYP'ers vs total returners, Leavers vs Remainers, active vs passive investors, socialists vs capitalists etc. Who you see as disruptive largely depends on subjective factors.

The site owners have objective data to base it on: the posts that have been reported. Of course it will take some analysis but it's not simply a matter of my opinion vs yours, etc.

Lootman wrote:Actually the two factors are email and IP addresses. That is all any site owner knows about a user, and both are infinitely variable, so kneejerk banning is not the solution. TMF banned any number of popular Fools on various pretexts. That encouraged some to try and game the system in an attempt to banish adversaries who were winning too many debates against them. But in the end the TMF boards collapsed, hinting that more fascism and censorship is not the solution.

Nowhere did I suggest "kneejerk banning", consideration will be necessary, and I really don't think that "fascism" was why TMF pulled their UK boards. :roll:
Last edited by mc2fool on October 19th, 2021, 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Clariman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3268
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:17 am
Has thanked: 3077 times
Been thanked: 1557 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451457

Postby Clariman » October 19th, 2021, 10:53 pm

JohnB wrote:Mailing a moderator who's position you disagree with is not the same as discussing the issue with the group. And its hardly a discussion when the power balance is so uneven. We individually have little chance of getting moderation policy changed, especially if we don't know others think the same.

When I see bad moderation, I doubt its worth querying it.

You've misunderstood my comment. If you haven't done so please read this
viewtopic.php?f=101&t=31312

In particular can I draw your attention to this section

General Discussions on Moderation
If you wish to discuss the nature of Moderation in general, send a PM to Stooz and Clariman who will take note of what you say. They may discuss it with the other Moderator(s) and will make a decision whether to take any action. There is no board for general moderation discussions, but that does not mean we do not value feedback on moderation. We do value feedback, but PM is the appropriate mechanism for it. Thanks.


There is a system in place. If people don't want to use it, that is up to them. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

C

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451458

Postby Lootman » October 19th, 2021, 10:56 pm

mc2fool wrote:
Lootman wrote:
mc2fool wrote:I'll bet that that vast majority of such issues are by the same small number of posters, and the vast majority of reports about posts by them.

You know who those repeat offenders, trolls, point scorers, baiters, flamers, wind-up merchants and (yes) rabid bigots are.

Just kick them off the site.

Not sure how helpful that is. Each one of us can probably claim that we know who the handful of errant Lemons are. But we probably also disagree on who those are. What we typically see is two camps in opposition to each other e.g. HYP'ers vs total returners, Leavers vs Remainers, active vs passive investors, socialists vs capitalists etc. Who you see as disruptive largely depends on subjective factors.

The site owners have objective data to base it on: the posts that have been reported. Of course it will take some analysis but it's not simply a matter of my opinion vs yours, etc.

I am not sure if you are trying to indict those whose posts have been reported or those who report posts. Both, either or neither can be guilty.

But either way it appears that we don't really know what drove IAAG to leave, by his request. So I am not sure that speculation about that is appropriate.

Clariman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3268
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:17 am
Has thanked: 3077 times
Been thanked: 1557 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451459

Postby Clariman » October 19th, 2021, 11:01 pm

SteMiS wrote:The role of CAN, as I understand it, is to be a place to which to segregate political discussions (which by their very nature, can stimulate strong passions on both sides) so they do not 'infect' the rest of the site.

The counter argument, I think, is that the introduction of politics into otherwise non political discussions can lead to the discussion being transfered (sometimes it appears, without any notification) to CAN, a place into which some posters would rather not venture.

Agreed on both counts.

I suspect if CAN was abolished then you'd see more politics in other areas and maybe make the life of moderators harder. I'm guessing a certain leeway is allowed in CAN that wouldn't be in other areas because, well, people know what they are getting in CAN (a sort of caveat emptor, or more accurately, cavete intrantes).

The downside to that of course is that the nature of CAN can lead to the expression of some quite bigotted and borderline racist views. As someone whose social life involves people from all over the world, I'll make no apology for being quite intolerant of that.

There is NO leeway to allow racist views on CAN. You are intolerant of it. So am I. Please report racist posts.

C

mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7812
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3017 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451461

Postby mc2fool » October 19th, 2021, 11:10 pm

Lootman wrote:
mc2fool wrote:
Lootman wrote:Not sure how helpful that is. Each one of us can probably claim that we know who the handful of errant Lemons are. But we probably also disagree on who those are. What we typically see is two camps in opposition to each other e.g. HYP'ers vs total returners, Leavers vs Remainers, active vs passive investors, socialists vs capitalists etc. Who you see as disruptive largely depends on subjective factors.

The site owners have objective data to base it on: the posts that have been reported. Of course it will take some analysis but it's not simply a matter of my opinion vs yours, etc.

I am not sure if you are trying to indict those whose posts have been reported or those who report posts. Both, either or neither can be guilty.

And the site owners, with that data and its analysis, along with the moderators, with their experience, will know who is "guilty".

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451462

Postby Lootman » October 19th, 2021, 11:15 pm

mc2fool wrote:
Lootman wrote:
mc2fool wrote:The site owners have objective data to base it on: the posts that have been reported. Of course it will take some analysis but it's not simply a matter of my opinion vs yours, etc.

I am not sure if you are trying to indict those whose posts have been reported or those who report posts. Both, either or neither can be guilty.

And the site owners, with that data and its analysis, along with the moderators, with their experience, will know who is "guilty".

I think Clariman has been quite balanced and open-minded about the issues here, and so is less likely to rush to blame anyone based either on your "data" or any other factor. I suspect that he sees the issue as more nuanced, as do I.

The important thing in my view is not to repeat the mistakes of TMF, which led to self-destruction.

Clariman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3268
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:17 am
Has thanked: 3077 times
Been thanked: 1557 times

Re: State of the TLF Nation: Users taking breaks and other 'disengagement' discussions

#451464

Postby Clariman » October 19th, 2021, 11:17 pm

Lootman wrote:
mc2fool wrote:
Lootman wrote:I am not sure if you are trying to indict those whose posts have been reported or those who report posts. Both, either or neither can be guilty.

And the site owners, with that data and its analysis, along with the moderators, with their experience, will know who is "guilty".

I think Clariman has been quite balanced and open-minded about the issues here, and so is less likely to rush to blame anyone based either on your "data" or any other factor. I suspect that he sees the issue as more nuanced, as do I.

The important thing in my view is not to repeat the mistakes of TMF, which led to self-destruction.

Can we park this part of the discussion here, please? I suspect it could continue with you both wanting the last word.

Thanks


Return to “Room 102 - Site Issues, Complaints & General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests