Question 1: Site Guidelines

[barjon]

Do the site guidelines need more clarity regarding acceptable behaviour?

Just to expand on this a little. The kernel of this question is about thread disruption. Some members feel that posts that divert too much from the topic under discussion, whether or not they are overtly rude or unacceptable in other ways, are irritating and disruptive to a smooth flow of discussion.

Good discussions rarely take place without some asides, of course, but there is a balance to be drawn.

The purpose of this question is to find out if members would like to see a bit more clarity in this respect in our guidelines, both to increase awareness and to enable a better understanding of moderating decisions.

Just a simple yes or no vote for this one backed up by comments if you wish. Some people have already commented in the main thread about Site Guidelines and Moderating Standards. Note has already been taken of those and there's no need to repeat your comments here unless you want to do so. I would be grateful if you'd cast a vote though

jon

 

[Mr. Charts]

Asides on threads seem perfectly reasonable to me and often lighten discussion provided they are not hostile.
Harmless/amusing comments are fine and anyone distracted by them from the main thrust of the thread needs to sharpen their concentration - an ability essential to trading.
If mods remove harmless posts then members are likely to feel they are being treated like children. Apart from which I'm sure mods have better things to do.
Distinguishing between such comments and unpleasant ones should be left to the discretion of the mods. That's not difficult - it's the difference between a little litter in the playground and excrement being thrown at others by yobbos hiding behind the anonymity of their handles.
So my answer is "no". Common sense and tolerance should dictate the finer points of moderator decision making and in my view moderators should only engage in debate with members rarely, not as a routine. Every sensible person knows what is acceptable and what is not. Whilst the line between the two will always be blurred and be a matter of judgement, endless debate about such matters is futile and defeats the point in having a trading/investment BB.
Richard

 

[rols]

Quite so.

Intellectual irony is as much a part of trading as it is for discussion boards.

 

[dbphoenix]

I agree with just about everything Richard says, but I come to a "yes" instead, to clarity and to what would hopefully be a better understanding of moderator decisions (assuming that clarity would result in more consistency and equity).

However, this has little to nothing to do with yanking posts. Off-topic posts are not the problem in and of themselves. The problem, if and when it occurs, is the reaction to them. If somebody makes some post or other that causes little or no reaction, so what? But if it results in a dozen or two or three posts reacting to it and throwing the thread off into an entirely different direction, if not a flamefest, then of course it should be pulled. What to do with all the reaction posts is something else.

I disagree that "every sensible person knows what is acceptable and what is not". If only it were so. But rather than throw up one's hands in surrender and leave it all up to the moderator's discretion (which may not provide the same result as another moderator's discretion, which may not provide . . . ), look at the results of the post. If there aren't any, leave it. If it creates a lot of turmoil, go on from there. And if there's any crabbing about it, further clarity in the guidelines can't help but make the moderators' jobs easier.

 

[SOCRATES]

Asides on threads seem perfectly reasonable to me and often lighten discussion provided they are not hostile.
Harmless/amusing comments are fine and anyone distracted by them from the main thrust of the thread needs to sharpen their concentration - an ability essential to trading.
If mods remove harmless posts then members are likely to feel they are being treated like children. Apart from which I'm sure mods have better things to do.
Distinguishing between such comments and unpleasant ones should be left to the discretion of the mods. That's not difficult - it's the difference between a little litter in the playground and excrement being thrown at others by yobbos hiding behind the anonymity of their handles.
So my answer is "no". Common sense and tolerance should dictate the finer points of moderator decision making and in my view moderators should only engage in debate with members rarely, not as a routine. Every sensible person knows what is acceptable and what is not. Whilst the line between the two will always be blurred and be a matter of judgement, endless debate about such matters is futile and defeats the point in having a trading/investment BB.
Richard
Richard

Wholly in agreement, seconded, absolutely.

As another aside, "Son et Lumiere" much enjoyed on this special occasion. Many thanks.

 

[Mr. Charts]

Better than a decoupling of heat and fire.....

I hear what you are saying dbp, but division of labour and concentration of resources to their most effective end also play a part.
I am not talking surrender here.
I don't do surrender as a few people on these boards have discovered over the years.
I also think you put the fire out rather than wait and see what the results of inaction might be.
As in the markets, anticipation and early but not precipitate action help make life rather more pleasant.
Richard

 

[dbphoenix]

I also think you put the fire out rather than wait and see what the results of inaction might be.
As in the markets, anticipation and early but not precipitate action help make life rather more pleasant.
Richard

If you mean "you" literally, I don't have the authority to put out fires, except in my own forum, and there it rarely comes up. If you mean putting out fires generally, that's what pulling posts is all about, and I don't agree with doing so purely on the basis of discretionary judgement.

In any case, as you well know, there just aren't that many people who habitually violate the guidelines, at least with the sole intent of creating a lot of turmoil. Anticipation and early action may occupy more time than the activity is worth, but that's really up to whoever is in a position to do something about the problem.

In other words, if the guidelines are clear, or at least clearer, then the moderator can assume that the individual violating the guidelines is more likely doing so intentionally. Or, if it turns out to be all a big misunderstanding, at least the individual will have a clearer idea of what's expected in the future. Then, if he continues to flaunt them, the moderator is less likely to feel like a bully for enforcing them.

And, yes, in more ways than one it's all a tempest in a teapot. And private forums are nice. But they're not the answer.

 

[fudgestain]

It is part of the culture, differentiation and hidden tribalism of this country's ancient society to sometimes relish an obsession with rules and procedures. This is wanting the overlay as well as the underlay. The underlay is this: I read, as everyone else, does .. between the lines. That is how we communicate here. But not so in USA, Canada, Oz & NZ. The same English language means what is says there .. literally. There they puzzle upon or miss completely connotations intended between the lines. I'm not surprised when those who go from here to there find it a very refreshing change.

Bottom line: those who need stricter guidelines need to go back to wearing nappies.

 

[dbphoenix]

And those who can't follow the existing guidelines should perhaps not be allowed to play with the other children at all . . .

In any case, the question isn't about stricter guidelines but about clarity, which I would think is inarguable. However, I underestimate the desire of some to have guidelines that are as vague as possible, since guidelines of that sort are very enabling.

 

[fxmarkets]

Yes, using this opportunity to promote general awareness/reminder to members. Mr Charts puts it very well though..

I'm reminded here of "kids" yobs disrupting local a resident in the community,because? (general growing lack of awareness ,consideration and respect for others but ultimately of themselves)

A retired doctor and his wife actually moved out from a village near to me because nothing was being done about it. A policeman in a newspaper interview said "We should negotiate with them on the streets" I was shocked, thinking no, thats the job of their solicitor when they are in court for breach of the peace/vandalism,continual abuse etc.

We have generations growing up who think nothing of telling police/ authority figures./who ever.... to F... Off. what u gonna do w****ker. Some how a very big ball has been put in motion rolling downhill.. hmmm so for some perhaps of todays new culture it all seems so normal, acceptable because thats how it seems to be...

right now on talk sport radio they are discussing yobs,crime and something has to be done about it.. the ball is gathering speed how we divert its course or reverse its direction is or seems impossible ..

Internet user saturation point isn't here yet but perhaps not too far off year or two maybe so I can see that if tough policing isn't believed in or enforced then its only a matter of time before "residents" pack up and move out. There will be offspring online but discussion? how can it flourish , some people have mentioned elite trader? being terrible... not been on that but can imagine, thats what will happen here if you let the kids get on with it.. but kids like to chuck money at things, so are good fast spenders maybe on a commercial website.. its a toughie.

best with it though mods...

 

[fudgestain]

..clarity, which I would think is inarguable. However, I underestimate the desire of some to have guidelines that are as vague as possible, since guidelines of that sort are very enabling.

That is typically your approach .. your view you think is inarguable.

There will always be those like you who want more and finer rules .. it doesn't add anything.
Not something apparently that you yet understand.

 

[dbphoenix]

There will always be those like you who want more and finer rules .. it doesn't add anything.
Not something apparently that you yet understand.

As for not understanding, again this has nothing to do with more and finer; it has to do with clarity. Nor does it have to do with strict or not strict; it has to do with clarity.

If you have something to contribute, perhaps the discussion will be advanced. If you're interested only in attacking me, perhaps another thread would be more appropriate.

 

[LION63]

The Site's guidelines are quite clear and specific as they stand. There is no need whatsoever to tinker with them, unacceptable behaviour means exactly that. Are we to believe that a member facing a ban or suspension would claim that he/she was not aware that the said behaviour is unacceptable?

If the answer is yes, then I regret to say that therein lies the problem. When an individual joins others in a group/forum/club etc. they are made aware of the rules and they have to abide by them otherwise they are ejected. The fact that they might pay a membership subscription will not act as protection. This is a traders' forum which means all members can read and write (English being a second language does not suffice as an excuse) so the rules are quite clear to all an sundry.

There are other proposals that have been put forward since this subject arose, they are far more important. Quite frankly, this one is of little or no relevance whatsoever and would be a complete waste of time.

 

[MasoMinos]

Pointless question. The general membership is not complaining about lack of clarity of the guidelines.

A more appropriate question might be "Should all the moderators apply the guidelines strictly to the letter, in all cases, without personal interpretation, in the same specific manner - YES/NO".

It's lack of consistent, fair and objective moderation that's the problem - not the guidelines themselves.