I will just quote my message in the childcare thread if people haven’t seen it.
Sounds good to me! The only thing I would like to suggest: if someone creates a thread explicitly dedicated to one of these “banned topics”, then then discussion is contained within that thread and others can just mute/ignore it, while others can argue all night. What do you think?
It would be indeed good to split discussions in other topics, if a discussion worth it. If not, just kill it.
Well, I regret to see that control over what can and cannot be said is increasing everywhere, and now is moving in here as well. I don’t think that’s a good development, but I take note of it.
All I hope for is that moderation is enforced on both sides of the argument, not that one side can continue to call and discredit the other side/opinions however they want and the other side gets banned for the same.
Politics / social policies is an igniting topic, so if one person (which often happens to be you ) speaks in this context, someone will surely reply and then it sidetracks the original discussion. It’s a PITA to select posts and figure out the name of the new thread (from the perspective of a mod). It’s better if users show self-discipline.
So in my opinion, if you want to discuss some hot topic regarding personal freedom or whatever, start a new thread, put someone’s post as a quote and discuss it there. Unless @Julianek thinks we should really restrict this forum to advice on “how to deal with how things are” instead of debating “what should the things be like”.
I understand that it’s annoying from the perspective of a moderator. I just notice that often people post an article or say something that reflects their own political bias (e.g. post an article and call it Schwurbler bullshit, just to name an example), and then I feel inclined to reply accordingly.
So, in order to apply this policy equally, then people would have to post and express things neutrally without their own bias and judgment. Some people do it quite well but not everyone does it equally well. My worry is a bit that some people can continue to express whatever they want / their biased point of view and ad hominem attacks (Schwurbler, conspiracy theorists, flat earther, Nazis, Troll etc.), but others will get banned for expression their opposing opinion. We will see.
I agree on the idea, I disagree on the way you wrote it. Maybe it’s just the way you wrote it.
I don’t see an issue if someone want to talk endlessly about it, as long as it’s on its own thread.
Of course I don’t like how some people do that, but since it seems we are extremely liberal, I had to use the forum options to avoid that part:
(Which btw shows a bug on discourse: if the last reply is hidden, the thread will be shown as with 1 new comment in any case. But that’s not the topic here )
All for the new approach
Regards whether to allow political discussions under dedicated threads: don’t have a strong opinion just to point out the Coronavirus thread is by far the most viewed and replied: 62.3k and 4.3k respectively. Whether that is good traffic or not is another question
Personally I think, if you do allow separate threads for such discussions, they shouldn‘t „pollute“ the sub-forums but be moved to a dedicated sub-forum (a „playground“ for such discussions, if you will).
Don’t we have already the coffe subforum for that ?
With this should be fine
That’s a good idea, let’s try this. If you want to discuss a topic that is not directly linked to personal finance, create it in the coffee section. We should also add the tag [COFFEE] in the topic name to make it obvious that it is a general discussion topic.
The Coronavirus thread is the poster-child of what I am talking about: Among the 4.3k posts, most of them are people battling about pro or con vaccines, lockdown policies and mask mandates variants. If there was ever any qualititative information in the thread, it is lost in a see of endless debates (and debate is a nice word for what I am describing).
If you encounter a message where you think the author is advancing his political agenda without any benefit for the topic being discussed (and without any link to personal finance), the correct action is to report this message to moderation. The wrong action is to advance your own political agenda by throwing fuel on the (already derailing) discussion. When someone posts bullshit, we should clean it, not put horseshit on top of it.
I tried the “Let’s be very liberal and let everybody be responsible and post whatever they wish to talk about” moderation policy over the last five years. I am less and less satisfied with the results, because the signal to noise ratio on the forum is becoming weaker and weaker. Take a look at the recent childcare in Zürich topic. Out of 50 messages, maybe 5 or 6 are directly relevant to the original question. Everything else is endless debate about dad-or-mom-should-stay-at-home-wait-can-we-also-talk-about-taxes, and that does not go anywhere. If I were a newcomer in the forum I would find the amount of useful information very low, and that’s not what I want. The objective is to make relevant financial information more accessible on the forum.
I thought that would be the solution for some time, but unfortunately very few people use it, and you don’t need many users to continue to throw fuel on the fire. The “ignore” feature is inefficient on this forum.
Also doesn’t work for people who are not registered, so as you point out they might lose a lot of the benefit if things are buried in a sea of unrelated debates.
Highly welcome this change. To summarize your statement - would it be fair to say that:
- Messages shall be actionable, from a personable finance point of view (aka should I leave Switzerland because taxes were higher than in Dubai?)
- Messages may further be actionable avise / responses to such messages (Beware that in Dubai you have higher wealth/fraud crime risks and you could probably reduce taxes by optimizing your deductions)
If other topics move to the coffee talk section; appreciate if that section was no longer part of the „latest messages / what changes“ view - they simply polute my mind. If this was not possible, I would recommend we ask MP to create a second, coffee chat forum with its own URL (aka a playground that fast dies out).
You can mute the whole “Coffee” section for that. I’ve done it with the non-English sections on the forum (because I don’t understand French etc.), and it works flawlessly.
Go to section → top right corner click on the bell → muted
I welcome the new thinking.
The idea of the forum is to be able to find and discuss info. If this gets too chatty, it’s difficult to distill key messages and people may simply lose interest in reading long threads.
What they do on bogleheads is
- policy about certain topics (politics, crypto and others) that will be deleted / banned
- summary of key topic being discussed for long threads → helpful for long discussions about leverage investment / risk parity and etc
- closing topics. After topic loses its value or diverge too much from the key topic this is closed so people can read it and others can no longer continue commenting about it
I don’t agree with 1) in terms of deleting posts but I would encourage to communicate to stop discussing politics with consequence of deleting / banning if an user keeps talking about politics
I like 2). For certain very useful topics we could ask the topic initiator or other if he/she is keen to generate an upfront summary
I like 3) when topic gets out of hand and no longer relevant
I like that. I am also tired. I think we should pursue factual information, not opinions.
I just stop reading topics once they are polluted with debates on opinions, not on facts and strategies that are pertinent.
Too bad people have (strong) opinions on what constitute “factual information”.
Thank you for this attempt at returning the forum discussions to a more focussed & calm content.
I will certainly make use of this.
I think that the scope of the discussion should be about what answers the question in the title.
What are the childcare costs in the Canton of X?
Answers and discussion should be around:
- Actual examples of childcare cost with private vs public providers
- Tax implications
- In which cases it becomes cheaper to stay at home, taking into account pillar 2&3
- Cost of nanny or au pair…
Should not be around:
- Should there be public or subsidized childcare at all
- If it is good or bad parenting
Still plenty of room for debate…