Political posts may get you suspended until November 5

Discussions about the forum and contents
Topic Author
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Political posts may get you suspended until November 5

Post by Alex Frakt »

The moderators are being overwhelmed by the number of political comments in posts. In case anyone is unaware, our forum policy on political (and religious) posts follows:
In order to avoid the inevitable frictions that arise from these topics, political or religious posts and comments are prohibited, even in the Lounge forum.
To lessen the burden on the volunteer moderators, major violations of this policy - or lesser violations where the poster has a history of making political posts - will result in the poster's account being suspended until the day after the presidential election.

In addition, minor political remarks will be edited without formal notification to the poster. If you see that one of your posts has been edited to remove a political comment, take that as a warning that the next comment may result in a suspension.

P.S. Let me add that the "no politics" rule means "no politics", not "no partisan politics." There have been several occasions where people have posted polls or links to neutral political commentary under the belief that it was OK as long as they weren't advocating for a particular party. These posts are not OK and will be treated like any other political posting.

P.S. if you haven't already done so, please take a moment to read all the forum policies.
Last edited by Alex Frakt on Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
daryll40
Posts: 1804
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:40 am

Post by daryll40 »

I have to admit that I thought politics was OK as long as it was not partisan. I found out last week <got spanked :oops:> even non-partisan politics is politics!

This clarification is a good reminder.
User avatar
mickeyd
Posts: 4898
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:19 pm
Location: Deep in the Heart of South Texas

Post by mickeyd »

I was also banished to the corner of the room for some seemingly innocent political comment because I did not fully understand the rule.

This makes it quite clear. Thanks for posting it.
Part-Owner of Texas | | “The CMH-the Cost Matters Hypothesis -is all that is needed to explain why indexing must and will work… Yes, it is that simple.” John C. Bogle
philip51
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:46 am

Post by philip51 »

Thanks for the reminders. :)
User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Post by VictoriaF »

If the results of the Presidential elections in the U.S. are not finalized on 5 November, will the ban be extended?

Victoria
Curb Fan
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:28 am

Post by Curb Fan »

I understand the no partisan politics aspect but can anyone really claim that politics doesn't influence economics? What else doesn't? Family? Work? Considering the Treasury Department is part of the government and is itself investing hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy and banks, how do we get around this? This rule would be like telling a forum dedicated to gynecologists that they should avoid discussing birth control, rather than the debates surrounding it, because it might offend certain people.
User avatar
MekongTrader
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:33 am
Location: On the banks of the Mekong

Post by MekongTrader »

Although sometimes one is tempted to write something 'political', especially during these turbulent economic times, I find it good that this forum stays free of politics. It reflects in how people talk to each other in this forum: respectful and well-mannered.

MT
Topic Author
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Alex Frakt »

Curb Fan wrote:I understand the no partisan politics aspect but can anyone really claim that politics doesn't influence economics? What else doesn't? Family? Work? Considering the Treasury Department is part of the government and is itself investing hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy and banks, how do we get around this? This rule would be like telling a forum dedicated to gynecologists that they should avoid discussing birth control, rather than the debates surrounding it, because it might offend certain people.
This argument is based on the mistaken assumption that this is an economics forum. It's not, it's an investing and personal finance forum. The correct analogy would be like telling a forum dedicated to the treatment of gynecological issues that they should avoid discussing politics.

Let me point out that even discussions of economic policy are off limits here, although we occasionally have to bow to popular demand and allow a limited number of threads on hot economic topics, such as oil prices or the bailout.
Curb Fan
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:28 am

Post by Curb Fan »

I'll do my best, and none of my posts have been edited anyway but I do want to just point out that if we're talking about something like TIPS, they are a government asset and therefore linked to both politics and economic policy while also part of personal finance. I don't want to split hairs, and I understand that there is some subjectivity here, and I personally have no problem if the moderators have to use subjective analysis when editing posts. I just want to make sure that if I pose a non-partisan question about personal finance that happens to be in some minute way linked to politics, since in some way everything is, I won't be thrown out of the forum. I'm just glad I'm not in my 60s, every social security poster needs to watch out! BTW I do appreciate the non-partisan, inclusive part of this forum and the role that volunteer moderators play in it.
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
Posts: 35782
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida
Contact:

Post by Mel Lindauer »

Curb Fan wrote:I'll do my best, and none of my posts have been edited anyway but I do want to just point out that if we're talking about something like TIPS, they are a government asset and therefore linked to both politics and economic policy while also part of personal finance. I don't want to split hairs, and I understand that there is some subjectivity here, and I personally have no problem if the moderators have to use subjective analysis when editing posts. I just want to make sure that if I pose a non-partisan question about personal finance that happens to be in some minute way linked to politics, since in some way everything is, I won't be thrown out of the forum. I'm just glad I'm not in my 60s, every social security poster needs to watch out! BTW I do appreciate the non-partisan, inclusive part of this forum and the role that volunteer moderators play in it.
Methinks you are, indeed, attempting to split hairs by providing a bogus example. TIPS are an investment, plain and simple, and this is an investing forum. Don't know what's difficult to understand about that.

Regards,

Mel
Tramper Al
Posts: 3665
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:42 am

Post by Tramper Al »

What happens November 5th? I thought the new I-Bonds fixed rate come out on the first day of the month.
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
Posts: 35782
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida
Contact:

Post by Mel Lindauer »

Tramper Al wrote:What happens November 5th? I thought the new I-Bonds fixed rate come out on the first day of the month.
Where's your simley, Tramper Al?

Regards,

Mel
Curb Fan
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:28 am

Post by Curb Fan »

Well regardless of what people think of my examples and my own sentiment about the rule, I'll obviously cave since I do not (and am not even capable of) control this forum. I'll make sure in the future never to ask something like, "What effect may the bailout have on TIPS?". If one of my posts gets edited down the road, so be it, I can always go back to just reading other people's posts rather than posting myself if necessary. My complaints/questions aside, I love visiting this forum so thank you to those who make it possible.
Topic Author
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Alex Frakt »

Since the forum began, the moderators have issued 166 formal warnings for political content to 108 separate posters. Compare this to the total of over 300,000 posts and 6370 people who have made at least one post and I think you'll see that it's not that hard to stay within our guidelines.
peter71
Posts: 3769
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:28 pm

Post by peter71 »

Hmm . . . I've been trying to cut down on my post quantity and so my first thought was that if it's only a temporary ban I could do sort of a suicide by cop thing and go on an enormous political rant :D

Fellow over-posters, all I'm saying is that it's an option!

All best,
Pete

[Mod Note - Sorry, but we'd delete the post, so it would be a pointless exercise.]
User avatar
goggles
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:38 am

Post by goggles »

Alex Frakt wrote:The correct analogy would be like telling a forum dedicated to the treatment of gynecological issues that they should avoid discussing politics.
Uh, Alex, "gynecological issues" are among the most politicized in the US. Just sayin'.

I'll shut up now.
User avatar
LH2004
Posts: 1741
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: New York, NY

Post by LH2004 »

Alex Frakt wrote:Since the forum began, the moderators have issued 166 formal warnings for political content to 108 separate posters. Compare this to the total of over 300,000 posts and 6370 people who have made at least one post and I think you'll see that it's not that hard to stay within our guidelines.
That would be one interpretation.

Here's another: A substantial fraction of posts violate the rules as written. Most of the time, the moderators either don't read the offending message, or choose to leave it alone.
User avatar
Judsen
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:29 am
Location: Birmingham, Al.

Post by Judsen »

I confess, I would have been guilty of breaking the rules if I had not been such a procrastinator and slow typer.
Ya'll wouldn't believe how many times I submitted a post to a closed thread.
BTW in the investing realm I'm down about 40%.
Not to worry, going on a Euell Gibbons diet. Pine nuts, purslane etc.
The market is "fixing" my new A-A.
Regards,
Jud
User avatar
jeff mc
Posts: 2735
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:42 pm
Location: minnesota
Contact:

Post by jeff mc »

LH2004 wrote:
Alex Frakt wrote:Since the forum began, the moderators have issued 166 formal warnings for political content to 108 separate posters. Compare this to the total of over 300,000 posts and 6370 people who have made at least one post and I think you'll see that it's not that hard to stay within our guidelines.
That would be one interpretation.

Here's another: A substantial fraction of posts violate the rules as written. Most of the time, the moderators either don't read the offending message, or choose to leave it alone.
i can't speak for other mods, so let me speak for the other mods... :wink: i periodically search for "obama", "mccain", "bush", "republican", "democrat", "bailout", etc. and remove any hits i find. i also act on any PM i get that points me to any post against guidelines. and in my browsing, i edit out any violations (i have developed a pretty good sense based on the post title which ones may bring out some heat but no light). but we've had days here w/ over 200 new topics and 1000s of replies. believe me, we act apolitical and will remove anything needed that we see or know about.

please do us a favor, lh (and others)... the next time you read anything that violates the rules, PM any mod/admin that's online, and time how long it takes for it to be taken down. it will be w/in seconds (minutes). i believe this forum probably has one of the lowest mods per user ratios on the net, because we all do an excellent job of self editing for the most part. but certainly, things sometimes fall through the cracks. that's where the community needs to step in (and does step in).

thanks for everyone's efforts. i realize politics and economic issues are on everyone's minds these days. but just don't discuss them here. :)
likegarden
Posts: 3181
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:33 pm

Post by likegarden »

Thanks for banning politics.
I hate to read those political hints which are so obvious to readers with an average IQ, insulting intelligence.
Bernd
User avatar
arthurdawg
Posts: 929
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:47 am

Post by arthurdawg »

I for one am planning to write in Alex Frakt for President!!! If he can't do it nobody can!!!


oh wait... shoot fahr... i think i'm being political... :lol:


many thanks to you Alex, and the other fine folks who run this forum for us!! i think your guidelines are execellent.
Indexed Fully!
User avatar
LH2004
Posts: 1741
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: New York, NY

Post by LH2004 »

Alex Frakt wrote:I think you'll see that it's not that hard to stay within our guidelines.
I'm apparently not finding it so easy. Maybe I'm the only one.

Are discussions of optimal short-term Federal tax and spending policies prohibited here? If not, please let me know so that I can join in.
User avatar
legio XX
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:37 am
Location: Stack 12

Post by legio XX »

Alex Frakt wrote: . . . economics forum. It's not, it's an investing and personal finance forum. . . .
The personal is political. Not sure who aid it first . . . .

Vic
User avatar
arthurdawg
Posts: 929
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:47 am

Post by arthurdawg »

LH2004 wrote:
Alex Frakt wrote:I think you'll see that it's not that hard to stay within our guidelines.
I'm apparently not finding it so easy. Maybe I'm the only one.

Are discussions of optimal short-term Federal tax and spending policies prohibited here? If not, please let me know so that I can join in.

in most cases. if you have an apolitical tangent to an investing question then it is probably ok. you could always pm a mod if uncertain.
Indexed Fully!
User avatar
LH2004
Posts: 1741
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: New York, NY

Post by LH2004 »

arthurdawg wrote:
LH2004 wrote:
Alex Frakt wrote:I think you'll see that it's not that hard to stay within our guidelines.
I'm apparently not finding it so easy. Maybe I'm the only one.

Are discussions of optimal short-term Federal tax and spending policies prohibited here? If not, please let me know so that I can join in.
in most cases. if you have an apolitical tangent to an investing question then it is probably ok. you could always pm a mod if uncertain.
Well, the "apolitical" is what I'm asking about. I'm talking about a situation with no direct application to investing, just a policy discussion.
User avatar
schellhase
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post by schellhase »

I agree with the posting guidelines which prohibit political comment, but still don't you think it would be interesting to have a poll where members could vote for the candidate they support? It would give us some idea how closely the membership of this group tracks the general population.
Topic Author
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Alex Frakt »

LH2004 wrote:Are discussions of optimal short-term Federal tax and spending policies prohibited here? If not, please let me know so that I can join in.
From the forum policies:
Examples of unacceptable topics include:

- US or world economic, political, tax, and climate policies
Please keep in mind that our resources, especially human resources, are limited. Because of this we have made a conscious decision to limit topics to those that directly support the forum goals. The primary goal is to provide people with good and free investing advice and information. The secondary goal is to provide positive support to the community that has grown up around that first goal (originally at Morningstar and now here).

Topics like those mentioned above have nothing to do with our primary goal. And since there is no chance of reaching agreement on such questions and there is no chance that our arguing about it will have any affect on any actual policy decisions, the only effect it will have on the community is to create bad feelings between members and additional work for our volunteers.
Topic Author
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Alex Frakt »

schellhase wrote:I agree with the posting guidelines which prohibit political comment, but still don't you think it would be interesting to have a poll where members could vote for the candidate they support? It would give us some idea how closely the membership of this group tracks the general population.
No, it would not. There's a persistent misunderstanding that results from voluntary polls allow you to draw conclusions about a group that's larger than the poll respondents. But that simply is not true. Voluntary polls tend to draw from specific subsets of the larger population that do not necessarily represent that population. In fact, where response rates are in the typical sub-5% that we get on polls here, it is extremely likely that they do not.

Since the results of such a poll would not be meaningful, there's no good reason for us to violate one of our most basic and most important forum policies.
User avatar
LH2004
Posts: 1741
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: New York, NY

Post by LH2004 »

Alex Frakt wrote:
LH2004 wrote:Are discussions of optimal short-term Federal tax and spending policies prohibited here? If not, please let me know so that I can join in.
From the forum policies:
Examples of unacceptable topics include:

- US or world economic, political, tax, and climate policies
...

Topics like those mentioned above have nothing to do with our primary goal. And since there is no chance of reaching agreement on such questions and there is no chance that our arguing about it will have any affect on any actual policy decisions, the only effect it will have on the community is to create bad feelings between members and additional work for our volunteers.
Great, many thanks.

And so, just so I'm clear, if a member sees a thread devoted to discussion of the desirability possible changes in U.S. economic and tax policies, the member should PM a moderator, and then the discussion will be stopped?
peter71
Posts: 3769
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:28 pm

Post by peter71 »

Alex Frakt wrote:
schellhase wrote:I agree with the posting guidelines which prohibit political comment, but still don't you think it would be interesting to have a poll where members could vote for the candidate they support? It would give us some idea how closely the membership of this group tracks the general population.
No, it would not. There's a persistent misunderstanding that results from voluntary polls allow you to draw conclusions about a group that's larger than the poll respondents. But that simply is not true. Voluntary polls tend to draw from specific subsets of the larger population that do not necessarily represent that population. In fact, where response rates are in the typical sub-5% that we get on polls here, it is extremely likely that they do not.

Since the results of such a poll would not be meaningful, there's no good reason for us to violate one of our most basic and most important forum policies.
Survey research used to be my academic specialty and it's actually more complicated than this . . . very few polls (or elections) are non-voluntary, so it's really a matter of the degree to which they're messed up. In theory, there's a huge difference between a poll drawn from a known sample in which the exact probability that any member of the population will be included in that sample is known, but that still doesn't cover non-response bias, "coverage error" in the sampling frame, test effects (e.g., interviewer effects) etc. . . . As a result, about ten years ago some Yale and Harvard poli sci profs started doing some research on whether "good convenience samples" were in practice significantly less predictive of voting outcomes than probability samples, and I remember sitting through at least one conference paper that presented pretty persuasive evidence that there was no real difference, but IIRC that conference paper was by a Yale prof who was later called out for something between extraordinary sloppiness and deliberate misrepresentation of results in a study on get out the vote tactics . . . in sum, blah, blah, blah . .. . don't trust professors . . . it's complicated :D

All best,
Pete
Topic Author
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Alex Frakt »

LH2004 wrote:And so, just so I'm clear, if a member sees a thread devoted to discussion of the desirability possible changes in U.S. economic and tax policies, the member should PM a moderator, and then the discussion will be stopped?
Yes, actually a moderator or an admin (meaning me and tashina). But please give us some time to respond. In the past month the number of moderator actions per day has gone up around sixfold.
Topic Author
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Alex Frakt »

peter71 wrote:Survey research used to be my academic specialty and it's actually more complicated than this . . . very few polls (or elections) are non-voluntary, so it's really a matter of the degree to which they're messed up. In theory, there's a huge difference between a poll drawn from a known sample in which the exact probability that any member of the population will be included in that sample is known, but that still doesn't cover non-response bias, "coverage error" in the sampling frame, test effects (e.g., interviewer effects) etc. . . . As a result, about ten years ago some Yale and Harvard poli sci profs started doing some research on whether "good convenience samples" were in practice significantly less predictive of voting outcomes than probability samples, and I remember sitting through at least one conference paper that presented pretty persuasive evidence that there was no real difference, but IIRC that conference paper was by a Yale prof who was later called out for something between extraordinary sloppiness and deliberate misrepresentation of results in a study on get out the vote tactics . . . in sum, blah, blah, blah . .. . don't trust professors . . . it's complicated :D
Of course it's more complicated :D

But anyone, Ivy League prof or not, who would argue that internet poll responses are predictive of anything is utterly ignorant of reality. Exhibit A - The Greatest Novel of All Time poll.
peter71
Posts: 3769
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:28 pm

Post by peter71 »

Well, that's a pretty small sample of bad polls :D One thing that can happen to an internet poll is deliberate respondent manipulation (e.g., a well-meaning site tries to do a legit poll but an interest group "crashes" the site), but I don't think that would happen with BH . . . then there's of course the question of the slant of the views of the people who frequent a particular site but I assume that's what the proposal wants to measure (I don't support the proposal btw, I'm just aimlessly debating survey research methodology). And then there's all the other stuff that can go wrong with any poll, scientific or no . . . in the case of voting on "best book ever" though, I wonder whether the fact of the matter is that popular opinion and elite opinion just really diverge . . . I'm guessing that if you did a similar scientific poll in the US you'd get the Bible, maybe some popular self-help books . . . for better or worse, probably something very different from what the Ivy League English profs would say :D

All best,
Pete
User avatar
modal
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:57 pm
Location: USA

Post by modal »

The government is my god and the market is her prophet. :lol:
User avatar
cannedham
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:27 pm
Location: San Mateo, CA

Post by cannedham »

Given that this is an investing and finance forum:

Open up any finance text book, and they'll tell you the importance of tax rates and how that impacts strategy. Clearly, discussion of existing and future tax policies should be completely on topic. Examples: income tax rate, probabilities of 401(k)s/IRAs losing their favorable tax rate, dividend vs. capital gains, mortgage income tax deduction, student loan deduction, 529s, charitable giving, or other programs that may include tax subsidies for particular behaviors.

I'm sure people can add to this list, but these are obvious ones to me that should not be under some kind of ban threat.
User avatar
LH2004
Posts: 1741
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: New York, NY

Post by LH2004 »

cannedham wrote:Open up any finance text book, and they'll tell you the importance of tax rates and how that impacts strategy. Clearly, discussion of existing and future tax policies should be completely on topic.
That one doesn't follow from that one.

If there's a certain deity whose followers are guaranteed material as well as spiritual salvation, that is tremendously relevant to discussions of personal finance. That doesn't make it crazy to want to discuss personal finance and investing without discussing religion.
Topic Author
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Alex Frakt »

cannedham wrote:Given that this is an investing and finance forum:

Open up any finance text book, and they'll tell you the importance of tax rates and how that impacts strategy. Clearly, discussion of existing and future tax policies should be completely on topic. Examples: income tax rate, probabilities of 401(k)s/IRAs losing their favorable tax rate, dividend vs. capital gains, mortgage income tax deduction, student loan deduction, 529s, charitable giving, or other programs that may include tax subsidies for particular behaviors.

I'm sure people can add to this list, but these are obvious ones to me that should not be under some kind of ban threat.
Every single time this comes up, this strawman appears. And the answer never changes:

1) You can discuss existing tax policies insofar as they impact investment planning.

2) You can present what if scenarios as it relates to investment planning. E.g., Should I do anything differently if capital gains tax rates were the same as income tax rates? What you can't do is ascribe these scenarios to any particular political party nor can you engage in general speculate on what tax or economic policy is "better."

BTW, it's not an "investing and finance" forum. It's an investing and personal finance forum.
Topic Author
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Alex Frakt »

peter71 wrote:Well, that's a pretty small sample of bad polls :D One thing that can happen to an internet poll is deliberate respondent manipulation (e.g., a well-meaning site tries to do a legit poll but an interest group "crashes" the site), but I don't think that would happen with BH . . . then there's of course the question of the slant of the views of the people who frequent a particular site but I assume that's what the proposal wants to measure (I don't support the proposal btw, I'm just aimlessly debating survey research methodology). And then there's all the other stuff that can go wrong with any poll, scientific or no . . . in the case of voting on "best book ever" though, I wonder whether the fact of the matter is that popular opinion and elite opinion just really diverge ...
The primary issue is the self-selection process. The respondents to low response rate internet polls have a different psychological makeup than the non-respondents. In my experience, they fall into two groups. One group just likes the sound of their own voice and will respond to anything, the other is made up of those with extreme views on the subject. The former group probably is reflective of the larger population (unless the question is about the desirability of adding more user feedback options). The second is definitely not and can skew the results in unexpected and unhealthy ways.

I'll give you two more general examples of this. The first one is the original orange box M* forum ratings system. If you think about it, this was a voluntary internet poll on every post. I think we are all familiar with how small groups hijacked that system and how generally their responses did not reflect the feelings of the readership as a whole. Another example would be Minnesota's system of selecting the political parties' candidates through a caucus system. Minnesotans are generally speaking among the most moderate people in the land, yet the low turnout voluntary caucus system tends to be dominated by party extremists. The result is that party nominees usually do not reflect the real feelings of the average citizen. The disenfranchisement of the moderate middle of MN citizens from their own parties is how you get results like independent candidate Jesse Ventura winning the governorship.

BTW, the "Greatest Novel" poll is also an example of this. The question isn't whether these really are the greatest novels, the question is whether these responses actually mirror the British people's collective feeling about what are the greatest novels. I highly doubt that the list from a carefully done poll would look anything like this one.
User avatar
HueyLD
Posts: 9789
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:30 am

Post by HueyLD »

Clearly, discussion of existing and future tax policies should be completely on topic.
Future tax policies? Does any one know what they are for sure? Just like political subjects, you can only have a "civil" discussion with those who agree with you. Trying to have a civil discussion with someone who doesn't share your view is a sure way to get into a shouting match and some.

That's why accountants address tax issues with clients using multiple scenarios without speculating the direction of the tax policies. Having been very involved in this area for many years, I can tell you only one thing for certain. That is: you don't know which potential tax changes will be enacted into law until after the Conference Committee signs off, and the President signs on the dotted line. And the action taken by whichever party in power can always surprise you.

I have noticed since I joined this Forum that people tried very hard to speculate on the future directions of the tax policies, and those threads typically died down in due course because nobody could add any more fuel to the fire. :)

Again, thank you the hard-working administrators and moderators for keeping this forum civil and great for those who want to discuss, learn and share investment knowledge.
peter71
Posts: 3769
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:28 pm

Post by peter71 »

Alex Frakt wrote:
peter71 wrote:Well, that's a pretty small sample of bad polls :D One thing that can happen to an internet poll is deliberate respondent manipulation (e.g., a well-meaning site tries to do a legit poll but an interest group "crashes" the site), but I don't think that would happen with BH . . . then there's of course the question of the slant of the views of the people who frequent a particular site but I assume that's what the proposal wants to measure (I don't support the proposal btw, I'm just aimlessly debating survey research methodology). And then there's all the other stuff that can go wrong with any poll, scientific or no . . . in the case of voting on "best book ever" though, I wonder whether the fact of the matter is that popular opinion and elite opinion just really diverge ...
The primary issue is the self-selection process. The respondents to low response rate internet polls have a different psychological makeup than the non-respondents. In my experience, they fall into two groups. One group just likes the sound of their own voice and will respond to anything, the other is made up of those with extreme views on the subject. The former group probably is reflective of the larger population (unless the question is about the desirability of adding more user feedback options). The second is definitely not and can skew the results in unexpected and unhealthy ways.

I'll give you two more general examples of this. The first one is the original orange box M* forum ratings system. If you think about it, this was a voluntary internet poll on every post. I think we are all familiar with how small groups hijacked that system and how generally their responses did not reflect the feelings of the readership as a whole. Another example would be Minnesota's system of selecting the political parties' candidates through a caucus system. Minnesotans are generally speaking among the most moderate people in the land, yet the low turnout voluntary caucus system tends to be dominated by party extremists. The result is that party nominees usually do not reflect the real feelings of the average citizen. The disenfranchisement of the moderate middle of MN citizens from their own parties is how you get results like independent candidate Jesse Ventura winning the governorship.

BTW, the "Greatest Novel" poll is also an example of this. The question isn't whether these really are the greatest novels, the question is whether these responses actually mirror the British people's collective feeling about what are the greatest novels. I highly doubt that the list from a carefully done poll would look anything like this one.
Hmm, as a former Minnesota ultra-partisan I fear we'd have to violate the original tenets of the politics ban to get into that one, but I think the broader point is that all elections (outside Australia and a couple of other places where they fine you for not voting) are in a sense more similar to "self-selecting" polls than more scientifically rigorous ones (hence the near universality of adjusting the scientific polls via a plethora of competing likely voter models). So in a sense it all depends on what it is we're trying to measure, and if we're ok with only measuring the preferences of "motivated" or "politicized" Bogleheads then the online poll might be ok . . . we might even do kind of the opposite of a likely voter model and weight the results of the (presumptive minority) of users voting in the poll against the (presumptive vast majority) of users who'd read the thread and/or the thread index but not voted, and no doubt the proper conclusion about Bogleheads as a whole would be that most aren't all that, that political . . . but again, I'm not saying internet and/or voluntary polls don't have special problems, especially when people can see how the results are running before they vote . . . I'm just saying that, while the M* ratings sample a microscopic subsample of motivated raters, our average poll on here probably succeeds in conveying /some/ information about what "Bogleheads who care about the issue" are like.

Finally, on the novels poll, it occurs to me that potentially the biggest problem with it is one that would plague scientific and unscientific polls alike: namely, with "open ended" response options and millions of possible novels to choose from, the dispersion of responses is VASTLY wider than any credible poll I can think of . . . i.e., who knows, maybe TKAM won with 22 votes, whereas thirty other books had between 10 and 20 . . . with political polls about "what's the most important problem facing the country today" they go back and "code" your answer into 5-20 categories and an "other" category," but obviously in the case of the novels poll they couldn't really do that . . .

Anyway, it's a fun discussion! :D

All best,
Pete
Topic Author
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Alex Frakt »

peter71 wrote:Hmm, as a former Minnesota ultra-partisan I fear we'd have to violate the original tenets of the politics ban to get into that one...
As a former Minnesota non-ultra-partisan voter I'm going to agree with you on that.
peter71 wrote:...but I think the broader point is that all elections (outside Australia and a couple of other places where they fine you for not voting) are in a sense more similar to "self-selecting" polls than more scientifically rigorous ones (hence the near universality of adjusting the scientific polls via a plethora of competing likely voter models). So in a sense it all depends on what it is we're trying to measure, and if we're ok with only measuring the preferences of "motivated" or "politicized" Bogleheads then the online poll might be ok . . .
Excellent points. But IMO, the potential for these results to be misconstrued (i.e., for someone to represent them as a Bogleheads endorsement) outweighs the value of doing such a poll, which we have to admit is merely to satisfy our idle curiosity.
peter71 wrote:Finally, on the novels poll, it occurs to me that potentially the biggest problem with it is one that would plague scientific and unscientific polls alike: namely, with "open ended" response options and millions of possible novels to choose from, the dispersion of responses is VASTLY wider than any credible poll I can think of . . . i.e., who knows, maybe TKAM won with 22 votes, whereas thirty other books had between 10 and 20 . . . with political polls about "what's the most important problem facing the country today" they go back and "code" your answer into 5-20 categories and an "other" category," but obviously in the case of the novels poll they couldn't really do that . . .

Anyway, it's a fun discussion! :D
Well, to you and me anyway :-)
User avatar
Judsen
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:29 am
Location: Birmingham, Al.

Post by Judsen »

Pardon me for this silly idea, but wouldn't it be interesting if the moderators set a window of political post opportunity on election day to let those so inclined purge their urge.
Nah, not a snowball's chance. It would just be noise.
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
Posts: 35782
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida
Contact:

Politics

Post by Mel Lindauer »

Judsen wrote:Pardon me for this silly idea, but wouldn't it be interesting if the moderators set a window of political post opportunity on election day to let those so inclined purge their urge.
Nah, not a snowball's chance. It would just be noise.
Anyone who wants to talk politics can always do so on the Morningstar Politics forum. Check it out and you'll see why we don't allow politics here.

Regards,

Mel
sscritic
Posts: 21853
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Post by sscritic »

Now that the Phillies have replaced the no politics banner at the top of Bogleheads.org, does that mean we can start talking politics?

Just kidding!
Topic Author
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Alex Frakt »

Since I waited 28 years for this (I was a 12 year old living in the Philly burbs the last time they won), I'm going to give myself 24 hours to enjoy this and then it's back to our regular programming. :D
User avatar
tc101
Posts: 3810
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Atlanta - Retired in 2004 at age 54

Post by tc101 »

Two topics I started earlier today got locked. They didn't have anything to do with politics. I want to follow the rules but I am confused about this. The two topics are:

Emerging Market target allocation
TIPS have least risk of any security, so also least return?
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
Posts: 35782
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida
Contact:

Post by Mel Lindauer »

tc101 wrote:Two topics I started earlier today got locked. They didn't have anything to do with politics. I want to follow the rules but I am confused about this. The two topics are:

Emerging Market target allocation
TIPS have least risk of any security, so also least return?
Hi tc:

Alex announced earlier today that he had locked the entire Theory sub-forum because of so many inappropriate posts, so if your posts were posted there, they're all locked down -- offending posts and non-offending posts alike. Alex will decide when he's going to re-open that sub-forum, and I'm sure he'll be posting an announcement at that time, just as he announced the locking down of the forum earlier today.

Regards,

Mel
User avatar
tc101
Posts: 3810
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Atlanta - Retired in 2004 at age 54

Post by tc101 »

Thanks for the info.
. | The most important thing you should know about me is that I am not an expert.
inve$t0r
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:38 pm

Post by inve$t0r »

Mel Lindauer wrote:
tc101 wrote:Two topics I started earlier today got locked. They didn't have anything to do with politics. I want to follow the rules but I am confused about this. The two topics are:

Emerging Market target allocation
TIPS have least risk of any security, so also least return?
Hi tc:

Alex announced earlier today that he had locked the entire Theory sub-forum because of so many inappropriate posts, so if your posts were posted there, they're all locked down -- offending posts and non-offending posts alike. Alex will decide when he's going to re-open that sub-forum, and I'm sure he'll be posting an announcement at that time, just as he announced the locking down of the forum earlier today.

Regards,

Mel

I've read posts I disagree with but nothing offensive. I find posters here are mature, knowledgeable and successful investors. It's also clear to me that some are very high-ranking in their fields, but as they say, it takes one to know one. Politics and economics are intertwined and I don't see anything wrong with people expressing various points of view, so censorship is quite unnecessary.



.
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
Posts: 35782
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida
Contact:

Forum Policy

Post by Mel Lindauer »

inve$t0r wrote:
Mel Lindauer wrote:
tc101 wrote:Two topics I started earlier today got locked. They didn't have anything to do with politics. I want to follow the rules but I am confused about this. The two topics are:

Emerging Market target allocation
TIPS have least risk of any security, so also least return?
Hi tc:

Alex announced earlier today that he had locked the entire Theory sub-forum because of so many inappropriate posts, so if your posts were posted there, they're all locked down -- offending posts and non-offending posts alike. Alex will decide when he's going to re-open that sub-forum, and I'm sure he'll be posting an announcement at that time, just as he announced the locking down of the forum earlier today.

Regards,

Mel

I've read posts I disagree with but nothing offensive. I find posters here are mature, knowledgeable and successful investors. It's also clear to me that some are very high-ranking in their fields, but as they say, it takes one to know one. Politics and economics are intertwined and I don't see anything wrong with people expressing various points of view, so censorship is quite unnecessary.

.
It's rather simple and straightforward, inve$t0r; this forum already has established rules and policies, and they apply to everyone. Forum policy is not something that's decided by each individual member, as he/she sees fit. Anyone who doesn't feel comfortable with the existing forum policiy is always free to post somewhere else where they feel the policy is more to their liking. Posters who do choose to post here agree to abide by the existing forum policy, and that includes "No Politics".

Regards,

Mel
Locked