Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

"moderated" status for board members

Dear friends,

David W. has been doing a nice job of moderating the board; it strikes me that he's tried to be consistently present, reasonable in communicating with members of the board, and responsible in acting to limit the heat generated by some. I'm grateful for his efforts.

Nonetheless, I've moved several members of the board into "moderated" status. That typically happens when members are generating more heat than light, and the internal norms of the community - typically, requests by other folks to tone it down - haven't caused people to refocus on issues of substance rather than one real or imagined personal grievances.

I mention that for three reasons. (1) Members in moderation can still post, it's just that their posts have to be vetted individually before they appear on the board. Since we all have full-time jobs, that means there's sometimes a lag of several hours before comments appear. (2) The only ways out of moderation are consistently offering thoughtful, civil comments or choosing to go elsewhere. Ted, our departed friend, spent rather more time there than most but also was really good at cooling off, refocusing on issues of substance and returning to full engagement. (3) Some folks not yet in moderation need to reflect on whether they're now trying to provoke their nemeses with comments that are also in the range of personal rather than substantial. Please stop.

Finally, I closed the "Bond OEF" thread which was both the site of many of the spats, but also so long and intricate that it was becoming a bit unwieldy to navigate. I'm hopeful that some of the issues and recommendations occurring late in that threat generate separate discussions of their own.

Wishing you all the best, David
«13

Comments

  • edited February 2020
    What!!--my Bond OEF thread had absolutely no "spats". You are getting it confused with "Bond Mutual Fund Analysis" thread, started by FD, that had constant "spats". Could you provide one example on my thread where there was any argumentative posting?
  • I have had a large number of posters supporting my thread, a large number of viewers viewing my thread, and I worked very hard to keep the thread civil and positive. I am hugely disappointed in this MFO decision and certainly not motivated to start new threads.
  • The link Gary1952 provided results in a page saying "Discussion not found">My guess is that it is a an official action. Too bad I love to read about splats and see if the nasty gets too nasty
  • While it is not public knowledge who has been "moderated", I have found dtconroe's ideas and threads to be useful and more the target of the "Spats" not the source.

    I for one would be very disappointed if dtconroe does not continue to contribute ideas and posts.
  • jerry: "The link Gary1952 provided results in a page saying "Discussion not found">My guess is that it is a an official action. Too bad I love to read about splats and see if the nasty gets too nasty."

    I have worked very hard to ensure that my thread was civil and positive. It was the recipient of a huge number of posts and views, and there were numerous posts on my thread, expressing gratitude for the value that posters were finding in the thread.

  • "sma3">While it is not public knowledge who has been "moderated", I have found dtconroe's ideas and threads to be useful and more the target of the "Spats" not the source.

    I for one would be very disappointed if dtconroe does not continue to contribute ideas and posts."

    I start one of the most popular and valued threads that MFO has ever had, get repeated posts about the value of the thread, and I then have the thread closed with statements about "spats" that I worked very hard to prevent. That is not a recipe to encourage me to make any future posts. It is very insulting to me personally!

  • The reason it was closed was due to two reasons.
  • edited February 2020
    "TheShadow">The reason it was closed was due to two reasons.

    One of the reasons is inaccurate and should have been directed to another thread that is still open and running. The other reason is strange and confusing, as it has become long because of the popularity of the thread with posters and viewers. I have yet to find any written information about "length" of threads, and how popularity of a thread can lead to its closure.

  • David, the request by dtconroe if you "Could you provide one example on my thread where there was any argumentative posting? "is a fair request.
    I am truly disappointed by the closure of his thread, I was finding it extremely useful.
    My request would be for the decision to be reconsidered.
  • edited February 2020
    I had one of my threads closed, a while back, because of it's large size (page count). I'm thinking that maybe this is the primary reason that this one was closed. Not for inappropriate language, or content, but because of it's size.

    I found good value in it's subject matter. I'm hoping that the thread's host, @dtconroe, will keep posting on open end bond funds.

    Again, myself, being a stock guy I found this thread of good interest.

    Old_Skeet
  • edited February 2020
    Never mind.

    Just a brain fart here
  • @David_Snowball
    Please don't speak ill of the dead.
  • edited February 2020
    @dtconroe

    I agree with Old_Skeet concerning the number of pages. The old CG post was an example of something too long. When it was first started, it was at least 15+ pages long; it was hard to navigate and to locate specific CG posts. There were some complaints concerning its disorganization. That is why the most recent version is several pages long. I agree that it was too long and disorganized; however, over time it was simplified to what you see today.

    I also found this topic interesting and insightful, but there were a couple of posts that veered away from the original intent of the post.

    While I do not moderate, we should respect everyone's belief provided it does not harm, degrade or embarrass someone else.
  • edited February 2020
    If you want to set limits on the number of pages, that is certainly your prerogative. It would be interesting to understand how you rationalize ending very popular threads, that so many posters value and follow. It is much easier for me to find a bond oef post, on one thread, than it is to find a given bond oef post, on multiple little short specific threads, that ultimately get buried on the back pages. Your thread posting system now, has minimal structure, and those multiple little threads each day, often get no response posts, and very few views, but unfortunately they bury more interesting threads, that posters value and want to follow. MFO has their own rationale for their system, but I find it extremely shameful to end popular threads, that posters have openly confessed their support for continuance.
  • @dtconroe,

    Check out the old thread again? It is open!
  • Hi, guys.

    One of the charms and limits of MFO is its size: at base, three or four volunteers running it all as a public service. (Morningstar, by comparison, had Q3 revenues of $314 million with 5200 employees worldwide.) That's not a complaint. It's just the description of a constraint.

    On the upside, it means we can be pretty responsive. The entire board was designed around the needs and preferences of its members; some might remember that we ran an entire parallel board using the FundAlarm software for a while. Too, many fund profiles originate with members of the community writing to express interest.

    On the downside, it means we need to fit MFO in around more-than-full-time jobs (or, in some cases, multiple jobs). That might mean that we don't respond to a PM or public complaint for nearly 18 hours. It also means that I goof up from time to time as I try to sort through the surprising number of unhappy messages that might roll in.

    I've reopened dtconroe's conservative bond thread, which I did indeed close without full consideration. No disrespect was intended by my "extremely shameful" action. The argument that it was the site of the spat seems incorrect; the argument that it is unwieldy strikes me as valid, but something more properly decided by folks' decisions to click or not click on it.

    Take great care!

  • Lets face it, there were 1 or 2 posters that put both bond threads in jeopardy with what looked like personal attacks. I'm very glad MFO took some action on that. I'm also glad dtcontoe's thread is reopened. Lets carry on.

    P.S., I still miss Ted.
  • Good! I enjoyed reading dtconroe at M*, and here too -- although I don't post much.

    Being old and 70% in bonds, they interest me.
  • Thanks for the reconsideration! If there is something that I need to know to correct some issue, or make an improvement, please inform me and give me a chance to address it. I am very sensitive to any issue of incivility, as I think it is imperative for posters to feel safe on any thread I start.
  • You might reconsider breaking up the post as was suggested sometime ago. Granted the total post refers to OEF bond investing but it contains information on several different bond classes. As it stands I think your post is highly unwieldly. You got a concession, make one of your own.
  • edited February 2020
    I was thinking along the same lines as the monthly Buy...Sell...Ponder post, but strictly for bonds.
  • In the past few months MFO has settled into a very reasonable operating mode, with minimal ill feeling being evidenced. Additionally, for whatever reason that you care to subscribe to, it seems as if a weight has been lifted and we are now seeing a much healthier participation by members who have previously been relatively silent.

    Personally, I'm relieved that a preemptive move has been made to moderate the posting of one or two of the newer M* members, who were potentially spawning a reversion to some of the previous ill feeling. That's really the last thing that we need here.

    With respect to a limitation on thread length, while really long threads are a bit unwieldy, if they are still generating interest and new posts there's surely no harm being done. If folks get tired of a long thread they can easily start another.

    Thanks to both Davids for their work in holding all of this together for the common good.

    Regards-OJ
  • edited February 2020
    MikeM said:

    Lets face it, there were 1 or 2 posters that put both bond threads in jeopardy with what looked like personal attacks.

    Correct. And that’s where I lost interest. Won’t regurgitate. Anyone can reread the thread for themselves.
    -
    Old_Skeet said:

    I had one of my threads closed, a while back, because of it's large size (page count).

    Yes - if you’ve been here for any length of time you’ve had posts deleted and threads you started or added to closed with no reason stated. I’m fine with it.
    -
    TheShadow said:

    I was thinking along the same lines as the monthly Buy...Sell...Ponder post, but strictly for bonds.

    Exactly. Members have been good at self regulating. @Old_Skeet" sets a great example in starting a new “Markets Barometer Report” every new quarter. Adds much value to the board.
    -
    Mark said:

    You might reconsider breaking up the post as was suggested sometime ago. Granted the total post refers to OEF bond investing ...

    Good idea. Most threads refer to more specific investments. For example, a thread examines a particular stock, bond, fund or manager.
    -

    Please don't speak ill of the dead.

    Agree. Along this same vein, Ted would be right in the thick of this. He loved to roil the waters. One of his special targets was threads that persisted longer than a few weeks. At that point you could pretty much count on him shouting: “Its time to CLOSE this thread!:(:(
    -

    ” ... so long and intricate that it was becoming a bit unwieldy to navigate.”

    Suppose it depends on your internet capability. Mine’s clunky. Anything beyond about 5 pages is tough to navigate.
  • I must agree with splitting up the thread into smaller chunks. I've moderated many forums over the years. You reach many more readers via small concise threads than you do with a broad overarching thread that runs for 50 pages.

    That being said, as long as everyone stays civil, I'm happy. Cheers all, have a good night.
  • Part of the reason threads get long and unwieldy is posters use the quote function or quote others far too much IMHO.
  • I don't use the quote function, but I will tag an individual to identify to whom I am responding about a statement or facts, as with @Gary1952 .
    Obviously, some threads of any length may have short or long, but meaningful comments. I want to be sure my reply is identified towards an individual, if this is my intention. Also, to this point; is there are comments in a thread that are written as a general statement/comment, but seem to be directed towards another's comment, but is not fully clear. In these cases, I wish that the writer had directly identified to whom they are responding.
  • edited February 2020
    Hi @Catch, I thought several contributors had made good points or recommendations. I wanted to acknowledge each’s contribution and so quoted several. Got too wordy. I did go back and edit my remarks down some to conserve valuable board space. I assume, however, whoever incorporated the quote feature into the board software did so with the best of intentions.:)
  • I like the quote function if you are showing your response to a specific sentence or thought from another poster, but to "regurgitate" (I like the word @hank) an entire post is very cumbersome to read again and it takes up way to much real estate.
This discussion has been closed.