Simple Rules For Good Conversations On This Website

kcfield | Sep 9, 2021 | 188 posts since 2012

Having led groups in various fields for nearly 40 years, I am concerned about many of the conversations on this website that devolve into shaming and personal attacks. Also, questions like "Should there be political comments allowed?" are beside the point, because political comments (like any other comment) can be relevant or irrelevant to the conversations. My recommendation to Ken and the leadership is to have three simple rules (norms) that are clear to all and easy to follow.

1) All comments need to be relevant to the posted topic

2) No personal (ad hominem) attacks. It is fine to criticize or vigorously disagree with another member's opinions, ideas, or comments--but not to insult the other DA member personally.

3) Cite your sources (improves credibility and discourages plagiarism)

Post a comment

Rickny | Sep 9, 2021 | 1,296 posts since 2017

Hopefully when rates go up and Ken posts some really good CD offers I think there will be less irrelevant posts and attacks on the site.

kcfield | Sep 9, 2021 | 188 posts since 2012

Rickny: That is a good point. I hadn't considered that some of the irrelevant and aggressive comments are because of frustration over such low savings/CD interest rates. I hope your prediction is correct!

Independent | Sep 9, 2021 | 28 posts since 2021

Actually, most of the what you consider to be "irrelevant and agressive comments" were made during the last election cycle. Ken tried to control things by opening up the Fed Forum so that the political types could vent there. It does seem to have kept them from ruining the rest of DA. I go there for comic relief. And, to make a few snarky replies to the Trumpsters. My senior community is filled with them. Though most are embarassed to admit it now.

kcfield | Sep 10, 2021 | 188 posts since 2012

As a fellow independent, my favorite news source for finance and politics is "The Economist" which was voted the least biased news source. I realized the claim was true when the first issue had a photo of Trump and Sanders on the cover and entitled it "American Nightmare." How is that relevant to my posted article (since I wrote about topic relevance)? I find that by avoiding both left and right biased news sources, I am more receptive to considering opposing points of view--including on the DA site.

Anon456 | Sep 10, 2021 | 249 posts since 2011

There are plenty of other places for SOCIAL or POLITICAL stuff, and we should all strive to keep this wonderful resource a GOTO place with INFORMATION, not opinion, and without whiplashing at others. That's my two cents.

kcfield | Sep 10, 2021 | 188 posts since 2012

Anon: I agree that social and political opinions without factual basis; as well as the practice of criticizing fellow DA readers, is uncalled for. The reason I would hesitate to ban political comments altogether is that some of them are based on fact rather than opinion, and are topic relevant. For example, if the topic were factors that impact savings and CD rates, and a DA member offered research information from a non-partisan, well researched site that offered the relative 5 year CD rates in Democratic vs. Republican administrations for the last 50 years, that would relevant, helpful, and factual. I think what we don't need to see is the demonization or canonization of particular politicians or of one another.

Choice | Sep 11, 2021 | 937 posts since 2020

At the end of the day it is a management problem if anyone wants to take responsibility. All media sites need to exercise responsible leadership…not saying that DA hasn’t! But that its decision, ie the owner, and training starts there! But we are the jury on that endeavor…do they realize that? Employees are not the problem nor customers but management! Ken’s earn out provisions provide the requisite incentive to do what’s right! They decide site character, not us. Your thoughts?

kcfield | Sep 11, 2021 | 188 posts since 2012

Hi Choice: I agree that ultimately it is a management problem/issue; and that all media sites need to have responsible leaders. I also have found Ken to be quite responsive whenever I have personally emailed him on a matter. To that end, I think the way that management could improve in addressing this matter is: a) Having clear, simple rules for posting; b) ensuring the editors are fully trained so there is interrater reliability vis a vis what posts are kept and which ones are removed (no one wants half the umpires calling a strike and the other calling a ball on the same pitch); c) warnings should be sent to those consistently violating the rules; d) removal from site should be a consequence of repeated violations. That is my take.

Choice | Sep 11, 2021 | 937 posts since 2020

Agreed, a little notice/comment in private sector (aka due process if public action) is always recommended (your c) and d)) prior to some remedial action. Leadership needs to lead and be trained first!

Independent | Sep 11, 2021 | 28 posts since 2021

What you guys are proposing is that the followers of this site tell the owners what they should be doing.
Like I said before, Ken threw the politicos a bone by giving up the FED thread to them.
And, it seems to be working.
You can read Ken's take on all things FED and then ignore the babble that's in the comments section.
Actually, I kind of like this approach.
I used follow a hiking site that consistently posts good links to other hiking related venues.
Unfortunately, he also has links to eco-nazi articles.
Stuff like, bring back the grizzly bear to California (after all, it is on our state flag).
Whenever I post a rebuttal, the comment mysteriously disappears.
The guy that owns the site is a liberal thought-nazi.
He's a psychologist by profession that is used to telling people what to do and think.
I really don't want that nonsense started on this website.
It's better that folks like you leave than have Ken pander to the thought-control police.
Start your own website if you don't like the way this one is being run.
The only "thought-leaders" that we need on this website is Ken.

kcfield | Sep 12, 2021 | 188 posts since 2012

Independent: Thanks for sharing your perspective that DA has given up the FED thread to political commentary to save the rest of the site. If I understand your point, it is analogous to setting out a bowl of sugar water well away from the guests at a picnic, so the bees flock there instead of stinging the guests. I don't happen to share your perspective, but appreciate it. On your other point, Ken encourages and welcomes constructive feedback; I wonder therefore why it would bother you when it is offered? Also, do you feel that having just one thought leader facilitates Independent thinking?

me1004 | Sep 11, 2021 | 1,381 posts since 2010

I disagree about the site management nixing what they don’t want. I agree with the OP suggestion that comments must be relevant to the thread, and no personal (ad hominem) attacks. Any other site management woud be bias by censoring. Bias comes in multiple forms, including what is not said.

There is a lot of talk here about biased news sources, but management has all the same biases —that’s the very reason why those news sources are biased, management wants that. Making it the whim of management rather than hard and fast rule as OP suggested only brings in bias and censorship.

I also disagree about sources for everything having to cited for where that opinion or analysis came from. People who think and read and stay abreast of things can have their own take on things, they don’t need to be limited to regurgitating someone else. Gee, even Ken’s regular column on the way the winds are blowing at the Fed is that, some cited knowledge, but some of his own analysis and opinion. I would not want Ken’s analyses and opinions censored.

milty | Sep 12, 2021 | 1,688 posts since 2018

I don't think the rule was that sources needed to be cited for everything. However, I agree that when a factual statement is made, for example, 99% of negative downturns are due to xyz, then citing the source certainly lends credibility. This is helpful whether the topic is political or financial. Btw, I thought rules 1 and 2 were already in place anyway.

blazer9 | Sep 11, 2021 | 228 posts since 2019

How about all you unauthorized rule makers keep your fingers out of the DA PIE.
Suffer the consequences if your DA pie testing fingers get burnt.

The financial institution, product, and APY (Annual Percentage Yield) data displayed on this website is gathered from various sources and may not reflect all of the offers available in your region. Although we strive to provide the most accurate data possible, we cannot guarantee its accuracy. The content displayed is for general information purposes only; always verify account details and availability with the financial institution before opening an account. Contact [email protected] to report inaccurate info or to request offers be included in this website. We are not affiliated with the financial institutions included in this website.