Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A Discussion on the Rules

Options
  • 16-09-2008 2:04pm
    #1
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭


    Hi all,

    "Since the transfer of this forum from Biz to Soc there has been an increase in the proportion of posts that are, quite frankly, idiotic. Accordingly the mods of the Economics forum shall endeavour to ensure an adequately high intellectual standard is maintained by means including the removal of posters who fail to back up claims."

    I haven't discussed this with fellow mods but I'm thinking maybe we should ban people who continually make outlandish, conspiracy theory-type claims without backing these claims up. I don't see it as a removal of free speech, I see it as improving the signal:noise ratio.

    Opinions?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Daithio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,679 ✭✭✭Daithio


    Maybe do something like the soccer forum does whereby people have to be OK'd before they're allowed to post?


  • Options
    #3
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    i wholeheartedly approve of this motion.


  • Options
    #4
    eamonnm79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭eamonnm79


    Sounds to me like there may be some uncomfortable economic issues on the horizons that people who are used to believing in "the market fundementals" may not want to hear.

    In a more principled democratic objection to your suggestion. If you silence someones opinion, you also take away my right to see what an idiot they are.
    I may not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it. Who said that? Whoever it was, I agree.

    I know some internet forums are not democratic but that is to their detriment.


  • Options
    #5
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    eamonnm79 wrote: »
    Sounds to me like there may be some uncomfortable economic issues on the horizons that people who are used to believing in "the market fundementals" may not want to hear.

    In a more principled democratic objection to your suggestion. If you silence someones opinion, you also take away my right to see what an idiot they are.
    I may not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it. Who said that? Whoever it was, I agree.

    I know some internet forums are not democratic but that is to their detriment.

    true, but the benchmark that should be used is the same as in any economics class you'll take; can you provide a rationale for your claims? if people come on here make ludicrous statements without providing any kind of justification then they really aren't contributing to discussion.

    I kinda see now why people wanted the economics forum placed in science.


  • Options
    #6
    Économiste Monétaire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭Économiste Monétaire


    David McWilliams wrote: »
    Hi all,

    "Since the transfer of this forum from Biz to Soc there has been an increase in the proportion of posts that are, quite frankly, idiotic. Accordingly the mods of the Economics forum shall endeavour to ensure an adequately high intellectual standard is maintained by means including the removal of posters who fail to back up claims."

    I haven't discussed this with fellow mods but I'm thinking maybe we should ban people who continually make outlandish, conspiracy theory-type claims without backing these claims up. I don't see it as a removal of free speech, I see it as improving the signal:noise ratio.

    Opinions?
    I agree with your message of tightening the rules. Maybe an amendment to the charter to reflect that this forum isn't an extension of the politics forum and some of the odd (to be kind) things that are posted there. For example, Derry's posts in this thread baffle the mind and, in my opinion, belong either in the CT forum, or the virtual bin. My .02 yoyos.
    eamonnm79 wrote:
    Sounds to me like there may be some uncomfortable economic issues on the horizons that people who are used to believing in "the market fundementals" may not want to hear.

    In a more principled democratic objection to your suggestion. If you silence someones opinion, you also take away my right to see what an idiot they are.
    I may not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it. Who said that? Whoever it was, I agree.

    I know some internet forums are not democratic but that is to their detriment.
    You're completely missing the point of what this is about. No one is arguing against people discussing normative (or positive) analysis. I, for one, enjoy reading some of the posts by the finance guys here and their views.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Silly question, was this foum under Biz before? I assume so.

    Mike.


  • Options
    #8
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    mike65 wrote: »
    Silly question, was this foum under Biz before? I assume so.

    Mike.

    yup. not only that, it was under personal, which had everyone baffled.


  • Options
    #9
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    That prolly explains why I only ever found it when spotting a thread on the new posts page.

    As regards the firm hand of authority, I'd be weary of moderating the forum to death.

    edit - I meant bloody wary of course! :p

    Mike.


  • Options
    #10
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,559 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    mike65 wrote: »
    That prolly explains why I only ever found it when spotting a thread on the new posts page.

    As regards the firm hand of authority, I'd be weary of moderating the forum to death.

    Mike.

    You would be weary Mike, but you tire easily! The economics mods are made of sterner stuff.

    Mike.


  • Options
    #11
    Belfast
    Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    David McWilliams wrote: »
    Hi all,
    I haven't discussed this with fellow mods but I'm thinking maybe we should ban people who continually make outlandish, conspiracy theory-type claims without backing these claims up. I don't see it as a removal of free speech, I see it as improving the signal:noise ratio.

    Opinions?

    As you say without a good moderator the quality could go down hill fast.

    Where to drawn the line is the interesting part.

    good luck.

    Belfast


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    David McWilliams wrote: »
    Hi all,

    "Since the transfer of this forum from Biz to Soc there has been an increase in the proportion of posts that are, quite frankly, idiotic. Accordingly the mods of the Economics forum shall endeavour to ensure an adequately high intellectual standard is maintained by means including the removal of posters who fail to back up claims."

    I haven't discussed this with fellow mods but I'm thinking maybe we should ban people who continually make outlandish, conspiracy theory-type claims without backing these claims up. I don't see it as a removal of free speech, I see it as improving the signal:noise ratio.

    Opinions?

    Just make people back up what they're claiming if it's warranted. I don't think it'd be necessary that often but it might get rid of some of the worse of the conspiracy stuff without making the place unfriendly towards people new to the field. Asking a question that has a simple answer (or that requires basic analysis) is something that should be encouraged. Making outlandish claims about modern finance is something that people should be made to back up.


  • Options
    #13
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,589 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Simple answer - put up or shut up.

    If you want to make a claim that Fed and FBI are in league with the lizard people, then post proof.

    More mods to crack down on people not backing up work with proof.


  • Options
    #14
    suckslikeafox
    Registered Users Posts: 553 ✭✭✭suckslikeafox


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Simple answer - put up or shut up.

    If you want to make a claim that Fed and FBI are in league with the lizard people, then post proof.

    More mods to crack down on people not backing up work with proof.

    I absolutely agree.

    Maybe include a sticky for noobs with help on basic questions or things they cant understand and also a link to the conspiracies forum for all our friends who think "they" are making a recession happen


  • Options
    #15
    eamonnm79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭eamonnm79


    I disagree fundimentally with most of the previous posts.
    If you think someones post is stupid, then ignore it!

    Demanding people reference everything they say is not practicle in the conversational nature of a forum. If people do it, well and good but a reference is no guarantee that what they are saying is any more correct.
    It just means that what they are writing is unoriginal. I like people with original ideas. But one thing about them is that most of their ideas are not very good.

    Perhaps someone talks crap 90 % of the time but there is a little wisdom in certain things they say 10% of the time.
    By banning them you have taken away my ability to learn something from them.

    Ive seen it before on another site where people are unable to resist becoming angered or annoyed by rediculous posts by a regular contributor.
    My point would be it is the person who gets annoyed that has the problem. Their inability to filter peoples stupid ideas as apposed to good ideas is their problem

    Silencing people because they are 'idiots' is just not civilised and its undemocratic.


  • Options
    #16
    10000maniacs
    Registered Users Posts: 4,800 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    And its up to you David to assertain whether something is an outlandish, conspiracy theory-type claim. :rolleyes:
    Take a step back. This is a discussion forum. As long as something is non-libelous and is on-topic, i don't see your problem. Too many forums on boards.ie have become elitist because moderators don't find the topics intellectually stimulating enough for themselves. Become a politician or something to stimulate your intellectual leanings. If us laypeople want an economics question to be ironed out, or need advice on an financial issue, let us get on with it.


  • Options
    #17
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    10000maniacs wrote: »
    This is a discussion forum.

    correction: this is a discussion forum for economics. the latter aspect seems to be eluding some people.


  • Options
    #18
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    eamonnm79 wrote: »
    Demanding people reference everything they say is not practicle in the conversational nature of a forum.

    I don't think anyone wants to see that but people should be able to back up their assertions especially the more controversial ones, this isn't After Hours. There are plenty of other forums on this site where people can talk crap, there's nothing wrong with asking them not to do it here.


  • Options
    #19
    10000maniacs
    Registered Users Posts: 4,800 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    leninbenjamin wrote: »
    correction: this is a discussion forum for economics. the latter aspect seems to be eluding some people.

    And my next sentence after that was
    As long as something is non-libelous and is on-topic, i don't see your problem.


  • Options
    #20
    gabigeist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 121 ✭✭gabigeist


    eamonnm79 wrote: »
    I disagree fundimentally with most of the previous posts.
    If you think someones post is stupid, then ignore it!

    Demanding people reference everything they say is not practicle in the conversational nature of a forum. If people do it, well and good but a reference is no guarantee that what they are saying is any more correct.
    It just means that what they are writing is unoriginal. I like people with original ideas. But one thing about them is that most of their ideas are not very good.

    Perhaps someone talks crap 90 % of the time but there is a little wisdom in certain things they say 10% of the time.
    By banning them you have taken away my ability to learn something from them.

    Ive seen it before on another site where people are unable to resist becoming angered or annoyed by rediculous posts by a regular contributor.
    My point would be it is the person who gets annoyed that has the problem. Their inability to filter peoples stupid ideas as apposed to good ideas is their problem

    Silencing people because they are 'idiots' is just not civilised and its undemocratic.

    I concur doctor. I read the posts here as an extra to the mainstream news and hope to pick up some 'fringe' ideas. I agree that those 'Derry/Jim Corr' posts were mad but you guys were egging him on.


  • Options
    #21
    derry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭derry


    gabigeist wrote: »
    I concur doctor. I read the posts here as an extra to the mainstream news and hope to pick up some 'fringe' ideas. I agree that those 'Derry/Jim Corr' posts were mad but you guys were egging him on.


    I concoor

    I don't start the threads I generally reply to them

    If I said two weeks ago we would be in the middle of this economic meltdown you would love to have banned me and or rubbish me

    Now the meltdown is full swing the melt down in economics makes all the economists with their high falooting crud look more stupid than my posts

    The melt down was triggered from a vast elite of high paid bankers and Central banks who looked the other way when they saw the fat cheuques they could get at the risk of ruining everyones saving and hard earned life styles

    Now the whole thing is in melt down the question how low will the forces of evil that pulled this stunt go to keep in power even after causing this mess

    History repeats itself time after time after time so look at history and you have a good idea its not preety

    But fore warned is fore armed

    The Irish me included suffer from some weird idea we are special and real nice guys but when you dig up our history and you compare it to some of the worst regimes history ever threw up we can see that we had and still have big chunks of these bad concepts embedded in our systems and these systems usually kill the poor incremently

    Presently in Ireland 750,000 live with less than 11,000 a year and that is the good times

    So if the bad times come what then ????

    I ant interested to say well the bankers will have to have smaller bonus stuff
    and pontifacte the minor tribulations economic problems will cuase to the rich

    So with my slightly different slant on the piture we can see the warts in our system and maybe not make that mistake and kill off fellow Irish like we did in the 1940 to 1990 era when we exported hundreds of thousands of irish to some unknown fate
    Often many did not survive the experience in the killing fields of the Paddy with shovels of UK motor ways or German coal mines etc

    If the Germans did what we did in that period 1940 to 1990 export 20% of the population somewhere else often without any support we would consider the Germans to be complete fashist regime

    Whats good for the goose is good for the gander

    But we can of course choose we are all intelectual fecks and and the good guys and ban the thoughts that freak our brains

    Economics and politics and society are all linked like coffee has water in it

    So long as a new medium exists like internet that I can use to air my brain and my concepts then I will endevour to send it forth as best I can
    Sorry and not sorry if you pose questions do not be suprised that others out there have a way different slant on the problem

    My view of History having lived in many countries around Europe and seeing lots of things tells me the Irish are no different than any Germans or French or anybody else out there


    Also we are every bit capable to not have any empathy with the what looks like to the new and vast army of unemployed unless the economic piture changes drastically

    Ireland having never suffered the worst excesses of the far right are wide open to take over from neo fachist forces well placed in the Irish society to further enrich the super rich and further impoverish the poor


    Derry


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Économiste Monétaire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭Économiste Monétaire


    What in the Lord's name did that have to do with a discussion on the rules? It went from 'crud' to 1940's Germany.

    Can we add a rule that includes a requirement for basic sentence structure.


  • Options
    #23
    Kama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Derry was the only example given in the original proposal, and as in the thread he's responding. I'm with what nesf said, back up claims if requested or cede the point. That and don't respond in a manner that drives further off-topic, like personal attacks etc. Tend to agree with eamonn on the counter-productive nature of that.

    Economics isn't hiding in Biz/Personal/Obscurity anymore, for good or ill, and 'current economic affairs' is in the charter. If you want it limited to more academic (on-topic?) discussion like specific policy and theory, 'twould probably be better off hidden from the masses in Science. As Derry says (rightly imo) economics isn't seperable from other issues, and the forum will inevitably gain traffic in the current situation, since the economy is the Issue of the Day.


  • Options
    #24
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    If you want to post crap, head to indymedia.
    IMO, any opinion here should have some basis in fact. None, of David Icke's crazy lizards for me thank you very much.


    EDIT: And if you want to learn, at least try to read the wiki article on the subject first. Otherwise its just annoying for everyone.


  • Options
    #25
    Dimitri
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭Dimitri


    I agree there should be some basis in fact but exactly how much would you be looking for? I understand why it is necessary to back up ones assertions but if too much is required is there not the possiility that every discussion will descend into an arguement over the validity of sources etc?


  • Options
    #26
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    Dimitri wrote: »
    I agree there should be some basis in fact but exactly how much would you be looking for? I understand why it is necessary to back up ones assertions but if too much is required is there not the possiility that every discussion will descend into an arguement over the validity of sources etc?

    if you'll have a look at the charter you will realise that this forum has something of an academic leaning. users should be expected to be familiar with the workings of this forum, as they are of any forum. if you make a statement, be prepared to back it up with source. if you state an opinion, be prepared to give your reasoning for it. this is what's expected of any economics student or professional and that's how, imo, the forum should operate.

    we're not infallible. i'm not suggesting ban someone on the spot because they don't back up what they are saying, god knows i do that enough myself. but given the recent climes, quite a few people have posted on the forum with some pretty outrageous statements, that frankly are quite insulting to those of us who have worked or studied in the area (or at least i find it insulting) and imo demeaning to the discipline that this forum is meant to cultivate. and given this and I think there should be measures in place to reduce some of the recent nonsense that's been posted on the forum.


  • Options
    #27
    Dimitri
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭Dimitri


    but given the recent climes, quite a few people have posted on the forum with some pretty outrageous statements,
    Yes i have noticed the outrageous and bizare claims of global conspiracies etc however as an semi frequent lurker i'd be disappoited if in reaction to the jim corrs this forum would swing too far in the opposite direction and anything that is a little left of centre gets thrown out along with the crazy ramblings!


  • Options
    #28
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Dimitri wrote: »
    Yes i have noticed the outrageous and bizare claims of global conspiracies etc however as an semi frequent lurker i'd be disappoited if in reaction to the jim corrs this forum would swing too far in the opposite direction and anything that is a little left of centre gets thrown out along with the crazy ramblings!

    Honestly, considering the denizens of this forum, I can't see us staying quiet if reasonable views are being suppressed.


  • Options
    #29
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Dimitri wrote: »
    Yes i have noticed the outrageous and bizare claims of global conspiracies etc however as an semi frequent lurker i'd be disappoited if in reaction to the jim corrs this forum would swing too far in the opposite direction and anything that is a little left of centre gets thrown out along with the crazy ramblings!

    Bollocks, a lot of views on here (including) mine would be left of centre (on the economics axis). The belief that economics is simply about 'market fundamentalism' is the height of ignorance. Its this sort of ignorance that we need to quell in this forum, and why I think it a good idea for a change in the rules to achieve this.


  • Options
    #30
    DubTony
    Registered Users Posts: 3,268 ✭✭✭DubTony


    WOW! I came to this forum to see what people thought of the current economic situation. I'm not an economist or anything. I believe that my bank deposits are safe. I'm not so sure about my pension but then investments can go down as wel ... etc.

    I'm actually afraid to post here now in case I say something silly. Looks like you economics types would like to keep the forum all to yourselves. Well way to go guys. It's all yours ....

    now what's the name of that forum .... eh ... www.askaboutwhatchamacallit .......


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    DubTony, it's a discussion on the rules. We not imposin' nothin'. As it transpires, I don't think there'll be any changes to the rules.

    People are more than welcome to ask questions: have a look around for proof. What inspired this thread was people making assertions ("x will cause y") that were not backed up with anything. This is mis-leading to honest people like yourself who want balanced answers to complicated questions.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement