Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Should civil discourse about politics be allowed on FIO?
actually without politic discussion I will never know about how nutty those SC software engineer folks are. So yes, fire away, I did learn something new.
News and politics has a significant impact on my own trading. A large part of my analysis is trying to determine when order flow is being caused by informed trading, and if so what information the trading might be based on. In my view the execution cost of a trade tends to arbitrage away any statistical aberrations in market behavior that you might discover. Therefore a more reliable source of edge for a retail day trader is limiting your trading to situations where you have an informational advantage. That is to mean when you understand how your instrument reacts to news better than most other market participants.
For Futures trading one of the most common sources for such market moving news is related to politics. That makes understanding politics essential to predicting markets. Unfortunately, there is almost no discussion on these topics on the forum today. So to that point I believe that allowing political discussion on the forum would be extremely beneficial. Political discussion will always have a tendency to become somewhat toxic, but that is an issue that can be managed. It is important to allow people to express their political opinions so that we can better understand how others think. Those that don't wish to participate in such discussion can chose to not participate in those threads.
If such threads are allowed I would also recommend trying to create some way of separating or identifying discussion that is based on debate or opinion, and discussion that is analysis. The difference between what actually happens, and what you want to happen. This way discussion about the actual implications of specific events on markets doesn't get overwhelmed by people pushing their favored political outcome. This is also why I'd lean in favor of identifying posters. That way we can factor in people's personal biases when we read their analysis.
If there are still concerns then I would suggest taking a look at https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/ On that subreddit discussion is tightly moderated, and all top level comments require a citation. It's maybe not as fun, but it is much more effective at creating an informative discussion.
I am interested in your thoughts and experience here. Can you please point out a few examples of how this works better?
At first glance, a very strict citation requirement would really seem to squealsh any freedom of expression (aka their opinions). How can the conversation move forward in this case?
Only the top level comments need citations, and so they all contain actual factual information. They also ask pretty specific questions which allow strict enforcement of staying on topic. All the resources you'd ever want to understand it. The laws in question, and past cases. Did you know there was an attack on congress in 1954?
Here again actual informational content. Discussion about difficulties with federal enforcement and using federal funding to pressure states. Past legal cases dealing with fining people for not being vaccinated. Articles discussing the constitutionality of such an order. If you are trying to determine the actual probability of something happening all the information is there.
The following is based on my experiences at years of political discussion forum participation and non-attorney representation of employees.
Regarding Rules:
Successful political forums seem to:
Allow more leeway than the non-political counterparts of the same website.
Require/warn participants that thick skin is required.
Allow labeling where a reasonable, thick-skinned person would deem it appropriate (doofus, clown, etc.)
Allow a block feature; where the person that is blocked, can't see the posts of the blocker. And the blocker can't see the posts of the blockee.
Disallow non-factual racism, and other Title VII-like subject-matter.
Utilized consistent enforcement. (One moderator?)
Rely more so on responding to complaints, rather than actively looking for violations.
Doesn't allow Admin to reveal private information of members, to other members.
Doesn't allow Admin to engage in political discussions.
* I'm sure I'm forgetting stuff; may supplement if so.
Keep political forum separated from main forum.
Regarding Applications:
The organized labor sector, along with management, utilizes a standard "Just Clause" concept with regard to rules and enforcement. It has passed the test of time, and is supported by the courts. However, it's value can extend beyond labor relations.
You can probably get the gist of it, and imagine how it can apply to moderation efforts, by visiting here:
Forgot to add that a political forum can be a lot of fun. It really ain't that serious folks.
Here's an example where insults and contention works, though not rooted in politics. This is a classic battle. I have two other must see classics if anyone is interested and the Admin doesn't mind the postings.
