On hindsight how do you feel/ evaluate your decision to ban political conversations? @TMFTomGardner This is to understand what were your goals and whether they are met, or are there any unintended consequences? Appreciate if you can answer.
2 Likes
Why post this on Liquid Lounge. Will probably go unnoticed unless it gets flagged as political.
1 Like
Where can you post it? I thought with @pauleckler you can notify a person.
I think you will do better on Improve the Fool under Fool Community Help.
Speaking of liquid, I’ll go have a martini. I thought the political board wasn’t any more than a bunch of name calling, with each side saying that only their party could save the country, and if the other party gets elected, the country will go to hell in a handbasket. There was no informative talk on it at all. Thus, I don’t blame the fool for dropping it. I just worked 14 days straight with some folks…14 days together, pretty much 24 hours a day. There was no discussion of politics, because we know the divisions now are just too deep. The country is divided enough. When I work the polls in November, there are going to be some that feel they can loudly voice their opinions inside the polling place, and wear flamboyant clothing to promote a candidate inside the polling place. It is not fun dealing with these types. Its not fun having someone glaring at you when you tell then they cannot bring a banner into the polling place with promotes a candidate. When I leave after a very long day, and walk to my car, I’ll probably be moving something from my locked trunk into the front seat beside me. Yeah, that’s how bad I think it is now.
1 Like
I get that. My question was not that, rather, how it impacted the overall engagement, is that something the fool expected, are there any other impacts like their paid subscription got impacted, etc.
There are other places like Twitter where one can get their fill of political discussions. 
I have wondered as well. Clearly engagement on the boards is less than it used to be, although that could be for a number of reasons including, most obviously, the change to a new format and the departure of several of the most followed posters (I’m thinking of Mungofitch, but there were others.)
The “no politics” rule has changed the tone of the discussion, often for the better but not always; some issues (EVs, fiscal policy, etc.) have economic and stock market impacts that are difficult to sort it without consideration of political influences and outcomes, but so-be-it.
And, while Political Asylum was not my cup of tea, I viewed it more as a relief valve where discussions that got too hot for (so-called) investing boards could be off loaded, but I freely admit that the stew on that particular board (and a few others) could be toxic.
It’s worth noting that PA (and similar) were an organic outgrowth of the natural tendency of people to shove politics into discussions - not a new phenomenon, it’s been happening as long as the Fool has existed, which goes back to the early 1990’s. But it’s more under control here and now - but I suspect as much a result of fewer posters as “the new rules”.
Of course one way to deal with it is/was the “iron hand” moderator, such as Saul, or to a smaller extent Wendy. Curiously, the MeTAR board used to have a high political content under its originator; I don’t recall if it frequently was flame-worthy or not.
1 Like
TMF found politics costly in that it generated too many FAs as opponents like to FA posts that they did not agree with. Cost cutting meant no more politics on TMF.
Bottom line. Abuse of the system makes services go away.
We do seem to have our share of idiots on here.