# Poll: Should all political threads be merged into one?



## So_Cynical (20 February 2013)

The Poll question is: Should all political threads be merged into one super thread, like the Real Estate thread.

I think it works well for real estate and see no reason why it wouldn't work for politics, as each new event happens a new conversation starts...would reduce the one sided clutter in the general section of the forum, while still allowing those interested to vent etc.


----------



## sptrawler (20 February 2013)

Oh come on SoCynical, you Ifocus and a handfull of chardonay socialists, are coping a bit of flack at the moment.
Just think how much fun you will have saying "I told you so next year"


----------



## Joe Blow (20 February 2013)

Funny you should start this thread now. I'm in the process of starting a new thread for the general discussion of each of the major political parties and one for the general discussion of all minor parties.


----------



## Joe Blow (20 February 2013)

Just for the record, I think having all political discussion in one thread isn't really feasible. 

Real Estate in Australia is a single topic while political discussion has many dimensions. While I'm all for trying to cut down on the amount of single political threads started, I don't think that it's possible to fit so many discussions into one thread.


----------



## tinhat (20 February 2013)

I think it's only socially responsible to have a place online where socially delinquent old people and rabid white picket fence conservative can congregate and rattle on about whatever it is that is bothering them. I really don't care how many threads are dedicated to nescient vitriole just as long as they stay in the general ignorance section of the forum. Just as I don't care what nonsense the shock-jocks on 2GB have to say because I don't listen to it.

It's no surprise to me that there appears to be an inverse relationship amongst the membership between those that post in the political threads in the general ignorance forum and those that post in the stock market forum about actual stocks.

Some people think and act. Some people would rather whinge. Regardless of political persuasion, people seem to spend too much time worrying about governments rather than worrying about getting on with their own lives. Hot tip - when you vote, you only get to choose amongst a bunch of politicians.


----------



## galumay (20 February 2013)

I voted yes, but maybe there are other options, I am not sure if its possible to filter all the off topic and political stuff out, but that would help. 

I only come here for the shares and investment discussion, but its very annoying when I click on the new posts button, to find a long list of threads that are of no interest to me.


----------



## galumay (20 February 2013)

tinhat said:


> I think ......




+ eleventybillion, couldnt have put it better myself!


----------



## MrBurns (20 February 2013)

Joe Blow said:


> Funny you should start this thread now. I'm in the process of starting a new thread for the general discussion of each of the major political parties and one for the general discussion of all minor parties.




I think it could be ordered better but would be a bad move to take away the ability to start new threads for new political topics, such as Labors latest stuff up or something else important, if these topcs were buried in a merged thread I don't see how that would work.


----------



## explod (20 February 2013)

Someone mentioned the property prices thread.  If one thinks about that then more people on average would be interested and concerned with their home of property investment that politics.

Yet we have political threads dominating everything in the discussion area.  The used to be an old saying, "when in company never discuss politics and religion".  And it brings out the worst in people so needs to be controlled well.

I note a number of posters only on the forum for political purposes and the ill feelings being created is turning people away from ASF so we are therefore losing our way.  You yourself Joe consolidated the Property threads and would urge you to revisit your feelings and reasoning for that in coming to a decision on the political arena.

Worth mentioning that I have felt that the wording of the climate change thread with the word "Hysteria" is a stir up and have often thought of starting up another thread to counteract that.  Basilio did to no avail and my feelings were to keep it in the one place.  And lets face it, like property the climate one gets plenty of attention.  

And one thread it will be better monitored


----------



## explod (20 February 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I think it could be ordered better but would be a bad move to take away the ability to start new threads for new political topics, such as Labors latest stuff up or something else important, if these topcs were buried in a merged thread I don't see how that would work.




So you are looking for headline grabs.  They are close to opinions which is a far cry from a topic category.

I would be further disappointed if we have fallen to that level.


----------



## Joe Blow (20 February 2013)

galumay said:


> I only come here for the shares and investment discussion, but its very annoying when I click on the new posts button, to find a long list of threads that are of no interest to me.




I do understand how this could be annoying. My suggestion to those who have no interest in threads in the General Chat forum is to ignore them completely and increase your posting in threads on individual stocks and investment related topics. If there was more posting in these threads, the percentage of General Chat threads to show up when the "New Posts" link was clicked would be significantly less.

The best way to combat the apparent dominance of General Chat threads is simply to post more in threads you are interested in. Posting in a thread is like voting for it. It also makes others more likely to post in it as well and odds are a constructive discussion will be generated as a result.


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2013)

I posted this on Joe's Liberal party thread.

Joe. The Liberal Party is not the Coalition. I think it would make more sense to have one thread for the Government and one for the Coalition. 

Barnaby Joyce for instance is National Party, but he is part of the Coalition. Under your new rules a post about him would be consigned to the Minor Parties, along with the LNP and the Greens. The LNP is not a minor Party Party in Queensland.

The majority of political posts are about Federal politics. Applicable threads would be, subject to change;

The Gillard Government 

The Abbott Opposition.

The Greens.

State Politics

Just


----------



## pixel (20 February 2013)

I voted Yes because there was no third, "middle-ground" option to tick.
One each per party, maybe even split into pro and con, along the lines Joe has already suggested, would be ideal.


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2013)

At my last count we had 35 threads with Gillard or Abbott in the title, and 58 with Rudd in the title. My system would cut this back to two.

This would also appease newbies like galumay who are upset by General Chat threads.


----------



## Miss Hale (20 February 2013)

pixel said:


> I voted Yes because there was no third, "middle-ground" option to tick.
> One each per party, maybe even split into pro and con, along the lines Joe has already suggested, would be ideal.




And I voted 'No' for the same reason   I'm in favour of some rationalisation (the doubling up of comments is the part that I find most frustrating) but I think more than one thread is required.


----------



## Joe Blow (20 February 2013)

OK, I probably should have consulted more before starting the new threads as there seems to be different views about the best way to structure the new political threads.

My intention was to have all federal, state and local party politics located in the one thread. There is one for Labor, Liberal, the Nationals, Greens and one for all other minor political parties.

Calliope has presented an alternative format, are there any other suggestions?

If you prefer one format over the other please express your preference in this thread.


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2013)

Joe Blow said:


> .
> My intention was to have all federal, state and local party politics located in the one thread. There is one for Labor, Liberal, the Nationals, Greens and one for all other minor political parties.




I posted this on the other thread; 


> Good luck with that.:dunno: I think that these days political discussion is all about personalities. That's why there are 58 posts with Rudd in the title.


----------



## explod (20 February 2013)

Joe Blow said:


> My intention was to have all federal, state and local party politics located in the one thread. There is one for Labor, Liberal, the Nationals, Greens and one for all other minor political parties.




This would seem the sensible solution in my view and goes a long way to meeting those at variance half way.

ie. separate thread for each ALP, Lib, etc

And an overrider simply called "Australian Politics"


----------



## Julia (20 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> I posted this on Joe's Liberal party thread.
> 
> Joe. The Liberal Party is not the Coalition. I think it would make more sense to have one thread for the Government and one for the Coalition.
> 
> ...



I agree.


Joe Blow said:


> OK, I probably should have consulted more before starting the new threads as there seems to be different views about the best way to structure the new political threads.
> 
> My intention was to have all federal, state and local party politics located in the one thread. There is one for Labor, Liberal, the Nationals, Greens and one for all other minor political parties.
> 
> ...



Joe, I don't think it's appropriate to have just the one thread for both Federal and State versions of any party.
As Calliope has pointed out, the actual title of the Opposition is the Coalition.  In several areas it is only represented by either a National OR a Liberal member.  Non-liberal representatives cannot be consigned to minor parties.

Further State politics are very different from Federal.  eg if I want to follow a discussion about either the Federal Labor Party or the Federal Coalition, I don't want to have to - amongst it - trawl through discussions about Eddie Obeid in NSW or the various factors involved in the coming WA election.  It would be hopelessly messy imo.

I agree absolutely that there are far too many frivolous and silly threads started, in all areas for that matter.
I don't know, however, why people who are just not interested can't simply ignore what doesn't interest them.
When I log on I just go to Quick Links, then to Today's Posts and scroll through to read what interests me.
Hardly seems such a big deal that some people seem to feel obliged to express what they feel is their intellectual superiority on the basis of not being interested in any political discussion.   I see some pretty underwhelming comments in some of the stock threads.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 February 2013)

tinhat said:


> Some people think and act. Some people would rather whinge. Regardless of political persuasion, people seem to spend too much time worrying about governments rather than worrying about getting on with their own lives. Hot tip - when you vote, you only get to choose amongst a bunch of politicians.




One of the best paragraphs i have read on ASF


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> One of the best paragraphs i have read on ASF




It's one of the silliest I have thread. Do you have an opinion on this thread? You must have been selected as a moderator for your ability to moderate, apart from your good looks. I would have thought that moderation would have reduced the 58 Rudd posts to one or two. I think a bit of slashing and burning is in order to resolve this issue.

PS There are 17 threads on Barack Obama. I would have thought the original one started by Doris on 11th-December-2007 would suffice.


----------



## sails (20 February 2013)

Joe Blow said:


> Just for the record, I think having all political discussion in one thread isn't really feasible.
> 
> Real Estate in Australia is a single topic while political discussion has many dimensions. While I'm all for trying to cut down on the amount of single political threads started, I don't think that it's possible to fit so many discussions into one thread.




I agree, Joe.  Politics is too complex (especially at this point in time) to be put into one thread and yet I think there are too many threads at present so the poll in this thread needs to have a third option of cutting down the number of threads. I would have voted for less threads instead of inaccurately voting to leave it alone.

And, in addition to simply dividing the threads up into political parties, where does things like mining tax, carbon tax and boat arrivals go?  When the coalition get voted in and they change policy on these issues - it would break the continuity of discussion some of these major policies if they are started under the labor thread and then some of the discussion goes into the coalition thread.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> It's one of the silliest I have thread. Do you have an opinion on this thread? You must have been selected as a moderator for your ability to moderate, apart from your good looks. I would have thought that moderation would have reduced the 58 Rudd posts to one or two. I think a bit of slashing and burning is in order to resolve this issue.
> 
> PS There are 17 threads on Barack Obama. I would have thought the original one started by Doris on 11th-December-2007 would suffice.




Yes i have an opinion. I have stated that i think all political threads, past and present should be merged under 4 or 5 over-arching threads, we are a stock forum, not a political forum. I agree that all the Obama ones probably should be merged also. Bear in mind i am just a mod (and a good looking one at that as you say), ultimately most of these decisions come from Joe himself.

I dont moderate politcal threads as i very rarely see the point discussing politics, hence i do not read those threads, and as they fall under general chat, a lot of the ASF rules (ramping, price targets, analysis etc) dont apply so there is no need for me to read them.


----------



## explod (20 February 2013)

sails said:


> And, in addition to simply dividing the threads up into political parties, where does things like mining tax, carbon tax and boat arrivals go?  When the coalition get voted in and they change policy on these issues - it would break the continuity of discussion some of these major policies if they are started under the labor thread and then some of the discussion goes into the coalition thread.




Those big national issues need to go under "Australian Politics"

It is the slanging on internal political party and individual issues attached thereto that would be under party banners.

It would be good to see this issue aired for awhile (few more days at least)  to give other members a crack at the voting and for comment.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 February 2013)

sails said:


> 1. And, in addition to simply dividing the threads up into political parties, where does things like mining tax, carbon tax and boat arrivals go?
> 2.When the coalition get voted in and they change policy on these issues - it would break the continuity of discussion some of these major policies if they are started under the labor thread and then some of the discussion goes into the coalition thread.




1. IMO (not Joes) tax is seperate. IE it can have an economic impact, so mining and carbon tax threads would be fine. Boat people would probably fall under the current government

2. Perhaps after each election new threads could be started. I think someone else has mentioned it already. If it were up to me, after reading this feedback i would have:
Gillard/Labor Government
Abbot/Liberal Opposition
Greens
Other politcial chat

Or something of that ilk.

Then after an election the thread titles could either be changed or a new government/opposition thread started.


----------



## Joe Blow (20 February 2013)

sails said:


> I agree, Joe.  Politics is too complex (especially at this point in time) to be put into one thread and yet I think there are too many threads at present so the poll in this thread needs to have a third option of cutting down the number of threads. I would have voted for less threads instead of inaccurately voting to leave it alone.
> 
> And, in addition to simply dividing the threads up into political parties, where does things like mining tax, carbon tax and boat arrivals go?  When the coalition get voted in and they change policy on these issues - it would break the continuity of discussion some of these major policies if they are started under the labor thread and then some of the discussion goes into the coalition thread.




The results of this poll show how divisive this issue is. There clearly needs to be some kind of permanent consolidation of the political threads on ASF. The question is how do those who participate in political threads want this to be organised? What is the most satisfactory arrangement?

Is it just a matter of merging every single previous thread on the same topic (e.g. Rudd, Gillard, Abbott etc.) together or should previous threads be left intact and a new system be introduced from this point forward?

I would appreciate it if those who participate regularly in political threads express a preference so we can establish some kind of consensus, and a decision can be made on that basis.


----------



## Joe Blow (20 February 2013)

sails said:


> And, in addition to simply dividing the threads up into political parties, where does things like mining tax, carbon tax and boat arrivals go?  When the coalition get voted in and they change policy on these issues - it would break the continuity of discussion some of these major policies if they are started under the labor thread and then some of the discussion goes into the coalition thread.




I think that political issues that are unrelated to specific political parties should have their own thread but they need to major issues. The mining tax, carbon tax, Gonski Report and immigration issues don't relate to one specific political party but are big issues that deserve their own dedicated discussions.

The problem in the past has been the starting of dozens of Gillard, Rudd and Abbott threads. These need to be consolidated and my initial feeling was that broad discussion threads on specific political parties would solve the problem. Apparently not.


----------



## explod (20 February 2013)

Joe Blow said:


> The problem in the past has been the starting of dozens of Gillard, Rudd and Abbott threads. These need to be consolidated and my initial feeling was that broad discussion threads on specific political parties would solve the problem. Apparently not.




If we stop to think about the attacks on Abbott, (I am big offender) Gillard or Rudd for example, they are more to do with attacking the party itself via the individual.  Gillard not keeping her promise would be a national issue if the attack could change anything, but it cannot, so should be under the Labour or ALP thread.


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2013)

Joe Blow said:


> I think that political issues that are unrelated to specific political parties should have their own thread but they need to major issues. The mining tax, carbon tax, Gonski Report and immigration issues don't relate to one specific political party but are big issues that deserve their own dedicated discussions.
> 
> The problem in the past has been the starting of dozens of Gillard, Rudd and Abbott threads. These need to be consolidated and my initial feeling was that broad discussion threads on specific political parties would solve the problem. Apparently not.




Joe, the solution is simple. Simply apply Rule 1.

Posting Guidelines

1. Before starting a new thread on a particular stock or topic, please use the search feature to see if there is an active thread on the same stock or topic. This will help prevent unneccesary duplicate threads and will make Aussie Stock Forums a more effective resource. *Duplicate threads will be merged or deleted by moderators.*(my Bolds)


----------



## Bushman (20 February 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> I dont moderate politcal threads as i very rarely see the point discussing politics.




The stock market and the political environment are intrinsically linked through regulation and taxation. For instance, buy CBA when you have the ALP in power. If you do not have a knowledge of political trends then you are a poorer investor for it. 

I must say that I use ASF for general discussion these days and talk stocks elsewhere. Liquidity is an issue i.e. not enough posters. Also the discussion tends to be dominated by one or two traders talking about trading systems; my interest is in 'bottom up' research. Hence I would call the ASF a trading forum first with some lively political banter. I enjoy the political chat as it always gets a wide range of views. I assume there are political forums out there but have never checked.  

Personally, it is very difficult to capture the nuances of the political process in a single thread. Also, if the intention is to return to being a stock forum then potentially consider closing down the General thread? But under that scenario you need to ensure the stock discussion has wider pulling power.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 February 2013)

Bushman said:


> The stock market and the political environment are intrinsically linked through regulation and taxation.




I agree with this, but this is very rarely the type of political discussion you see here on ASF. It is more along the lines of why the party/person is good/bad/getting fired/should be shot etc etc as opposed to what actual impact any policy or tax will have on individual stocks or the ASX in general.

Political threads generally just turn into slanging matchs with no hard data presented.

I would be interested to see how the market has reacted with certain parties in power, however personally without seeing data i would assume that it is much more correlated with macro effect. The current rally is not due to anything of the Gillard government, just as the previous boom was more to do with commodities rather than a Liberal government. (all imo)


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2013)

Bushman said:


> *Also, if the intention is to return to being a stock forum then potentially consider closing down the General thread? *But under that scenario you need to ensure the stock discussion has wider pulling power.



(My Bolds)

On second thoughts, maybe this is the best solution, to purify the ASF.


----------



## white_goodman (20 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> (My Bolds)
> 
> On second thoughts, maybe this is the best solution, to purify the ASF.




well it would remove the socialist cohort, after all they have no money as they donate every extra dollar as tax revenue... or are they hypocrites?


----------



## Joe Blow (20 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> 1. Before starting a new thread on a particular stock or topic, please use the search feature to see if there is an active thread on the same stock or topic. This will help prevent unneccesary duplicate threads and will make Aussie Stock Forums a more effective resource. *Duplicate threads will be merged or deleted by moderators.*(my Bolds)




I admit I've probably been too forgiving in the past with political threads. When a new thread was started on a topic that had been discussed before I usually didn't pay much attention as long as it took a new slant or presented a different perspective. In retrospect that was probably an error of judgment, as was allowing the provocative and inflammatory thread titles. 

Perhaps the best idea is to just merge all the Julia Gillard threads, rename the end result, "Julia Gillard" and go from there? If we do the same to all the Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott and Barack Obama threads we'll probably turn close to 100 threads into around half a dozen.


----------



## Bushman (20 February 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> I agree with this, but this is very rarely the type of political discussion you see here on ASF. It is more along the lines of why the party/person is good/bad/getting fired/should be shot etc etc as opposed to what actual impact any policy or tax will have on individual stocks or the ASX in general.
> 
> Political threads generally just turn into slanging matchs with no hard data presented.
> 
> I would be interested to see how the market has reacted with certain parties in power, however personally without seeing data i would assume that it is much more correlated with macro effect. The current rally is not due to anything of the Gillard government, just as the previous boom was more to do with commodities rather than a Liberal government. (all imo)




Fair enough. I agree that political discussion tends to be along partisan lines. As another poster said, you should never talk about politics or religion in polite company as it tends to inflame the passions. 

Regarding the link between politics and share prices, it does change sector by sector. For instance, healthcare has a high regulatory risk as does infrastructure, defense etc. Another rule of thumb is that I would be a natural short on sectors with high levels of unionisation when the ALP is in power i.e. transport, stevedoring and construction. 

However, as with any fundamental research process, regulatory or sovereign risk is just one critera amongst many. If iron ore prices are due to tank then I would not necessarily buy BHP because Tony Abbott has won the election. 

Interesting area. We probably need a thread on it


----------



## sails (20 February 2013)

Joe Blow said:


> ...Perhaps the best idea is to just merge all the Julia Gillard threads, rename the end result, "Julia Gillard" and go from there? If we do the same to all the Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott and Barack Obama threads we'll probably turn close to 100 threads into around half a dozen.




Joe, that sounds like a good starting point and see how it goes from there?


----------



## dutchie (20 February 2013)

sails said:


> Joe, that sounds like a good starting point and see how it goes from there?




+1   Sounds good to me.


----------



## Julia (20 February 2013)

explod said:


> It would be good to see this issue aired for awhile (few more days at least)  to give other members a crack at the voting and for comment.



Agree.  



Joe Blow said:


> The results of this poll show how divisive this issue is. There clearly needs to be some kind of permanent consolidation of the political threads on ASF. The question is how do those who participate in political threads want this to be organised? What is the most satisfactory arrangement?
> 
> Is it just a matter of merging every single previous thread on the same topic (e.g. Rudd, Gillard, Abbott etc.) together or should previous threads be left intact and a new system be introduced from this point forward?



Sounds reasonable.  So you'd have separate thread for:
Federal Labor
Federal Coalition
Federal Greens
State Labor
State Coalition/LNP
State Greens
Independents and minor parties
Julia Gillard
Tony Abbott
Kevin Rudd

Is that what you have in mind, Joe?
I'd like to see the same standard of moderation applied to general threads as is applied to other threads.
eg there was a post yesterday describing the Coalition as 'a piling of steaming turds'.  This adds nothing to anything and imo should be moderated out.  Ditto comments that are obviously just designed to be inflammatory and/or insulting to those with a differing political view.
Agree with Calliope's suggestion that a search be done before starting a new thread in order to avoid doubling up.

I don't know why:
1.  It shouldn't be possible to discuss politics without being insulting or rude.
2.  It's so difficult for those uninterested in politics to just ignore those threads without feeling obliged to denigrate anyone who does have an interest.


----------



## explod (20 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> PS There are 17 threads on Barack Obama. I would have thought the original one started by Doris on 11th-December-2007 would suffice.




Agree, we could up our efficiency a great deal with just this merging approach.

Us Indians are generally honest but do need supervision


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2013)

In 2010 soon after Ms Gillard assumed power, I started a thread "The Gillard Government". I fail to see how every post  after this time, on Gillard, or the Labor Government or members of the Government could not have been accommodated under that title. It has had 5891 posts.

I think a similar thread titled "The Abbot Coalition" would serve the same purpose. Ancillary threads for important political topics such as "2013 Election", "Boat People", "Climate Change", "Greens", "State Governments" etc. would still be needed. It would be important that each title should have a Key Word so the thread can be easily found in "Advance Search", to prevent duplication.

As Julia has suggested, threads with pejorative titles should be banned.

My


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> In 2010 soon after Ms Gillard assumed power, I started a thread "The Gillard Government". I fail to see how every post  after this time, on Gillard, or the Labor Government or members of the Government could not have been accommodated under that title. It has had 5891 posts.
> 
> I think a similar thread titled "The Abbot Coalition" would serve the same purpose. Ancillary threads for important political topics such as "2013 Election", "Boat People", "Climate Change", "Greens", "State Governments" etc. would still be needed. It would be important that each title should have a Key Word so the thread can be easily found in "Advance Search", to prevent duplication.
> 
> ...




Calliope, mate,

You are peeing in to the wind.

I resurrected the BHP thread on the weekend, as a contact indicated to me something was afoot with the CEO.

I was unable to confirm so did not post that exact information hoping some silly bastard would post clarification.

I returned to the BHP thread today.

A day on which the CEO of one of the most important Australian companies had a change of CEO.

Number of posts today. None.

Number of posts since the weekend. None.

Best of luck.

I'll post similar on another thread

gg


----------



## Miss Hale (20 February 2013)

Joe Blow said:


> Perhaps the best idea is to just merge all the Julia Gillard threads, rename the end result, "Julia Gillard" and go from there? If we do the same to all the Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott and Barack Obama threads we'll probably turn close to 100 threads into around half a dozen.




Or to save yourself some work maybe some of the really old ones could be deleted.


----------



## Ves (20 February 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I returned to the BHP thread today.



Sorry and all, but wake me up, when this behemoth's earnings cycle has reached the bottom, their wasteful investment becomes less unpredictable, and even better the irrationality (and hence uncertainty) of the underlying commodities that they partake in resides!!!

At this very point in time, whilst I definitely admire what they have achieved, it is impossible for me to put a value on it - so there really is no point commenting in a way other than I just did (and believe me, you will soon get sick of me screaming mean reversion and earnings cycle every 2nd post).


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 February 2013)

Ves said:


> Sorry and all, but wake me up, when this behemoth's earnings cycle has reached the bottom, their wasteful investment becomes less unpredictable, and even better the irrationality (and hence uncertainty) of the underlying commodities that they partake in resides!!!
> 
> At this very point in time, whilst I definitely admire what they have achieved, it is impossible for me to put a value on it - so there really is no point commenting in a way other than I just did (and believe me, you will soon get sick of me screaming mean reversion and earnings cycle every 2nd post).




You are a dyte Ves.

I couldn't give a stuff about all that.

I'm only interested in making money out of the share price.

And BHP can be more volatile than..................whispers..................PEN.

gg


----------



## Logique (20 February 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> ...If it were up to me, after reading this feedback i would have:
> Gillard/Labor Government
> Abbot/Liberal Opposition
> Greens
> Other politcial chat...



Consolidation of threads would make life much easier for the mods. Prawn's suggestion is as good a place to start as any.  I'd call it the Lib/Nat Opposition.


----------



## IFocus (20 February 2013)

The more threads the better the political environment is forever changing just like political promises if you turn the forum into a bland number of threads titles then I think discussion will wither some what IMHO. 

Note that some threads take off and some die as the interest varies across the topics the thread title inspires contribution.

I couldn't think of any think worse than just a political party name for a thread. A bit like having threads like stocks, futures etc forums need to be vibrant and active, threads titles convey this to me it makes no sense unless its affecting Joes bottom line..



Really liked Tin Hats comments cracked me up.


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Calliope, mate,
> 
> You are peeing in to the wind.




Yes. I have just realised this. As a former mariner I should know better. I will bow out of this one.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 February 2013)

IFocus said:


> The more threads the better the political environment is forever changing just like political promises if you turn the forum into a bland number of threads titles then I think discussion will wither some what IMHO.
> 
> Note that some threads take off and some die as the interest varies across the topics the thread title inspires contribution.
> 
> ...




Much as it goes against every fibre in my liberal being to agree with him..

I agree with IFocus.

gg


----------



## moXJO (20 February 2013)

Seriously, you can't just ignore the political threads in general chat.
We have numerous forums to discuss everything stock related. 
FFS if you don't like it don't read it. If a new thread pops up that looks similar to a heavy traffic thread then merge it.
A lot of the old threads could have just got merged without all the hoo haa.

No offence the property thread has just been three years of talking $hit.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 February 2013)

I do see the underlying reasoning but "GST", "NBN", "Liberal Party", "Climate Change" and "War in the Middle East" are all fundamentally political topics. I can't see how that lot could rationally be placed in the one thread.

I don't see a problem with them being in a "General" section which is clearly not for discussion about investment, finance or share market topics. It's no different to how someone wanting to post about their share purchases on a car forum would put them in a "General" thread. Or posting about sport on a music forum. 

If the political threads are dominating the "general" part then how about just having a "political" section as such?

Stocks
Bonds
Forex
General 
Politics

Etc


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 February 2013)

moXJO said:


> Seriously, you can't just ignore the political threads in general chat.
> We have numerous forums to discuss everything stock related.
> FFS if you don't like it don't read it. If a new thread pops up that looks similar to a heavy traffic thread then merge it.
> A lot of the old threads could have just got merged without all the hoo haa.
> ...






Smurf1976 said:


> I do see the underlying reasoning but "GST", "NBN", "Liberal Party", "Climate Change" and "War in the Middle East" are all fundamentally political topics. I can't see how that lot could rationally be placed in the one thread.
> 
> I don't see a problem with them being in a "General" section which is clearly not for discussion about investment, finance or share market topics. It's no different to how someone wanting to post about their share purchases on a car forum would put them in a "General" thread. Or posting about sport on a music forum.
> 
> ...




+1

Agree wholeheartedly with you both.

PC likes to quarantine thought.

gg


----------



## IFocus (20 February 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Much as it goes against every fibre in my liberal being to agree with him..
> 
> I agree with IFocus.
> 
> gg




I had you in mind GG you are far and away the thread title master in creativity and provocation the very essence for a successful start to a political conversation long may you continue


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 February 2013)

IFocus said:


> I had you in mind GG you are far and away the thread title master in creativity and provocation the very essence for a successful start to a political conversation long may you continue




Thanks IFocus, 

I have long maintained that those passionate at either end of the political spectrum have more in common than the newt, dullards in the PC centre.

gg


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Thanks IFocus,
> 
> I have long maintained that those passionate at either end of the political spectrum have more in common than the newt, dullards in the PC centre.
> 
> gg




I withdraw any suggestions I have made on this issue. I'm with you GG and Ifocus. Let a thousand flowers bloom.


----------



## Joe Blow (20 February 2013)

I have decided to wait and see if any more feedback comes in before making a final decision.

If you have an opinion on this issue, and haven't aired it in this thread yet, please do so as soon as possible.


----------



## drsmith (20 February 2013)

Politics. There's always more than one point of view.

Create a sub-forum within GC for it. That way, those who wish to engage in a little friendly pub style banter can do so and those who arn't interested can avoid it altogether.


----------



## Julia (20 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> Politics. There's always more than one point of view.
> 
> Create a sub-forum within GC for it. That way, those who wish to engage in a little friendly pub style banter can do so and those who arn't interested can avoid it altogether.



Good idea.  Some forums have major headings, say one of which would be "General".  Under this would be various sub forums, e.g. Politics..
Then that sub forum can have its own threads, and surely to god this is totally avoidable for those who find any political discussion beneath them.


----------



## So_Cynical (20 February 2013)

Joe Blow said:


> The results of this poll show how divisive this issue is. There clearly needs to be some kind of permanent consolidation of the political threads on ASF. The question is how do those who participate in political threads want this to be organised? What is the most satisfactory arrangement?




What ever action is taken some people wont be happy, there can be no perfect outcome and consensus is impossible.



Joe Blow said:


> Perhaps the best idea is to just merge all the Julia Gillard threads, rename the end result, "Julia Gillard" and go from there? If we do the same to all the Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott and Barack Obama threads we'll probably turn close to 100 threads into around half a dozen.




On thinking about it and reading thru the comments i tend to agree that we need personality threads and perhaps the 3 main party threads and probably a few major policy threads....and that leaves us with maybe 12 political threads.


 Coalition
 Labor
 Greens
 Other Partys ?
 Abbott
 Turnbull ?
 Gillard
 Rudd
 Obama
 Climate change (policy)
 NBN
 Mining tax
 Ministers behaving badly (corruption & stupidity all partys) ?
 The election

Still a little messy. :dunno:


----------



## drsmith (20 February 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> Still a little messy. :dunno:



Gillard won't be on that list for much longer. :


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 February 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> What ever action is taken some people wont be happy, there can be no perfect outcome and consensus is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Can we have a nasal polyp thread as well, for those of us of a twee nature who wish to avoid disease?

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (20 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> Gillard won't be on that list for much longer. :




Quick

LOL

1 less thread  should be locked 12 months after the election.


----------



## Calliope (20 February 2013)

Joe, if you can make any sense out of all this garbage you will need the wisdom of Solomon. My advice is to let sleeping dogs lie. I really don't see what the problem is. If a few malcontents have a problem with General Chat all they have to do is ignore it. If you have a problem, then Rule 1 is your solution.


----------



## sptrawler (21 February 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Calliope, mate,
> 
> You are peeing in to the wind.
> 
> ...




+1 as I said earlier I posted a question regarding a company. Two years later a response arrived, when it came on the radar.lol


----------



## Tink (21 February 2013)

I think the merging of duplicate threads would be the main one, and would cut out alot of clutter 

A sub forum sounds good too


----------



## dutchie (21 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> Joe, if you can make any sense out of all this garbage you will need the wisdom of Solomon. My advice is to let sleeping dogs lie. I really don't see what the problem is. If a few malcontents have a problem with General Chat all they have to do is ignore it. If you have a problem, then Rule 1 is your solution.




Joe, one should ask what role Tony Abbott played in this matter?


----------



## sails (21 February 2013)

Tink said:


> I think the merging of duplicate threads would be the main one, and would cut out alot of clutter
> 
> A sub forum sounds good too




I agree Tink as the merging of duplicate threads would seem the simplest way to reduce the number of threads and hopefully offer some compromise to those who find the quantity of political threads annoying.

A political sub forum could work too.  

It would seem we are in unprecedented times in political history and, as such, political posts are going to be higher than normal with no short term relief in sight.  I hardly ever used to comment on politics a few years ago but the current situation have so many talking about politics - and that's not just on a forum.


----------



## MrBurns (21 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> Joe, if you can make any sense out of all this garbage you will need the wisdom of Solomon. My advice is to let sleeping dogs lie. I really don't see what the problem is. If a few malcontents have a problem with General Chat all they have to do is ignore it. If you have a problem, then Rule 1 is your solution.




+1

Any obvious duplicate threads to be merged otherwise only act on actual real need, the way this works has evolved through the way people want to use it and the people are always right.


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2013)

MrBurns said:


> +1
> 
> Any obvious duplicate threads to be merged otherwise only act on actual real need, the way this works has evolved through the way people want to use it and the people are always right.




Trying to compartmentalise people's thoughts and ideas will not work in a free society. :shake:


----------



## explod (21 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> Trying to compartmentalise people's thoughts and ideas will not work in a free society. :shake:




We are really only talking about the headings for goodness sake.   Will have no effect on what is able to be said or debated, we will all soon know where our own action is.

You just love those newsmedia short sensationalist grabs ole pal.   In fact rarely do the headings reflect anywhere near the true content of the incident/statement etc.

I had to attend a media school once and learned how important it was if you wanted to get an idea across it had to be in the grab "short, sharp, succinct and attention getting .  But when thought about it is far from democratic and is why the industry employs sociologist to guide the agenda..


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2013)

explod said:


> We are really only talking about the headings for goodness sake.   Will have no effect on what is able to be said or debated, we will all soon know where our own action is.




Fools rush in...



> compartmentalise - separate into isolated compartments or categories;




That exactly describes the proposed actions regarding political debate.


----------



## Ves (21 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> Trying to compartmentalise people's thoughts and ideas will not work in a free society. :shake:



So the generally accepted version of a forum (you know, the things with sub-categories and thread titles) is in no way compartmentalised?

Do forums not work is that what you are saying?

What ARE you actually trying to say?

I would have thought, if you had something insightful to say it wouldn't matter what bloody thread it was posted in, as long as the title was in some way related to your subject matter. Of course, that wouldn't work in a free-society because in a free society people compain about freedom of speech without exercising the more important freedom of thought.


----------



## explod (21 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> Fools rush in...
> 
> 
> 
> That exactly describes the proposed actions regarding political debate.




So any heading is going to be a problem.  Okay so the whole of ASF should in your view be just one big thread without headings because on your take headings are undemocratic.

We are just splitting hairs and chasing our own tails.  

Looking back on you posts it is interesting to note that virtually all of you interest here is political.  And you want those short grabs as headings.  You do not really want to discuss or debate you want to influence people and impose yourself.  To dictate in effect.

Anyway the status quo seems to be against you and a consensus compromise seems to be the  way ist will go.


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2013)

explod said:


> Looking back on you posts it is interesting to note that virtually all of you interest here is political.  And you want those short grabs as headings.  You do not really want to discuss or debate you want to influence people and impose yourself.  To dictate in effect.




There is a new thread "Australian Greens Discussion". Instead of making silly accusations against me why don't you visit that thread and push your case for the abolition of mining in Australia and your plans to re-locate the half million jobs that the Mining Industries generate.

This is one of your more inane posts;



> We have to stop the export of coal. Set an example, then Indonesia, Africa and all the other coal producing companies will follow.
> 
> We need to have lights out when the sun goes down and we will all have a better rest and work harder in the vegie fields. No puter either. Stop a few probs here on ASF




It would fit in nicely in the new thread.


----------



## prawn_86 (21 February 2013)

This thread is fast turning into a perfect example of all the pointless political threads here on ASF. All emotion and no rationality or analysis


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> This thread is fast turning into a perfect example of all the pointless political threads here on ASF. All emotion and no rationality or analysis




You said;



> I dont moderate politcal threads as *i very rarely see the point discussing politics, hence i do not read those threads*,


----------



## drsmith (21 February 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> This thread is fast turning into a perfect example of all the pointless political threads here on ASF. All emotion and no rationality or analysis



You started it.


----------



## drsmith (21 February 2013)

Calliope said:


> I dont moderate politcal threads as *i very rarely see the point discussing politics, hence i do not read those threads*,



Politics is rarely discussed in physical social situations (in my experience) and there's a reason for that. It's the same for religion. In reality, only a small proportion of the population are genuine swinging voters. That leaves the remainder with a partisan bias whether they realise it or not.

Our political leaders nor the media provide a conducive environment for discussion of this country's future, which is unfortunate in my view. The key to discussing politics in my view is to not take it too seriously, which is not always easy. The only way to eliminate partisan commentary from politics is to ban political discussion alltogether. That's why yesterday I suggested a seperate sub-forum for politics that others who are not interested could avoid.


----------



## moXJO (21 February 2013)

Well now we seem to have twice as many political threads then before. 

It's an election year and we are on the back end of labor, political threads will pop up. I doubt we will have many new threads after September. But atm it's a hot topic. 

Seriously... Having a whinge about pointless threads after:
 reading it , being offended by it, then taking the time to post your'e own rant about it, instead of just reading the bits you want to read seems a little daft. 
Whinging about other people being stupid after taking the time to read through and post here instead of sticking to the stocks section seems a little hypocritical.

Keep it simple :
Mod abuse
Merge new similar threads to old high traffic thread
Learn how to not read and comment on threads just because you don't like them. 

Don't we have 14 forums devoted to stocks and one to BS and Blurt on.
Iv'e got no problem with taking general chat off the new posts list.


----------



## drsmith (21 February 2013)

moXJO said:


> Iv'e got no problem with taking general chat off the new posts list.



Some forums such as DTV Froum Australia do that and you have to log in to access the general discussion section.


----------



## McLovin (21 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> Some forums such as DTV Froum Australia do that and you have to log in to access the general discussion section.




There's a travel forum I'm a member of, to post in the politics section you have to have been a member for six months and have a minimum of 180 posts, this also applies to the general chat forum it has. It's also not indexed on Google. It stays remarkably civil, most of the time.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 February 2013)

moXJO said:


> Well now we seem to have twice as many political threads then before.
> 
> It's an election year and we are on the back end of labor, political threads will pop up. I doubt we will have many new threads after September. But atm it's a hot topic.
> 
> ...




lol.

Malachi 3:6

gg


----------



## IFocus (21 February 2013)

moXJO said:


> It's an election year and we are on the back end of labor, political threads will pop up. I doubt we will have many new threads after September.




With Abbott as PM there will many new threads if I have anything to do with it


----------



## orr (21 February 2013)

I havn't, as yet the time to read the last few pages of this thread, but I like the crypto commo socialist theme of the title.
... well now I have and would like to make the change to 'crypto commo National socialist', theme of the title.


----------



## drsmith (21 February 2013)

IFocus said:


> With Abbott as PM there will many new threads if I have anything to do with it



The first of which I know will be a congratulatory thread on the night of his election victory.


----------



## IFocus (21 February 2013)

drsmith said:


> The first of which I know will be a congratulatory thread on the night of his election victory.





Yep then its down hill from there


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2013)

IFocus said:


> Yep then its down hill from there




I hope so.

Downhill definition - free of problems or obstacles; easy: After the initial setbacks on the project, it was downhill all the way.


----------



## Julia (21 February 2013)

moXJO said:


> Well now we seem to have twice as many political threads then before.
> 
> It's an election year and we are on the back end of labor, political threads will pop up. I doubt we will have many new threads after September. But atm it's a hot topic.
> 
> ...



+10.  How hard would that be!


McLovin said:


> There's a travel forum I'm a member of, to post in the politics section you have to have been a member for six months and have a minimum of 180 posts, this also applies to the general chat forum it has. It's also not indexed on Google. It stays remarkably civil, most of the time.



So someone on that forum is not deemed to have a valid opinion unless they have been a member for six months?
I don't quite see the logic in that.  We have had many new members come onto ASF and put up really interesting views, viz Some Dude.  Then for whatever reason, probably irritation at the unnecessarily aggressive responses, they just go away again.  

There are many people on this forum who have been members for some years, yet their contributions are not ipso facto valuable.  I just don't see the connection with time served and capacity to make valid contributions.

I know what you mean about civil responses.  I'm a member of a NZ forum which covers investment, property, politics etc.   Any aggressive or rude comments are jumped on immediately and as a consequence members contribute in a useful and civil way.
Hence my suggestion earlier that general threads be moderated similarly to the way stocks threads are.


----------



## McLovin (22 February 2013)

Julia said:


> So someone on that forum is not deemed to have a valid opinion unless they have been a member for six months?
> I don't quite see the logic in that.




Not at all. The reasoning is that people should come to the site to discuss travel rather than to discuss politics. The site was sold a few years ago and the new owners opened up those previously locked forums and a fair few trolls appeared. It's closed again now. It's a significantly bigger website (it actually has a board of members and elections) so the ban on newbies in the lounge probably makes it easier to moderate as well.


----------



## Joe Blow (24 February 2013)

The first few political topics have had their threads consolidated.

The Australian Greens party

I haven't started a specific State Greens party discussion as the debate tends to be focused at the federal level. If someone would like to start one with an opinion or an interesting article please feel free to do so.

Kevin Rudd

I haven't merged threads with polls or threads where Rudd is not the focus of discussion even though his surname is in the thread title. I have also left a few threads that I feel should be kept separate for their archival or reference value, such as the Rudd election victory thread.


Barack Obama!

I will start working on other topics this week.


----------

