The General Chat forum at ASF

[Julia]

It is true that the stock areas on ASF are barely ticking over. My thoughts are that in fact the speculative and general industrial/retail stock index is just falling away to dust overall. In the current market investors seem to be on a hiding to nothing if they invest outside the 4 banks, Telstra and a few others.

There seems to be little point in trying to do analysis on these core shares. They seem to have a life of their own dominated by safety first principles of funds and SMSF investors.

That's a good point. Also some of us in retirement are no longer actively looking for growth but do need cash flow via the dividends and franking credits.

More generally there seems to be quite widespread nervousness, a sort of twitchiness that is extending into increased volatility even politically. The situation in Europe probably counterbalances any positive signs in the US. Our own economy, especially given the political chaos, isn't looking exactly great either, such view endorsed today by the RBA cutting rates again.

You can't really blame him. Some of the rubbish that is posted about Muslims belongs on some neo-Nazi forum. I steer clear of General Chat these days largely because reading the bile that often passes for discourse get utterly boring. Yes, there are people who have interesting perspectives who post there but it's basically four or five posters -- who rarely, if ever post anywhere on the stock/investing forums -- going at eachother. I've noticed the rest of the forum has really dried up, which could be because of the time of year but could also be because, like your almost "new friend", new members arrive and the first thing they encounter on a stock forum is a thread about whether Islam is evil or not.

The forum is becoming a place for a very small number of people who want to discuss politics and religion, and honestly I find myself visiting less and less.

Yes, pretty much exactly my position.

I post up a heap of stuff which can take a heap of time and the
interaction is ---well frankly not worth the time and effort.

You do indeed. Nulla Nulla and Rimtas and others also consistently put up charts with informative accompanying comments.
All of you deserve our appreciation.

And I often note that (although it's not my area of interest) the value investors engage in co-operative exchange of information.

But I guess the overall 'culture' or sense of a forum emerges from the threads that are dominant, and when we have the same people who apparently have no interest whatsoever in anything to do with markets, investments, or finance overall, consistently engage in combative, often unpleasant, exchanges (today's posts in the Asylum Seekers thread provide an example), that's perhaps what comes to signify what ASF stands for.

Years ago there was an atmosphere of goodwill and constructive contributions. It would be good to get that back. I don't know if that's possible. Our society in general seems aggressive, angry, and quick to be offended.

 

[Bintang]

I can't help noticing that although ASF has 56,590 members the poll in this thread has only received 31 votes.
Is this significant I wonder?

Two possible interpretations:
1) It indicates how many people would bother to go to the polling booths to vote in elections if voting was not compulsory
2) It indicates that 99.945% of members of this forum don’t really care what’s in the General Chat Forum

 

[galumay]

FWIW, the first point I would make is that I think in general the level of on topic discussion on this site is of a very high level and the members frequently demonstrate a very helpful, sharing and educational attitude.

I have learnt an extrordinary amount from the members on this site, even though my interest is fundamental and value investing I can see that the TA guys also provide that sort of attitude and support to those who share their outlook and are also starting out.

The general chat side of things I try to stay clear of generally, i find most of the posting to be racist, sexist, extremist conservative politically and the few times I have ventured in there I have regretted it. But in saying that it doesnt really detract from the forum to me because the on topic stuff is so valuable.

I dont know what the answer is, nearly every forum I am involved with, whether as a member or an admin, faces the same issue, members want to be able to have off topic discussions and unfortunately it seems to bring out the worst in people. If you take the off topic discussions away then inevitably you will lose memebers.

One point I will make is that I am a moderator on a couple of forums that have live "Chat" as well - and that is much worse than an off topic forum!! The flamers and trolls just love the instant rewards offered by live chat, and the red neck bogans with a few drinks under the belt make it a micro management environment from a mods point of view!

I think ASF is the best investment forum in Australia hands down, there is a great core of members and the activity is probably reflective of a small population, with a topic that is a pretty specialised area of interest.

 

[Bintang]

….. members want to be able to have off topic discussions and unfortunately it seems to bring out the worst in people. If you take the off topic discussions away then inevitably you will lose members.

There is a reason why pressure vessels have pressure control valves on them.
Sometimes people just want to be able to let off steam.

Which is worse, verbal rioting in cyberspace or physical rioting on the streets?

 

[burglar]

... Which is worse, verbal rioting in cyberspace or physical rioting on the streets?

Neither is necessary! :

 

[SirRumpole]

Although I have share investments I'm not a share trader.

I don't think the individual trader can compete against mega stockbrokers that use dedicated high speed computer lines and algorithms (there is a word for that type of trading but I've forgotten what it is) .

I read something a while ago about a broker who found out that he was being gazumped by other brokers because as soon as he put in a bid at what he thought was the current selling price, the share price jumped. Turned out other firms were monitoring each bid with high speed computer lines and put their bid in milliseconds before our luckless friend which pushed the price up.

With that sort of technology against the small trader, why would you bother ? There are just too many big boys out there.

Maybe other people have the same idea which is why the stock forum is declining. Or maybe they have found a way to beat the "system" and are lying on a beach somewhere in the Pacific.

 

[Bintang]

Neither is necessary! :

Perhaps pressure relief valves on domestic hot water cylinders aren't necessary either.

 

[Smurf1976]

I think it depends to a great extent on what is actually being discussed.

The demise of Australian car manufacturing = a relevant topic given the broader economic issues which are both a cause and consequence of that situation.

Best BBQ to buy = completely off-topic on a stock forum but harmless in itself.

Solar panels on the roof = a relevant financial topic for those considering such an investment. How it works technically = relevant if you want to understand what is underpinning your decision to buy / not buy solar panels.

Policies of the ALP, Coalition, Greens and anyone else = relevant to a point depending on the actual subject. Government policy does underpin all things financial to some extent.

Current items in the news = generally off-topic but harmless in most cases. If there's a terrorist attack or earthquake, people are going to want to discuss it and vent.

For any of the above, a sensible person will see that those threads are in an "off topic" section of the forum and choose to read or not read them accordingly.

Religion etc = playing with fire BIG TIME and guaranteed to upset someone. Same with anything that could be considered as racism. A newbie comes across ASF, reads a racist post or two, is offended and never comes back. But if the same person comes across a thread about camping or how a satellite is actually launched, they'll likely realise that it's in the "general chat" section and if not interested will just stick to the stock threads. People don't get offended by tents or rockets but they sure do when it comes to religion and race.

 

[SirRumpole]

People don't get offended by tents or rockets but they sure do when it comes to religion and race.

People may also be put off by a political discussion if it's obvious that it's dominated by one side of the political spectrum.

Also I think that a lot of forums like this are being undermined by Facebook and Twitter as they seem to be the "in things" in social media these days and therefore draw the young set more than traditional forums like this one.

 

[johenmo]

When I sit with a particular people who are interested in stocks, our total conversation will cover stocks and lots of other topics, some of which will fit the Gen Chat. Expect the same with an on-line community.
I read a lot of all sorts early on - our share protfolio is small because we redirected the money elsewhere - which included a couple of weddings & university accomodation costs for children & a fantastic trip to India. 4 years until the last one is out of uni!!!!

But the preponderance of religion + politics threads means a lot I don't click on. I look at specific stock threads without logging in.

I would click onto ASF infrequently now - only saw this today. Got lots to do with my time. Now I m travelling for work a lot more it will likely increase - like today sitting in a motel room. And even less time available when I am home.

I think - Kill the Gen chat & you'll kill the forum. And it's far too valuable for that.

 

[explod]

I have to agree with Mc lovin and Craft.

Both are serious Stock enthusiasts.

Aussi stock forum should be just that.
I wont post on general chat. Hot air is of no value. Opinions are like armpits we all have one.
Ill keep mine to myself---except on this occasion!


But generation of volume dictates a general section.
It also dictates some of the moderation often let go far to long
not wanting to squash free speech.

But is this really a stock/trading forum.

I post up a heap of stuff which can take a heap of time and the
interaction is ---well frankly not worth the time and effort.

THATS WHY I STOP MID WAY WITH A LOT OF CONTENT.

Who's serious about what they do and are capable of interacting
infact can they???

People who have a lot to offer are either leaving or choosing to post less
I understand they cant be bothered.

Business or content?
I think that if you don't take care of content eventually you wont have a business---of any standing.
Harsh but true.
I even offered to take sometime and give you some suggestions privately---no comment---so why bother.

There are some capable people on this site and many who have left---on a regular basis.
Complete re think I think!

Some very good points here.

And I have always found Tech one of the most valuable posters over time on ASF and still maintains very good contributions on technical trading.

We have in my view lost some great contributors in the area of fundamentals. This is a pity and was due to differences philosophically. Good moderation with some person (retired perhaps) having had a proven and solid background in economics could be something to consider. Political views sneaking into this area is another problem.

Just 2 cents

 

[SirRumpole]

I really can't see how whatever is said on general chat would deter others from posting in other areas of the forum.

I subscribe to the ASF RSS feed and Chat posts don't appear there it seems, so the RSS isn't being assailed by religion and politics.

GC is a branch on the tree that people don't have to visit if they don't want to. On the other hand there may be some way of advertising other areas of the forum in General Chat so casual users can get a whiff of what is happening in other areas. It may arouse their interest.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

found this thread as I want to post a link to an article in the Good Weekend (SMH, The Age) about chat rooms, forums, online communities, discord, tangents, toxicity and the whole dang thing.

It's 2020 and we're in the middle of the Covid-19 challenge, so it's a fair assumption to make these are trying times, abnormal circumstances, with the expectation people are reacting in stressful ways. (certainly showing up in the general forums; lots of barrows and agendas being pushed).

Anyway, here's the link
https://www.smh.com.au/national/soc...often-tear-us-apart-20200316-p54aln.html?btis

But I will note ASF seems to be populated largely by messieurs d'un certain âge, so we're coping much better. (and good to see familiar names in the 50 odd posts from 2015)

Will cut n paste bits to follow

 

[Dona Ferentes]

Social discord: online communities are supposed to bring people together, so why do they often tear us apart?

Online groups are the Rotary clubs of today: places for communities to share information, support each other, do good deeds. But as their harangued moderators can attest, they often devolve into something more 'Lord of the Flies' than Pollyanna.
.

...psychologists say specific features of online interaction work against civility and we are simply incapable of co-operating online without the firm hand of an invisible army of moderators.

Online communities can emerge from the grassroots or they can – and this is much harder to authentically pull off – be founded by companies. Those that have triumphed with this in Australia include Bunnings with its DIY Workshop forum, and Woolworths with Bunch, a “gated” online community of 60,000 members with a waiting list of 48,000 (members get free Woolworths-brand products to review, but also share recipes and general life discussion

and of course

most online communities live in Facebook under its “Groups” product, as the Facebook people call it. This function allows people to join discrete interest groups, which can be private or public (of Facebook’s 2.5 billion members worldwide, 1.4 billion use Groups.

The most civil online communities, research shows, are support groups around specific health issues, such as Beyond Blue’s mental health forums. Outside of health, some online communities just tend to split: the Facebook support group for entrepreneurial women, Like Minded Women Who Are Not Bitches Drinking Wine (5900 members), for example, was set up as an alternative to Like Minded Bitches Drinking Wine (127,000 members), the former aiming to be less bitchy than the latter.

Others simply devolve into a scroll of whines and nit-picks. Journalist and author Megan Blandford wrote last year that her local town’s Facebook group had a lovely purpose but was slowly losing members because of fights over local businesses’ promotional posts and dog poo. Is this inevitable? What is it about the internet that makes community so hard?

...[there can be] constant micro aggressions, snide comments, racism and sexism.
People can be awful online, says Beckett, because the internet is “low context”, meaning we miss buckets of information when we interact there.

Body language is a key one: the bow of a head, the furrow of a brow, that wounded look in someone’s eyes that reminds us of their humanity (studies suggest a lack of eye contact is a more potent driver of hostility than being anonymous and invisible).

"Tone of voice is missing, too: there’s still no sarcasm font. If we’re having a fight in a restaurant, there will be bystanders who might shoot us a disapproving look; under the so-called “bystander effect”, we’re tempered by the presence of others.

Yet online, bolstered sometimes by anonymity, we forget people may be watching. And sometimes the bystanders are reluctant to step up when everyone seems quick to cut down"

Psychologists call this the online disinhibition effect. It can have a positive impact. If you’re anonymous and lacking in self-restraint, sharing your innermost secrets online will quickly cement intimate bonds. But the flip side – toxic online disinhibition – is the social poison seen not only in trolling, but leaching through online communities.

Some moderators and administrators are paid. Most are not. A survey by the Australian Community Managers industry group – most of whose members are paid professionals – last year found 71 per cent were female and 68 per cent Millennials. They were well educated, with 82 per cent holding graduate-level qualifications, yet 40 per cent earned below the national average. Online toxicity was their most common complaint. The prevailing culture in Australia was, one surveyed manager commented, treating strangers on the internet as less than human. “I’d love to see a bit more empathy.”

 

[basilio]

Nice find Dona. Plenty of food for thought .

 

[Joe Blow]

Bas, ASF isn't a political forum, it's a stock market forum and you and a very small handful of others have been undermining ASF for a long time.

Instead of a two-way block, what I should have introduced is functionality that forces people to post just as many posts outside of the General Chat forum as they do in it.

From now on, anyone who just want to post in political threads can do it elsewhere. I've had enough. This is a stock market forum and things are going to change around here starting now.

I've been way too tolerant for far too long.

 

[dutchie]

it's a stock market forum and you and a very small handful of others have been undermining ASF for a long time.

Hi Joe
I will put my hand up as being part of the "small handful".
Would you mind expanding on your statement that we are undermining ASF.

 

[Joe Blow]

Hi Joe
I will put my hand up as being part of the "small handful".
Would you mind expanding on your statement that we are undermining ASF.

An online community that is centred around a niche, especially a very specific niche such as the stock market, trading and investing, is damaged when it allows itself to be watered down (or taken over) by discussion completely unrelated to that niche.

It is made even worse when that unrelated discussion is marred by personal attacks, ugliness and divisiveness.

The bottom line is that ASF must remain focused on the stock market, trading and investing if it is to survive. The General Chat forum was only ever intended to be an after hours kind of place where those whose primary interest was financial markets could chat about off-topic subjects such as travel, hobbies, or sport. Politics too, I suppose, but not to the point where it takes over the entire community.

There is no path forward for ASF as a General Chat forum. It is simply not economically viable.

 

[PZ99]

Sounds like you're gonna blow up General Chat Joe ?

Reminds me of this thread for a bit of light reading

Lets bring back the Trading and Investing focus to ASF!

ASF is dying, post are dropping off. To be honest i'd rather see whats happening on another forum that is heavy on trading and doesn't tolerate political crap. If i want politics i'll visit the ABC... Lets bring back trading and investing to ASF where it is a sole focus! I miss the old ASF!

www.aussiestockforums.com

 

[Joe Blow]

Sounds like you're gonna blow up General Chat Joe ?

There's only so many times I can say the same thing over and over again. Those who only want to post in the General Chat forum should do the honourable thing and either:

1. Find another venue; or
2. Post more in other forums to try and help keep the balance right.

Thank you for highlighting another thread where I have said exactly the same thing as I am saying here. There must be at least half a dozen more threads out there, probably more. Yet I am ignored time and time again.

Eventually, something's got to give.