Two-way block

[Captain_Chaza]

O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won,
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring;
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up- for you the flag is flung- for you the bugle trills,
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths- for you the shores a-crowding,
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head!
It is some dream that on the deck,
You’ve fallen cold and dead.

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still,
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will,
The ship is anchor’d safe and sound, its voyage closed and done,
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won;
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

Walt Whitman.

I loved my father too

 

[qldfrog]

Type PDN in to Search and nothing else

I seem to get lots of posts including Yo,u ,Frinky etc etc etc
But I am Blocked from reading Yours and Frinkys' etc etc etc

What I am Saying here is One who Starts a Thread like an XYZ BHP PDN should not have a CRAB Mentality

Just done that exact search: plenty of posts indeed
-I can open your recent post related to PDN buy action no problem,
- can open mine..had to check...
-i can confirm you are not in my ignore list.
Only idea i have left:
PDN thread was created by tech/a, check if you ignored tech/a?
If you did: un-ignore him and see if it changes the search result and behaviour?
It could also be that tech/a ignored you?
That might explain ..maybe

Otherwise at a loss for any explanation and asking Joe would be my next step

 

[Captain_Chaza]

Just done that exact search: plenty of posts indeed
-I can open your recent post related to PDN buy action no problem,
- can open mine..had to check...
-i can confirm you are not in my ignore list.
Only idea i have left:
PDN thread was created by tech/a, check if you ignored tech/a?
If you did: un-ignore him and see if it changes the search result and behaviour?
It could also be that tech/a ignored you?
That might explain ..maybe

Otherwise at a loss for any explanation and asking Joe would be my next step

Thanks Crikey ! He or It is on 2 lifetime Bans He will never see my Charts!

 

[Captain_Chaza]

2 Lifetime Bans are designed such that on Good Behaviour 1 Lifetime Ban can be Cancelled

FWIW The only ones Who are on a 2 Lifetime bas at this stage is GG DF f.r and t/a
I am sure they will consider this a Badge of honour

 

[Smurf1976]

If that subject is the energy debate, I can understand your attitude.

You have more than done your bit to educate and inform us about the realities of the situation and as we have so often said the debate is more political than technical and is unresolvable on this forum.

So thank you for your knowledgeable input to the matter. Facts and figures are still helpful and we may draw or own conclusions in a more educated way if we have them.

As for blocking, I have never done that, although I can recognise people whose posts usually have no interest to me and I ignore them.

My thoughts and intent are simultaneously broader and more nuanced,

Broader in that it's not limited to any particular thread or subject.

Nuanced in that it's about the nature of discussion rather than the subject per se.

Expanding on that, we're living in an era with a number of differences to even the relatively recent past.

Go back to the pre-internet era and the first and primary focus for anyone with a message was how to get it out there. In other words, how to get the newspapers to run the story and ideally TV news too. Because the hard part wasn't the argument itself but rather, it was being able to have the argument publicly in the first place. No matter what the issue, if you couldn't get it in mainstream newspapers or on TV then you were stuffed. And unless you had serious $$$ behind you for paid advertising, you needed to get them to do it as news reporting at no cost to you.

What social media's done is removed that barrier to an extent. It's given anyone who wants to say something the ability to not just say it but to do so immediately and without a gatekeeper. The latter point being a key - regardless of arguments for or against specific media organisations, traditionally they did at least seek some proof that the issue was real. They wouldn't run a news story without verifying that it's at least a real issue.

Skipping a few steps, we've now come to a point where much is posted online not to inform or argue a particular viewpoint but for far more nefarious reasons. At best it's an individual seeking narcissistic supply by surrounding themselves only with those who agree and who'll give them praise no matter how flawed their argument. At worst it's deliberate misinformation for commercial gain, political gain or even as an act of intentional sabotage against a business or country.

We now have a situation with the key attributes:

1. The vast majority of opinion and comment available to the general public on any subject is based on, at best, extremely superficial knowledge. Professionals and actually knowledgeable amateurs have either been drowned out or they've simply given up trying.

2. Practically everything is seen through the lens of politics. Even something as unrelated as electronics or music can, depending on the detail, be a trap that's taken as a political statement.

3. Tribalism. It's coming to the point that if you want to know someone's opinion on a contentious moral question but don't want to have that discussion then all you need do is identify which tribe supports or opposes it, then ask them about some less contentious issue and see what they say. Because we've come to a point where many have simply outsourced their thinking and now follow a tribal view - once you work out which tribe they're following, you know what they think on every subject. It'd make for some decent comedy if only it wasn't a real thing actually happening.

Now to ASF more specifically, my own intention is to avoid contributing to the above in any way. That doesn't mean a refusal to post on any particular topic, it's more about the detail and nature of the discussion.

Joe's view plausibly differs from mine but as I see it, ASF is first and foremost a stock forum. That's it's reason for being.

Now I don't see a huge problem with the existence of off-topic posts within reason, so long as it's intellectual discussion and so on, but I do see a problem with certain matters.

One is tribal politics and that's one I'm steering well clear of going forward unless it's directly investment or trading-related.

Another is that in my view General Chat is one thing but a far bigger problem is when serious "on topic" financial threads are disrupted in a manner that would make any new visitor to the site walk away shaking their head and looking for somewhere else. That's not doing ASF any favours at all.

For a specific example "The state of the economy at the street level" which is a reasonably on-topic thread on a stock market forum and is located within the Business, Investment and Economics part of the forum. Suffice to say if I were a moderator, I'd be deleting a number of recent posts - not because I disagree with the content, but because they're so far off topic as to have nothing to do with the thread subject.

I see that as moderation not censorship - it's not the view expressed that's the problem, just that it doesn't have even the most tenuous link to the subject at hand and it's on a "serious" thread.

They're a distraction from a supposedly serious discussion and, this is my key point, don't present a good impression of the forum to anyone new to it. That sort of thing, derailing on topic threads, is a bigger issue than outright off topic discussion in General Chat in my view. It's a far more intrusive thing when political, religious or similar comment having no relevance to the subject creeps into on-topic economic, business, investment etc threads.

Just my views, acknowledged that others will likely disagree.

 

[Joe Blow]

I just want to make a few quick points:

1. No posts have been removed, in any thread. If you can't see certain content it's because you've blocked someone. The only posts that have been removed recently have been spam posts.
2. The diversity of views expressed here just shows that everyone wants something different and no one solution will please everyone.
3. The current functionality is imperfect, and is unmaintained, so it will eventually break. But by then I'm sure something similar will be available and sooner or later even the core software will have an improved ignore function. Sensitivities are much more pronounced these days so blocking functionality isn't going anywhere. Hopefully it will improve over time.

 

[farmerge]

Well, it seems that Bligh has blocked me again after having been unblocked for some time... Apparently for the heinous sin of having liked someone else's post.

Logging out actually highlights others who have me blocked... Whom which I have actually had no conversations with whatsoever?

Perhaps he/she/they/zhe/zir/it find my perfectly reasonable opinions absolutely intolerable... Dunno.

@wayneL It would appear that the Mad Cap't must have a surplus of crew as he appears to be blocking all the old crew who disagrees/d with him previously.
Oh ho hum.

 

[SirRumpole]

2. Practically everything is seen through the lens of politics. Even something as unrelated as electronics or music can, depending on the detail, be a trap that's taken as a political statement.

True.

However I think that most of us realise that all sides of politics are as bad as each other when it comes to flogging their own ideologies and
presenting propaganda rather than both sides of an argument.

So should we stop voting altogether as voting for one side or another only encourages the winners to believe that they have the support
of the people on 32% of the primary vote?

We still have to assess their policies on their merits (as difficult as that is with all the noise around) and vote for who we think is the "least bad" and cross fingers that somehow they will see the light of pragmatism over their ingrained ideology.

 

[Knobby22]

My thoughts and intent are simultaneously broader and more nuanced,

Broader in that it's not limited to any particular thread or subject.

Nuanced in that it's about the nature of discussion rather than the subject per se.

Expanding on that, we're living in an era with a number of differences to even the relatively recent past.

Go back to the pre-internet era and the first and primary focus for anyone with a message was how to get it out there. In other words, how to get the newspapers to run the story and ideally TV news too. Because the hard part wasn't the argument itself but rather, it was being able to have the argument publicly in the first place. No matter what the issue, if you couldn't get it in mainstream newspapers or on TV then you were stuffed. And unless you had serious $$$ behind you for paid advertising, you needed to get them to do it as news reporting at no cost to you.

What social media's done is removed that barrier to an extent. It's given anyone who wants to say something the ability to not just say it but to do so immediately and without a gatekeeper. The latter point being a key - regardless of arguments for or against specific media organisations, traditionally they did at least seek some proof that the issue was real. They wouldn't run a news story without verifying that it's at least a real issue.

Skipping a few steps, we've now come to a point where much is posted online not to inform or argue a particular viewpoint but for far more nefarious reasons. At best it's an individual seeking narcissistic supply by surrounding themselves only with those who agree and who'll give them praise no matter how flawed their argument. At worst it's deliberate misinformation for commercial gain, political gain or even as an act of intentional sabotage against a business or country.

We now have a situation with the key attributes:

1. The vast majority of opinion and comment available to the general public on any subject is based on, at best, extremely superficial knowledge. Professionals and actually knowledgeable amateurs have either been drowned out or they've simply given up trying.

2. Practically everything is seen through the lens of politics. Even something as unrelated as electronics or music can, depending on the detail, be a trap that's taken as a political statement.

3. Tribalism. It's coming to the point that if you want to know someone's opinion on a contentious moral question but don't want to have that discussion then all you need do is identify which tribe supports or opposes it, then ask them about some less contentious issue and see what they say. Because we've come to a point where many have simply outsourced their thinking and now follow a tribal view - once you work out which tribe they're following, you know what they think on every subject. It'd make for some decent comedy if only it wasn't a real thing actually happening.

Now to ASF more specifically, my own intention is to avoid contributing to the above in any way. That doesn't mean a refusal to post on any particular topic, it's more about the detail and nature of the discussion.

Joe's view plausibly differs from mine but as I see it, ASF is first and foremost a stock forum. That's it's reason for being.

Now I don't see a huge problem with the existence of off-topic posts within reason, so long as it's intellectual discussion and so on, but I do see a problem with certain matters.

One is tribal politics and that's one I'm steering well clear of going forward unless it's directly investment or trading-related.

Another is that in my view General Chat is one thing but a far bigger problem is when serious "on topic" financial threads are disrupted in a manner that would make any new visitor to the site walk away shaking their head and looking for somewhere else. That's not doing ASF any favours at all.

For a specific example "The state of the economy at the street level" which is a reasonably on-topic thread on a stock market forum and is located within the Business, Investment and Economics part of the forum. Suffice to say if I were a moderator, I'd be deleting a number of recent posts - not because I disagree with the content, but because they're so far off topic as to have nothing to do with the thread subject.

I see that as moderation not censorship - it's not the view expressed that's the problem, just that it doesn't have even the most tenuous link to the subject at hand and it's on a "serious" thread.

They're a distraction from a supposedly serious discussion and, this is my key point, don't present a good impression of the forum to anyone new to it. That sort of thing, derailing on topic threads, is a bigger issue than outright off topic discussion in General Chat in my view. It's a far more intrusive thing when political, religious or similar comment having no relevance to the subject creeps into on-topic economic, business, investment etc threads.

Just my views, acknowledged that others will likely disagree.

Your third point in particular is the nub of the matter. Tribalism.
Humans are naturally drawn to this and social media enforces it. Nationalism relies on it.
No idea of a solution.

 

[qldfrog]

True.

However I think that most of us realise that all sides of politics are as bad as each other when it comes to flogging their own ideologies and
presenting propaganda rather than both sides of an argument.

So should we stop voting altogether as voting for one side or another only encourages the winners to believe that they have the support
of the people on 32% of the primary vote?

We still have to assess their policies on their merits (as difficult as that is with all the noise around) and vote for who we think is the "least bad" and cross fingers that somehow they will see the light of pragmatism over their ingrained ideology.

Australia is so proud of mandatory voting... which makes it so easy to pretend for a politician to represent some majority.
Then come a referendum, or real life reactions.
I doubt, but for a few, blocking is based on the old right left split.might be wrong

 

[qldfrog]

Your third point in particular is the nub of the matter. Tribalism.
Humans are naturally drawn to this and social media enforces it. Nationalism relies on it.
No idea of a solution.

Nationalism and globalism too..
no borders....

 

[Captain_Chaza]

Can I remind everyone The ASX is about to Start Trading! it is 9.55am atm

 

[Dona Ferentes]

huge yawn

 

[barney]

No idea of a solution.

I suspect there is no solution .... its human nature to join/barrack for a team. We all do it without exception on various levels.

Sport is a more refined tribalism where we belt the bee-geez out of our opposition for a short time, then have a beer at the pub afterwards and laugh about it. Blocking someone means you never get to "play the game" ...... Plus, a healthy dose of robust disagreement can be kind of enlightening at times.

Except with the missus of course ....... Never disagree or block the missus! "A man has to know his limitations" (Dirty Harry)

 

[dyna]

Can I remind everyone The ASX is about to Start Trading! it is 9.55am atm

Aye , Aye Skipper .
Too much talk .
We're here to turn a buck .
Get cracking , people !

 

[Sdajii]

Your third point in particular is the nub of the matter. Tribalism.
Humans are naturally drawn to this and social media enforces it. Nationalism relies on it.
No idea of a solution.

I tell you what isn't the solution: a two way block where people can't even see each others' ideas, let alone discuss them at all! Do you want to foster an us and them issue, or promote division? Gee, would separating people from each other help or hurt? Not only are you coddling those who are too fragile to see what they don't like, but you're blinding people who actually want to see the other side's perspective.

Tribalism is indeed a flaw in human psychology (it's interesting to look at how and why it evolved (far too long a story to get into here), and it's sad to see some people here thinking it's good for us to just promote it with something like a two way block.

And if you don't suffer from the tribalism mentality, both sides hate you. As someone described above, most people believe everything their tribe does, so if you ask someone, say, if they are pro life or pro choice, you can predict with high certainty all of their other major political beliefs, showing that they aren't actually their own beliefs. For someone like me who forms their own beliefs, most people are confused at the mismatch and no one shares all of them, so everyone suffering from tribalism mentality (the majority of people) feel not only the sort of rejection they would for the other tribe, but confusion because they can't even work out which tribe the person is from, increasing the dislike.

For the few people who don't suffer from tribal mentality, genuine personal beliefs, opinions and signs of independent thought and analysis are refreshing and appealing.

 

[Sdajii]

Aye , Aye Skipper .
Too much talk .
We're here to turn a buck .
Get cracking , people !

Good thing you're spending your time telling other people what to do rather than focussing on making a buck for yourself. Very altruistic of you, thanks for your sacrifice!

(and yes, at 9.55AM VIC/NSW time I was watching the market, and didn't look here until things had settled around 10.25AM)

 

[farmerge]

True.

However I think that most of us realise that all sides of politics are as bad as each other when it comes to flogging their own ideologies and
presenting propaganda rather than both sides of an argument.

So should we stop voting altogether as voting for one side or another only encourages the winners to believe that they have the support
of the people on 32% of the primary vote?

We still have to assess their policies on their merits (as difficult as that is with all the noise around) and vote for who we think is the "least bad" and cross fingers that somehow they will see the light of pragmatism over their ingrained ideology.

@sir Rumpole I read this morning that Our Beleaguered Leader want a fixed 4 year term for Federal politicians.
This would of course cut out the b/s of the serving PM to call an election when the numbers were favourable to the relevant party.
H thinks that a supportive referendum would be necessary for this to happen.
I for one, would vote for it, also I feel that all the elections, Federal, State and Local Government should held on the same day.
Huge savings in cost alone. Might be a bit bulky at first but these things would sought themselves out eventually.

 

[SirRumpole]

@sir Rumpole I read this morning that Our Beleaguered Leader want a fixed 4 year term for Federal politicians.
This would of course cut out the b/s of the serving PM to call an election when the numbers were favourable to the relevant party.
H thinks that a supportive referendum would be necessary for this to happen.
I for one, would vote for it, also I feel that all the elections, Federal, State and Local Government should held on the same day.
Huge savings in cost alone. Might be a bit bulky at first but these things would sought themselves out eventually.

I agree with you there.

Several States have fixed 4 year terms and that' the way it should be done. Terrible for the media though, how could they earn any money by speculation of the election date?

 

[farmerge]

I agree with you there.

Several States have fixed 4 year terms and that' the way it should be done. Terrible for the media though, how could they earn any money by speculation of the election date?

No doubt that the cash for comment journos would still be in there spruking their worst.