Moderation on the forum is good compared to many other forums. However, there are clearly deficiencies in the moderation of messages that cross into personal attacks and bullying.
I understand the forum’s rule policy as follows: flags represent democracy and are a good indication that there may be something wrong with a post. Democracy just isn’t always right, e.g., the situation in the USA.
However, the forum should have a “constitution”—that is, basic rules that override everything, including democracy—and within them, unbreakable core principles that lead to automatic bans. In other words, flags should also have an option where messages aimed at personal attacks or bullying are the kind of violations that would always result in a 2-week “penalty box” period, during which there would be time to review the forum rules.
Some threads start to get out of hand if this kind of bullying and labeling others as whatever is allowed. Democracy, or flagging, doesn’t work at this point; bullying is often contagious, and people press the flag button out of principle. Small “cliques” form within a thread where no deviating views or conversation starters are permitted. In science and good discussion, opposition and different scenarios are generally important tools. A good thread allows for the equal treatment of all kinds of scenarios without resorting to personal attacks.
In real life, bullying often involves a larger group joining in on the “stoning.” If the forum had an absolute zero-tolerance policy for bullying, where messages that become personal or target individuals would carry the risk of a ban, it would effectively prevent this unpleasant phenomenon and raise the level of discussion.
In practice, tempers flare at times and people have different skin thicknesses: people also experience things differently. Some here may perceive a negative comment regarding their favorite company as a direct personal insult. Others, on the other hand, are unfazed by comments that would immediately get under someone else’s skin.
Therefore, the moderation team reserves the right to interpret cases on a situational basis and will not issue any auto-bans.
Naturally, individuals who do not bring meaningful content to the discussion, derail the conversation, and repeatedly attack others are usually banned quite quickly.
It would be worth keeping an eye on the thread “European security situation and Russian aggression”. In that thread, other participants are being shamelessly labeled as trolls and heaven knows what else, and certain participants, who apparently aren’t being flagged, are allowed to produce pretty much zero-value content in the thread without any real warnings. In my opinion, this has been going on for some time, judging by my long-term observation of the forum in question. Currently, completely irrelevant and unfounded criticism of other participants remains on the board.
I believe a forum is civilized and healthy in its values if one doesn’t need to have “thick skin,” but rather there are certain strict core principles that are never violated—for example, respecting others always and in every situation. Everyone has the right to equal treatment.
Absolute truth does not exist, and truth is only truth within its own framework. That is why it is dangerous if reflection from multiple perspectives is not permitted on the forum, and instead, there is a desire to polarize it to align with the “correct truth” desired by a “sect.” This is very dangerous for the quality of discussion and also carries the risk that the smartest people will leave, and only the “people of the one and only truth” will remain on the forum.
Welcome to the forum. Quite the heavy demands for changes from someone who has been on the investment forum for just over a week and has participated in actual investment discussion 0 times.
You are, of course, absolutely right that you were treated inappropriately and your indignation is justified, but at this point, you should probably go get a hot cup of something, put on some wool socks, and forgive the other users. Things get heated in political threads sometimes, but flagging and moderation ensure that the situation is eventually resolved and that participants are reminded of their manners.
It’s those double standards, you see; a certain crowd is allowed to cause a ruckus and talk trash, then they instantly flag all opposing or critical views because their sensitive minds just can’t handle other perspectives without losing it. It’s best to avoid those threads and let the blowhards rant; it’s wrong, of course, that you have to keep quiet to avoid flags and verbal abuse, but it is what it is… and polarization is trendy these days, you see, even on these forums.
You are right. And in itself, the whole topic could be discussed more broadly as a challenge for service industry companies. We have all sorts of “trash-vloggers” and people who deliberately coughed in cashiers’ faces during COVID, filming the situations; then, once the other party is provoked into getting agitated or saying something inappropriate, social media starts blowing up, stores get one-star reviews, and merchants/salespeople are portrayed in edited videos as more or less lunatics. These incidents will only become more common, so service staff should be trained for these situations.
I intentionally left it unlinked. Just as I left the store unmentioned. The creator of the video in question appears with their own name and face, and I would find it somewhat problematic to question their motives while bringing up their name on a forum where they aren’t present to defend themselves.
That’s how it seems. I also act as a moderator in a similar group, and there we intervene firmly in such matters. The discussion has remained civil; rarely do we have to interfere with posters’ rights. Making personal attacks is always a strictly condemnable act.
The end result is exactly as you described if there are no unbreakable rules on the forum, and actions are instead judged on a case-by-case basis, as mentioned here earlier. You can’t avoid the risk of an inconsistent policy where mods pick sides based on polarization rather than approaching moderation objectively. This lack of a principled line leads to all sorts of problems regarding the quality of the forum’s discussion and specifically polarization, and the quality of the board suffers from this one-sidedness.
A polarized “single-truth” forum is in no one’s interest, and it’s exhausting to follow.
In my opinion, this is one of the most high-quality and well-moderated Finnish-language forums.
I encourage you to broaden your perspective on this investment-themed forum to include the investment-related threads as well.
If you only want to discuss Russia’s war of aggression, there are likely better channels for that than the Inderes forum.
And it could be added that dissenters aren’t being silenced here. Moderation is at a level where only the worst garbage posts are removed, nothing more.
If someone flags posts for no reason, moderation will restore them. You are allowed to have whatever opinion you want here, as long as you can back up your views and engage in rational discussion with others. It’s not worth coming here after a week and shouting about how everything is going to hell. It doesn’t help anyone.
Now, let’s just get back to high-quality arguments/discussion, so everyone can continue their lovely spring day with a smile on their face.
Perhaps that’s what I should do. The Kauppalehti forum has just been my spiritual home for investment matters since the time of the Nokia warrant craze, i.e., since the turn of the millennium. My own investment strategy is a mix of fundamental analysis and technical analysis, and quite often the starting point for evaluating companies is solely fundamental analysis. I am a buy-and-hold investor, and my investment decisions always consist of those two analysis methods. Perhaps for my mindset, daily price movements are no longer so interesting. I believe in four things: time diversification, allocation diversification, fundamental analysis, and technical analysis.
I should start following other threads to see if I can get some inspiration and if there might be other investors with a similar combination.
I really don’t understand what is inappropriate about my message below.
The parties you mentioned are not just social democratic parties - they are corrupt social democratic parties. They all support a strong state that then distributes manna to the inner circles of the parties/politicians. Politicians decide where the citizens’ money goes. Sick!
Regarding the bolded part, it can be stated as a 100% certain fact that they are not Social Democratic parties. The part following that is a matter of opinion, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
And I’m not quite sure why this is being discussed here. I haven’t been flagging posts, and I haven’t complained once if my own message has been deleted.
The discussion started from Jari Ehrnrooth’s column, which claimed that all of Finland’s parliamentary parties are more or less social democratic. I agree with this. Shouldn’t the original post then have been flagged as well, if someone takes offense at such a reasoned opinion?
I haven’t claimed that micoat is the flagger. Though the “outcry” is a bit surprising.
I misinterpreted it then as the forum software notified me that my post had been replied to, and I didn’t notice that any mods were tagged etc., so I imagined it was directed at me.
Let’s record this here in this thread for the record: in the Oma Säästöpankki thread, you are not allowed to discuss housing company loans, which heavily burden housing companies that haven’t undergone any major renovations and where all mandatory large-scale repairs are still looming. It’s a shame that even an extensive post focusing specifically on the pain points of Oma Säästöpankki’s lending policy in that area was deleted.
Hopefully, at least this message will be allowed in this thread, so I can come back and remind everyone of the topic later. Over the last couple of weeks, the media has been discussing the situation of a housing company in Kerava. The company has already filed for bankruptcy and then withdrawn its application. But the future does not look bright. In these old housing companies, where massive housing company loans have originated from something other than major renovations, there lies a bomb that will eventually blow up in the investor’s face. And for some reason, the banks that granted those loans are not often named Nordea, OP, or Danske.
Aggressive flaggers have been active again lately whenever there is disagreement regarding stock valuations or future prospects. For example, in connection with Faron’s share issue, some shareholders are even fiercely defending their views and flagging messages from those with differing opinions. What’s frustrating in the Faron thread is that you can’t even edit a message because of some delay. It should be perfectly fine to have different opinions.
Ironic: just a few minutes ago, Zizzler’s dissenting opinion was flagged less than half an hour after it was written, even though I thought the post was perfectly appropriate. I assume the flag will fly for this message as well, even though it is already past 23:30 in Finland. Let’s wait and see…
Wasn’t your text an example of a message that is in no way related to the topic? That is, Nokia as an investment. Such posts are meant to be flagged or moved to another group. Just as has quite rightly been done many times to my comments in various threads.
Referring to both my own message from a few comments back and Kivikko’s message, admittedly in some threads the attitude towards companies resembles a religious fervor, where any criticism is perceived as a personal insult. In the big picture, however, I think the Inderes forum’s moderation/flagging is an example of how this kind of forum should be maintained. The alternative would be the Kauppalehti forum model, where every other post in company threads is “this stock will collapse by Midsummer” and every other post is just trash-talking other writers. That approach quickly kills all sensible investment discussion.
