The Coffee Room is apparently a pretty serious place if you aren’t allowed to show respect to a president who just dropped out of the US presidential race a couple of hours after the news broke.
"This is such a zero-value post that I don’t dare put it anywhere else, but
BIDEN
The USA didn’t deserve you. You were quite old, of course, but you still didn’t get enough credit."
But I’ll raise my hand to admit a mistake if this was too political.
I think that in the Coffee Room, low-effort posts about topics other than politics are indeed accepted.
Politics is such a tricky subject because it very easily – both intentionally and unintentionally – prompts more posts on the same topic, as even a well-meaning message usually triggers the “opposing side”. So in a way I understand, even though that was a fairly innocent message.
I wonder if it really went down like that, or if there could have been other reasons behind it 
Especially since the press also spoke about Ukraine’s possible involvement quite soon after the incident. Throughout 2023, these suspicions only grew stronger.
I also bet that the reason for a month-long ban is something other than just having “dared to suspect a little.” I wonder if such a long ban requires having previous rule violations already on record.
These trolls and pro-Russian shills are on average miserable at almost everything (writing, argumentation) but absolutely brilliant at one thing: Playing the victim.
As for the flagging, I have to say I’ve rarely been on such a thin-skinned forum. It would be understandable if the purpose of moderation was to focus on investment discussion, but you are allowed to discuss other things here too—or rather, most people are. Of course, you could keep your posts visible by cleaning up the language and argumentation, but many of us like to write exactly what we’re thinking at that moment, not how the forum administration requires. Well, a lot does stay visible, of course. And being provocative is a skill in itself.
And yes, nobody is forced to be here, no they are not.
Some praise too; that muting of users is a great feature. The worst whining, nitpicking, and guesswork are hidden from view with it. Now if only I could mute myself too?
This is an example of a post that lacks any content. Many have put a lot of effort into looking into things, for which one should be more grateful than resentful. If the purpose of a message is to put others down because the content of their posts is not to your liking, it can be done professionally by contributing substance to the discussion.
If we demand that all criticism be based on facts, the same must apply in the other direction as well. Merely copying facts or the company’s own press releases does not result in very high-quality discussion either.
It is likely no coincidence that suspicious activity for which no rational explanation can be found raises suspicions. I believe that discussing these matters is a better solution in the long run than ignoring them. Furthermore, this would be an excellent opportunity to prove those suspicions unfounded.
The rule violation is having views other than mainstream ones.
In practice, every thread has a single allowed “truth” and posts contrary to it are flagged away. Especially if the rebuttal is fact-based and others therefore cannot dispute it at all, it will be flagged away with 100% certainty.
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.
"
Almost without exception, the problem is how you say things, rather than what you say. There are plenty of views here that differ from the mainstream (on immigration, Trump, the war in Ukraine, wind power, COVID, etc.), as long as they are presented civilly and with justification. The wildest conspiracy theories might get flagged and hidden, but the rules don’t forbid having different opinions.
Not in the rules, but in practice that’s how it goes; the threshold for flagging is remarkably low if a post, even a civil one, goes against the prevailing view of the thread. Meanwhile, posts that align with the general consensus are never flagged.
Rules are discussed a lot here as well, but I often find myself wondering how many have actually read them.
https://keskustelut.inderes.fi/t/sijoitusfoorumin-saannot-faq-guidelines/5?u=ljkangas
Section II of the rules seems to be forgotten quite often. And in addition to that, a separate reminder is given:
Repeating the same thing with one-liners and outright badgering adds no value to the discussion, no matter how politely it is presented. I think this part of the rules has been overlooked by many who complain about flagging. I don’t believe flagging is a matter of differing opinions, but simply about these forum rules. After all, zero-value posts are just a waste of time for everyone on a quality forum.
Why are my posts being deleted in the Stora thread, @Verneri_Pulkkinen?
Has this Inderes forum switched to protecting companies?
Is only hyping companies allowed, not criticizing them?
All sorts of strange justifications are certainly allowed for the hypesters.
Yeah, I haven’t posted here for a while.
You’re certainly allowed to criticize companies here; have you visited the Tecnotree thread lately?
I put that post back. Perhaps the claim about poisoning the river is a bit over the top, but on the other hand, you’re presenting it as your own opinion, so why not…
Now we are on a slippery slope.
Could we instead somehow sell those Russians the idea that Z symbols are the latest hotness for Putin fan club members? 
(A few crackpots like that do exist, but it doesn’t seem to be common – and yeah, still roughly in the same vein as the above)
In the politics corner, one and the same user shares their socialist views day in and day out. When I posted a poem criticizing excessive taxes to the thread, it was removed ASAP. Apparently, opinions other than socialist ones are banned?
All flagged and ultimately deleted posts could, regardless of context, be moved to their very own thread; the title of the thread would be "Flagged but note: read at your own risk"
It might become one of the forum’s most-read threads; at least I would be interested in browsing the latest posts in the thread immediately.
I wrote the following in the Questions about investing thread:
Do analysts have any responsibility? Are they allowed to say just whatever they want? I would be ashamed and would have the sense to resign on my own. Even though every investor makes their own decisions, there should be some standards!
My message was deleted. I copied the image from the meme thread, where it has received over 100 likes even though the tone is similarly mocking and for good reason.
What have I done wrong and why was my valid question deleted?
Of course, I don’t know the exact reasons for the post’s removal, but that is getting quite personal when stating that someone should ‘have the sense to resign on their own.’ If I heard a customer say this at my own workplace, I would certainly find it offensive too.
In my opinion, the line is more blurred with a meme than with plain text and a direct ‘punchline.’ For example, a meme remark like ‘how do you think it went?’ would surely not have been removed, even though the message there is also mocking.
It would be much more productive in every way if analysts’ views were challenged in ways other than through hindsight. And preferably with substantive arguments even then.