I share this observation made in the Tesla discussion before the problem was moved here to the more general “raising cards” section.
This is how I have experienced it too, and I voluntarily left. The forum has a huge amount of interesting information dug up by those extremely deeply immersed in the topic, but I don’t feel the atmosphere allows someone less familiar with the topic to participate in the discussion, not even with questions. In other topics, I dare to ask about something I don’t know or something I don’t understand in another person’s comment.
In the Tesla discussion, I no longer bother to ask anything, because no answer comes, and I don’t want confessions of faith or flame wars.
To avoid provoking sensitive souls, I also changed my avatar to one that looks equally like me but hopefully less upsetting to other discussants: a mountain bike drivetrain.
Since I assume that the forum users are mostly quite smart people, I wonder what is unclear about these forum rules!? It’s hard to spell these out further, they are not rocket science Of course, I will do my best if any point is unclear to someone.
And the rules will indeed remain a dead letter unless their violation results in sanctions. It doesn’t matter who breaks the rules, even if it’s @Verneri_Pulkkinen in a weak moment in the after-effects of Thursday Kalle, the consequences must be the same for everyone (mentioning Verneri and Thursday Kalle was just a theoretical example, editor’s note). No one is irreplaceable on the forum, such that a couple of weeks’ suspension wouldn’t be justified, excluding of course @Sijoittaja-alokas, for whom I can’t even come up with a theoretical example when it comes to breaking the rules
Having written a few messages there myself, I have rather experienced somewhat peculiar questioning comments from Skuupia. In some places, seemingly deliberate, provoked misinterpretations. Either the message was read hastily based on emotion and therefore misunderstood.
Between Skuupia and Seinäkadun keisari, the debate escalated into an argument yesterday due to both parties being provoked, and then it got out of hand. Apparently, it wasn’t the first time, meaning there were enough underlying triggers, so it flared up quickly.
Therefore, if a yellow card is shown, then for both.
In itself, verbal sparring can sometimes be quite entertaining. As long as no one takes these too seriously
One could summarize the latest discussion by saying that if the discussion forum is such an important place, at least a couple of weeks’ break is necessary for the mental well-being of individuals alone.
As for the forum’s moderation policy, it has been, to put it mildly, interesting for quite some time. Certain opinions and spewings are allowed without grumbling or even warnings, one after another, but certain words trigger an immediate ban for their users. Similarly, messages from defenders of our neighboring terrorist state and pseudo-investors pushing blatant propaganda onto the forum are allowed to remain visible, but dare to mutter about it and a ban is sure to follow. Rules, fairness, or even some kind of logic in moderation are thus conspicuously absent, and actions are based on exceeding the moderator’s irritation threshold without any further preconditions. Years ago, in the early 2000s when discussion forums were in their golden age, this would have simply been called terrible administration. With the advent of social media, this is probably no longer valued in the same way.
There is absolutely no other solution than to focus on narrow, self-interesting investment discussions, both by writing and reading, and ignore all the other boiling nonsense around. Fortunately, individual users can be muted if necessary, which for me at least leads to every message I write being followed by “show x hidden replies”. These are invariably potential irritants, and when responding to them, messages are then hidden, mysteriously disappear, or even a ban is issued, depending on the sharpness of the sword, of course. So it’s good that they are hidden - unfortunately, only from me.
Of course, I will not start changing my opinions because of this, but it is pointless to write them here anymore. I must focus on what can still be done here, which is the narrow investment discussion around individual instruments that I just mentioned. Someone will be offended by everything else.
Not at all, now that you put it that way. Of course, I haven’t claimed anything like that anywhere, so that’s quite a straw man from you.
My point was that if there’s a strong desire for civil discussion here, then perhaps you should first look in the mirror.
Right, I refer again to my previous comment. The level of the forum is collectively formed by every writer, and since you’re now directly admitting that you don’t even try for civil discussion, then it’s pointless to complain about the forum’s level, isn’t it?
Now, following the Tesla thread, I have made a decision, meaning both @Seinakadun_Keisari and @Jukka_Lepikko will now take a one-month break from posting on the Forum. If the feedback regarding those direct and indirect ad hominems and taunts simply doesn’t sink in, then there will be consequences.
When reading that Tesla thread, I think all of the Wall Street emperor’s answers are well-justified. I don’t understand why that negative visibility is made into a problem. In my opinion, the discussion is very good on both sides, I don’t see why it needs to be restricted. Thank you and sorry.
How about, in the future, thread bans to start with? @Seinakadun_Keisari has problems in that one thread, and at least the Lindex thread will be missed.
Let’s also add disclaimers now: there must be rules, they must be followed, stupidity will be penalized, and all decisions by all mods are always crap, no matter what they are.
It would be nice if bans could be given on a per-thread basis in such (luckily rare) cases, but at least according to my understanding, Discourse software does not currently allow it =( Ping: @Miikka_Laitila could such a feature be developed on top of this software?
Moderating online discussions always has its challenges. I’ve seen many discussion platforms go bad if moderation isn’t in order. Everyone knows the risks of overly strict and/or opaque moderation, but on the other hand, if moderation is too loose and only the “letter of the law” is strictly followed, troublemakers who constantly push the boundaries of the rules create a toxic atmosphere and drive away constructive discussion and participants.
Suggestions for inflamed discussions:
think twice before sending your sharp retort - does it improve the quality of the discussion?
are you offering criticism? good, but is it constructive?
do you consider that the reader is a human being with feelings, just like you?
I am satisfied that the line defined by the rules was followed , and it did not remain completely empty rhetoric:
So, thanks for this. This strict moderation policy, at least for me, increases interest in following and to some extent participating in the discussion. Very few people enjoy a toxic atmosphere.
Slight confusion arises when someone brings up how much good the now-banned person brings to the discussion. Well, they do (!) but good heavens, that cannot affect the matter in any way. That because of that, it would be perfectly fine, for example, to belittle others?! The rules must be the same for everyone, even for the “verneripulkkiset” (a Finnish term for someone who is a bit of a troublemaker or a difficult person, often used humorously or to refer to someone who is a bit of a pain).
Well, summa summarum. Hopefully, we can once again encourage factual and curious discussion and make the atmosphere more relaxed .
At least I have never opened the Tesla thread, for example. Instead, I’ve kept a much closer eye on the Lindex thread. By this, I mean that different usernames here appear in quite different lights to each person, apparently depending on which threads on the forum each person follows
I believe we agree, but I’ll clarify further: At least I don’t have any overall assessment of the behavior of different usernames or the average quality of their writing - quite the opposite: such things should not be assessed in these contexts. I have assessed one or a few posts where rules have been broken - in my opinion, very flagrantly, and intervention was the only sustainable solution.
P.S. I follow the Lindex thread much more actively than the extremely toxic Tesla thread. Regardless of that, no one should disparage others in other threads. (Incidentally, I don’t understand why the politics thread enjoys the status of a punching bag; rather, perhaps the Tesla thread should be locked for the weekend.)
Hmm yeah, unfortunately, it’s not possible currently Maybe we could trick it with categories, but it would become quite a hassle. So the smartest thing is to maintain a strict moderation line and ensure people know how to behave
A month-long ban for relatively innocent writing is quite harsh. Were these individuals warned that something like this could happen? Some kind of multi-tiered warning system should be developed; at least for me, it came completely out of the blue. I received a 6-week ban earlier this year. At the same time, 10 of my Anora messages were deleted. Of course, as a shareholder, I tried to see positive aspects in the company. That shouldn’t be punished, nor should Lepikkö. Inderes should rather give Seinäkatu’s
This is the core. It’s a good thing that names don’t weigh too heavily when making decisions.
Whether it’s a celebrity or just a forum nickname, everyone can fundamentally only improve their own actions. If the forum atmosphere is not pleasing and one feels they are better than the forum’s level, they can move to X and gather there as their own collective.
There, one can calmly wonder how low-quality thinking and media writing that deviates from their own view truly is.
For my part, I would hope for a bit of fairness. I’ve been lurking on the forum for a couple of years, finally made an account, and then received a month-long ban for my ~second message because it was supposedly “spam / advertising”. In my opinion, the message was completely in line with the rules, polite, and did not contain any kind of advertising spam. The only reason I can imagine it being considered spam by anyone is that I pressed the “send” button when the message contained some typos that made a few sentences difficult to interpret. Right off the bat, a month-long ban without any warnings or a shorter suspension.
Then, from this thread, one can read that other usernames have, in the moderators’ own words, behaved poorly in a thread for a long time, and after long consideration, finally received a punishment as severe as a month-long suspension.
I am 100% sure that no one here gets a month-long ban for having typos in a message. So I’m guessing you’re leaving out something really essential about the message that caused the ban.
I primarily seek information from the forum that can be genuinely useful for investing. Seinäkadun Keisari (Emperor of Wall Street) has done excellent background work in many threads, and it is precisely this kind of content that makes the forum truly valuable. Without this informativeness, I would likely stay away. Entertainment can be found elsewhere – in places where one can lighten their mood in various ways if desired.
In the Tesla thread, the discussion sometimes went overboard on both sides, yet the condemnation from outsiders feels a bit exaggerated. Everyone, however, has the option to skip certain messages or discussions if they don’t find them meaningful.
My message that led to the ban, including typos, below
There is a genuinely correct signal in the analysis. I’m not entirely sure about the recommendations.
However, I was left wondering how much of the increased household wealth is due to the rising value of walls in growth centers. According to the price index, owner-occupied apartments in the Helsinki metropolitan area in 2025, despite the recent years’ dip, are still approximately double in value compared to 1990 levels (approximately four times compared to 1983 levels). I don’t believe the walls have become better to the same extent.
Finland’s biggest problem is business activity. How many people, when they become wealthier, invest their increased wealth in domestic products? How many foreigners, when they specifically need something, buy a Finnish product or service? It is somewhat symptomatic that when you buy almost anything more expensive than oatmeal in consumer products, it and most of the resources and services used to produce it are from abroad, even if the brand’s headquarters are in Finland. Previously, it was considered an advantage in product development if research and development activities were immediately next to the production line (and somehow Shenzhen and a few other Chinese centers have succeeded exceptionally well). Services are usually produced locally, but in Finland, they are expensive, and few people use them. Year after year, Finland increasingly seems likely to become a “middle income trap” country in the higher income bracket.
Autarky is not needed nor should it be pursued; in the last century, Finland’s forest industry succeeded almost like a textbook example of Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage. The problem seems to be that after the golden age of the forest industry, when new successful specialization has occurred, it has remained a rather small-scale activity. And there is no functional educational pipeline for any of them. Very, very few fields can be recommended to a normally talented young person, saying ‘study this and you will get employed.’ Taxation: I would not be surprised at all if the effects of taxation were indirect. During years of high growth, the disadvantages of a higher tax rate did not matter because the amount to be distributed grew rapidly anyway (as in the prospering Nordic countries when building the welfare state), but (hypothesis) when becoming wealthier becomes more difficult, the disadvantages of high taxation slowly begin to show. Still (another hypothesis), lowering taxation does not lead to dramatically better and broader business activity, because developing such requires not only actual capital but also time, cultural, and social capital. It is easier to distribute slightly more dividends. (According to a quickly retrieved OECD statistic, the tax wedge for a single average-income person in Finland is 43%. In Switzerland, it is approximately 23%, but on the other hand, in Mexico, it is also approximately 20%. The differences between Switzerland and Mexico are due to something other than taxation. Similarly, it is unlikely that merely adjusting taxation can make Finland into
edit copypaste lost the paragraph breaks, which I added
Of course, I will do my best if any point is unclear to someone.
, and it did not remain completely empty rhetoric:
Maybe we could trick it with categories, but it would become quite a hassle. So the smartest thing is to maintain a strict moderation line and ensure people know how to behave 