Regarding the Future of the Bullion Section

Ruben, I would expect nothing less from you my friend. JMO but these statements are perfect examples of gray. Just because you do not believe these are politically motivated in nature doesn't mean someone else would not. Statements can imply different things to different people and not everyone will follow your philosophy. People love to make assumptions and read between the lines (whether they exist or not). Most people also struggle to state things so carefully or succinct enough to avoid misunderstandings. Me and you both love to write in ways that leave little interpretation (correct or not), but we are not the norm when it comes to online chat. Believe it or not, in my previous post I am trying to say something similar to what you have posted above. Political discussion should be allowed to a point as long as it is not evangelizing as you stated. I just do not believe as you do that the subject is quite as clear as you seem to state it is "pretty simple". Your examples are not so subtle but I am sure others will write in ways that will be open to interpretation (that ultimately of the moderators).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think he's mostly right though.

there is a proper/appropriate and inproper/inapproipriate way to discuss topics

example 1

I can say the government doing all those bailouts and the 2nd stimulus bill to come will drive up the prices of pm's for the reason people are fearful of the debt it will cause and the inflation that can come from over printing dollars to spend.

or

Example 2

I can say those darn democrats or darn republicans and that stupid obama or damn sarah palin...ect...are causing the the prices of pm's to rise...

I think the latter is the inapproipriate way...simply cause it's an attack...it is true...TO A POINT mind you that politicians can cause fluctuation in the prices of pm's and stating certain policies they have can change prices in a heart beat buit personal attacks of a political party or person whether a politian or poster on the forums here should never happen.

bottom line the effect of politics on pm prices can not be denied...

whether it's the actual policy doing it or simply from people having fear of the policies...

I think people just need to read the following...

"1 - There will be absolutely no cursing or swearing allowed. Any words that wouldn't have been aired in a 1950s television show, are unwelcome here as well.

2 – Personal attacks are not permitted. All Coin Talk members, young, old and in between, will treat all other members with respect and be civil at all times. You are expected to act as responsible individuals, there will be no name calling or flame wars."

http://www.cointalk.com/t34131/
Alex

 

From the Coin Talk Rules

"8 – Subjects we don’t discuss here

Basically it’s common sense. Just about every person on the planet has heard the saying – “never discuss politics and/or religion”. Why ? Because it starts fights, arguments and causes nothing but hate and discontent. If you wish to discuss politics and or religion, then go someplace else. We don’t allow it here.

Now I know that some might say that it is impossible to discuss coins sometimes without mentioning politics since it is the politicians that make the decisions regarding coinage – and that is quite true. And since we have phrases like “In God We Trust” on our coins you could say that the discussion of religion is necessary in a way – and that is quite true. Therefore, it will be up to the sole discretion of the Coin Talk Administrators and Moderators as to what constitutes a permissible discussion on these subjects – period."

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t34131/#ixzz0sqfeAIs7

I feel the bullion section should not be as strict as this specific rule but not as open as this:

"1 - There will be absolutely no cursing or swearing allowed. Any words that wouldn't have been aired in a 1950s television show, are unwelcome here as well.

2 – Personal attacks are not permitted. All Coin Talk members, young, old and in between, will treat all other members with respect and be civil at all times. You are expected to act as responsible individuals, there will be no name calling or flame wars."

What would be good is something like "political discussions avoiding political bashing, that are relevant, and on-topic, are allowed in this section. I know that is too broad but along the lines of what I mean.
​

​

 

No that isn't true. There are subjects that are just taboo and it doesn't matter how nice you talk about them, they are insulting and inflaming by their CONTENT and SUBJECT.

This is tried and true, and the rules say so flatly.

And in that regard, I'll tell you flatly, there are political and religious opinions that boil my blood regardless of how you sugar coat them. And coin talk users do not have to be constantly but politely pelted by them.

Ruben

 

BTW your example is not demonstrative of your opinion. The first example is acceptable because of the simple theory and observations I already posted, which is that it expresses a possible future political event and its possible result on coin collecting without expressing a personal opinion (asuming PM is actually something that has to do with coin collecting, otherwise it is also off topic politics and doesn't belong).

The second example expresses a political opinion and would be POLITICS and not allowed. This has nothing to do with the tone, but everything to do with the content. I'll reiterate that I don't believe this is so hard to figure out.

 

You make a good point, but in my own defense I will say that I'm not worried so much as to the political motivations of the poster. I assume everyone has political motivations, and many of us wear our politics on our sleeves and that, IMO, enhances our interaction, and can create greater bonds of friendship. Speedy, I imagine, is very Conservative. He certainly didn't like the Mermaid parade. Others might be very liberal. That we can bridge that and still have constructive conversations about coins, as well as other things, enhances our human experience.

But that still, IMO, doesn't allow for evangelism of political and religious postings and messaging on the forum. And I'm sure grayer examples can exist than my examples. Moderators have to make judgments. On my mailings lists, I'll generally allow politics unless threats of physical violence brake out or unless I'm sensing that the argument is being designed or financed with the purpose of destroying the purpose of the list.

But I still believe that my outline is a useful model for moderators to use in making such judgments and I reject the argument that it is how something is said, not what is said, that matters. Both matter. I also still believe that in the vast majority of cases, this is easier to ascertain and decide upon than some have made it sound. When all else fails, it is like Doug and rules says, Moderators Rule...no arguments.

Ruben

 

Just The FACTS, Folks, Just The Facts!!

AMEN!! Recent posts, where it appears that the discussion disintegrates from general acceptance of "arguments" on a specific topic to applying political "labels" when individuals present opposing pro/con arguments, is in my opinion, reasonable justification for specific general "rules", and a singular implementation moderator. As a long standing organizer/Captain of a monthly debate system which pre-selects a debate subject for the following month, and then determines at the following monthly meeting, by the flip of a coin, who will argue pro or con, I find it very offensive when someone applies a political "label" to an individual that can present pro or con arguments to a subject. I'm the "devils' advocate" for virtually any subject, have advocated and won an odd number of objective judges for our debates, which has avoided stalemates. I believe that generally defined rules, and a singular moderator are necessary for some topics. Just my opinion folks, but it's like a**h****, every one seems to have one that may often spew excrement, found unacceptable to some. I again vote "C", as it appears that some subjects generate civil degradation of discussion.

 

I'm just a little confused at this point. In order to clarify any misunderstanding of what I've written, nothing I wrote is a political opinion I hold. Those statements were merely fictitious examples of kinds of statements that could fall into understandable categories which can have precise definitions. By giving them precise definitions, I believe that we can all as a forum be in a better position of understanding what we are posting and how it can be defined within the phrase "political postings" which exists in the statutory rules of cointalk and which are prohibited.

As a different but related topic, the rules really need to stay intact, and the bullion section should not be exempt in any regard from this...for the benefit of the forum

 

A Great Amount Of Confusion

There appears to be a preponderance of confusion about what has been written. If someone wrote of me: "******, I IMAGINE, is very Conservative.", I would consider/argue that to be a personal "political opinion" as defined by a collegiate dictionary, to which I would take umbrage, especially when stated in a public forum. An exception being, if that political "label" is thoroughly defined, accepted by majority viewing the post, and a specific supporting argument is presented which meets the public definition. Personally, I have confusion as to the meaning of these various terms, and believe that only each individual can define their "affiliation", and anothers' definition may be considered slanderous. I personally would label myself: a "Liberal" in personal intimate relationships, a "Contrarian" in financial relationships, a "Conservative" in economic relationships, a "Libertine" in legal matters, and an "Agnostic" in religious relationships, generally dependent on specific circumstances. I couldn't "label" myself without public definitions, much less define others' affiliations. I accept/respect discussion with others about their understandings of "labels", but reject "labeling".

I don't believe it's been advocated that the rules would differ for a "separated" PM forum. I suggest that the isolation would separate the subjectivity which results from posts based on hypothesis/conjecture, often without credible basis, from the general objectivity associated with discussion of government issued currency designed for public consumption.
Although I've enjoyed the snippets of fact/history derived from PM posts, I
still would argue that this thread is indicative of unsupported ramblings induced by PM discussion, and still prefer Option "C".

 

ruben did you get the point of what I was saying? I wasn't sugar coating nor was I trying to insult I was just stating my opinion. there is a way to say something and a wrong way to say something I did not express my opinions in any of the wording I just simply made 2 examples 1 was respectiful as it was not demeaning or defamintory and the other was totally out of line and in line with what some people have chosen to take on cointalk being the low road

as far as your blood boiling cause one were to say there is a God or stating anything about religion or politics...I think your letting it hit on an over sensitive nerve. I am a christian and I hear ALOT of things that could make me mad but instead of getting mad I choose to look at the source and just hold my faith in what I know.It's basically about weeding through to the truth. I think the same can be done in politics and in dealing with the bullion section. as Doug said in an earlier posting "there's alot of babies around here" and I think alot of those babies like to cry ALOT just to cry...

Alex

 

I'm both Conservative and Liberal. I'm conservative when purchasing coins (that's only worth $50) and liberal when I sell coins {rare}.( the same coin is worth at least $200)