Normalization of SWR Discussions

Research on Safe Withdrawal Rates

Moderator: hocus2004

hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

"I have not seen any weekly posts on Dorys board either"

I first put forward the idea of me writing a regularly appearing "column" of on-topic, non-SWR topics at the REHP board. I was going to refer to it as "the Wednesday Post" and largely draw on on material I first put forward during the REHP board's Golden Age to produce it.

The reaction at the REHP board was hostile, to say the least. Not entirely so. There was that 49 percent of the board community that expressed a desire for on-topic debate. But the side opposing on-topic debate was much louder and stronger in expression of its viewpoint. There were several posters who put forward threats, suggesting that there would be a price to be paid for on-topic posting at that board, even on-topic posting that did not refer to the SWR matter.

I elected to move the Wednesday Post to the Early Retirement Forum. Here is a link to the most recent Wednesday Post put up there and to the thread that followed from it.

http://early-retirement.org/cgi-bin/yab ... 1097052682

Brewer12345: "Drop dead. Keep this recycled crap confined to the SWR board, worthless troll. DORY!!! Please, I beg you, ban this cretin!!! "

hocus: "It reflects poorly on all of us that we permit comments like this to pollute the board. "


Brewer12345: "That's pretty funny, coming from a psychopath like you. Go away, troll. "

Whackamole: "brewer, shut up. "

TH: "I could swear that sounds like... Yes it is... I cant believe it...Old honking!!!!!! "

hocus: "You're capable of better, TH. You too, Brewer12345. "

Mikey: "Didn't you guys get your fill of bullying back in the fifth grade at St. Alphonse? What is the complaint with this post on free fun? "

Beachbumz: "Hocus, thank you for the post! I'm sure I read this back in 2000 when I was dreaming of retiring early, but it is always good to revisit topics like this, especially now that I have time to do some of these things (work really does get in the way). "

TH: "Simple. He's a troll. A subtle one, to be sure, but a troll nonetheless. He's simply using a technique that unfortunately, I think I taught him. Make some nice posts to build some good will until the next rampage."

hocus: "Anyone who looks at my posting record will come to the conclusion that I am the most "subtle" troll in the history of the internet. So subtle am I in my trolling skills that for a number of years the FAQ statement at the Motley Fool board included a recommendation to "read any post by hocus. They are all at the top of the most recommended list." I am an extraordinarily subtle troll indeed.

"What I really am is a poster with an intense desire to learn all that I can and to teach all that I can about the subject of how to win financial freedom early in life. There was a time when in my judgment the best way to achieve those goals was to post on "soft-side" topics. Since May 13, 2002, my focus has been on investing topics (in particular the SWR topic). The soft side is important. So is the hard side. SWRs matter.

"SWRs matter enough so that as a community we should all want to be sure that the information presented on these boards re SWRs is accurate. It's because I believe that that TH and some others label me a troll. So be it. I'm posting what I honestly believe on the question of SWRs and on all other questions that I address on this board. I've done that since the first day and I will continue to do it, charges of trollery be damned.


"What the shouts of "troll, troll!" tell me is that the DCMs (defenders of the conventional methodology) lack confidence that the historical stock-return data supports their case. If they had a case on the merits, we would have heard their response to William Bernstein's claim that the conventional methodology is a "highly misleading" way to determine SWRs at times of high valuation. It has been over two years since I put up the "What Bernstein Says" post and we have not heard a reasoned response from the DCMs on the Bernstein statements to this day. Community members whose primary concern is early retirement know what that means. It is for the benefit of community members whose primary concern is early retirement (as well as for my own benefit, of course) that I put forward my posts.

"I have over 2,500 posts in my file and there has never been anything even remotely resembling a rampage yet. If I am true to myself, there never will be. But I will of course continue to post in an honest and informed way on the SWR question in appropriate places and times. TH doesn't like that reality one little bit. That's too bad. "

Brewer12345: "Yee, Gods! Another 2500 blatherings just waiting to be recycled here? If Dory does get out the big 'ol ban stick and whack this moron with it soon, his server will collapse.

Mikey, this moron is perhaps the most destructive troll I have ever seen. Probably the best we could hope for is that everyone ignores him and he gives up and goes away. Personally, I think that the optimal solution (and the most realistic, given past history) is a ban. "

hocus: "My sense is that there is close to universal agreement that it would be a good idea if the DCMs would come to accept that we are no longer living in the summer of 1999. There was once a time when everyone who posted on the various boards thought that the REHP study accurately told us what the historical data says re SWRs. That day is past and it appears unlikely that it is ever coming back. It's not just me who has problems with the claim that a 4 percent take-out is "100 percent safe" for those with big stock allocations at today's valuation levels. There's JWR1945. And there's Bernstein. And there's Andrew Smithers, and Robert Shiller, and Rob Arnott, and all the other experts who have rejected the core assumption of the study. And there are the scores of community members who have found enough appeal in the data-based methodology to express a desire that reasoned discussion on SWRs be permitted.

If you don't like it that people are having these discussions, it is your right to refrain from participating in them, Brewer1234. In an ideal world, we would benefit from your input. But if that is not to be, it's not to be. Where you cross the line is in deciding not only that you are not going to participate, but in engaging in disruptions that make it unpleasant for others to participate (in this case in a discussion not even relating to the SWR matter).

You worry about you and let others worry about others, OK? This is a public discussion board, and the Retire Early community is a big and diverse community. It's not reasonable to expect that everyone is going to agree with you on every topic that comes up. Participate in the threads you like, and, yes, as you suggest above, ignore the ones you don't. Just remember that "ignore" and "disrupt" are different things and you and me will be the best of internet friends despite any differences we might continue to have re what the historical stock-return data says.

I think that is probably the best way to go with this, given the circumstances facing us. And I would like to be internet friends with you too, TH. So I hope that you too will make an effort to keep in mind the important distinction between "ignore" and "disrupt." It does none of us any good for any of us to get in the habit of passing too frequently from one side of that line to the other. Make sense, old buddy?"

Brewer12345: "Today I think I will pull out and examine my belly button lint in front of several senior colleagues and some clients. "

TH: "I'm going to respond to this primarily for the benefit of those who are uncertain about your motives and methods.

"A while ago, I supported Hocus' right to his opinions and expressing them...to the point of saying I would leave if he were banned.

"He called me a hero for this. I didnt feel heroic, because I had never lived through any of his trolling events and wasnt present at the many bannings on other boards. But he told me he had had a substance problem and been a little out of control, and now he wanted a second chance to be part of the community. I'm a sucker for tough luck stories.

"I wanted to be open minded. I inquired about his ideas, his thought processes, his "new tool" for helping calculate SWR's.

"There were some good ideas, but also some big huge flaming holes. And then came the thread hijackings. Not that i'm against that, I'm a serial hijacker. But I got kinda sick of every single thread on that board turning into a discussion on safe withdrawal rates and then turning into a discussion about Hocus.

"When I tried to address the holes in logic and apparent gaps in the plans, my issues were shunted aside. When I persisted, I was subtley attacked...a little jab here, a little jab there...by him and several of his alter ego's. Yes, he posts under more than one name, here and elsewhere. When I ultimately became frustrated and called him out, then came the innocence. Without reading all the threads and putting together all the bits and pieces, it looked like he was a nice innocent guy facing someone out of control that was over-reacting. He's really very good at what he does, I imagine because he's had lots of experience.

"So I told him I couldnt support him anymore, and why. He was completely nonplussed. A simple "okey dokey", and I was no longer called a "hero", I was now an asshole.

"With that, it became clear to me. Someone who really had something to say, wanted to be heard and had very little support would have wanted to understand why I no longer wished to support him. Would have tried to heal that rift ASAP.

"Of course, he didnt. Because he isnt interested in being a part of a community. He isnt interested in developing and sharing ideas. He's intererested in attention and disruption. No more, no less.

"This is a pattern repeated on many, many boards. A pleasant start. Progressive upticking of the "swr" agenda. Some comments about why Intercst is wrong, lies and hides things that turn into full blown hatefests. The paranoia. Alienation and attacking any dissenters. Thread hijacking. Making claims that people support him or follow his "ideas" or use his "methodologies", followed by that person saying they do nothing of the kind. Rising frustration and annoyance in the community. A ban.

"Whether he's looney, bipolar, has MPD, a substance abuse problem, or whatever it is, I'm about done trying to fix the situation, or trying to fix him. Following his "ideas" and "tools" will leave you washing out tin foil and eating cheap dog food well before you expire. Responding to him here or anywhere else is simply feeding the beast.

"Thats it, I'm done talking to or about the goose that eats the golden eggs and leaves droppings everywhere he goes.

"I implore you to do the same. Ignoring it does work. Make sure you ignore its alter ego's too. Look for people who only show up to have a conversation with it, or to start one, then disappear until the next bout. Usually low post counts.

"So in response to the above...if you dont ignore, it will disrupt. "

hocus: "That was nicely done, Flipstress. Thanks for sharing, TH. "

Skylark: "He certainly seems to have you under his spell, TH. When it all gets to be too much, I just hum the "Theme to Star Trek."

Blazerjeremy: "I am a long standing lurker to this board. I rarely post but enjoy the info on this board every week. I would like to second the call for Hocus to be banned. He is definately a troll. And never seems to have anything important to say that isn't self agrandizing. If himself is included in the term "important" then he has lots of important stuff to talk about. "

Lurker2: "He's done this many times before. He's far too busy and important to take the time to compose something current. This is like dropping off a cassette tape of your thoughts and opinions at the coffee-shop because you're SO important that you're above sitting down to have a cup of coffee with the guys - and you know they need to hear what you have to say. If he tried this in my coffee-shop, the guys would call him an a**hole and throw him out on his head.

Hocus, I hate to say it, but the rejection you receive has nothing to do with defenders of any methodology. It's purely personal - people dislike you intensely. And you just keep feeding the flames with actions like this, so you have nobody to blame but yourself. "

hocus: "The reality is that I have made huge contributions to the various board communities, blazerjeremy. Intercst was in a technical sense the founder of the Motley Fool board (he is the one who sent the e-mail that got the board set up), but it was my posts which built that board into one that was often referrred to as the most thought-provoking on the face of the internet. That was a major accomplishment of mine and I am of course proud of it. It is of course embarassing to me to see what the board has become today (last week there was a poll in which 51 percent of the community there voted against on-topic debate).

"Dory36 got his start on the Motley Fool board; I think it is fair to call this board a spin-off of it. The NoFeeBoards.com board is also a spin-off of the Motley Fool board. So the Motley Fool board is part of out history, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. By no stretch of the imagination do I say that I was the only poster who did important things to build the Motley Fool board. Intercst did important things. I do not share in the "cult of personality" re intercst that seems to influence a good number, but I certainly acknowledge his importance in shaping the early days of our movement. And there were hundreds of others who helped aspiring early retirees in important ways and that revealed to this community its awesome potential to do good.

"I am proud of my Retire Early contributions. I understand that it is not the ordinary procedure for me to be the one to tout them, and I think that the ordinary procedure makes sense in ordinary times. These are not ordinary times. There are posters in our community who have made it their business to disrupt any thread which I put forward, SWR-related or non-SWR-related. They do this because I told the truth about SWRs and because they are loyal to intercst, who for obvious reasons very much does not want the truth re SWRs to be told. These people hurt our community with their actions. SWRs matter. People planning early retirement need to know what the historical data says re SWRs.

"They need to know a lot of other things too, of course. It's not all about SWRs. When I put up some old non-SWR posts that received a good reaction the first time around, I help people learn about the subject matter of this board. When the threads are not disrupted, exchanges take place that help me learn. That's what it is all about, learning together.

"The DCMs don't like it one bit to see learning take place on threads in which the hocus name is prominent. They think to themselves: "hocus has helped a lot of people learn about this stuff in the past, so there's no reason not to believe that he will be able to do it again, and then those people might take a look at the historical data and see that he was right all along in what he was saying re SWRs." DCMs don't like it that that is what is likely to happen. I do. I think that it is important that the many community members who have expressed a desire for reasoned debate on the SWR topic (along with many other topics, of course) see those desires realized. If it appears that putting up some old non-SWR posts can help bring that about (while also generating lots of non-SWR learning experiences) I am happy to give the idea my best shot.

"Perhaps it will work. Perhaps not. It can't possibly do any harm. Except to the DCMs. And you know what? In the long run, it doesn't even do any harm to them. In the long run, they came here because they want to learn about the subject matter of the board too. So let's all get about the business of Learning Together! "

hocus: "I am responding to comments made on the threads generated from the re-postings, Lurker2. So I am very much sitting down at the table and drinking down the hot stuff along with all my buds.

"Not all posts are worthy of recycling, to be sure. But some are. The posts that I am putting up on Wednesday mornings are posts that generated good reactions the first time around, either in that they received a high number of recommendations or in that they provoked particularly insightful or strongly felt responses. The majority of this board community has never seen these posts, and they would need to pay Motley Fool $30 for the privilege of doing so if they wanted to take a look at them. What possible harm could come from "liberating" them from the money grubbing claws of Motley Fool by posting them here? (That's a joke, I have no problem with the idea of Motley Fool charging for use of its boards.)

"Not every Wednesday post that I put forward is going to change the course of Western civilization. My guess is that it will only be a small percentage of them that will do that (another joke!). But none of the words I will put forward in these posts have the potential to do anyone here any harm. Of that much I am certain. I believe that it is entirely possible that a few of them might do one or two community members a little bit of good.

"The rejection you receive has nothing to do with defenders of any methodology. It's purely personal - people dislike you intensely.

"There may be a few who have a personal dislike of me because I was the one who brought the SWR issue to the table. Most do not. There are a good number who pretend to dislike me. A poster named 2828 once said that he wanted to feed me through a trash compacter. More recently he said that he wishes me the best and that he is impressed by the extent of my research efforts on the SWR question. 2828 is a more typical community member than you, Lurker2. I've been around since the first days, and I can assure you that there is a good bit of support for that assertion awaiting your review in the Post Archives.

"It's not personal, except perhaps in a few cases. It's tactical. I want to see honest and informed debate on SWRs not only beccause the SWR issue is so important; I also want to see it because I find it demeaning to the entire community that we go along with restrictions on our agenda imposed on us by puffed-up ego-case board founders (I obviously am not referring to Dory36 here). The community of aspiring early retirees has a right to talk about what it wants to talk about, the hurt feelings of board founders be damned. That's my take. I believe that it is very important that this point be established if our movement is to achieve its full potential.

"We are a community. Communities go through ups and downs. We ran into some trouble re the SWR matter because of some unusual and difficult factual realities that pertain to it. We will find a way to work through it. We will move on to other things, and we will one day look back on all the silliness that was engaged in to block our forward progress and express astonishment at the craziness of the road we traveled.

"This is how human beings cope with change. It always has been and it always will be. It feels intense to us because this is not history we are reading about in a book, it is history that we are creating through our own efforts. But what has happened here is much in line with what has happened to other communities at other times in history who were faced with other forks in the road and had to take some time to digest the implications of the choices before them. "

Guest: "Hey folks, can't we just get along?

As a long-time reader from the Motley Fool days, I like hocus' posts and find the hostility to him annoying. As ERs (or ER hopefuls) we are already on non-traditional paths. We shouldn't feel threatened by anyone, particularly someone who can represent his/her point of view so well.

"I, for one, want to keep reading what hocus puts out, old or new. Please let me! "

Brewer12345: "Hey asshole, we are laughing at you, not with you. Go away. You are not liked or wanted here. "

UncleMick: "kayaking - grey overcast day, light rain, chop on :ake Ponchartrain - stirs the the old Washington State blood. 1/4 mile out the kitchen window and 5 miles across open water off the back porch are entrances to the bayou's of the Wildlife Refuge.

"Nobody but nobody has a kayak around here - flatboats, fishing boats, sailboats, powerboats, and pirogue's for duck hunters.

"Does anybody out there kayak? How would one get started. Thinking room for a man and his golden retriever - and perhaps a way to fish a little. The lake is subject to sudden storms so 2-4 rollers might catch you on open water periodically.

"Could use the phys. ed. - gyms and jogging are a turn off. "

[A bunch of Kayak posts follow]

hocus: "There's a poster in this community who said: "I for one, want to keep reading what hocus puts out, old or new. Please let me!"

"I am going to do what I can to be responsive to that poster's wishes. I will be putting up a non-SWR on-topic post at the "Young Dreamers" section of this board next Wednesday. "

TH: "Please stop feeding the troll. It made a 'guest' post in support of itself and now its responding to that in the hopes it will rile someone up enough to respond.

"I second Nord's request for an "ignore" feature, if not an outright ban. Not because I cant ignore it, but because a lot of other people cant. "

hocus: " of course have no objection to a tool that helps community members ignore certain threads or certain posters or whatever. The reality, however, is that, as you say here, the "ignore" idea never works when dealing with the particular matter that is the cause of the trouble spoiling this thread.

"There's a reason for that. The reason for that is the elephant sitting in the living room that everyone sees but that not many yet want to talk about frankly. I believe that to achieve our potential we need to figure out a way to talk about it. We are a creative people, and I believe that we will figure out a way that will work to the benefit of all.

"I'll do my part. That's all that I can do. The rest is up to all of you. We are a community. We solve our problems as a community. Or we solve them not at all. "

Nords: "Hocus, you've used up all your goodwill. You've run your own board and manipulated it beyond all moderator's ethics. You've created numerous login identities on this board and schizophrenically orchestrated "support" for yourself. You've even added a "Guest" post here as a desperate attempt to sway public opinion.

"Once again I suggest you go somewhere else. If you don't want to leave (and if you aren't banned by the moderator), then I recommend you stop recycling your old posts and limit yourself to on-topic responses. The rest of us know where to find your old posts if we care to.

"Dory? "

Brewer12345: " Please, Dory, please! "

hocus: "I think that having Dory36's input would be helpful, Nords. At least we agree on that much. "

Arrete: "I liked reading about kayaks more"

[Lots of Kayak posts follow]

hocus: "I'm a fan of on-topic discussion. That's my thing. So I'm not jumping up and down and about this. But I've seen worse. "

Skylark: "Kayaks can get really warm in the sun. At least canoes give you some fresh air. Although then you have no sun protection. "
User avatar
ben
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:00 am
Location: The world is not enough

Post by ben »

Hocus wrote:this site's FIRE board on an almost daily basis in the days before the DCMs imported the tactics that had been used at an earlier time to burn the REHP board to the ground to burn the FIRE board to the ground as well.
So you are saying that the DCMs burned down the Nofeeboards FIRE board?

Also; why don't you start your own board on the long awaited homepage you are starting? Would be a good way to further promote your long awaited book. I promise to come there and partake as long as it is not expected that all poster chant "hail the great Hocus!" :D .
Normal; to put on clothes bought for work, go to work in car bought to get to work needed to pay for the clothes, the car and the home left empty all day in order to afford to live in it...
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

ben wrote:So you are saying that the DCMs burned down the Nofeeboards FIRE board?
Yes. There was, in fact, an extended period of hostility. It damaged our FIRE board tremendously. From my vantage point, the tactics used were inappropriate. Most definitely so. Defenders of the Conventional Methodology blocked, rather than elevated, discussions.

Have fun.

John R.
User avatar
gummy
*** Veteran
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Hogsville, ON
Contact:

Post by gummy »

About six months ago, when I fired up my new website, I discovered that it came with a Bulletin Board :^)

I defined just two topics:
Test Forum and
Just Comments (about things that amuse or frustrate or intrigue ... or just make you laugh).

After a millisecond of cogitation (and reflecting upon the nasty posters that seem to pop up in every forum) I deleted the BB.

Sad ...
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

"So you are saying that the DCMs burned down the Nofeeboards FIRE board? "

Yes.

I often make reference to the Golden Age of the Motley Fool's Retire Early Home Page (REHP) board. I believe that that board was the most thought-provoking on the face of the internet during its Golden Age. This site's FIRE board had a little Golden Age of its own in the early days of its existence. I don't think that the FIRE board was ever quite as exciting as the old REHP board. It never had the number of posters needed to attain "best board on the internet" status. That said, however, there was a good period of time in which the FIRE board was a very exciting board indeed. For a long time, that board positively rocked!

Ataloss was the first poster to turn to deceptive posting at that board. We all had an opportunity to save the board by working up the courage to demand that he rein in his posting practices. We dropped the ball. I presume that the thought that many people had in their minds was "this guy will get tired of the nonsense at some point and stop by himself" or "someone else will rein him in, there's no need for me to stick my neck out." It doesn't work that way.

Deception is a poison. It spreads and spreads and spreads. It usually starts with something small. A poster thinks "Gess, I clearly got this number wrong, but it would be really embarassing to acknowledge that, so maybe I can just sort of finesse this thing with a little deception." The other posters think to themselves, "that guy has a repuation for trying to destroy anyone who crosses him, I better keep my mouth shut on this one." And the guy who practiced deception concludes "Hey, thus stuff is neat, I can say anything I please, and no one in this community has the guts to say a word to me." The Fires of Deception do not exhaust themselves. They grow stronger and stronger as more and more weak posters (posters not capable of making a case on the merits) become enticed to make themselves appear stronger than they are by making use of deception and intimidation.

As the community continues down the Dark Road, getting out comes to look more and more difficult. Posters who did not speak up against the deception come to feel more and more guilty over ther destruction that was done to the board while they sat on their hands. So these posters engage in deception themselves to cover up what happened. Over time you have more board energies going into the project of covering up the various deceptions than you have going toward the project of putting up informed posts on the subject matter of the board. The board becomes all process discussions all the time. Good posters hate that stuff, so it becomes difficult to attract good posters to the community. Let this sort of thing go on long enough, and you have a board where 51 percent of the community opposes on-topic discussion. Let this sort of thing go on long enough, and you have not the most thought-provking board on the face of the internet, but a Clown Board. Let this sort of thing go on long enough, and you have the REHP board of today.

There is a thread at this board where Ed Easterling came to speak to us. The idea of bringing experts on the subject matter to our site was an experiment that I tried as a means of building up our various board communities. The idea was a success. Me and JWR1945 (and Easterling too) learned a good bit from the discussion. My goal of making the site stronger was not achieved, however. If you check the Post Archives, you will see that my decision to invite experts to the board was a big factor in causing Ataloss to flip his lid. He of course knew that there was no possibility of defending the conventional methodology with reasoned argument. So he knew that DCMs were going to look very bad indeed when people like William Bernstein and Scott Burns and so on came to discuss the realities of what the historical data says with us. So the "burn down the board to block honest and informed posting on SWRs" strategy went into higher gear with my announcement that Easterling had agreed to pay us a visit (and that people like Bernstein were to be invited in future days).

The FIRE board was not a large board when I extended the invitation to Easterling. I had some concern that it was not reasonable to ask him to take time from his schedule to participate in our discussions. Do you know what convinved me to extend the invitation anyway? I looked at the quality of some of the posts that had been put up at the FIRE board. There was stuff there by raddr and by BenSolar and by JWR1945 that was just outstanding, important research that has never appeared anywhere else on Planet Earth. I decided that, if he had a problem with our board, it was his problem, not ours. We were not big in quantity of posters. But we were very big indeed in terms of quality of posters. So I asked. And he said yes.

The Easterling Special Event Discussion could have put this site on the map. We could have followed that with a discussion with Bernstein, and then with Scott Burns, and then with Robert Shiller, and on and on. We could have gotten recognition all over the internet because of the groundsbreaking discussions on SWRS that were being held at our board. What did we get instead? We got Ataloss engaging in nonsense gibberish word games, JWR1945 pointing out that the posting practices he was engaging in to block reasoned debate were "despicable," and the rest of the board community sitting on its hands not able to work up the courage to save the resource that many of us had devoted hundreds or thousands of hours of our life energy into building up. That was some big light bulb that went off in Ataloss' head on the day he thought to himself "Hey, I know what I could do, I could forget about reasoned debate and just shut down honest and informed discussions re SWRs by employing the same tactics that intercst employed back at the REHP board--I could do it all with deception and intimidation and Smear Campaigns--It just might work!

It worked. Are you happy with the result, Ben? I am not. There is a reason why most board communities have rules that govern the posting practices that may be followed. There is a reason why the rules always forbid intercst-type and ataloss-type posting practices. The purpose of the rules is to protect those of us engaging in honest and informed on-topic posting from posters who come to our communities with a desire to pour poison in the water supply.

Do I stand by my claim that the DCMs burned the FIRE board to the ground. You're damn right I do. If there is anyone in this community who has the slightest doubt on this question, I recommend that he or she check out the Post Archives. The Post Archives tell the story better than any poster here can. All of the dirty work done by Ataloss and his pals to burn that board to the ground was recorded for all time in the Post Archives. Check them out. Do so, and you will never again wonder why it is important that, when site administrators promise to protect us from intercst-type and ataloss-type posters, we have an absolute right to hold them to their word.

We contribute our energies to build these boards. They don't exist without posters. The posting rules are a contract between the site owner and the poster considering whether to contribute a post or not. When a site administrator fails to take prompt action against a known DCM, he is failing to hold up his side of the bargain. I say that each of every one of us has a right to insist that the bargain be honored, that the promises made to us when we agree to donate our efforts to building up a board be kept. We have a right to expect that site owners shoot straight with us.

That's my take.
User avatar
ElSupremo
Admin Board Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Post by ElSupremo »

Greetings Gummy :)
After a millisecond of cogitation (and reflecting upon the nasty posters that seem to pop up in every forum) I deleted the BB.
LOL! :lol: I've hovered my pinky over the delete key many times. ;) But what the heck, what don't kill ya, makes you stronger. ;)
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
User avatar
gummy
*** Veteran
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Hogsville, ON
Contact:

Post by gummy »

There once was a GREAT forum that I and hundreds of others visited several times each day.

There were also a set of "rules" which implied courtesy etc..

After a few years many of the posters became nasty, foul language became a popular tool - implying a lack of communication skills :?

Then the site administrator began deleting posts that violated the "rules"
... and the forum died.

I accept the fact that there are all kinds of people and an active forum reflects this fact ... but I didn't want to be the administrator :(

I respect those (like ES) who suffer the pains of administration :D
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

"Why don't you start your own board on the long awaited homepage you are starting?"

That's a good question, Ben. Providing a complete answer would take more time than I can devote to this at this time. I will put up a post at some future date exploring this question in some depth.

The short version is that I do expect to have a discussion board at my site at some future date. I have written close to a hundred pages in my business plan analyzing the question of how to establish a discussion board community that will provide the benefits of a Golden Age REHP board without bringing with it the ugliness that the REHP board and the FIRE board later became known for.

I think it can be done. But it's tricky. The internet discussion board is a new communications medium. We are the pioneers. I would like to think that we will benefit from our experience when we set up new boards. We know what works--honest and informed discussion on the topic of how to win financial freedom early in life. Every board that has permitted honest and informed discussion on the wonderful subject matter of these boards has taken off like a rocket. We also know what does not work. Deception and intimidation. Several board communities have spoken in no uncertain terms in opposition to the worst of the trash posting tactics we have witnessed. So we know what we need to watch out for. We know sitting on our hands is not an effective strategy for dealing with DCM-type posting practices.

The bottom line is that I plan to have a discussion board at my site, but I expect to hold off on setting one up for a year or so. I have some experiments that I want to try to build a community that would be able to deal in an effective way with DCM-type practices. I may want to run these ideas past people before using them on an actual board. I also would like to have a strong community in place at my site before setting up the discussion board. So my current plan (I always reserve the right to change my mind as circumstances change) is to get the site up by the end of this year, to use the year 2005 to build up both the site and the community that congregates there, and then to add a discussion board perhaps in early 2006.

Discussion boards are important. A strong board can serve as the most valuable resource on how to win financial freedom early in life that exists on Planet Earth. A bad board deceives people and tricks people and intimidates people and causes busted retirements. That sort of thing I want nothing to do with. My goal is going to be to work out a plan for achieving the best of this important new communications medium while avoiding the ugly stuff that too often has undermined or even reversed the early successes of FIRE communities of the past.

"...your long awaited book. "


Tell me about it.

"I promise to come there and partake as long as it is not expected that all poster chant "hail the great Hocus!""

There obviously won't be any requirement that all posters chant "hail the great Hocus." The biggest benefit that I get from my participation on these boards is hearing the challenges to my views that are put forward." The posters who offer reasoned disagreements with me provide me more of a personal benefit than any other type.

When I put forward that fateful May 13, 2002, post challenging the methodology of the REHP study, I was only 90 percent sure that I was right. I had studied SWRs for a long time, but I do not possess the skill set needed to explore the numbers in depth. So I was confident of what I was saying but not certain.

I am now 99 percent sure. That's partly because I have learned of the many experts who reject out of hand the assumptions employed in the REHP study. It's also because JWR1945 has studied the data in depth and not found anything supporting the intercst claims. But I think that an argument can be made that the most important proof of all is the posting tactics that have been employed by the DCMs. If they had a reasoned argument to make in support of the conventional methodology, they would put it forward, would they not? The fact that they gave up on any chance of making their case in a reasoned way tells me that it is not possible to present a reasoned case in defense of the conventional methodology. If there were one, the DCMs are clearly well-motivated to find it. And they haven't been able to find a reasonsed argument in 30 months now. What would you conclude from that, Ben?

Anyway, there will be no requirement that posters at my board hail hocus. There will be a requirement that they adhere to reasonable posting rules. If I set up a site and make a promise to posters who visit there to protect them from abusive posting practices, I am giving my word that I will enforce those rules in a reaonable way. I intend to honor any committment I make there just as I have honroed the commitment I made to honest and informed posters here when I took on the responsibility of serving as moderator of this board.

If you don't think I take my responsibilities in that regard seriously, ask SalaryGuru and he'll tell you different. When DCMs try to pull funny stuff here, they get shut down in ten seconds flat. Check our the "Dead Posts File" if you want to get a sense of how the process works. That's why you don't see much DCM funny stuff in this particular board community.

Yes, you CAN stand up to DCMs, Ben. Like most bullies, they are cowards at heart. There's lots of bluff on the outside and precious little in the way of guts at the center. Stand up to them and the little puffballs blow away in the wind. Try it, Ben, and you'll see what I am getting at here. You'll begin feeling better about yourself to boot.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

"LOL! I've hovered my pinky over the delete key many times. But what the heck, what don't kill ya, makes you stronger"

I'm glad to hear you say that, ES.

The DCMs want you to feel like giving up. That's just what they are about at the core, getting EVERYONE to give up. They have given up themselves on much of the good stuff that life has to offer, and it enrages them that there are others out there having fun and sharing good ideas and achieving their goals and so forth. The DCM heart is an enraged heart. If it a heart that wants to destroy.

There are two forces at work on our boards. They is the spirit of community. That is a positive force, the force of building and sharing and helping and growing. And there is the negative force that has come to be embodied in the DCMs. That is the negative force. It is about subtracting, detracting, tearing down, mocking, ridiculing. DCMs are not our friends and they never will be. They want the OPPOSITE of what the rest of us want. How can we be friends with those who are out to destroy the work we are doing?

IF the DCMs cause you to give up, they win a little vistory. If you work up the fortitude to stand up to them, they experience a big setback. That's true of all community members, we all play a role for the positive or for the negative. It's more true for site owners than it is for others, however.

Remember the Pope's motto--Courage!
User avatar
ElSupremo
Admin Board Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Post by ElSupremo »

Greetings gummy :)
I respect those (like ES) who suffer the pains of administration
After suffering through those pains for a couple of years I learned that the only reason it bothered me was I'd forgotten why I started all this in the first place. Because we needed a free medium to express our thoughts. Once I'd remembered that, things were better. Even though some posters left because I tried to treat everyone fairly, I now know from experience that we are on the true path. Ultimately NFB was and is successful because of that original thought. No matter how many posters we have. As long as folks show up NFB will be here. We have strong support the public can not see. Rules are fine as guidelines in this medium. In good conscience the members need to try to be civil and follow them for the board to function at high levels. There will always be those who don't follow the rules for whatever reason. The quality of the board lies in how the other members handle these situations. In our case some decided to run away. Too bad but I'd rather have members who care enough to stay and work things out anyway. The posters you see today are those types of folks and I'm proud to be with them. I have provided a solid foundation here. Participation as always is up to the individual.

Hocus I apologize for getting off topic.
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

ES wrote:After suffering through those pains for a couple of years I learned that the only reason it bothered me was I'd forgotten why I started all this in the first place. Because we needed a free medium to express our thoughts. Once I'd remembered that, things were better.
..
Hocus I apologize for getting off topic.
This thread's title is Normalization of SWR Discussions. Even though your comments have wider applicability than the topic itself, they are on-topic.

Have fun.

John R.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

"This thread's title is Normalization of SWR Discussions. Even though your comments have wider applicability than the topic itself, they are on-topic. "

They couldn't possibly be more on-topic. We have seen at board community after board community that there is intense interest in the question of what the historical data says re SWRs. We have also seen at board communiity after board community that most potential community members feel strongly enough about DCM posting practices that they will not participate in board discussions unless some reasonable restraints are placed on the use of trash posting tactics.

Is it "off-topic" for the owner of a McDonalds to concern himself with whether the restrooms are clean? I say no. You can offer the best cheeseburgers in the world but, if visitors to your restaurant don't like the look of the restrooms, there's a good chance they won't be coming back. There are things that the customers of a business enterprise simply will not tolerate.

Posters are the "customers" of a discussion board site. Our customers will not tolerate Deliberate Deception. They will not tolerate Smear Campaigns. They will not tolerate Word Games. They will not tolerate Intimidation.

The DCMs are gone for the time-being because they feel that their work here is done. In the event that some of us put enough efforts into rebuilding this place so that we once again have a productive and valuable discussion-board community, I think we can safely count on the DCMs paying us a return visit. We don't solve the problem by putting our heads in the sand. We solve the problem by solving the problem.

The DCMs will be back. We need to decide what we are going to do about it before the day comes where they are again posting here. My vote is for a policy of Zero Tolerance of DCM posting practices. That means that a DCM gets a warning when he put forward his first abusive post. If he elects to ignore the warning, he is out of here.

Most potential posters know enough about how discussion boards are run not to place their complete confidence in the words they see when they check out the official posting guidelines. What people look for is actions. It's actions that count. Every day each of us who posts here sends a message to potential future community members as to what sort of community we hope to make this place.

I hope that everyone has a pretty good sense at this point as to what sort of place I would like to see it become. If there is anyone who has any questions on this aspect of things, just ask. I shoot straight. I'm famous for it.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

Here is a link to the "Learning Together" Mission Statement that governs posting at the Motley Fool boards. This is the page that I looked to when, in early 1999, I decided to begin work on building a discussion-board community in which aspiring early retirees would be able to trade ideas, strategies and insights for the purpose of winning financial freedom early in life. I think that it is fair to say that the words on this page constitute a rock-solid guarantee from Motley Fool that customers of its site will be protected from any intercst-type posters who happen to show up there.

http://www.fool.com/community/mission.htm

Motley Fool: "Everyone has a different reason for coming to the Fool's discussion boards. Some people want to learn more about their stocks and bounce ideas off of their fellow Fools. Others want to hear how folks went about leasing their last car or paying off their debt. Regardless of your reason, we are all here to learn. We believe that doing so together is a lot more fun and much more powerful than going it alone.

"Learning means both asking and answering questions. It means maintaining an open mind and embracing the intellectual curiosity we all have. It means that after each visit to The Motley Fool Discussion Boards, you walk away knowing more than you did beforehand. You feel your time was well spent, even if you read things that directly contradicted your own beliefs. In fact, it's those differing opinions that tend to make you think the most.

"Together means cooperating, respecting others, respecting their time, and acting in such a way to provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Some of the best posts each day in Fooldom come from people who spent an inordinate amount of time analyzing a balance sheet, a product, a company visit, or a conference call. These efforts, which often win our Post of the Day award, are usually born from someone else's desire to share their knowledge and get YOUR reaction to it. The reason they took the extra time was because they knew their information and hard work would be of benefit to hundreds or thousands of others, which made the sacrifice worth it. That's the epitome of "together."

"Together" also means that we all need to be responsible for what we say. Everyone at the Fool has always followed one simple rule: Only say on the boards what you'd say to someone if you met them on the street. That most often means that you act politely, treat your neighbors with respect, and avoid silly confrontations. It also means that folks act in good faith, attempting through effective questions or answers to advance the state of the community's understanding, and whenever appropriate, trying to leave the discussion board a better place than it would have been had you not contributed to it. Because of this we tend to be much more vigilant and aggressive in managing our community than other sites. This world is all about choices and we hope that people have chosen the Fool because they want to have fun and Learn Together.

"In closing, The Motley Fool Incorporated has four core values, one of which is:

"To bring about social progress through cooperative endeavor, championing civil and open discourse.

"This speaks directly to our belief in the inherent goodness and value of the Internet as an interactive medium that can be exploited for the cause of education, understanding, cooperation, and improvement. We try to live this and our other three core values every day at Fool HQ, and we ask those who visit fool.com to aim for this ideal just the same, every day.

"Help us "Learn Together," and we make the very same commitment to you. "
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

In the link above to the Early Retirement Forum "Wednesday Post" thread, I endorsed the idea of asking for Dory36's input re what should be done re the problem of abusive posting at his web site. Here is a link to the thread started by Dory36 to obtain community input on the matter of abusive posting by DCMs and the requests by a number of DCMs to have me banned from the forum because I asked that the abusive posting be put to a stop and that community members seeking to hold honest and informed on-topic discussions be permitted to do so. The title that Dory36 gave to the thread is "Abusive Posting, Etc."

http://early-retirement.org/cgi-bin/yab ... 1097415470

Dory36: "First, sorry I have been absent so much lately. I'll save that discussion for later though.

"I have had a number of private messages asking me to ban a poster on these boards, or at least implement an "ignore user" feature.

"I have not found a feasible way to implement the "ignore" feature on the software running this board, and haven't seen it on a half dozen or so other software packages I have checked.

"Banning a user is something something we haven't done before, and is something that I see as a last resort to prevent problems that threaten to destroy the benefit that people find on the forum.

"For what it's worth, here is our "official" rule about the forum:

"Quote:
Rather than a bunch of rules, we go by the "reasonable person" principle.

"Please be reasonable and courteous.

"There's not much else to say about it!

""Reasonable" is, in this context, defined by Webster's as "not extreme or excessive", which seems to me to call for a consensus judgment rather than an arbitrary decision by an individual moderator.

"I'm posting this to seek input from other members of this group.

"Your thoughts?

"Feel free to post here or send me a private message. "

John Galt: "Hi Dory! I'm opposed to banning. I suppose I could imagine a situation where something would have to be done. We are not there IMHO. "

RE Wannabe: "Banning someone from posting is an extreme step and IMHO should be done only as an absolute last resort.

"Everyone should have the right to express his/her opinion, no matter how wrong, stupid, ignorant, irritating, or self-serving . "

Bruce 1: "As a newcomer to the board I wanted to see everyones thoughts. I think all of us are intelligent enough to sort through the chaff to find the kernel.

"That being said I do not think there is a place for postings that are disguised advertising except for the 'get rich quick' area.

"I have found some reactions to some posts to be excessive to the point of being irritated. These reflect poorly on the person who posted them not matter what the provocation.

"I come down against banning except in extreem circumstances and we are certainly not there yet. "

cc: "Wouldn't banning a member also require elimination of "guest" posting? "

Cut-Throat: "I already have an ignore feature on my system.

"When I see a poster's name that has basically said the same things a few hundred times, I don't bother to read or respond to it. Works great! "

hocus: "The cause of the smear campaign against me is that I have posted what I honestly believe about SWRs. I believe that the methodology used in the study published at RetireEarlyHomePage.com is analytically invalid. I did not come to this conclusion without significant cause. I began researching SWRs in 1995 and have studied the question in great depth in the nine years since. My viewpoint on the core question in dispute is shared by at least six of the most respected stock analysts in the world. JWR1945 began studying the SWR question when I brought up this matter at the Motley Fool board. He has been studying it on a full-time basis for over two years now. He supports me on every statement that I have put forward re SWRs.

"It is extremely unhealthy for a discussion board community to follow a practice of banning posters solely because the content of their posts makes some other poster or group of posters uncomfortable. Controversy is not at all a bad thing on a discussion board so long as the different viewpoints are expressed in reasonable ways. I have always expressed my viewpoint in reasonable ways and I pledge to this community that I always will. If the majority is wrong in what it says re SWRs, the possible effect is that many of our retirements are going to go bust. It should be possible for community members to hear both sides of the story on SWRs and on any other topic brought to the attention of the board. "

MickyD: "Too much bigbrotherism can be involved in banning anyone. I like Cut-Throat's idea. I guess that is how I do it also. Seems efficient and easy to self-administer to me."

Wabmester: "I used to consider hocus as a street-corner preacher: somebody extremely loud and obnoxious, but easily ignored.

But now I see him more as a disturbed person who wanders into a restaurant and sits down at my table while I'm trying to have a meal and simple conversation. Extremely disruptive to an otherwise nice meal.

"He casts a pall over the entire site. If this were a real community, we'd give him busfare and send him to another state. "

Nords: "From Roy Weitz' FundAlarm discussion board: "Commercial, off-topic, repetitive, or offensive postings will be ruthlessly deleted." Pretty straightforward, no? But then he has full-time moderators who check the board multiple times each day.

"I object to hocus' continuing presence on the board because he:
1. Recycles old posts. If you're going to continue to post your "best of", then ask Dory for your own section of the board to do so. That way the rest of us can ignore it without thinking that we're reading something new.

"2. He trolls, and I don't mean personality or appearance-- I mean behavior. From one of a number of places with this definition, http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT,

"An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.
Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.
Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility. Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, 'Surely there is something I can write that will change them.' But a true troll can not be changed by mere words."

"3. He doesn't play fair. When awarded his own moderator position, he abused it. I don't care what your opinion is-- if you can't defend it by the same rules that guide the rest of us in our discourse, then you aren't entitled to express it.

"4. He doesn't answer seemingly reasonable questions about his statements/ideas-- especially when the rest of us are capable of answering those same questions directed at our own posts/ideas.

"Note that I'm not directing this post at hocus. I've decided that from now on I'm doing what we should all be doing-- ignoring him. He's had his chances to change his behavior and to engage in productive interaction and he's wasted them. Further "reasoning" isn't worth the typing effort. Instead, I'm trying to reach those of you who haven't (yet) been subjected to the disillusionment & disgust experienced by myself & th (and perhaps others).

"For those of you who object to banning on principle ("What if they turn on me next?!?"), I'd suggest reviewing th's experience with hocus. No one is banned from a discussion board without having gone to extraordinary lengths to achieve & deserve it. There's only one person that really trips John Greaney's trigger, and there's a reason for that.

"For guest posts, it doesn't take long to determine that hocus is the actual poster. He doesn't try very hard to disguise his behavior.

"Reading a hocus-free ER board is like a breath of fresh air after being trapped in a dark underground hole. Try http://www.raddr-pages.com/forums/ .

"In summary, it's not personal. I've asked for hocus to be banned because he's not here to post about this board's topics. He's here to be a troll (see #2 again). I'd ask the same of any poster who couldn't avoid these behaviors.

"Dory, I'm sorry to see that you can't implement "Ignore". Thanks for looking into it. I don't know how M* does it but it's certainly a feature that Xnull should consider in their next YABB update. I'll give them some user feedback. IMO that is an effective long-term solution far better than the method suggested by Cut-Throat et al.

"BTW, I read this board because it inspires my creativity and helps clarify my thinking. I learn a lot from the rest of you and I appreciate your sharing your ER experiences so that I can reap their benefits (without necessarily repeating them!). I enjoy posting here because I know that overinflated ideas will immediately have sharp pins poked in them to see how survivable they really are. I want to continue the exchange & critique of ideas or read about ER lifestyle issues. I don't want to engage in manipulative roundabouts instead of collaborative discussion.

"Thanks all, I feel that I've been heard. I also feel pretty strongly that I'm correct in my evaluation of the situation and the action required to improve it, but I'm going to back off and let the problem make itself even more apparent so that you can all revisit it when it's developed (degraded?) further. Hopefully it won't turn this board into the tumbleweed-choked ghost town over at Greaneyville.

"I'm done with this subject, but of course you'll send a PM if you have something to say. "

TH: "I agree 100% with Nords.

"I also do not like the idea of a ban, and agree it would not be 100% effective, but it sends a message. And I think that message needs to be sent.

"He's not expressing an opinion...I thought like that once too, but have now had a full taste of the troll experience at my own expense.

"So far he's:

- Excessively hijacked threads
- Brought up topics people have asked to no longer be brought up
- Continued to participate at boards after he's been asked to leave
- Posted under multiple aliases to bolster his trolling
- Caused posters contributing 90%+ of the daily posts to leave and start their own board because of his reinstatement
- When given moderator status has removed reasonable posts that conflicted with his ideas
- Actively campaigned to have another member banned for simply disagreeing with him

"I think any of the first four create reasonable cause for a ban, and the latter two show his true colors.

"Cant think of a better candidate to be shown the door. "

Grumpy: "While I have only been active on this board for a few months, I just don't understand why TH and NORDS have so much difficulty ignoring posts by certain individuals. I have already noticed that some posters and some topics hold little interest for me, so I ignore them. If I stumble across a posting that is offensive, uninformative, annoying or plain stupid I take note of who the poster was and ignore future posts by that person.

What's the big deal?

It almost seems like those who can't resist being drawn into unproductive exchanges have their own "issues" that are just as annoying to the rest of us as the posters who they want to ban.

"BTW, if any of you are offended by what I have just said, don't bother posting a reply (get it?, that's the best approach for posting you don't like). "

John Galt: "Obviously Grumpy is not Dopey. "

JWR1945: "Welcome back, Dory36. You have been missed.

"I have backed away from posting during your absence because of the intense hostility directed at hocus. You have not tolerated such hostility in the past and I doubt that you will in the future.

"You will recognize the fallacy built into the complaint about hocus's recycled posts. Those were highly recommended when they were posted at the Motley Fool. Hocus has the legal ability to put those posts here. Others do not.

"I like your reasonable person rule. I do not like the idea of banning posters. Many who favor banning are the ones that I consider unreasonable. "

TH: "Hey Grumpy...wait until every single post on any topic gets a 5000 page post on safe withdrawal rates, hocus's "new tool" that doesnt exist, his "methodology" that doesnt work, and how everyone is trying to kill him for what he posts.

"Or you could try the couple of knock down drag out 10 page posts he started under an alias and then continued under several aliases.

"I went with the "just ignore it" routine too. I just dont think we should have to wade through a bunch of crap to have a reasonable discourse.

"In fact, Hocus has just demonstrated his ability to post under multiple aliases/identities in support of himself in this very thread.

"In further fact, this very thread is exactly what he wants. Attention, disagreement and disruption.

"The guys already been banned from a bunch of sites. When he was reinstated at another board everyone of consequence left. He's had the same behavior consistently. You have a collection of very reasonable people here who wish him to be locked out.

"What are the odds that he's just a nice fella that has always gotten the short end of the stick in error? "

Brewer12345: "I suppose that I hardly need to reiterate my opinion, but I really think that h**** should be banned. Frankly, I never cared enough about what he has to say to bother disagreeing with him. Rather, I find his relentless attempts to attract (mostly negative) attention and disrupt otherwise reasonable discussions to be odious. I particularly find troll posts and recycled garbage on boards that have nothing to do with the material posted to be very obnoxious.

"I have enjoyed participating here because there are some interesting viewpoints and engaging personalities. I am sorry to say that as the signal-to-h**** ratio has risen, much of the attraction of the boards has diminished. "

Dex: "If you say about Hocus is true (I don't pay enough attention to notice) he/she is leading a sad life that he/she has to behave in such a mannor. "

Dory36: "FWIW, in each message I see the IP address the poster posts from, where you see the word "logged". So it is easy for me to spot someone posting under different names. No such activity in this thread. (I haven't noticed it elsewhere, but haven't looked hard.) "

Dory36: "Hocus has offered in a private message to tone things down in both content and frequency. "

TH: "I can post here under 5 different names under 5 different IP addresses in 30 seconds. The IP logging doesnt mean much.

If you change the MAC address in your local router, your ISP will give you a new and different address. Entering an anonymous, open or public proxy address in your browser gives you a new address. There are free websites that list these proxy addresses. Its far from rocket science.

"Of course Hocus has offered to tone it down. He'll lie low for a bit and he'll be back, or just keep posting under different names. The whole point is to be as annoying as possible while staying in the game. "

Wabmester: "TH, I think you're giving hocus way too much credit. If hocus and JWR1945 were the same guy, that feat alone would raise my esteem for hocus by orders of magnitude. There's no way. Don't let his paranoia infect you too "

TH: "t doesnt take much credit at all and I havent seen a professional troll yet that didnt know how to use a proxy server. Many people that work at large companies have to become familiar with them because they need to pipe all their external internet communications through them, and some ISP's require you to use their proxy servers.

"Considering there are at least two and possibly three other people that are almost certainly Hocus in disguise, I dont think its particularly paranoid at all. Its just part of his little game. I compared notes with several other frequent posters and we all had the same names in mind as being particularly hocus-like or only showing up to stimulate one of his little tirades.

"Is the guy you mentioned one of his alter ego's? Thats been a topic of speculation for quite some time now. They have a lot in common and tend to show up at about the same time an awful lot.

"Check this out:

http://www.publicproxyservers.com/index.html "

Wabmester: "Dude, I'm not talking about spoofing IP addresses. Any bozo can do that, but there's no way hocus could invent a persona of a 59-year old electrical engineer from FL and be perfectly self-consistent. He's simply not that smart. (Only I could do that ) "

hocus: "Hocus has offered in a private message to tone things down in both content and frequency.

So that this does not cause more confusion, I think I had better set forth here the wording of the e-mail that I sent to Dory36 yesterday morning (I sent the e-mail before I was aware that he had put up this thread):

"You have no doubt noticed that the friction level has increased on the Early Retirement Forum. I am going to try not to do anything to cause it to increase further. My intent is to put up a non-SWR post each Wednesday, and then just try to ignore whatever disruptions are posted to the thread. If a question is posed to me on the actual topic of the thread, I will of course respond. And if some sort of process issues are raised that only I can respond to, I probably will respond to those as well. As a general rule, however, I am going to aim to take a hands-off posture until the community as a whole expresses its will more clearly.

"If you have any suggestions for how to proceed for the long-term good of the board, please feel free to let me know of your thoughts. "

My goal is to open up space for honest and informed posting on the SWR question not only at this board, but at all FIRE/Retire Early/Passion Saving boards. I have made it my Life Project to advance knowledge of how to retire early. I work at it about 50 hours per week, and I expect to continue doing so for another 20 years or so. Discussion boards have tremendous potential to help middle-class workers explore ways to achieve financial freedom early in life. I saw what they can do during my experience on the Motley Fool board, and they can do some amazing things. So I want all boards dealing with this subject matter to thrive.

The controversy that now swells arouund me even when I post on non-SWR topics all follows from what I have said re SWRs. I have said that the methodology used in the study published at RetireEarlyHomePage.com is analytically invalid. If the community's view (or Dory36's view) is that that position is by definition so unreasonable as to justify banning any poster who voices it on this board, it would save everybody a lot of trouble if I were banned today. The question of whether this issue can be discussed is a question of board integrity. If posters at this board are not permitted to discuss the flaws of the REHP study, this board is not worth saving, in my view.

My understanding of things is that we are permitted to discuss the flaws of the REHP study here. If I am right about that, then I think that this board is very much worth saving. I think that it can be built into a fantastic learning resource for aspiring early retirees of the future. There is one thing that TH is right about. He is right that my plan with the Wednesday posts is to turn my focus to non-SWR stuff for some time so that I can regain the attention of community members who have tuned me out because of the smears that have been directed at me. I'll be doing it by putting forward posts that another Retire Early community found valuable, so I believe that all of us will enjoy a great learning experience with this. But I do have hopes that a few community members will as a result of my non-SWR posts become more open to hearing my SWR claims. I might just save a few retirements from going bust with this thing. That's what it's all about, in my view.

It's fair to say that I hope not to be posting too much aside from the Wednesday posts, and it is also fair to say that I will be doing what I can to avoid controversy. It needs to be added, however, that ultimately my decisions re posting are always aimed at furthering the long-term success of the board. If there are posts put up that I believe could cause us great long-term damage, I will no doubt feel a strong pull to do what I can to help out.

I have 20 high-priority projects that I have put off for too long. So, if other community members behave reasonably, you won't be seeing too much of me for awhile outside of my Wednesday posts. But I don't want to be thought to have made a promise that I will not post outside of that regardless of the circumstances. For example, we have recently been doing some breakthrough stuff over at the SWR Research Group board. If there are questions put up here which could be ansswered effectively by making reference to the recent work done at the other board, I will probably feel a strong pull to put something up.

Whether to post or not is always a judgment call. It goes without saying that you will never see me ridicule a fellow poster or attack a fellow poster or engage in anything remotely resembling disruption or anything else along those lines. It is possible that you will see me put forward some posts aimed at helping aspiring early retirees achieve their life goals. Some of those might be on the topic of SWRs and some might be on other topics. "

hocus: "FWIW, in each message I see the IP address the poster posts from, where you see the word "logged". So it is easy for me to spot someone posting under different names. No such activity in this thread. (I haven't noticed it elsewhere, but haven't looked hard.)

"You have my permission to investigate any claim put forward that I have posted under a different name at this board and to report your findings to the board community, Dory36. "

hocus: "There's no way hocus could invent a persona of a 59-year old electrical engineer from FL and be perfectly self-consistent. He's simply not that smart.

"I'm with Wabmester on this one. "

hocus: " particularly find troll posts and recycled garbage on boards that have nothing to do with the material posted to be very obnoxious.

"I find the troll references offensive and I would like to see that nonsense come to a complete stop beginning today. I have a proposal that I would like to run past the board community that I hope will help bring it to a complete stop.

"I have written a book on the subject matter of this board that I will be self-publishing early next year. The title is: "Passion Saving: The Path to Plentiful Free Time and Soul-Satisfying Work." If you count the time I spend doing research, it took me several years to write this work. It seems absurd to me that someone who directed that much energy toward spreading knowledge of the subject matter of the board is frequently referred to by a number of posters here as a "troll." Someone who would go to the trouble of writing a book-length manuscript on the subject matter of this board obviously has a sincere interest in spreading knowledge relating to that subject matter.

"Tom Garnder, co-founder of Motley Fool, and Dory36 (using his real name) have both agreed to write blurbs that will appear on the back cover of the book (I asked for their approval to run comments that they made in regard to my "Secrets of Retiring Early" report, which was an early treatment of some of the themes explored in more depth in the book). My personal view is that the fact that these two individuals have given their endorsements to my work in this field should be evidence enough to any fair-minded person that I am not a "troll." But my guess is that for some this will not be enough.

"Dory36 has a copy of the book manuscript in his possession. He has told me that he will not be able to read it for some time because he is in the process of moving. It sounds to me that he has an interest in taking at least a look at it at some point in the not-too-distant future. What if we were to leave it to Dory36 to read the manuscript and to post his thoughts at this board as to whether his reading of the manuscript convinved him one way or the other on the "troll" question?

"I am confident that Dory36 will conclude from a reading of even the first two chapters that I am not a troll. Are those who say that I am willing to have Dory36 serve as arbitrator on this question? If Dory36 says after reading the book that I am indeed a troll, I will raise no further objections to use of that phrase to describe me. If Dory36 says that he is convinced from reading the book that I am not a troll, I ask that those who have made a practice of saying that I am cease from doing so.

"Does that sound fair enough to everybody? "

GDER: "Dory
Welcome back. I guess this issue isn't much of a welcome. BUT, I hope you can fix that horrible whining on your site, it is really quite annoying. But for the most part I can simply ignore the bogus, hocum, as well as other alias's and minions of the troll.

"Me thinks the TROLL doeth protest too much and I hope he breaks his arm patting himself on the back one of these days.

"I suspect his 'highly recommended' posts on TMF were mostly self recommended by multiple ulter-egos used to support his delusions of adequacy. Don't really know how you could effectively 'ban' him from your site since he would likely just return with an alias, etc. I'm sure you're NOT interested in a full time job of 'banning' every alias, ulter ego the troll can generate.

"BTW: He must be in Troll heaven with all this attention he's getting. "

TH: "Once again, dont focus on the JWR comparison, although I do believe that someone with nothing else to do with their time could in fact pull off what you say they cannot.

"Look for a couple of very, very long threads started by someone who after making the start disappeared for good or only came back a few more times. These threads have heavy participation by hocus and he quotes pieces of them here and at many other boards.

"The couple of threads I have in mind point out discrepancies in SWR methodology or propose hokey and unworkable alternative investment strategies.

"Sound familiar?

"If either of these "people" ever reappeared, it was in threads showing support for hocus, within minutes or hours of a hocus post.

"What ARE the odds that an ER would show up, make one of their first posts a postulation about a possible error in "conventional SWR methodology", and then only make 10-20 other posts over the course of a year to threads saying they think Hocus is a-ok?

"Pretty damn skinny.

"And yes GDER he is in hog heaven and in fact he is in full plumage above displaying the reasons why he is not well regarded. However I for one am tired of looking at the wound that cannot be healed. "
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

Brewer12345: "I think 4 voluminous posts over the space of a couple of hours tells us a lot about the problem.

"Time for a ban. "

BeachBumz: "I want to go on record against banning anyone that has not broken the rules of the board. Further, I agree that it would be very difficult to do so anyway. If you don't like the posts (or the poster) don't read them. Why keep stirring the pot? I think the "ignore user" feature exists in all of us.

"I have nothing against Hocus, or TH or anyone else on this board, and I think that everyone should be allowed to voice their opinions. I also don't know a whole lot about any postings in the past, but, from just reading the posts in recent weeks, TH is coming off as the aggressor . This is just my personal observation. I don't know the history between TH and Hocus (and DON'T want too really!!!) and it could be very well like in football, when the person that starts the fight isn't the one hit with the penalty, but this is my perception.

"As for SWRs, I don't exactly buy into this either. I think any SWR calculator is flawed in that it can't predict the future (I wish it could!). I think it is a good guideline and the best we have available to us (how can it factor in health care costs when no one knows how that is going to play out, or the devaluation of the dollar, etc.), but the world is changing and I will adabt and adjust my spending accordingly, and if someday I have to go back to w*** or move to a cheaper country then so be it, but I sure am enjoying myself today.

"I primarily read this board to see the "lifestyles in retirement" as I want to see what people are doing to enjoy life. I wish there were more posts in this category.

"Of course, while I have been typing this, my wife has been on the internet ordering stuff, so I may need to recalculate things now "

NFS: "I don't have the history with hocus so I find it hard to get as exercised about his reams as some of the rest. I don't much like the idea of banning him - the cure for nonsense is not censorship but free speech.

"Nevertheless, I confess that his endless repetition of "bad SWR" and "I wrote a book" wearies even me. If an ignore feature is impossible, then perhaps his posts could simply be shunted automatically onto a very few hocus threads, or manually each Wednesday, or hocus could be told to post only on these topics within those threads.

"Hocus can say the same things over and over in thousand word chunks, interested parties and potential acolytes can read it all in one place, and the rest can blithely ignore it. "

"Beachbumz: "Interesting that a person like NFS, who breaks the boards simple "reasonable and courteous" rule with his posts would reply to a thread like this! "

JonnyM: "He (who shall not be named as I expect he spends most of his waking moments doing searches on just that 5 letter combination):

"serves no useful purpose"

"I cannot say that about any other member of this fine board, clearly the best one I've found in regards to the elements of ER in my six months of research and some small amount of participation since I saw the light...

"This is a great place. I read every new thread every few days, and I am enriched for it, except for a previously mentioned notable exception. "

ChocoKitty: "Try seeing that drivel for YEARS and see how much more weary you get! I pointed out that (1) he needed a book proposal and (2) that he was not allowed to use my posts without permission and he got massively huffy with me and accused me of threatening to sue (calling it a "class action" lawsuit to make it sound even more dramatic without even knowing what the hell it means).

"I say ban him. He repels a lot of people and something just isn't right with him. "

TH: "I've given this matter some consideration. As far as my being the aggressor...I'm a considerable contributor to this forum and historically I was a key supporter in allowing this troll to post here, so I feel some responsibility for the results.

"We're a community of people who voluntarily contribute to the collective group. We have a huge audience of readers and lurkers that dont post.

"Some contributions are positive, some negative. Positive contributions build on and add to our community. Neutral and negative ones take away from it.

"Trolls are the scourge of such a community. Their disruption and misinformation detracts from the good will and time we all put in to create the base of information and support for each other. Realizing that known posters are probably the tip of the user iceberg magnifies the situation.

"I think it comes down to a small set of discussion points.

" - Is this particular poster in fact a troll
- Is their participation consistently and in aggregate positive, negative or neutral
- If negative, is the damage done of significant detraction to warrant action
- If action is warranted, can the posters ability to continue to take away from our community be effected and effective

"I think the fact that he has been banned for trolling from a number of communities speaks volumes. I think the fact that there is a preponderance of strong contributors to this and other similar forums who have extensive experience with this poster and call him a troll also weighs heavily. That there does not appear to be a significant body of participation that has had long term exposure to this poster and feels his contribution is even neutral closes the book.
"He's is very careful at avoiding overt breakage of board rules. He is however an expert at provoking...a superstar in the art of making someone else take a poke at him and then playing the victim. Some of his provokation includes "quoting" things that people havent actually said, laying claim to people following specific "systems" or "methodologies" that they in fact are not following, and laying unfounded claims and incomplete and inaccurate lines of thinking.

"Further, these diatribes are usually far too long for any reasonable person to want to read in the first place and their insertion into on and off topic discussions can be very disruptive for people trying to stay on a particular topic.

"So unless dozens and dozens of credible people on several discussion boards are senseless drama queens, what we have here is a troll.

"The input from this and other communities is that the contributions are not positive, but perhaps can be ignored.

"History of this poster shows that he will continue to insert ever lengthening posts in more and more off topic posts until someone finally gives him the response he wants and community disruption is achieved. It really was a treat at places like nofeeboards that didnt restrict the length of each message.

"Which brings the debated topic of a ban and its effectiveness.

"It appears that historically, a ban has resolved the situation and this particular poster has not attempted to bypass the ban. Rather he's continued to work within the rules and wait for things to die down and for him to be reinstated. In the few instances that has happened, the communities imploded over it.

"In summary:

- He is a troll
- Given time, he will detract from and damage the community
- In my opinion, action should be taken before that happens
- A ban has been and should continue to be effective

"So thats the question for the rest of the contributors...are we willing to have our contributions detracted from in allowance of someone who has demonstrated a willingness to do nothing but create dissension and discord? "

BUWannaB: "Beware this is a CHP (cocktail hour post).

"Although among the very best of the best, this is still an internet forum fer chrissake. As long as the post meets the forum guidelines... its allowable. Don't like it, hit the "PgDn" key until you find something worth reading.

"If you ban him he might go to Sirius with Howard Stern and THAT would really annoy me, as a charter member. "

CAL: "I'll say what I stated on another board where a certain person has already been banned.

"Unlike others, h@@@@ does not add value to conversations. I have not been around on these boards for very long. So far, he has managed to annoy me with his self-importance and reposting of topics from years ago. (What kind of person keeps their old posts, anyway? Evidence of a strange person, if you ask me.)

"On the other hand, others on this board have been very insighful and helpful. The fact that this individual continues to post and annoy others here will eventually chase away those people whose opinions I am interested in. Should those people leave, and this becomes an all-h@@@@ zone, I won't be coming around. I enjoy going to the other board that is a h@@@@-free zone.

"If that troll continues around here, I suspect that others won't be coming back. The board will turn into a ghost town. I really like the people on this board and hope you'll take steps for the benefit of the community. "

TH: "The old posts may be my fault. When he first came here a little over a year ago a lot of people told him to take a hike. I didnt know anything about him and he seemed kinda pathetic to me and I felt sorry for him.

"Rumor had it that one time on the Fool boards he was highly regarded and a top poster. I suggested that he avoid the SWR hot button and repost some of his supposedly highly regarded older posts. Build some good will. Add something to the community.

"And he did and all was well until all of a sudden we had to have extensive posts about predicting the future, magic tools, death threats and why Intercst may be the antichrist.

"Now that he thinks he might be publishing a book...well...what plays better to a publisher "Hi, I have a book...I have nothing to support me and I've been banned from every internet discussion group that engages in the topic because I was an ass" or "Hi I have a book and look at all these on topic web discussion groups that I'm a well regarded poster of!".

"He's trying to build good will and playing the "I'm not doing anything wrong and all of you are picking on me" card.

"Considering the rumor is that he made a payment to a guy running another board to drop the ban on him, this approach may be a little cheaper. "

Bruce 1: "I have found this board very useful as well as entertaining and I would miss it very much if it were to become inactive.

"One point in particular disturbs me and that is that a user would post under multiple names. I can see no legitimate purpose for multiple names.

"Ignoring and not responding to inflamatory and abusive posts is of utmost importance.

"If the situation endangers this board I will support a ban without hesitation as I know more of the history than I did previously. "

ChocoKitty: "Arrete, I loved the "kayak defense" (LOL)! I'm sure we can all come up with great non-sequiturs when needed, on practically any topic. Heck, if we're REALLY desperate, I can start sharing knitting tips. That will keep the trolls away! "

Guest: "It's been fun watching this debate for the past few days. I posted a while back in favor of reading hocus's posts--and my post was promptly accused of being a subterfuge. Not true, but so be it!

"One of the traits some ERs have to be aware of is our irascible nature. I've often suspected that ER types like myself had to quit work because we became such poor SOBs at work. No doubt, some truth in that for many of us, I'll bet.

"Over the past few days this thread has been read over 1,000 times--probably mostly by 'guests' like myself. Yet, the chorus of anti-hocus posts have mostly come from three or four of you. No doubt, there is some merit to your grievances--but like another poster I don't care to know the history.

"So, how about confining your off-topic anti-hocus posts to this thread (where I can and will read them), and let the rest of us read and comment on hocus's posts without interruption? I'd really like to evaluate hocus's posts on their own merits. That way, you can keep hocus honest (assuming that's needed), while at the same time preserving the freedom this board thrives on.

"It's worth a try! Thanks. "

Another Guest: "Guest, I have been following this thread with interest. In fact, I am personally responsible for at least 900 of those 1000 views. I believe hocus is the reincarnation of a Great Warrior, and together we may be able to defeat the Defenders of Conventional Methodoligies (DCMs). I suggest that the three of us flee this place and correspond via email.

"What say you? Thanks! "

(Lots of Kayak Stuff)

Ataloss2: "I'm with TH on this thing (kilts and the other matter.)

"The problem at NFB was a lack of attention to kayacks and repeated responses to endless drivel. "

Wabmester: "It's probably too soon to say for sure, but so far it looks like dory36's approach was a wise one. Simply wait for this fire to burn itself out (with a little help from the local mob).

"No matter what the outcome, I'd like to say thanks to dory36 for the board and for FIRECalc! Few of us can really appreciate the effort required to create something like this, keep it running, and then take on the added burden of arbitrating these periodic fights.

"Kudos! "

TH: "I wish ignorance of the posts was a 100% effective solution. But as a group of people who have many years of experience with this troll have already stated, this will not solve the problem. Besides people having different levels of tolerance, new posters and people who are readers-only wont get it.

"I had hoped having his own little corner of cyberspace would keep him out of other sandboxes, but since he's driven everyone else out of said sandbox, its become boring.

"Sometimes people respond to a threat before it causes damage. Most of the time they decide to wait until the damage has been done and they must act.

"I suspect that we as a group will look back on this moment at some time in the future and regret the inaction. "

TrumpetingAngel: "You may be right. I have to confess, I quit reading his stuff because it gave me a headache. And I certainly have not followed what goes on on OTHER ER boards.

"But I have seen this happen on other discussion groups I've belonged to. On wildly different topics. Groups I've quit, come to think of it. They get hijacked by wild-eyed issuemongers and I can no longer bear to read the drivel, or a troll comes in and pushes everyone's buttons, causing an even more miserable sort of hijacking and the topic becomes all process, no content.

"I left both of those boards. "

Ataloss2: "I don't think ignoring this troll is effective for the reasons mentioned above. I actually tried reasoning with him, citing previous statements etc. He had his assistant troll jwr claim that I was posting disruptively, hocus wasn't a numbers guy, what he really meant was ... etc. The treads turned into disputes of no interest to anyone. Ridiculing him (as intercst at tmf does) has been more effective and more fun, although participating hijacking his threads isn't bad either.

"most of my interaction with him was at nofeeboards. eventually jwr paid the owner of the board to let hocus do whatever he wanted (and simultaneously dissolve the secret administrative board of which I and raddr were members) It hasn't worked out real well there. "

Mikey: "It seems to me that this board usually has a nice process/content balance. Yahoo stock boards are also interesting in this regard. In spite of there being no real control, a small monority of the boards have managed to maintain a civil and sometimes downright friendly atitude, as well as having a good number of very well informed and clever investors who are willing to share. Other boards are populated by arrested fifth graders in the sorts of contests that are typical of fifth graders. As you mentioned, pure process.

"Migration from one state to the other is one way. I haven't observed a bad board getting good. But there are plenty of examples of good boards going bad.

"Must be entropy. "

BigMoneyJim: "As far as hocus, he was a well respected poster at MF 3 or 4 years ago. But apparently he's been continuously beating the same drum since his "great SWR debate" and wore everyone's patience out long ago. New posters are confused at the hostility, and as a come-and-go poster so was I for a while, but I see how the same thing can get old fast no matter how well written.

"If I recall correctly, his posting of old material was inspired by a comment or two I made. I think there's value in that, espicially for newcomers so long as the threads don't beat his dead horse, but the anti-hocus hostility generates unkind or off topic--although informative--threads.

"Many board contributors I respect are absolutely fed up with hocus, and I see there is good reason.

"I have no solution to offer; I just thought I'd throw my moderate observations in for the benefit of those who don't get it yet.

"As far as a ban: I get the feeling Dory36 has the influence to get hocus to tone down with the unpopular methodology posts. As long as that's the case and we continue to learn about kayaks, bicycles and color laser printers I don't see a need for a ban. But if it comes down to it I'd rather lose hocus than those who are hostile towards him. "

Brewer2345: "I sincerely doubt that anyone could have a lasting effect on *****, unless it included the use of a baseball bat or big stick with a nail it in. We are dealing with an irrational and obstreperous personality that will not quit or go away.

"Basically, it may tone things down for a while to let the heat subside, but it will be back,. Case in point: it which must not be named ws leaying low for several days, and is now making its odious presence felt here again. Unless Dory is willing to actually ban it, the only hope is for all of us to ignore it. and hope that the lack of attention starves the troll out. "

TH: "Look out, its going to be telling people you've made death threats.

"20 bonus points for use of the word "Obstreperous", which appeared several times in my early salary reviews... "

hocus: "There was a guy who put up a post at the Motley Fool board in November 2003 in which he observed that the calculation of SWRs sounded to him like something that would be discussed at a tea party for economists. He expressed astonishment at the amount of controversy that the discussions had generated. I think that SWRs are darn important. But I also think that that guy was making a good point. "

Jane: "I am not really familiar with with Motley Fool board or other boards mentioned here, so I don't really know much about the history behind Hocus and SWR. I am afraid I would like to stay neutral and won't offer a vote either way (banning vs. not banning).

"But I just would like to say though, I enjoyed the posts on kayaks, printers and kilts, and will continue to post on topics I found interesting no matter who started it. "
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

Here is a post that I first put to the "Motley Fool Takes Action" thread. I post it here as a follow-up to the Early Retirement Forum thread to bring out the contrast between the sorts of discussions that are generated when honest and informed posting is permitted and the sorts of discussions that are generated when a good number of community members reveal a willingness to tolerate DCM-type posting practices.

Here is a link to a post that I put to the Motley Fool board on August 10, 2002:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17667548

Here is the full text of the post:

Patnbj:

Thanks for your post.

I've had a few e-mail conversations with TMFBogey as this debate has proceeded because I want to avoid violating any Motley Fool rules as to the extent to which a non-board founder may question conclusions of a board founder. I've noted in earlier posts that, while TMFBogey prefers open debate as an ideal, he also grants some deference to what he refers to as "board culture."￾

So I have tried to monitor whether my effort to get a discussion started on some investing ideas that have not been discussed on this board in the past disrupts the board culture in any way. I believe that there are arguments that can be made that it does. Certainly most of the threads relating to this effort have been far less pleasant to read than the average RE board thread. Posts like yours, however, suggest something different, that there are people who come to this board who appreciate threads on Retire Early investment ideas that have not been discussed here previously. I keep a file of such comments that I refer to from time to time when I am having a debate with myself whether to continue the effort to encourage such discussions or to drop the idea.

Set forth below is a sample of some of the comments from posts I have entered in my file. Set A is a set of comments suggesting that the person posting likes the idea of a broader range of investment discussions. Set B is a set of comments suggesting that people participating in the debate have gained some insight or another from the effort. If people are enjoying the debate or learning from it, that suggests to me that it is not entirely disruptive to board culture to try to advance it.

I believe that we all would be learning a lot more if there were some way to make the debate less argumentative in nature. But even under current conditions it does not seem to me that the effort has been 100 percent a waste of time.

Please understand that I do not believe that any of the posters below agree with my views on investing. Most do not, or agree with some aspects of my views and not others. The point of the collection of posts is not to show that others agree with me, but to suggest that there are people other than me who would like to see a variety of investing options discussed on the board.

Set A: Posters Who Enjoy Broad Debate:

Vickifool Post #66931.

Vickifool thinks this was a worthwhile and useful thread. This board is a good place to discuss these things until you understand them. Much better than arguing religion or political jingoism, IMHO. Look at all the bandwidth that's been wasted on those topics lately.

I have had to stop and think, Now is Hocus right? You are certainly convincing (good writer that you are) so I really had to look carefully at what you had to say and why it was, or was not, correct.


UCalgaryGeer Post #66959.

Thanks to everybody for a fascinating discussion; imagine my shock when the top ranked posts on REHP suddenly started to be about retiring early!

FoolMeOnce Post 68454.

The REHP "safe withdrawal" study speaks not at all to the issues involved in the accumulation stage and doesn't help a single soul to accelerate the process of achieving early retirement. All it does is prescribe a method which some individuals could use to help insure that they don't outlive their assets, once they are accumulated. This is not unimportant, but receives entirely too much focus here.

nnn12345 Post #66842.

HOCUS--IMHO, you have started one of the most interesting and stimulating discussions this board has seen in a long time. It would be a loss for this board to not have such discusions.

Although the majority of posters may completely agree and be entirely comfortable with the premise of the 4% safe withdrawal rate, I for one simply find it to be a useful concept and tool which perhaps could be refined and improved if only challanged and questioned a bit. I hope that you will keep on posting your thoughts, comments, and provocative insight.

Dagrims Post #73316.

I'm enjoying this discussion, hocus, even if others may be tiring of it. I enjoy reading your posts and discussing these issues helps flesh out my thoughts and ideas much better. If you'd like to, feel free to email me privately to continue.

BobBluff Post #66725.

I very much appreciate this thread, especially the points brought up by hocus....we should not become fixed on the "one way to do it". Different folks have used different methods to achieve FIRE....

nmckay Post #66709.

I do think you're on to something about valuation that should be
addressed. Keep at it. This has been one of the best threads we've had in a while.

JWR1945. Post #73284

I am continually frustrated by the attacks and diversions caused by those who restrict retirement and investment discussions to a very limited range....The mechanical structure of investing that makes the Retire Early study so very valuable also limits its applicability. That should be an advantage. It should cause people to think and to extend the research rather than to apply it in a mindless, mechanical manner.

Post 69209

We can provide real help to real people by extending the applicability of the Retire Early Safe Withdrawal Rate studies. Seldom can they be extended to answer questions directly. But they can provide valuable insights for making sound decisions. People do need answers to questions that extend well beyond a very narrowly defined set conditions that are not clearly delineated.

FriendlyGirl Post #70633.

The universe of the safe withdrawal study is limited, this is true. The data is insufficient to include many asset classes that are open to and might prove useful to investors. But even for these people the safe withdrawal study can be some help, if limited.

Perhaps intercst's website could use a more extensive discussion of asset allocation and how you might go about determining it. I don't think everyone is served by having an optimized asset allocation.
Basically, I agree with you that we could expand the conversation.

mhtyler Post #70573.

I have let Hocus know that if he forms up a new group that is more supportive of alternative retirment discussion that I'll be there, because as good as this group is, it doesn't appear that it will ever get beyond the mathematics of the efficient frontier...helpful though they are.

JAFO31 Post #68952

FWIW, it [the debate you are proposing] would not bother me. I might even kibitz from the sidelines on occasion with questions, but I doubt that I would be a heavy or regular contributor.

path40a Post #73291.

I quickly realized that there was an on-going debate and some history between someone named intercst and someone named hocus. Both seemed to present thoughtful information, albeit from differing viewpoints (always good, IMNSHO). I then noticed that the tone of the discussion shifted to one which was quite combative, with perhaps an endgame intending to silence the less popular opinion. My fears were confirmed when Ms. Coy joined the board and was quickly attacked for expressing her ideas.

While I see nothing wrong in taking sides in a debate, I find the goal of silencing dissenting voices appalling. Surely there is more than one way to FI and RE!
inparadise Post #68951.
I am very open for new topics, and think that though the various threads triggered by your issues have been excessively long and cantankerous, some excellent points have been raised.

Post #68869.

There are situations and personalities where the SWR just won't always work, because the people won't be able to stomach the volatility of the approach. Hocus, (and correct me if I'm wrong, Hocus,) thinks among other things that this is an issue that should be brought up and explored, a warning to those considering the system if you will. I think he has a very valid point.

FoolMeOnce Post #68775.

I don't dispute any of your [referring to intercst] math exercises and never have. But you wear them like a protective cloak insulating you from the reality that the performance of 100% equity portfolios is little more than an interesting
intellectual exercise and teaching tool. You appear not to understand that in terms of application to real people, in a real world, such examples are useless, because they simply can't be put into practice by enough people to make them meaningful.

Daryll40 Post 68692.

I have read with interest the HOCUS-inspired look at equity-heavy portfolios. I kinda fall somewhere in the middle. I have NEVER EVER been comfortable with a high proportion of equities and even when I started here, back in 1999 when the Dow was going to 36000 "tomorrow, I always felt uncomfortable with the exact Intercst approach....In the end, the answer to MOST things is "in the middle" as it is here.

nas90skog Post 68597.

So far the "Masterminds" have successfully driven away most of the real estate investors and who knows how many other "evil non-conformists". The techies frustration with humanists that intercst referred to is no doubt as equally frustrating to the humanists. Having served on the engineering side of things, I can certainly acknowledge and relate to the arrogance and self proclaimed superiority of the "techie" view of the world. It was not until I became more aware of the "human" side of the equation however, that life revealed a broader value and potential. For me personally, I "get" what Hocus is
trying to say.

[in response to an intercst asserion that he is "heartened"￾ whenever FoolMeOnce or nas90skog find his posts repugnent] My recollections are that FMO has made a diligent effort to steer clear of petty bickering when he has presented his personal experiences in real estate investing. Why would you be put off by that type of person?...Sincerely appreciative of the work done by intercst, et al regarding FIRE management, but for me, its only part of the puzzle. And at times, the pompous arrogance that can permeate the board just becomes a bit overwhelming.

holzgrafe Post 68887.

Perhaps it will help if people on all sides (note not "both" sides ;o)) spend a little more time attempting to define the issues they wish to discuss in a given thread...I do think that good boards have a focus, often set by the founder or the gurus, and that, while discussion and new insights are valuable, significant departure from that focus belongs on its own board.

Certainly the focus here is RE, not SWR as such, but it seems to me that discussions on this board should focus on how best to achieve investing efficiency. What I mean by efficiency in the accumlation stage is the most rapid accumulation of the necessary wealth and in the distribution phase the
maximum disbursable income consistent with longevity.

In both cases, the approaches espoused should be based upon generally-agreed-upon constraints, and I think it is very important that those constraints should be explicitly stated. If the participants in a discussion cannot agree upon the constraints, the chances of the discussion going anywhere useful are pretty much nil.

We have the same sort of hassles on the MI board over a different subject, and it's really depressing how little communication is achieved on either side. It's like one philosophy is being expressed in English and the other in Chinese. I think that breakthroughs in communications are starting to appear on both boards, but it's a slow and frustrating process.

CatherineCoy

Post 1942 on Real Estate Board.(making reference to efforts to discuss non-MasterMind straategies at RE board.)

Perhaps a public discussion forum is not the appropriate place for those who can tolerate no dissension--or take what dissension there is personally... The core group at the REHP seems to be quite set in their ways, a result, possibly, of having retired and now having no compelling reason at such a young age to remain flexible in their thinking.

For example, there's hardly a shred of support on the REHP for real estate as a road to early retirement. Maybe that's because the original board-opening requester is anti-real estate to the extreme, in my opinion. You'd think by now the board would have evolved to include this very important component of wealth. I do not see that happening because of the sometimes virulent reaction to anything but the party line.

Moghoper. Post 68894.

I think it was a tremendous debate. I think there are many people who agree with you - and while some do not, that should be ok in a debate. And while some have even gone to the point of being borderline abusive during the xpression of their opinions, I don't think this prevented you from posting your opinions.

Agree or not, this is as spirited as the board has been in some time.

Set B: Posters Who Have Learned From Debate Thus Far:

rkmacdonald. Post 68981.

In this case, I think it could be argued that this person's Personal SWR is actually 2% and not the Unemotional SWR of 3.7%. In fact, I wonder just how many people living right on the edge of the Unemotional SWR world really would have the personality and steel, to stay the course following a 1929 (or maybe a 2000) style market collapse. Is it possible that no real person actually has a Personal SWR that is as high as the Unemotional SWR!!

I wonder if there is some way to introduce a modifier to the
Unemotional SWR, that would predict the true Personal SWR for each individual based on their personality and risk tolerance?

Patnbj Post 68793.

There certainly are differences for those who attempt to ER with a small portfolio. Let's compare two ERs who are both single with no kids. #1 has a portfolio of $2 million and #2 has $500k.
#1 has a lot more options than #2....

DaveLee Post 69080

Even the coarsest of stock valuation measures, if accurate, could benefit stock market withdrawals by increasing the average price of shares sold over 5 to 6 year periods. (Some people call this market timing. I
do not.)....

I would end up with an equity allocation somewhere closer to 40 to 60% with fixed income instruments of mostly intermediate duration.

stoferj Post #73266.

What I've come to appreciate over the past couple years is the value of asset allocation. A lot of people think that if you've got a 30 year investment horizon you should be 100% in equities.

Well that may very well work for some folks but I can't stand the volatility. I'm going to investigate building a portfolio that includes some real estate, bonds and hard assets as well as equities. I need a smoother overall return. This up 30% one year down 40% the next is too hard on the stomach.

FoolMeOnce Post #68738

Depending on how early you want to retire and actual market performance, the middle of the road approach may actually get you to your starting nut quicker. It will certainly propel you in that direction more predictably.

An increase in savings rate may also obviate the need to work for a longer period. With a high reliance of equities during the accumulation stage, even an increased rate of savings may not help much if the market turns against a portfolio heavily weighted in equities.

alfee2

This debate between the efficient-frontier advocates and the skeptics is fascinating....Harry Markowitz, the discoverer of modern mean-variance portfoio theory (i.e., the theoretical underpinnings upon which the Safe Withdraweal Study rests) who won the Nobel Prize in Economics for this work, apparently does *not* allocate his assets in accordance with the efficient frontier; he actually uses something like a naive 50-50 stocks/fixed-income split, because his goal is to "minimize future regret".

FoolMeOnce Post #69060.

Based on periods as long as 29 years, from my own simple models it is obvious that by judiciously diversifying into other asset classes it is possible to exceed the returns of the S&P 500 with less risk (as measured by standard deviation). By increasing returns while simultaneously holding the volatility down, I am confident that the maximum withdrawal rates can be increased significantly. A twenty nine year period includes the bear of 73/74, the crash of 87 and the recent unpleasantness, but is still not 130 years.

The question is should we constrain ourselves to asset classes for which more than a century of data is available or not? There is no good answer to this question beyone "more is better", but 29 years is good enough for me.

mhtyler
[in ressponse to an early retiree who revealed to the board that he has recently lessened his stock allocation in response to price drops]

Far from reacting emotionally as another responder has said, it seems to me that you're simply reacting to the market. I'd expect your strategy to minimize your losses, but also temper your ability to see upside. I'm doing exactly the same thing, but I've reversed from 70/30 equity/fixed to 30/70.

My ultimate goal...and possibly yours too is to see that reverse
back again, but if you're newly retired (2yrs) as I am you may seek to minimize your risk rather than prove out all the fancy RE philosophy of this board on your way to the poor farm.

JWR 1945 Post 68582

It would be nice to know the effects of a more rational allocation of the fixed income component. Currently, the fixed income component is mechanically reinvested and rebalanced every year. However, because the income of a fixed income investment is highly predictable (when held to maturity even when inflation is taken into account), fixed income investors can take advantage of locking in favorable yields for longer periods and investing in shorter term instruments when yields are low. In addition, an investor may choose among fixed investment classes whenever he rebalances his portfolio.

Post 69074

I also see great merit in extending the usefulness of the Safe Withdrawal Rate study. Right now there is (roughly speaking) only one question that it answers. That answer is always right if that one question is asked. More often the study gives the wrong answer because the wrong question is asked. Sometimes that answer is very close to the correct answer. If so, it is very useful. Sometimes that answer is not only wrong, but it is dead wrong. At the same time, it gives one a false level of confidence.

I prefer to think in terms of opportunities. If hocus had relied on a single answer from the Safe Withdrawal Study, he would never have saved money. Lots of people are like that...if the only option for handling risk is to change from 25 times your desired withdrawal rate to some bigger number; retirement becomes an illusion...an unobtainable goal. But hocus has demonstrated that other options are available. I think that the applications of the Safe Withdrawal Study can be extended to make many more dreams come true. It answers only one question. But it can provide helpful information for a lot of questions.

Post 68916

The book ["Stock Cycles"￾] suggests that a there really is true Safe Withdrawal Rate...derived from the same data but using a different approach...that varies with market valuation.
We have a sensitivity study that shows that minor differences in
withdrawal amounts caused by small errors or differences in the details of the Safe Withdrawal
Rate calculations result in large variations in the outputs...the number of years at an acceptable level of risk.....We have another sensitivity study that shows that it often takes about a decade before you know how safe your withdrawals are.

Post 67551.

What hocus really needs are the tools to spot any problems by himself and to spot them early enough to fix things. He needs something better than that familiar assurance... trust me.

Post 67209

Great advances in science are made by studying the anomalies...the things that are not fully understood.

Post 66854

The fact that there were only three bad periods to start a retirement in the twentieth century indicates that you probably can vary allocations successfully as long as your actions are based on decade long variations and not one or two year changes. So far, it seems as if some changes in the percentage of stocks and in the type of cushion (commercial paper, TIPS, 5 year treasuries, long term treasuries) do make sense....

If you share hocus's concern about valuations, think of your investments in terms of two portfolios. The first is the basic growth account at the best allocations indicated by the studies and the other is your reserve account that lets you sleep at night. Maybe that can help clarify your thoughts. If the basic account goes nowhere for a decade...and it might...you will be able to handle it. Personal considerations are always the most important in any financial decision.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

Inhanyt gets to the heart of it in a bold post of less than 50 words put to the Motley Fool board.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid= ... t=postdate

Gurdison: "This board is populated with a lot of very strong and independent thinkers. If anyone puts forth what they consider to be a good financial strategy, it is only natural that such a person would be questioned in great detail on the subject. If there are holes or limitations in any particular strategy, this board is both smart enough and persistant enought to point them out. I consider that to be a very good thing."

Inhanyt: "Funny, I don't recall you posting about the limitations of the REHP (and all SWR) study(ies) [big time shortage of data]. This board is engaging in groupthink. Get over it. "

Intercst is capable of making mistakes just like all the rest of us. All of the logic pretzels in the world won't make it not so. There are people who could save themselves a lot of angst by coming to terms with this simple and obvious reality.
Post Reply