FORUM GUIDELINES AND RULES
- Have the Crash Course viewed as widely as possible.
- Increase collective understanding of the role that energy, the economy, and natural resources play in our future.
- Move individuals towards personal and common responsibility for the future.
Our goal for PeakProsperity.com is to draw attention to the important messages contained within in the Crash Course and its companion book, Prosper!. Through this website, we also seek to create a safe and welcoming place for people to discuss the implications of the “Three Es” in an intelligent and enlightened way.
Together, we will continue to hold this site to a higher standard than is usually found elsewhere on the Internet. We will be civil with each other, respectful, thoughtful, and considerate.
Anything that causes people to feel unwelcome or unsafe will be discouraged or removed, as will things that serve to detract from our high standard of intelligent discourse. Our mission is to engage, not to repel.
Posts must be data-rich, fact-based, and constructive, especially if they are critical. We ask that all critical commentary be accompanied by thoughtful suggestions for improvement—or not offered at all.
We expect people to maintain the same level of civility in posting that a polite wedding guest would have at the reception table —before drinks are served.
We expect and require courteous interactions everywhere comments can be posted to the site. In an online community, social courtesies are observed, just as at a physical gathering. One doesn’t monopolize the conversation, pound the table about a single point until others’ eyes glaze over, insult their host or their fellow guests, or spew patently offensive slurs. Tactfulness is a reasonable expectation within a voluntary community.
Please ask yourself these questions before making a post:
- Does my post constructively illuminate an issue or answer a specific question?
- If constructively critical, is it emotionally neutral and considerate? Does it offer specific, actionable solutions?
- If asking a question, is it a bona fide question that will lead to an increased understanding of the “Thee Es” and related topics?
Users should strive to post with integrity, accuracy and courtesy. We expect that users will not abuse their anonymity by posting things that a polite individual would refrain from saying in person.
We expect users to take reasonable care to make sure that their posts are accurate and always use verifiable facts to support an argument. We expect users to do their best to offer constructive solutions to problems. And expect users to remember that this site is about strengthening our communities, not tearing them down or otherwise damaging them.
GUIDELINES & RULES
For posts that stray outside of our admittedly subjective boundary lines, we reserve the right to modify or remove any given post to conform to our definition of “acceptable posting.”
Posts may be edited or removed for any of the following:
- Ad hominem: Personal attacks
- Illegality: Posts which are in violation of any law or which openly advocate breaking the law
- Error: Posts containing information known to be false
- Infringement: Posts violating copyright laws
- Abuse: Hateful, taunting, violent, or harassing posts
- Invasion: Posts that are invasive of personal privacy
- Hijacking: Posts in blatant disregard of purpose for which a specific thread was created
- Bloviating: Sucking up too much of the discussion with over-frequent/too long post or rants
- Irrelevance: Posts that do not add enough (or anything at all) towards advancing the topic under discussion
- Tone-Deafness: Ignoring corrective feedback from the site managers/moderators
- Inappropriateness: Posts containing any language or material not suitable for all audiences. Or that would trigger a corporate firewall or cause responsible parents to block us out. This includes all profanity, sexism, racism, pornography, intolerance of any social/demographic/cultural group, etc.
- Spam: Unsolicited and/or commercial advertisements
Here’s a handy graphic. Our hope at PP is to operate at the topmost level(s) of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, and avoid the lower ones completely:
Please be sure to always include a link to the source for any posted material. A snippet and a link, please. Do not post entire articles. We respect copyright laws here.
No posting IN ALL CAPS! This means titles, especially. We view this as the equivalent of shouting. We’ll either replace the capital letters with lowercase letters, or we’ll delete the post if that is too troublesome.
We really don’t want to remove anyone’s posts or censor anyone’s words, and it is a very rare event for us, but we need to make sure this community stays focused on the reasons we are here. Please be responsible for your words, and do your best to ensure that none of your own posts ever need to be removed.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sometimes we receive comments challenging the way we manage this site.
We listen to such feedback and make changes if convinced by the logic. But that happens pretty rarely. Much more often, we and the reader end up “agreeing to disagree”.
In the spirit of being as completely transparent as possible about the “standard operating procedure” for discussion on this website, here’s where we stand on some of the more common challenges we receive:
- Triggered Beliefs: Each of hold beliefs that we feel strongly about; that’s part of being human. Also part of being human is being vulnerable to having one or more of those beliefs triggered in a way that causes us to become emotionally-charged if a core belief is somehow threatened. When that happens, our limbic system often takes over our thinking and actions, pushing rationality aside. On this site, we expect each of us to self-monitor our emotional state and to take some time away from the keyboard if we experience ourselves becoming “too heated” in response to what we’re reading. A common pitfall we observe is that a triggered reader will insist that others not only respect — but share — their belief, and if that fails, will often demonize those holding a different perspective. Beliefs are subjective, and highly personal. You are absolutely entitled to hold whatever beliefs you want, but you are not permitted here to project them onto others. That’s why we insist on data-driven discussion here, using empirical evidence and facts. If you persist in pushing a pet belief here without fact-based validation, it’s highly likely your posts will be moderated.
- Demanding Change: We’ll sometimes get feedback — often from someone with a triggered belief (see bullet above) — that insists we start, or stop, doing something they feel passionately about. When at a musical performance, do you interrupt the pianist from your seat in the audience and holler “No! No! Play it this way instead”. We didn’t think so. But every so often, someone will feel strongly that we should be doing things differently, and publicly demand that we change how we write, or the views we hold, or how we approach getting our message out. As mentioned earlier, we listen to all constructive feedback — and if convinced, make revisions. But we are resolute that we do not “owe” anybody the right to change our behavior simply because they want us to. We have spent years cultivating our content and this community in accordance to our own personal principles and integrity. It has worked well for us and the millions of readers that are attracted to this website each year. We aren’t going to jeopardize that, or violate our own integrity, no matter how loudly someone may shout for us to.
- Making Accusations: On rare occasions, someone may imply or outright declare we’re guilty of some offense. We respect the right of each individual to have their own opinions. We don’t require that anyone needs to agree with us, or even like us, for that matter. But as should be crystal clear by now, our integrity is very important to us. If you’re going to call it into question, it better be backed up with documented evidence. Hey, everyone makes mistakes or can express themselves inartfully at times. If we’ve erred, we’ll set things right. But our tolerance for unsupported finger-pointing is pretty much zero.
- Paid Content: Every so often we’ll get criticized for charging for the subscription to our premium content. Look, we offer over 90% of the content produced on this site to the public for free. That content production, plus the design, operation, maintenance, and continued improvement of PeakProsperity.com and its related services (seminars, speaking events, book writing, etc) is costly — and requires the full-time dedication of Chris & Adam. It’s how they make their livelihood. So to demand that their deepest and most directive insights be offered free-of-charge sounds to them as impudent as demanding free service from your carpenter, doctor or accountant. If you find value in this site, it’s the paid content model that makes all of it (the public material included) possible. If you’re really dying to read an article or two, just subscribe for a single month. It’s only $30 and during that month you can read every article ever written here. And if you’re not willing to part with $30, you don’t have much credibility to stand on if demanding we forgo our entire income.
If any of the above strikes you as unacceptable given your personal principles, priorities or desires from this site, we won’t begrudge you at all for taking time away from us (in either the short or long term). We understand that, despite trying to be as inclusive as possible, we can’t be all things to all people. We respect that our approach may not work for everyone and we in no way want to be guilty of trying to pressure an uncomfortable reader to remain.
Consequences for violating the forum rules may include a warning, editing or removal of the offending material, or suspension of posting privileges, potentially up to and including account deactivation and/or permanent banning from posting on the site.
Moderators have the complete authority to act in what they see as the site’s best interests. The line is not always crisp, and the job is not easy. They deserve your support.
Regretfully, through much trial and even more error, we’ve determined that there are several topics that seem to escape the ability of otherwise careful and considerate people to discuss pleasantly in an online forum:
- Politics (from a partisan standpoint or otherwise seen as pushing an agenda)
These topics are not allowed, and any threads or posts containing them will be promptly removed. We wish it could be otherwise, but our hard-earned experience is that these topics are not worth the trouble. We appreciate your understanding.
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED!
We can’t be everywhere at once. If you encounter a post that crosses a line, please let us know immediately using the “Contact Us” form. Please be sure to provide us with specific information about why you are flagging the post so that we can take action if it is warranted. We appreciate your help.
info [email protected]
I am member of Peak Prosperity.
Chris Martenson recommends using Hard Assets Alliance for the purpose of purchasing precious metals. I am trying to obtain information about the three-way agreement between HAA, GBI and the vaulting partners if they were to go out of business, HAA is not willing to share this information. I would like to know the terms of the agreement in order to understand what my risks are. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable request
Since Peak Prosperity recommends using this HAA, can they help subscribers get this information or comment about the question I have asked?
Peak Prosperity member
Andrea (Hard Assets Alliance Customer Support)
Sep 24, 2:34 PM MST
Thank you for your email. Unfortunately that is not something our legal team is willing to expose to our clients at this time. Is there something you were trying to accomplish with this information?
If we can assist you further, please reply to this email or give us a call and a Customer Support Representative will be happy to help you.
Toll Free US and Canada 877-727-7387
For International Callers 602-626-3022
Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm (Arizona Time zone)
Hard Assets Alliance Customer Support
To: support <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2019 3:59 pm
The question below is from your web page.
I would like to read the the three-way agreement between HAA, GBI and your vaulting partners. How can I get a copy of this agreement?
What happens to my account if HAA were to go out of business?
HAA is a financially secure, stable business. However, we believe our customers deserve additional assurance that their assets are safe and secure, so we have entered into a three-way agreement between HAA, GBI, and each of our vaulting partners (Malca Amit, Brinks, and Loomis). These specify that the metal held in HAA’s account at each vault location is owned solely by HAA’s customers and is stored for the customers’ benefit.
Should either HAA or GBI become insolvent or otherwise be unable to perform its business duties, the surviving entity shall step in and assume the other party’s responsibilities with respect to customer metal. The vaulting partners understand and have agreed to take direction from the surviving entity, which will direct the vault according to each customer’s instructions.
Alleged Vigilantism at Peak Prosperity in Breach of Rules and Guidelines
The author: wildtravel is a former consultant to Australia’s Local Governments in the establishment of the National Energy Market, the “Plant” in Belbin’s Team Roles, an MBTI “Visionary”, and a self described “junior league polymath”
“Here’s my rule for pushing the boundaries of ‘acceptable thinking’; you can’t make silly mistakes when doing so. It gives your detractors both ammunition and an easy out.”
Dr Chris Martenson, #238, Wed May o6, 2020, 5:46 pm
Allegation: The vigilantes are in contravention of the rule on acceptable thinking and made silly mistakes in breach of PP Guidelines and Rules, as below
Alleged Breaches of PP Guidelines
Alleged Breaches of PP Rules
Allegation: Wildtravel used the brown word in reference to a person’s opinion. Wildtravel cannot pretend to have clean hands in these matters. At Wildtravel’s wedding it was considered impolite to hog the spliff, wear a tie, or admit to singing along with John Denver in the shower.
Inappropriateness: profanity admitted and regretted
• PP to consider publishing a list of unacceptable language, for instance brown, yellow and in and out words, wedding tackle words, intellectually challenged words, etc.
• PP to consider publishing a list of acceptable facetious, sarcastic, and generally derogatory language, for instance “knuckledragger”, “black eye for you Stanford”, Luddite, Neanderthal,
• PP to consider issuing a guideline regarding censoring of verbatim quotes, for instance in relation to that great sage Clint Eastwood “Opinions are like (censored anal sphincter word). Everybody has one.”
Allegation: Snydeman is a vigilante. Snydeman is a person of self admitted and clearly documented bad character. Snydeman breached the following PP Rules:
Ad hominem: Personal attacks
“ fancy talking troll” “pig” “completely incomprehensible idiot”
Illegality: Posts which are in violation of any law including California Civil Code section 45:
For libel, which is written, the communication must expose plaintiff to “… hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.”
Further Legal Standards
Malice of Forethought:
“ I take on the task of taking trolls to task”. “I’ve been guilty of sparring with trolls”
Lack of Remorse:
“Sometimes it is fun, though, and oh so easy.”
• PP to consider inviting Snydeman to provide discovery of any, if any, Personal Messages sent and received in relation to my matters, and in relation to any, if any participation in the previous implied vigilantism agaInst another unknown party specified by Mohammed Mast below
• Irrespective of Snydeman’s response on discovery, PP to consider if Snydeman’s membership of Peak Prosperity be terminated and that he be given written instructions never to return to PP again under any other alias.
Allegation: Mohammed Mast is a vigilante. Mohammed Mast tells lies. He knows he possesses no authority from the PP community to represent them. Mohammed Mast threatens other bloggers. More sinisterly, Mohammed Mast implies that he has employed these tactics successfully previously, and is in conspiracy with other members and/or PP to these ends. Mohammed Mast broke the following. PP Rules:
Error: Posts containing information known to be false
“This is not in ant (sic) way a threat, just some friendly advice.”
Abuse: Hateful, taunting, violent, or harassing posts
“…if you wish to continue do not push the edges of the envelop.”
“You may have noticed a certain prolific poster is MIA. That is not an accident.” (play twilight zone theme here)
• Mohammed Mast be given formal notice by PP that if he gets caught telling lies again, his membership will be terminated,
• Mohammed Mast be invited to offer discovery of any, if any, Personal Messages to other members in relation to my matters and the previous implied vigilantism,
• Subject to any authority provided by Mohammed Mast, PP to consider identifying relevant Personal Messages, and publishing them on the site,
• In the event Mohammed Mast declines to provide discovery, PP to give consideration if his his membership be terminated.
The Enemy is Within
“Triggered Beliefs: Each of hold beliefs that we feel strongly about; that’s part of being human. Also part of being human is being vulnerable to having one or more of those beliefs triggered in a way that causes us to become emotionally-charged if a core belief is somehow threatened. When that happens, our limbic system often takes over our thinking and actions, pushing rationality aside. On this site, we expect each of us to self-monitor our emotional state and to take some time away from the keyboard if we experience ourselves becoming “too heated” in response to what we’re reading. A common pitfall we observe is that a triggered reader will insist that others not only respect — but share — their belief, and if that fails, will often demonize those holding a different perspective. Beliefs are subjective, and highly personal. You are absolutely entitled to hold whatever beliefs you want, but you are not permitted here to project them onto others.”
Dr Chris Martenson, “Forum Rules and Guidelines”, “Operating Procedures”
As the guiding principles Dr. Martenson enunciates above submittedly indicate, “Beliefs are subjective, and personal.” Quite so. But that’s only half the story. Submittedly, our beliefs, our core values, form part of our very identity. Is it any wonder many in the PP community experience challenges to their very personal beliefs as ad hominem attacks on themselves? “My truth” is synonymous with my identity.
Alternatively, and hypothetically, “The truth” (after Oliver Hume) is to be found in the objective, through evidence and logic and reason. I say hypothetcally because “The truth”, like the Zen koan of Total Quality Management, is that as you approach your goal, and answer questions with more questions, the goal posts recede further into the distance.
In the awareness that the objective cannot be found subjectively, the scientific method takes great pains to exclude “My truth” in seeking “The truth”, in such as double blind, control group indexed experiments. Submittedly, and quite contrary to Dr. Martenson’s repeated claims, the Peak Prosperity public portal is not an evidence based organisation at all, with evidence’s enemy, “My truth” locked in mortal combat with the search for “The truth”. And submittedly playing some very dirty pool to give “The truth” the bum’s rush.
Bearing in mind Peak Prosperity derives a substantial portion of it’s revenue stream from those who are quite unable to distinguish the subjective from the objective, between “My truth” and “The truth”, Peak Prosperity is submittedly fast becoming “Conspiracy Theory Central”. And, as a consequence, submittedly guaranteeing the public portal remains in a state of total war between intractable and irreconcilable enemies, and in submitted direct contradiction of Dr. Martenson’s claims and the integrity of Peak Prosperity itself.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The boundary between “My truth” and “The truth”, the edges of the “envelop (sic)” which Mohammed Mast quite correctly sees me pushing, may be determined by asking three questions, and asking for one statement:
Statement of the Philosophy of Causation between the major premise and the conclusion drawn.
If the conclusion drawn proves to be a logical fallacy, and therefore by definition is false, the reasoner self identifies as presenting “My truth” as “The truth”. Submittedly, such reasoning reasons backwards (i.e. subjectively)from the conclusion they wish to draw, to the premises from which such a conclusion might be drawn.
In contrast if the reasoning is logically sound, then the conclusion drawn may submittedly be considered to be true, and present bona fide objective evidence with which to seek “The truth”. Once again submittedly, “My truth” presents “The truth” with no evidence whatsoever.
• PP to consider if, in the absence of any discernible corporate vision or plan for the public forum beyond the edification and enjoyment of the PP community, that community has occupied that power vacuum and determined that Peak Prosperity can stick the corporate vision to become an evidence based organisation where the sun doesn’t shine
• PP to consider if it might be in the company’s best interests to develop an operational plan for the public forum which might prevent the tail from further wagging the dog
• PP to consider if the corporate vision might be better served by empowering “those best placed” (Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development – Kyoto Protocol) within its community (i.e. that small percentage who actually know what evidence and truth are) to better define, direct, filter and report quality assured public forum content in response to actionable intelligence revealed by Chris.
Please be a dear and condense the above and put it in english please?
I have no idea WTF your point is?
Thanks so much😎
Bless your cotton socks, AKGranny, you’re far from alone there! I’d say about 95% of people don’t get me.
Well, I suspect bullshit is the point. But if not, feel free to give it another go!💩
Love your work, AKGranny, but polite people say bull (brown word), or more correctly, bull excrement. Them’s the Rules.
I have fond imaginings of you as Peak Prosperity’s own Madame Du Farge, sitting knitting MAGA beanies and chuckling in front of Madame La Guillotine, and leaping to your feet shouting BULL####, and firing off a clip from your AK47 in the air, as the next hedge fund manager or merchant banker’s head rolls. (play the Marseillaise here)
In attempting to estimate what value the Public Forum might offer Peak Prosperity itself, it is a resource, not a service, in which IMO say 2% of posts would be relevant, and the remaining 98% would be irrelevant. In this context, paying anybody to manage the irrelevant majority makes no business sense, so you don’t. I get it.
I note you drop by from time to time to data mine for that 2% gold, but waste none of your valuable time moderating for compliance with the “Forum Guidelines and Rules”, and you don’t. I get that too.
It follows that since you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it, and since it ain’t illegal unless you get caught, everybody (including yourself, as you prove) quite properly treats the “Forum Guidelines and Rules” as a joke. Nothing but window dressing. And quite naturally in this context, the scum of the Public Forum float to the top and cause harm with impunity.
Good luck to Peak Prosperity if it thinks it avoids liability in negligence for causing these problems, merely by publishing this document and urging self moderation on users. That merely escalates your company’s alleged liability for these harms, IMO, from non feasance to misfeasance, and one step closer to malfeasance towards your own members.
Your site, your rules, your alleged negligence in acknowledging these risks of harm, and failing to act to prevent them, and therefor your partial liability for these harms, in my opinion, Chris.
As that master of the “iron fist in the velvet glove”, Count Machiavelli said ever so politely to the King of France:
“Sometimes doing nothing comes at a very high price indeed”.
Over to you Adam….
Today latest news reporter Latest news wings reporter World news reporter World news24 Today news24 Busines news crediblenews24 Honest Reporter Latest honest Columnist World Honest news