The Reply section under each article is a vital part of Financology … it’s not much of a stretch to say our articles exist mostly as a springboard for your comments. Any resemblance to a lecture format is purely accidental.
Comment guidelines are few. Comments should be colorably germane to the site subject matter and preferably to the article under which they’re posted, and the customary provisos about spam, abusive or offensive content or language apply.
If a comment is responsive to another comment, please use the reply button associated with that comment. Off topic comments are fine, but if a sidebar grows to dominate a comment section they may be restricted, and multiple comments from the same author in a short period of time may trigger “speed limit” tripwires. Original remarks are favored over third party references, and quotes and links without further elaboration are fodder for the comment shredder.
Debate is encouraged, but if a comment disagrees with a point without addressing the reasoning behind it, it may not be published on the grounds of leaving readers with conflicting views but in the dark as to why, contributing signal-free noise. In the age of information abundance, Financology aims to provide more needle, less haystack.
These guidelines are modeled after the Wolf Street commenting guidelines; readers can refer to them for more color.
Established commenters interested in writing an article can let me know in a comment.
The reply section is also used liberally to follow up on articles. This is a convenient way to post updates and helps keep like subject matter collected together for later reference. Readers are encouraged to check the comments section of recent articles for further explanation and updates as it usually makes more sense to put it there than post a new article on the same topic, so fresh material is regularly found there.