Discussion:Code of Conduct

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Code of Conduct


Tdoyle (talk|edits) said:

December 12, 2006
As many of you may have noticed, we have had a few instances where comments have been made recently which have sounded rude or harsh. The TaxAlmanac Community is getting larger, and this sometimes happens in larger communities where people can start to see others as "names on a screen" instead of living, breathing people with feelings. To help avert this, I suggest that we, the TaxAlmanac Community, work together to decide on what's acceptable here by creating a Code of Conduct together as a community.


The following list is just a suggestion of where we start. Please review these items and discuss them below. Should any of these be taken out? Suggest new ones! After we get a consensus, we'll decide where to go next.

The following Code of Conduct was put together by the TaxAlmanac Community. Please keep these items in mind as you interact here on the site. Please feel free to comment on what you'd like to see added or changed - we need your input!


Code of Conduct

1. Follow The Golden Rule - Treat others as you would want to be treated.

2. No Personal Attacks - Do not make personal attacks anywhere on TaxAlmanac. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the community and deter users from joining in.

3. Don't Bite the Newcomers - New contributors are prospective members and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things. If you can't tell whether they are a Tax Professional, politely ask them to complete their profile.

4. Be polite - Keep in mind that text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony isn't always obvious - text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection or body language. Be careful of the words you choose - what you intended might not be what others perceive, and what you read might not be what the author intended.

5. Be civil - Remind yourself that these are people you're dealing with. They are individuals with feelings and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to treat others with dignity.

6. Give praise when due - Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages or after someone takes the time to answer a question in the discussion forum.

7. Be open and warmly welcoming - Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of TaxAlmanac with respect and good will.

8. Don't Bite the Non-Professionals - Although they are no longer invited to sign up for a TA account and start new questions, sometimes non-professionals who already have an account will visit TaxAlmanac and participate in the Consumer Question Forum. You might feel their questions are too basic or that they need the help of a professional. You are under no obligation to answer their questions, but if you do, please be sure to do so in a manner that follows the Code of Conduct. You may move their discussion to the Consumer Question forum if it is mis-posted in the Tax or Accounting Question Forums.

9. Help mediate disagreements between others

10. Do not edit the forum posts of others. Other than spelling corrections, adding links, and other minor edits, users should not edit the discussion forum posts made by others.

11. No SPAM please. Spam posters may be permanently blocked from this site.

AHH (talk|edits) said:

12 December 2006
My vote....Good job, Mr. Doyle. Well written. HOWEVER, I sure wish it wasn't necessary to devote so much time and effort in addressing this issue of rudeness and superiority. It seems so juevenile and I get tired of reading through the "bull" to finally get to the important info. There have been times I've wanted to log out and never use this site again. Maybe the Conduct Code will curtail the problem....I have my doubts....but go for it.

Uncle Sam (talk|edits) said:

12 December 2006
While I wholeheartedly support and agree with the above provisions, let's not forget what the perceived objective of this board is. Intuit supports accountants and tax preparers in their occupational needs. So this is a network of professionals for professionals by professionals. I doubt it was meant to be a public information forum like AOL Tax board, or Fairmark.com or moderated.taxes.com.

So when a "do-it-myselfer" posts on here wanting blind advice expecting we're going to be their problem solver I don't feel it's appropriate, and I think it's the moderator's responsibility to act and so inform the poster. I see absolutely no problem with a tax professional coming on here and asking the most basic elementary question regardless of form or anything else.

Tdoyle (talk|edits) said:

December 12, 2006
AHH:

I agree, but if we can successfully come together to create this, that would be a very good thing for TaxAlmanac. It would show that we were finally transitioning from a message board to a real community. There are so many things that TaxAlmanac could be, so many ways in which it could make all of your research better, but it's going to take a little more community involvement outside of the discussions in order for that to happen.

Note that I do not think that the above is done. They are just examples from Wikipedia. I don't want this to be something that I or Intuit puts in place... I'd like the community to get involved and create this, using the examples I have listed above.

Come on people - jump in - have your say - make a suggestion.  :-)

Tim

PJLCPA (talk|edits) said:

12 December 2006
Tdoyle

I think that you are absolutely right in seting up some sort of professional code of conduct. When I see a negative comment I immediately find myself disrespecting the source. No one is going to ask a question if they know the answer, and even if they do know the answer, I've been around long enough to know that there is most likely more than one answer. The biggest strength in this whole community, is getting as many viewpoints as possible. If someone feels slighted, they will quit responding to questions, and our whole community looses. If I become affraid of making a mistake, and quit trying, I will never improve.

Tilt53 (talk|edits) said:

12 December 2006
I think any code of conduct can be summed up by the Golden Rule. However, although I mostly lurk and learn, I do agree that it is frustrating to see so many posts from the do-it-yourselfers.

Lhhesscpa (talk|edits) said:

12 December 2006
Peter, I think you're on the right track about credibility. That's why I advocate people putting more professional info. about themselves in their user profiles as you & I have. Regarding you second point, I also think that any professional should do some research on their issue before asking others about it. We make $$$ from what we do & I think we should invest our time in becoming as knowledgeable as possible before asking others to devote their valuable time to help us. --Larry Hess, CPA - Albuquerque, NM

PJLCPA (talk|edits) said:

12 December 2006
I don't know if this is the right place for this comment or not but....

I think that we need to remind users that when someone answers your questions, they are trying to the best of their ability to HELP you. These responses are their opinions, and not tax law.(unless they link you to tax law). I think that this is a GREAT community you are building, and I hope that a few inconsiderate responses don't scare people away, or keep them from responding.

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

12 December 2006
My 2 cents worth. I agree that this site was intended for professionals, but who is to say what a professional is? Some of the do it yourselfers are professional doctors, lawyers, etc. and they offer free advice on forums for them...so why not here?

I have "potential" clients who come to me from a variety of sources and I give them free consultation to help them decide and then also help them succeed if their intention is to do it alone. Does it eventually cost me a client because I give them too much of my time? Maybe so, but I have never kicked myself in the ass for it. I believe that when you give you receive in return; it may be a random gift of your time; it may be something more. If you don't want to answer and spend your time answering, then just simply don't respond to the post.

I have actually received 3 new clients from this site. They were asking questions and then contacted me and I have helped them in the area they requested. One I have actually charged the other two are in the beginning process and I have only helped guide them. They ALL however have offered their help if I needed it in their field of expertise and 2 have signed engagement letters. It was only for the information that they received here free of charge that they KNEW they needed further help. So...give and it returns to you; maybe not immediately but the Golden Rule does apply...

Where would we be in our professions if we did not have people asking us for advice? If we charged each person for any advice, then we would lose potential clients and might I add...potential friends.

Thank you Tim for the outline here. I think we can as a community help the professionals and the non professionals alike. If you don't know the answer or if you don't want to respond, then simply DO NOT RESPOND. Your choice. Don't frown on those of us who don't mind helping for nothing in return; just the good feeling when you helped another person...

Wow do I get on a soapbox or what?

Thank you all!!!  :) :)

Tdoyle (talk|edits) said:

December 12, 2006
Good points... what would you think of something like this:
This site is primarily designed to help professional tax preparers perform tax research, although anyone can use the information found here. The discussion forum is designed to allow professional tax preparers to ask each other for assistance and for opinions. It is not designed as a substitute for professional services that individuals might need. While anyone can ask a question, the professionals here are under no obligation to answer questions from non-professionals.

Needs word-smithing, but it gets the idea across...

Tim

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

12 December 2006
Great Tim!!! Surely does get the point across without any harshness I think. Also would explain to a non professional why they do not get a response if indeed no one responds :)

PJLCPA (talk|edits) said:

12 December 2006
Tdoyle

Sorry I didn't think of it before, but shouldn't we have the circular 230 disclosure regarding written disclosures in here somewhere? (or should we all be attaching it to our responses?)oops!

Michaelstar (talk|edits) said:

12 December 2006
Tim, I am following this post and will offer my comments as it goes along for what it is worth. I do go to another non tax board and it is full of negative crap while as a whole it does provide much valuable info on the topic-I am being vague because the site is having major issues and I do not want to be negative on that site because it is the few who cause the grief and not the overall population - and after 4+ years going to that site for knowledge, I have yet to post a comment. ps edit - but from what I have learned and the people I have meet - I am now a co-editor of a major book in that field which I think is pretty cool! And no - it is not sailing....... :-}


While some here have seemed a bit short at times with their comments, this site does not have the problems as I see it that other site has and this site is a really nice place to come and learn and offer back what I have learned in 23 years of public accounting. I do like your last site rule that you are working on but I think that the last sentence is unnecessary. It implies (in my mind) negative conotations that just does not need to be said. I think it will offend the newbees where they do not need to be offended which is really one of your underlying purposes for this post.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

12 December 2006
I like it, Tim! Moreover, I totally agree with Sandy's prior comment. I spent over an hour on the phone, on his dime thankfully, just before Thanksgiving with someone I suspect was DIY, though he spoke of his accountant. His issue, S Corps, autos and 179 and though these issues are all over this site, I did not begrudge him one bit. He's in New England, not near me, but you just never know what might come of it. I will give anyone a half-hour of time out of season without charge for I think clients and professionals need to get to know one another. As for on this site, stopping to answer a query from a DIY reveals to them just how complicated our field can be, and perhaps what a well-rounded answer can be. In many ways, I feel more antagonism towards those in allied fields who dabble in taxes. You know the kind, "I have a client who....." and as you read the question, you pity the client for putting his or her financial life in the hands of this person. Yet that comes with the territory. I think Sandy, Dennis, Michael, JR, JDugan, Riley, Larry and so many others convey so well our love of our business.

Uncle Sam (talk|edits) said:

13 December 2006
Sandysea brought up a point that I hadn't thought of.

If this board is going to keep the door open to non-professionals, and without detracting from the main discussion conferences-i.e.-tax and accounting - I suggest that there be another conference opened up for the public - non tax/accounting professionals to ask their questions. That way, there won't be any controvery at all over the non professionals interfering with dialogue originally meant for us, and a member of this chat board doesn't have to feel in any way put out.

Jdugancpa (talk|edits) said:

13 December 2006
You know, some of us are such geeks that on weekends and holidays we sit down at the computer and there are no good discussions going on, so we walk away in dismay. I don't see how anyone is hurt when someone asks a question that we think is basic. As has been said, just skip it and go on to the next one. You're under no obligation to answer. I skip questions all the time because either they have no interest to me, they are outside of my area of experience or I am just short of time and can't read all there is to read.

The only revenues this site takes from me is caused by the fact that I am sitting here doing nonchargeable blogging while I have work on the shelf I could be doing instead. None of us are losing revenues because information is given away for free. Maybe we are actually generating revenues for ourselves or others when we point out to a nonprofessional the pitfalls in proceeding alone in some area full of landmines.

As in all of life, we should be civil and polite. Unfortunately, unless Tim finds a way to block violators, there will always be those who are not. There should be one more rule. Don't be thin-skinned. Some things are said in jest, some in annoyance, some in anger. I personally have found very little on this site that I thought was overly rude. All are jerks some of the time. Some are jerks all of the time. That's life. Let's recognize that fact and try to make sure that we are not the ones that someone else thinks are jerks. God put me on this earth to glorify Him. I will try to do that here in TaxAlmanac, as in the rest of my world.

WesR (talk|edits) said:

13 December 2006
Hi Bah Humbug! only kidding :) I think a little "sarcasm" once in a while adds some "banter" to the conversation. If someone takes it personally you apologize and move on. No one knows everything but sometimes questions are so "lame" that these "rookies" shouldnt be out there doing taxes. Frankly they should be told "nicely" they really are out of their league and should "read or get a book". Some frequent contributors never say sorry or your right I was wrong. I dont personally care you know who they are when you spend enough time here. I like to stimulate people and get their goat once in a while. If someone cannt take 10 seconds to fill out a brief bio you can tell I dont consider them a "pro" and they dont deserve any respect because as far as I am concerned your are a DIY getting my advice for free. So you get it with a little "oink". People need to take a breath once in a while. If you can see my monitor I have a QTIP taped to it. At a seminar it was suggested you do it and look at it. It says "Quit Taking It Personally". Have I cringed and laughed reading some of the comments yes do people cringe and (hopefully)laugh with mine yes. Say sorry get a life and a QTIP on your monitor. I try to be "nice" but sometimes you just cannt stop yourself. Have a Merry Christmas. As always BYE.

Taxref (talk|edits) said:

13 December 2006
What is a DIY?

Uncle Sam (talk|edits) said:

13 December 2006
Taxref: DIY = Do It Yourselfer

Taxref (talk|edits) said:

13 December 2006
Ha ha...thank you Uncle Sam. I could tell it had some kind of negative conotation but I couldn't figure out exactly what it was. I was getting paranoind thinking I was unwittingly doing something to reveal myself as a despicable DIY!

Jdugancpa (talk|edits) said:

13 December 2006
Wes, I have often chuckled at your comments, pointed as they might be. Thanks for all of your input to this forum. BTW, look at how your capitalization and punctuation have improved since last spring:) Have a great day.

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

13 December 2006
See? We are a great group of people; mostly all trying to make a living and do what we LOVE...yes I mean LOVE to do.

I was told by a CPA I worked for a few years back to daily "practice a random act of kindness". If you give someone an answer without expecting ANYTHING in return, you have succeeded.

Do I think EVERYONE needs to agree with my philosophy? NAHHH; I don't want a one world government, thank you very much..hehe

I love the people here; you have all helped me sooo much this past year and I am truly grateful. Without you guys, tax season would be unbearable!!

Wes cracks me up as does JR and Dennis and Riley from time to time. Laughter is good for the soul and for the eyes (it takes more muscles to frown than smile)...hence my wrinkles...hehe

Ok...back to more nonsense :)

Tdoyle (talk|edits) said:

December 14, 2006
Does anyone have any comments about the above in green? Pick it apart - any changes or additions? Should any of those be deleted?

PJLCPA (talk|edits) said:

14 December 2006
Green? What green! Sorry, I got carried away with other posts and forgot what we were supposed to be doing here.

I like your section that tells what this section is and isn't and think that that should be the first topic/heading. I think that some of these others can be combined up into one or two comments. ie delete "#3 Don't bite newcommers" and "#8 Don't bite non-professionals" these are covered in # 4 and #5. One more thing to incorporate somewhere is that if you are joking, make refference to that. sometimes it's hard to tell.(oops sorry...my first comments were jokes).

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

15 December 2006
I agree with PJL on consolidating points. You know the thought strikes me that one requirement for asking a question is that the person fill in the profile, the 'Who am I' information, and perhaps Tim could include a simple statement they could check if they are doing their own return or are not a 'professional.' I say this because today I have read several questions from anonymous people 'with clients' who don't seem to have any basic idea of taxes. I know we all have subjects we do not know, but when I read something that has to be covered in any basic income tax course, I have to wonder.

PJLCPA (talk|edits) said:

15 December 2006
D&T good point about the profile! I was just looking at some of the questions, and came to one I thought anyone doing taxes should know, but then thought oh well, maybe they are asking more than it looks like. I checked their profile, or lack of it, and decided not to respond because they didn't fill theirs out.

Tdoyle (talk|edits) said:

December 15, 2006
If you decide to not respond to a question because the author lacks a profile, it might encourage them as well as others who read it to fill out their profiles if you leave a short and polite message indicating why you have opted to not respond.


- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 14:05, 15 December 2006 (CST)

PJLCPA (talk|edits) said:

15 December 2006
Tim, good idea! To be honest with you, the thought never crossed my mind, but is a great idea. I will do that from now on.

Tdoyle (talk|edits) said:

December 15, 2006
That approach was actually tried by a few members last year and it did have some success. The most important thing is to follow the code of conduct above and persuade them to go fill in their profile. If the message comes off as mean-spirited, they could just be driven away, which is not what we want.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

18 December 2006
Isn't it sad that a Code of Conduct is needed for just treating people nicely? (My one Polly-Anna comment of the year!)

PJLCPA (talk|edits) said:

18 December 2006
Tim, I always try to put myself in the other peoples shoes before I answer, and say "How would I read, or interpet that answer". I would explain to them that the answers that they will get on this site may vary by how they complete their profile. (The more seasoned professional is looking for an answer with tax code, and where to go for further research,so that they understand the concept. A non-professional just wants a yes/no answer, or wants general information.) I can have two clients ask me the same question, and they will get a different explaination, based on their knowledge of business or tax law.

Skasselea (talk|edits) said:

18 December 2006
I have thought that it would be helpful to know if the question was posed by a professional or a non-pro. I'll tell you the reason why. If a non-pro is asking about a Notice of Seizure on their home, it's one thing. However and let's just make this a hypothetical...cough, cough. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN ON THIS BOARD, BUT MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE ELSEWHERE IN REAL LIFE. What if a member of the Bar of some state; while representating an individual asked a question about when an individual whose house was under IRS seizure (but hadn't been sold) was allowed to enter that home for the purpose of removing one's belongings?

I would think and this is just me, mind you, but I would think that if a member of the Bar while representating a taxpayer didn't know the answer to such a basic question, there is a major, major, big-time problem. If it's a non-pro, completely different story.

Or am I just nuts???

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

19 December 2006
In a different context you are taking the words from my mouth! Today I have looked at profiles of those asking questions, and tried to thank them with a nice comment if the profile was filled in. Yet I spent time on one John Doe's question, the first I'd seen from him, and then read a second question this evening which I could not believe a professional would ask.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

19 December 2006
As a fairly new member, I've always felt welcome, even when I've asked some dumb questions!! I frankly see no problem with the BULL or more general discussions. Often they can get into some tax policy issues and ideas, and unique angles, that may help a practitioner craft an effective argument on an appeal,etc. I also enjoy the office policy and procedure discussions, I think they are quite important. The key thing to me is that most of us are sole practitioners, and it does not hurt to have a shoulder to lean on, and some wise counsel. Serving the public is not easy, and it seems to be getting harder. I don't expect robotic answers from robots, but if that is someone's style, more power to them; they usually make very cogent and to the point contributions.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

21 September 2007
Discussion:This Forum is for Tax Professionals - Please Fill Out Your Profile Tim, is this too harsh?

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

21 September 2007
Me Likes it Kevin!!! But I would reword it a bit and say it is PRIMARILY for tax professionals....

That way, the once in a while DIY would not feel uncomfortable posting a question....

Uncle Sam (talk|edits) said:

21 September 2007
I believe one more Code of Conduct is due-

I've noticed that lately, some discussion topics start out fine - but a few members, after the main point has been discussed, wind up using it as their private conversation forum and the point of the original thread winds up getting lost - and discourages further posts on the subject.

Also Code # 8 should go. This board should be organized in such a way where members of the public (lay tax people) who want information, should be directed to a different section of the board.

It's about time both you and Tim stop beating around the bush and take action to change things. Continuously asking us for suggestions is only good if you're going to implement the suggestions (good, bad, or otherwise).

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

September 21, 2007
Looking good...

Mscash (talk|edits) said:

21 September 2007
On Point 10, Do not edit the forum posts of others. Other than spelling corrections, adding links, and other minor edits, users should not edit the discussion forum posts made by others.

I don't think any of us should edit the posts of others for any reason. Any comments or corrections should be part of an entirely new post.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

21 September 2007
MsCash, I routinely correct spelling errors in the Discussion thread titles to optimize the search feature. It is useless to later users of this board to be searching for an answer on S-Corps when the information is in a thread titled S-Crops.

Similarly, I have added additional info to the thread title for search benefits also. "Please help" might become "Please help - S-Corp with no salary taken lost earnest money deposit on real estate flip".

Does anyone else see this as wrong?

Jdugancpa (talk|edits) said:

21 September 2007
And I frequently move new questions at the bottom of a 2 year old thread with 95 replies to a new question, headed by the person's name.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

September 21, 2007
No more posts! That's why I like editing, too.

Natalie (talk|edits) said:

September 22, 2007
I think you just want to have the last word, Jeff. At first I was in agreement with Mscash, but Kevin's point is valid. Now no more posts! (Where's that smiley when it's needed?)Image:Smile.jpg

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

September 22, 2007
Image:smile.jpg

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

September 22, 2007
(No words were used or harmed in that last post.)

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

22 September 2007
RE the edit thing - I'd be happy if I could figure out how to edit my own posts. I try to read them through carefully before I hit the go button, but inevitably, later when I re-read them there is a way to make myself clearer, or I find a typo. Then I tend to being a little lazy about learning things like that I'll figure a way around it if I need to. I'd never in a million years edit someone else's post. But Kevin has a point - corps and crops are as different as girls and grils.

Taxref (talk|edits) said:

22 September 2007
I'm in the same boat as Actionbsns as far as editing my own posts...I'm obviously missing some little step because I've tried a few times and always hit a dead end.


On a different subject, I hope the professionals only/layman too/DIY maybe debate doesn't get acrimonious. I think we have the potential to reach that stage. A few years ago a good tax board I frequented was almost ruined by a schism over format. Lets try to avoid that here.

Beengel (talk|edits) said:

September 22, 2007
Why not REQUIRE profiles at signup, or the registree is unable to post.

Regarding professionals posting only, at least on some sections, perhpas a requirement to enter the PTIN number at registration. (One registtation section for professionals, one for general public) Granted both can be "made up". but those that are not professioanls probably are not aware of the number of digits that make up the number. Maybe the prgram can read the number of digits in the PTIN and kick out if wrong...

Not sure of courese if the board as those capabilities.

Jdugancpa (talk|edits) said:

22 September 2007
If I were allowed to edit Beengel's post, I would correct "registtation," "perhpas," "professionls," "prgram" and "courese," but, hey, I'm going with the program here!  :)

Sandysea (talk|edits) said:

22 September 2007
No way am I going to give out my PTIN or CAF or my social or my EIN. What would make any one think they would give out this number to the general public?

Sorry J....you missed a couple of misspellings...."perhpas"...."professioals"...."courese"....but who am I to edit or even think of misspelled wdors?

Sorry having a bad day....

Beengel (talk|edits) said:

September 22, 2007
Sorry Jdugancpa-- quess there was a reason I got such a poor grade in typing in high school so many years ago!  :-)

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

22 September 2007
Just a comment, a little off topic, but not much. Someone sent me a forward, forward e-mail the other day about spelling. A bunch of words all jumbled up, I read everyone of them correctly. Seems someone did a study and as long as the first and last letter of a word is correct, what happens in the middle doesn't matter so much. That's why we know J meant to say perhaps and professionals and course. Generally spelling edits aren't too much of a problem to me. Editing for clarification would be more to the point.

I agree with Taxref, this should not become an antagonistic discussion. We have a lot to learn from each other and to lose someone's input as the result of hurt feelings would be a loss to all of us. Sometimes, you just have to laugh, smile, or walk away from the discussion. It doesn't serve anyone well if we get cranky at each other especially during stressful times like tax season.

Sea-tax (talk|edits) said:

22 September 2007
Action I agree, while spelling can casue some to not come across as clearly as one would like it is hard to complain when the information provide is gratis.

Natalie (talk|edits) said:

September 23, 2007
You know, Tim added a feature that allows you to see if a word is misspelled while you are typing it. So if I type "profesional" for example, a little red line comes under it. It's easy enough to fix it as it is being typed. Action, spam artists are acutely aware of what you state above. That's why you'll see "free" spelled "fre>e" and other words I can't put in here with similar characters. The spam checkers cannot catch those words, but the human eye can sure understand them.

Editing a page -- go to the top of the page and click on the tab that says "edit this page." Then you need to look through the discussion to see exactly what you want to edit. On discussions like this, there's a lot to go through. Once you fix what you wanted to correct, then you save the page. You need to be careful about what you're changing, however, because there are some weird formatting things.

Natalie (talk|edits) said:

September 23, 2007
Even if you go to edit the page now, you'll see all of the misspelled words underlined in red.

Jdugancpa (talk|edits) said:

23 September 2007
Sandy, what are you talking about? I didn't miss any misspellings!  :)

PVVCPA (talk|edits) said:

September 23, 2007
lolx2

Natalie (talk|edits) said:

September 23, 2007
And if you want to see what was edited, you need to look at the history tab.

Taxref (talk|edits) said:

24 September 2007
Thanks for that information about the editing, Natalie. I have to admit, though, I find it unusual that anyone can edit anything, including profiles. On other forums its possible to edit your own profile, messages, etc., but not anyone else's. Am I again missing something?

Tdoyle (talk|edits) said:

September 24, 2007
Natalie: The spell checking is probably with your browser, as we have not added spell-checking here. I use Firefox and I know that spell-checking is built in.

Taxref: This website is based upon a "wiki". This simply means that most pages can be edited by the users. While it is true that someone else could maliciously change a page in a way that they shouldn't, the website also allows anyone to 'revert' any edit back to the way it was. The thought is that it is easier to fix something than it is to hurt it, so "good" should win over "bad" in the end. We have had very little malicious activity on the site in the two years that it has been here. We have, however, protected the Code and Regulations from edits.

Why would someone want to change someone else's user page? If you see a spelling error, I'm sure the other person would appreciate the catch. Also, anyone on the site can thank another user by adding an "award" to their user page - letting others know what a great job the person did to help out. See Recognition Team for details.

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 08:56, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Taxref (talk|edits) said:

24 September 2007
Thank you, Tim...I thought I was simply missing something. You are thankfully correct that we have had very little in the way of problem people on this board. Most of the difficulties I have seen on tax forums in the past started when the board was found by tax protestors.

Shaunna (talk|edits) said:

24 September 2007
Like many others above, I appreciate Tim's hard work in keeping the forum in good form. Although I was initially taken aback (sp? if this is incorrect let me know) regarding the editing of posts, I now understand why. I appreciate those who make it easier to locate posts at a later date. Also, during the previous tax season, I noticed fewer negative comments relating to questions that were considered "basic". I have found this site to be EXTREMELY helpful. I look forward to visiting with everyone in the future.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

24 September 2007
Tin: If you are still reading this thread, may I suggest that the "Note" at the beginning of "Post A Question" be backlighted/highlighted with yellow or lite red? I understand the content of the "Note" may change soon, but I would definitely highlight it after changes as I think many people just don't take time to read the note.

Tdoyle (talk|edits) said:

September 24, 2007
How's that, CrowJD?

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

24 September 2007
Great. Thanks Tim!

Natalie (talk|edits) said:

September 25, 2007
Tim, thanks for that clarification on the spell check. It had been talked about in the past, and I thought you had implemented it. So, for those of you still using IE, here's another reason to switch to Firefox. (Although I must admit, I still run IE as well.)

Natalie (talk|edits) said:

September 30, 2008
I think it is time for all of us to revisit this code of conduct.

Donniecastleman (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2008
Raising my hand as I just re-read it! Go and sin no more!

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

September 30, 2008
Excellent refresh Natalie. May I suggest taping this to your computer screens out there?

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2008
the tape didn't stick to my lcd screen, JR1, so I am going to use a tack.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

September 30, 2008
Great idea! Nearly exactly what I was thinking....!

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
And what good is a code of conduct without some type of enforcement means? I know it keeps honest people honest.

No reply is necessary.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

October 1, 2008
Perhaps when someone is not posting properly.... *whistle* Code of Conduct violation. Fifteen yards.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
I've got no problem with that, as long as us foxes are still in charge of the henhouse.

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
Down the road from where I live is a lei stand with a box for cash. There's a sign that says each lei costs $2. Taking a lei, leaving the money, and NOT taking the cash from the box are all based on the honor system. We were really surprised to see it, but it seems to work for the owner, because it's been there for awhile. I see the code of ethics as the same thing. We are all grown ups on this site and should understand how such a code works, and that insults and jabs at others are hurtful and unnecessary. Enforcement shouldn't be needed because the end result of not abiding by the "code" is that TA will just wither and go away because people won't want to come here to be insulted. Most of us try to live by that standard, once in awhile someone will overstep the boundaries, and they are called on it through discussion or possibly a post to their personal mail. That's just human nature.
Personally, I like this site because I learn an incredible amount from it and often when a discussion entails different points of view, I learn from that too.  It's made me go off to IRS website, or one of my books to do some research on several occassions, even though as I've said numerous times, I am seriously search challenged.  The self enforcement that seems to prevail is the best form of enforcement I think.  

Thanks Natalie for bringing this to everyone's attention, though. As the next tax season is looming on the horizon, it's always good to have a reminder of how to behave.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

7 October 2008
And we should add that EA's shall not denigrate the achievement of CPAs, nor shall CPA's look down their noses at EA's, or Public Accountants and the like.

Taocpa (talk|edits) said:

7 October 2008
David,

I agree. We all should respect our individual accomplishments.

I've said this somewhere before: my sisters are very gifted and have my dad's intellectual ability. Me, I learned dad's knack for diplomacy and some of his writing skills. I had to study harder than most to pass the CPA exam. I had friends who aced it the first time. Me, I wasn't so lucky. It took me a few times. So I absolutely detest when I see people denigrate others and their achievements.

Nowhere on the CPA certificate does it say what your scores are and I doubt the same thing with the EA.

Just remember what do they call the guy who graduates last from medical school: Doctor.

Tom

Michaelstar (talk|edits) said:

7 October 2008
David (D&T) - I second that motion! All in favor say "I"

Natalie (talk|edits) said:

October 7, 2008
Aye.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools