Suggestion - Add an FAQ (most likely the Fool UK one)

[Julian]

Should we copy and paste the old FAQ and put it here so that posters understand the motivation, scope, allowable topics etc for this board?

This could actually be better than before because the old FAQ link off to the right wasn't that prominent and obvious to everybody. I think this forum software can sticky a thread so it appears permanently at the top of a board so I suggest as a first step we could look at simply cutting and pasting the existing Fool UK FAQ into a new post here and asking Stooz/Clariman to sticky it for us.

Decisions to be made and issues to be resolved if everyone is on board so far ...

The old FAQ has lots of links to Fool posts. In theory those will persist as read only links but can we rely on that? Some are original pyad articles, and pyad is here, so we could ask him to copy and paste those articles here as reposts so that we have internal lemonfool links wherever possible. We could look to see if the authors of other linked posts are here and do the same.

Should we also ask for the FAQ thread to be locked for new posts to keep it clean?

How is it maintained if the original poster goes away and is the only one with edit privileges. Maybe we ask a moderator to post it on our behalf? Could we report it and request deletion if we want to edit it and then re-sticky a new edited version in its place?

Any other comments and suggestions from people who know the capabilities of this forum software better than I do?

Who has copyright on the old Fool FAQ given I think it had multiple authors although I see it was posted by loudbarker? Is this a problem?

- Julian

[Gengulphus]

The old FAQ has lots of links to Fool posts. In theory those will persist as read only links but can we rely on that?

TMF has said their boards will remain readable for at least three months, and I'd be happy in principle to rely on that. But no more than that, as I'd say that all the signs are that there has been an edict from on high that the TMF UK boards operation is to be shut down as soon and as thoroughly as reasonably possible.

In practice, though, I think that relying on them remaining is the wrong word to use, as it encourages complacency. In particular, three months is a period that can seem like plenty of time - and then you wake up one day and realise that you've only done 10% of what you intended to do and there's only a week to go! And inevitably, it's a week you're going to be unusually busy on other matters...

So the attitude I would take is that we should treat saving what we can as a matter of some urgency - not a real emergency, fortunately, but don't put it off without good reason!

Gengulphus

[Lootman]

Should we copy and paste the old FAQ and put it here so that posters understand the motivation, scope, allowable topics etc for this board?

That assumes that a majority here believe that the TMF rules and regulations are perfect and therefore should be copied and used wholesale. There is an opportunity here to come up with a simpler, better and more relevant set of rules, and a lighter form of moderation, than was the case for TMF.

Some of the TMF rules seemed childish (no swearing), rigid (no varying of topic) or empty of purpose (can't have more than one account). While others sometimes encouraged "telling teacher" rather than dealing with issues as they arise. Finally, strict moderation is expensive and possibly a big factor as to why TMF have repealed their boards.

So personally I would advocate not literally copying what ultimately failed there. The value here is in the people and the community, and we're surely mature and aware enough to develop our own guidelines. The goal, ultimately, must to be better than TMF and not repeat their mistakes.

[Lootman]

Julian,

Correcting myself a little, I see now you were referring to the HYP board only, and not to the more general posting guidelines, which is what I was talking about, if it wasn't obvious. I'll let those comments stand rather than edit them (as we now can do!) but wanted to say that the rules for the HYP board probably are OK as is (not that I've ever read them other than in bits).

The one exception is that we may not want to continue the "split" between 2 boards that was somewhat controversial as I recall. if so, then the FAQs would need to reflect the enlarged scope of this board. I suspect this site will work better with fewer boards, at least in the early days.

[AJC5001]

Should we copy and paste the old FAQ and put it here so that posters understand the motivation, scope, allowable topics etc for this board?

The old FAQ has lots of links to Fool posts. In theory those will persist as read only links but can we rely on that? Some are original pyad articles, and pyad is here, so we could ask him to copy and paste those articles here as reposts so that we have internal lemonfool links wherever possible. We could look to see if the authors of other linked posts are here and do the same.

- Julian

Bree has already added some of Gengulphus's TMF posts to the Wayback Machine. Perhaps the Pyad articles could also be added if they aren't already there?

Adrian

[midgesgalore]

Should we copy and paste the old FAQ and put it here so that posters understand the motivation, scope, allowable topics etc for this board?

That assumes that a majority here believe that the TMF rules and regulations are perfect and therefore should be copied and used wholesale. There is an opportunity here to come up with a simpler, better and more relevant set of rules, and a lighter form of moderation, than was the case for TMF.

Some of the TMF rules seemed childish (no swearing), rigid (no varying of topic) ....

What is wrong with those rules?

midgesgalore

[Julian]

Julian,

Correcting myself a little, I see now you were referring to the HYP board only, and not to the more general posting guidelines, which is what I was talking about, if it wasn't obvious. I'll let those comments stand rather than edit them (as we now can do!) but wanted to say that the rules for the HYP board probably are OK as is (not that I've ever read them other than in bits).

The one exception is that we may not want to continue the "split" between 2 boards that was somewhat controversial as I recall. if so, then the FAQs would need to reflect the enlarged scope of this board. I suspect this site will work better with fewer boards, at least in the early days.

I had worked out the misunderstanding but thanks for the clarification. Your underlying point has some validity in the HYP-only context though in that there is no reason to simply copy and paste what was there before without considering whether it can be improved. That consideration might end up with the consensus "no it can't" but no reason to assume that conclusion.

I suppose my real point in my opening post might have been better expressed as "should we put up some sort of 'what is this board all about?' info for newcomers similar to the FAQ that was on the old Fool UK HYP board?".

Some of us Fool U k refugees have got all excited about finding a new home, and we of course know what HYP is for our time at Fool UK, but we shouldn't forget that not everyone stumbling across this forum will be a Fool refugee, some might be encountering HYP for the first time, which is why I thought we should consider an FAQ for this board. Copying and pasting the existing FAQ simply seemed the quickest way to get at least something up there.

- Julian

[88V8]

The existing Board FAQ as a sticky would be a good starting place.
Perhaps we should let things settle down here before spending a lot of time revisiting the wording. After all, whatever the FAQ one will never please everyone.

V8

[Gengulphus]

Something I think we should be clear about in this topic is which FAQ we're talking about - there are three on TMF.

One of them is http://boards.fool.co.uk/faqs-10554265.aspx and is basically for questions about HYPs themselves. The main problem with it is that it's seriously (9.5 years) out of date. That's not a particular issue for some of its questions - HYP is after all a long-term strategy and doesn't change that much over time. But on subjects like what demo HYPs there are, experience of what happened in the 'great financial crisis', etc, it's sadly lacking...

The other two are basically about which TMF board to use ( http://boards.fool.co.uk/faq-the-purpose-of-this-board-12648855.aspx and http://boards.fool.co.uk/faq-the-purpose-of-this-board-11101268.aspx ) - both with regard to the High Yield board split and what other TMF boards are available. Most of what they say is currently irrelevant on these rather different boards - though there may be some snippets that would be useful in an updated FAQ about HYPs themselves.

I suspect we'll eventually need some sort of solution here to the same sort of problem that led to the board split on TMF, but I don't think it's urgent yet. And there may well be better solutions available given that we're no longer operating under cannot-be-upgraded-in-practice board software - in particular, a lot of those problems were caused by the fact that the procedure for replying on a different board on TMF was cumbersome. That meant that side-issues to the topic of a thread would be replied to within the thread and its board, and if the side-issue was a popular one, it ended up 'hijacking' the original thread... That was the problem that led to the board split back in 2008, the side-issue being whether to use a HYP strategy at all when the original topic was (for instance) a question about what share to buy by someone who was already running a HYP strategy and had no intention of changing. And there have been quite a few cases more recently of similar 'hijacking' of threads by issues such as whether to tinker, whether to use 'strategic ignorance' (and exactly what the phrase means anyway!), etc.

The solution I'd like to see to that is partly the technical one of making the software have a user-friendly way of forking off a side-issue in a way that people can easily choose to follow if they're interested in it and not to follow if they're not, and partly the social one of making it unacceptable to pursue a side-issue very far without forking it off. Those are still rather unformed thoughts, and I'm not at all certain whether they'll go anywhere or if they do, whether they or something else will end up being the preferred solution - but there is at least the possibility of getting a solution agreed and put in place, a possibility that basically didn't exist at TMF!

Anyway, I'm rambling a bit, but I think the point that is emerging for me is that it's simply too early to produce a new "how to use the HYP boards" FAQ. The TMF FAQs on the matter might be a useful stopgap, but I'm doubtful about that, as using them may well entrench a position we don't actually want to entrench. Also, any such FAQ has to have moderator buy-in, which also suggests that it's too early.

So what I think can usefully be done about FAQs at present is updating the FAQ about HYPs themselves for new stuff that's emerged over the last 9.5 years - and the top priority for that is making certain we have copies of important stuff that may well vanish from TMF in about 3 months' time. I'm doing that for my demo HYPs - I've taken copies of about 75% of the GDHYP posts I'm aware of so far, will be working on CHYP1 and the UHYPs and their variants, and more generally I intend to search out copies of other important material as well. I would urge others to do the same - my idea of what it is important to keep may not be the same as yours, and in any case having multiple copies held by different people provides safety against something unfortunate happening to one of them...

I would also add that while the WayBack Machine is certainly useful, I'd be cautious about relying too heavily on it. It is a single point of failure and while it looks a pretty safe one, there's basically no such thing as a completely safe single point of failure. And do make certain you keep the information you need to find the material you've asked it to archive - finding stuff we've lost track of in TMF while it still exists is likely to be a doddle compared with finding it in the WayBack Machine archives afterwards if we've lost track of it there!

Gengulphus

[AJC5001]

The solution I'd like to see to that is partly the technical one of making the software have a user-friendly way of forking off a side-issue in a way that people can easily choose to follow if they're interested in it and not to follow if they're not, and partly the social one of making it unacceptable to pursue a side-issue very far without forking it off. Those are still rather unformed thoughts, and I'm not at all certain whether they'll go anywhere or if they do, whether they or something else will end up being the preferred solution - but there is at least the possibility of getting a solution agreed and put in place, a possibility that basically didn't exist at TMF!

Gengulphus

I hope there will be a better way of expressing this. I don't think telling someone to 'Fork off' will be appreciated.

[Dod1010]

This is the High Yield Practical Board (I think!). Let's not have any of the pyad articles please as they add a set of rigid rules which is the very thing I think that we are trying to avoid. I support Lootman's comments on this that we are not trying surely to replicate the TMF but adapt it to a looser less rigid regime.

Dod

[Gengulphus]

This is the High Yield Practical Board (I think!). Let's not have any of the pyad articles please as they add a set of rigid rules which is the very thing I think that we are trying to avoid. I support Lootman's comments on this that we are not trying surely to replicate the TMF but adapt it to a looser less rigid regime.

Let's not have you telling us what we are trying or not trying to do: each of us is capable of deciding that for ourselves.

And let's not have censorship of people's opinions because you think they're too rigid.

Gengulphus

[Dod1010]

Gengulphus

Pot kettle black, I fear. Merely an opinion or suggestion but if you would like it rephrased. If you call that a suggestion for censorship you have a different view of that word from me.

[Arborbridge]

In my view, the old fairly rigid TMF structure on the HYP practical board was advantageous, and I'd prefer to see that here.
Unfortunately, the name of this board leaves the door open for all sorts of non-HYP discussions, which I believe is regrettable.

If we have fairly strict rules here that would be better than a virtual free for all. Then general HY discussions and suggestions can be made on the other board, as they always were. What could possibly be the point of trying to undermine the HYP community, which was one of the most active boards on TMF?
It worked well: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Arb.

[funduffer]

Let us all calm down. We have 2 HYP boards just as we had on TMF, so there should be enough room for discussion for everyone.

We have already had a warning from Clariman, so let's just go with the flow for now, be tolerant of each other, and let this new forum get established.

FD

[Wizard]

Let us all calm down. We have 2 HYP boards just as we had on TMF, so there should be enough room for discussion for everyone.

I'm not tring to unnecessarily pro-long any discussion of this as I don't think it is for the best. But if I understood correctly the strategy board was not an HYP board in that it was not limited to what I think everyone on here knows people mean by HYP, i.e. a portfolio that broadly aligns to the pyad defined rule set, but not religiously. The strategy board is, if I understood it correctly, a place for discussion of high yield investments that may or may not be HYP in that sense.

That is how I intend to split any posts I make until one of the new Moderators arrives and tells me I have got it wrong.

Terry.

[Arborbridge]

We have 2 HYP boards just as we had on TMF, so there should be enough room for discussion for everyone.

But unfortunately, we do not yet have the guidelines set up. Let's keep a clear understanding that we should follow the same blue print as on TMF - that would be my view. The Mods adhered to that, and it worked, particularly in preventing 100 thread posts of rambling circular argument on the HYP practical board.
Please, don't let's go there: that's what would be the effect of what some people have advocated.


Arb.

[tjh290633]

I hope there will be a better way of expressing this. I don't think telling someone to 'Fork off' will be appreciated.

Tell them to bifurcate, or even furcate.

TJH

[Julian]

We have 2 HYP boards just as we had on TMF, so there should be enough room for discussion for everyone.

But unfortunately, we do not yet have the guidelines set up. Let's keep a clear understanding that we should follow the same blue print as on TMF - that would be my view. The Mods adhered to that, and it worked, particularly in preventing 100 thread posts of rambling circular argument on the HYP practical board.
Please, don't let's go there: that's what would be the effect of what some people have advocated.


Arb.

Do we have one big advantage now vs the old Fool boards thanks to more modern forum software used on Lemonfool?

In the old days I confess that I was often slightly conflicted when a moderator stepped in to close a thread. On the one hand I fully accepted that it had drifted off topic (or was never on-topic for the board in the first place), was annoying many other participants, and should be closed. On the other hand I was often disappointed that an interesting, intelligent and civilised discussion had been cut off in its prime. "Take this discussion over to <some-other-board>" never really worked as advice on The Fool because so much history of the discussion was left languishing in the old closed thread and it was very, very rare for the participants to have the energy to go and start all over again elsewhere. This was particularly galling when the closed discussion should clearly have been in High Yield Strategy in the first place and could have flourished there.

With the new forum software will it be possible for a mod to easily move a thread to another board and leave a canned placeholder in the original board to indicate that the thread had been transplanted and give a link to its new location?

I confess that I'm feeling a bit guilty at the moment since I suspect it was my suggestion at the start of this thread that might have spun up the entire debate again about what the remit of this group should be, a debate that has now attracted the attention and to some extent the ire of Clariman (& I assume Stooz). In retrospect I think it was a bit of a case on my part of some over-excited "we've just moved into a new house, how should we decorate it?" thinking whereas, ironically, in the real world I know full well that when moving into a new house one should really live in it for quite a few months without doing anything major to it in order to get a feel for the new place and let one's ideas develop. Maybe that would be the best approach right now, have a complete moratorium on these discussions and see how everyone feels in a month or two after the board has had time to settle down.

- Julian \W/

[jackdaww]

It was predictable the HYP/PYAD/DORIS group will want THEIR boards transplanted to lemonfool , perpetuating THEIR rules , facilitating anonymous post deletion by complicit moderaters, with the OFF TOPIC pretex , and conveniently EXCLUDING dissidents by directing them to their HYP strategies board .

I very much hope LEMONFOOL boards will be better than that .