Remove ads

Introducing the LemonFools Personal Finance Calculators

Mods

Pull up a chair, have a biscuit - discuss the site and general questions about the LemonFool
Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3700
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 544 times

Re: Mods

#139181

Postby Lootman » May 15th, 2018, 12:55 pm

Gengulphus wrote:
Lootman wrote:I agree that it is "both unreasonable and completely futile to try to force people to take part in debates they don't want to take part in." But then that is not possible anyway. Nobody can force you or I to engage in any topic. We both prove that every day by not reading or contributing to 99% of TLF topics!

Indeed, but I think you're saying pretty much the same thing as me in different words there. It is possible to try to force people to engage in a topic, but it's completely unreasonable and completely futile to try that precisely because it isn't possible to force them to engage in it.

Fair enough. I guess I don't see anyone here even trying to force me to engage. If someone introduces a topic then it is an invitation. Likewise if someone veers off topic that too is just an invitation. Perhaps I decline that invitation. Or perhaps I find the tangent more interesting than the original topic, and engage. But either way I do not feel any attempt to compel me.

What I see happen on the HY boards is that a topic may start out "practical" then veer into "strategies" and then veer back again. Is that a problem? It might be a problem only because there are two HY boards in the first place, the distinction between them causing more "off topic" comments than would be the case with a single, broader board.

And another problem with that is that if I don't want to miss a HY topic that might interest me, I have to look in two places instead of one.

So the question to me is whether the HY boards cause more problems than other investment boards because there are two of them? Or because of the alleged "cultish" nature of HYP? Or because of some other factor that has escaped me entirely? Mel says it doesn't matter and perhaps she is right. But if people like Dod, Jack and others are upset then I'd say it matters at least to that extent. Whereas for me it's more a matter of curiosity.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2247
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 1204 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: Mods

#139188

Postby dspp » May 15th, 2018, 1:13 pm

Lootman:

Two boards:

There is a HYP Practical board. As has been noted this is a faith-based pseudo mechanistic approach, is fairly narrowly defined (though definition is not as consistent as we would like from an ease-of-moderation perspective), and Mods therefore keep it fairly close to the script. The HYP faithful are entirely correct in requesting that only stuff within the HYP definition is posted here, and we respect that.

There is also a High Yield General board. Note it does not have HYP in the title, this is deliberate. Any wider discussions related to high yield equity is welcome here. No faith is required. Dissection of results and etc are perfectly allowable, provided polite and relevant to the topic. The HYP faithful have no special control over what is said on this board, and you are entirely at liberty to question any & all HYP (or any other high yield) tenets on this board.

We do our best to keep them separate for good reasons as I hope this explains.

regards, dspp

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2092
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 918 times

Re: Mods

#139193

Postby Gengulphus » May 15th, 2018, 1:35 pm

Lootman wrote:But all that said, I'd still like to understand why HYP is disproportionately affected in this regard. In my view it may be confusing to Lemons that there are two boards for HYP. ...

I don't think there's anything inherently confusing about the difference between two boards. But there are quite a lot of posters who appear to have baggage from the past, often from quite long ago, and I think there's also quite a large "confusion breeds confusion" effect: because many users seem to be confused about which is the right board, they frequently post to the wrong board, and because posters frequently post to the wrong board, users don't get a clear picture of what the board distinction is supposed to be from what they see in practice. A clearer picture is available from the board guidance, but many users don't seem to bother checking what that says, and so end up confused about the distinction.

As an example of the baggage from the past, "strategic ignorance" has not been part of either TMF or TLF guidance about whether a strategy is a HYP strategy ever since the 2008 TMF board split, yet many still seem to believe that if a strategy doesn't use "strategic ignorance", it's not a proper HYP strategy, and post accordingly...

They even include a moderator, judging by one recent moderator note, though I'll take that with a pinch of salt until/unless it is confirmed in updated guidance or by sufficient further moderator/site admin comments. In particular, I do not think it a good idea to make the use of "strategic ignorance" part of the requirements to be a HYP strategy. My reasons for that belief include that there seems to be widespread confusion about what it means (basically, deliberately ignoring all views about a company's long-term future, including one's own), judging by the number of times people use it about things that have nothing to do with such views, and that it appears to be used far too often as a 'religious' term - both by pro-HYP zealots as saying particular worries about a company must be dismissed or else you're not running a HYP and by anti-HYP crusaders as a stick to attack HYP strategies with...

Of course, if the moderators/site admins want it to become part of the board distinction, it will. But I think it's a bad idea, and if they nevertheless decide to do it, users really ought to be told so by a more reliable means than (AFAIAA) a single moderator note quite a long way into a single thread that people might or might not be reading!

Lootman wrote:... How many times do we hear "this topic should be on the other board/no it shouldn't" conversations? They really add nothing at all of value from my perspective and we don't do that for other topics, which again raises the question "why only HYP?".

Very largely agreed - as a general rule, I would regard "you shouldn't have posted that here!" posts as completely unnecessary and often disruptive noise. It's almost always better to either put up with a post one regards as off-topic or report it and let the moderators handle the situation as early as possible. I do regard reporting it as a perfectly OK course of action when I'm interested in the original subject of the thread and the off-topic stuff looks like drowning it out - and the more 'form' the off-topic stuff has for becoming that major, the earlier I'll decide it looks like that (this is of course a judgement call on my part, and I almost certainly get that judgement wrong from time to time - but there is the safeguard that a moderator judgement call has to agree with mine before anything can happen as a result of my report).

There are however at least a couple of awkward cases:

* Posts steering a newcomer towards a more suitable board that they might well not be aware of. It's just about impossible to do that in a way that doesn't have possible "you shouldn't have posted that here!" implications for someone looking for them...

* Replying to a post that could be followed up in either an on-topic way or an off-topic way, when one is very interested in the former and doesn't have anything one wants to say on the board about the latter. If one doesn't say anything at all about the latter, all too often one gets accused of missing the point - but it's just about impossible to say that one has seen that possible point but is declining to reply to it without possible "you shouldn't have posted that here!" implications for someone looking for them...

With regard to the "why only HYP?" question, I doubt that it is only HYP. But yes, it does happen disproportionately often for HYP, and I suspect the reason is basically historical: because there have been many such conflicts in the past, they're a sore point for a lot of users and so they're more likely to see "you shouldn't have posted that here!" implications and react to them. And the ensuing arguments are of course further conflicts, that add to it being a sore point... I.e. I suspect there's a "conflict breeds conflict" loop here.

And I suspect ordinary users are stuck with that loop - while individuals might recognise its existence and refuse to feed it, I don't see any signs that enough are doing so to break the loop. The moderators could do something about it in principle, with sufficiently firm action against posts that say "you shouldn't have posted that here!" fairly explicitly and against posts that argue against "you shouldn't have posted that here!" messages (whether those messages are explicit or merely possible implications). But to be sufficiently firm, such action must at the very least ensure that whoever posted the offending posts knows that the action has been taken. As the current system doesn't even do that (witness the various things said in this thread about moderators sending PMs), it seems very doubtful to me that the moderators are going to break the loop either. :-(

Gengulphus

Raptor
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1394
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 90 times
Been thanked: 195 times

Re: Mods

#139200

Postby Raptor » May 15th, 2018, 2:20 pm

Whoops, just added mod box on HYP practical that topic has morphed and maybe more appropriate on Strategies..... :twisted:

Raptor.

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2092
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 918 times

Re: Mods

#139202

Postby Gengulphus » May 15th, 2018, 2:54 pm

Raptor wrote:Whoops, just added mod box on HYP practical that topic has morphed and maybe more appropriate on Strategies..... :twisted:

Yes - but you've simply asked people to stop discussing the "morphed" topic (*) on HYP Practical rather than moving the posts over to High Yield Shares & Strategies or deleting them. Not saying that you should have done either of the latter - I imagine either would have required more time, very possibly more than you had available - but what it tells people in terms of practical consequences is that posting off-topic has no downside other than that the ensuing discussion may get cut short. And that downside might even actually be regarded as an upside by someone who wants to put forward their own message while reducing the chances of having its weaknesses exposed!

(*) Which coincidentally was "strategic ignorance", the thread having originally been about Shell - and a number of posters apparently either think that "strategic ignorance" applies to things other than views about the long-term future of companies, or know that it doesn't but can't resist the straw man of pretending that it does in order to argue against it...

Gengulphus

Itsallaguess
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2189
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 416 times
Been thanked: 1064 times

Re: Mods

#139214

Postby Itsallaguess » May 15th, 2018, 4:37 pm

If a newcomer landed in HYP Practical, and was never to be exposed to a single discussion that might lead to other high-yield income strategies being considered, or even something more akin to a total-return strategy, (either by self-moderation to an extent where no-one at all posted anything related to any other strategy, or if such discussions were instantly deleted as if they never existed in the first place...) then would that really be seen as something we should collectively aim for as a broader investment community*?

Has anyone seen 'The Village' by M. Night Shyamalan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Village_(2004_film)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7akpZ7wJ3g

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

* I totally agree that wider discussions around such topics should take place on the High Yield Strategies Board, or a similarly more-appropriate external board to HYP Practical, but surely that position would be better than one where HYP Practical is to all extents 'immunised' from any and all non-HYP discussions?

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2092
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 918 times

Re: Mods

#139216

Postby Gengulphus » May 15th, 2018, 5:16 pm

Itsallaguess wrote:If a newcomer landed in HYP Practical, and was never to be exposed to a single discussion that might lead to other high-yield income strategies being considered, or even something more akin to a total-return strategy, (either by self-moderation to an extent where no-one at all posted anything related to any other strategy, or if such discussions were instantly deleted as if they never existed in the first place...) then would that really be seen as something we should collectively aim for as a broader investment community*?

No, but that's easily dealt with: if you want to post about something off-topic that is related to a thread on HYP Practical, post on the board where it is on-topic, then post something along the lines of "I've replied about <subject> on <board> - see <link>. All replies over there, please." on HYP Practical. It's actually friendlier to the newcomer, as it doesn't lead them to think that the subject is on-topic on HYP Practical, post extensively about it on HYP Practical and then have their post removed or edited by the moderators, or discussion about it halted by the moderators. And while the "I've replied about <subject> on <board> - see <link>. All replies over there, please." post on HYP Practical is technically off-topic, nobody's likely to complain about it, and if by any chance they do, I'm sure the moderators have the common sense to ignore the complaint or tell the complainant not to be silly rather than doing anything about that post.

Of course, that course of action would be overkill if done about every single off-topic aside, no matter how small - one can post such asides on HYP Practical. But it is something one does at one's own risk, and if the moderators do take action against it - even just a moderator note saying to please not do it - learn not to repeat that particular mistake.

Gengulphus

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2468
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 732 times
Been thanked: 386 times

Re: Mods

#139272

Postby melonfool » May 15th, 2018, 10:25 pm

jackdaww wrote:
melonfool wrote:Lootman - in the hallowed words of QI "NOBODY KNOWS" and, quite frankly it doesn't matter.

Mel


=============================

to be equally frank - it does matter.

some people have lost some big chunks of their wealth having bought into the HYP idea without looking at the "other" board which may show red flags - why would they with the seductive cosy consensus prevalent on the HYP practical board .

as in TMF days , the attitude "its OUR board , go and play somewhere else" is still very much with us .

:x


That doesn't make sense in the context of what I was replying to.

I was saying it doesn't matter why it happens on HYP and nowhere else. That's the thing that doesn't matter.

However, the board guidelines are there for all to see and if people simply buy into a concept without further research, well, really, it is a learning point for them.

Mel

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2468
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 732 times
Been thanked: 386 times

Re: Mods

#139274

Postby melonfool » May 15th, 2018, 10:32 pm

This thread, by the way, was not started to discuss how HYP gets confusing with there being two boards, so surely discussion of that is off topic and if someone has a concern about that they should start a new thread.

I read the board quite a lot and while I note the odd disagreement, I very rarely now see people complaining that posts need to move to the other board. I think the most recent guidelines have cleared things up a lot.

And I think some people just like to keep talking about this for their own amusement.

Mel

Itsallaguess
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2189
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 416 times
Been thanked: 1064 times

Re: Mods

#139326

Postby Itsallaguess » May 16th, 2018, 10:19 am

Gengulphus wrote:
if you want to post about something off-topic that is related to a thread on HYP Practical, post on the board where it is on-topic, then post something along the lines of "I've replied about <subject> on <board> - see <link>. All replies over there, please." on HYP Practical.

It's actually friendlier to the newcomer, as it doesn't lead them to think that the subject is on-topic on HYP Practical, post extensively about it on HYP Practical and then have their post removed or edited by the moderators, or discussion about it halted by the moderators.


Totally agree - and much preferred to a completely 'self-policing' HYP Practical where everyone 'knows' not to post anything at all outside of the tight remit for the Practical board itself.....

Of course that clearly opens up the fact that things might cross the line from 'this is off-topic small-talk and won't too last long..' to 'we've not only wandered off-topic, but it's now gone on for so long that a different thread over on Strategies would have been the preferred avenue initially, if we'd known this would have gone on for as long as it has....', which is probably the basis of most of the major issues we now see on HYP Practical itself.

Not something that's easy to 'let ride' for long without some level of mod-interaction, unfortunately, but hopefully a good level of self-policing around this area can help to avoid the need for their direct involvement, but that does need a level of effort on behalf of the potential 'off-topic' posters themselves to help maintain...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2092
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 918 times

Re: Mods

#139367

Postby Gengulphus » May 16th, 2018, 2:33 pm

Itsallaguess wrote:Totally agree - and much preferred to a completely 'self-policing' HYP Practical where everyone 'knows' not to post anything at all outside of the tight remit for the Practical board itself.....

I don't think such a HYP Practical is even possible, at least while remaining useful! E.g. I could make a suggestion about the practical question of what share someone should buy for their HYP, but the moment I give reasons for my suggestion, I'm mentioning strategic considerations. Or someone could ask for such suggestions, but if they specify a restriction such as "no tobacco shares, please" or "no defence shares, please", they are mentioning ethical considerations, at least by implication.

Itsallaguess wrote:Of course that clearly opens up the fact that things might cross the line from 'this is off-topic small-talk and won't too last long..' to 'we've not only wandered off-topic, but it's now gone on for so long that a different thread over on Strategies would have been the preferred avenue initially, if we'd known this would have gone on for as long as it has....', which is probably the basis of most of the major issues we now see on HYP Practical itself.

Yes, and in particular, one cause of those issues is that mentions of off-topic matters get treated as invitations to debate them. E.g. someone mentions 'strategic ignorance' as their reason for not regarding a popular concern about a share as important, someone else replies attacking the whole idea of 'strategic ignorance', and a strategic argument rapidly blows up between those who are for it and against it. The problem there isn't the original mention of the 'strategic ignorance' reason, which I basically believe has to be allowed and is in itself harmless, but the attack on the whole idea of 'strategic ignorance'. All that is needed for the original topic of the thread is either agreement that the popular concern about the share is unimportant (presumably for other reasons, of course), or disagreement accompanied by one's own reasons for believing the specific concern to be important.

But on matters that have become sensitive, it often only takes one poster to launch that attack and others join in enthusiastically, and the whole issue can easily blow up into a major off-topic argument in a few hours - which may well be before any moderator can realistically be expected to intervene.

Itsallaguess wrote:Not something that's easy to 'let ride' for long without some level of mod-interaction, unfortunately, but hopefully a good level of self-policing around this area can help to avoid the need for their direct involvement, but that does need a level of effort on behalf of the potential 'off-topic' posters themselves to help maintain...

I'd say it mainly requires such effort - there's little in the way of self-policing that others can do other than resist the temptation to get involved themselves.

Gengulphus


Return to “Biscuit Bar”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests