Remove ads

Introducing the LemonFools Personal Finance Calculators

Dod's farewell.

Pull up a chair, have a biscuit - discuss the site and general questions about the LemonFool
csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1345
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 684 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158401

Postby csearle » August 9th, 2018, 11:54 pm

moorfield wrote:What I'm getting at is other forums I visit tend to list the more general discussions first, with the niche interest ones further down.
I think this idea may have merit. Worth an experiment at any rate. Surely it can't do much harm as we enthusiasts (dare I say followers) will find the High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical board wherever it is.

Somehow it still, despite all our efforts, does not seem to be clear that the board is more-or-less reserved for a particular popular strategy and that if the discussion wanders away from said strategy too far or for too long it is game for moving.

Personally I wish religion had never been invented*, but I don't burst into churches telling them they are all gullible idiots. So providing posters accept this with respect to the High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical board then it shouldn't be too difficult to rub along.

Regards,
Chris

* I read something on TMF which, IMO rightly, argues for religion inasmuch that a lot of our culture and architecture would not exist without it.

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1957
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158405

Postby Alaric » August 10th, 2018, 12:09 am

csearle wrote: So providing posters accept this with respect to the High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical


It's probably the use of the TLA (three letter abbreviation) that causes the problem. The term HYP has no general financial meaning, so its context isn't clear. Leave out, or not notice, the TLA and the title might be interpreted as "higher yield portfolios (practical)", thus of interest to anyone who was an income seeking investor either with a view to reinvesting or living off it.

Perhaps a board "TMF legacy - HYP" would be better.

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3712
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 548 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158409

Postby Lootman » August 10th, 2018, 1:02 am

Alaric wrote:
csearle wrote: So providing posters accept this with respect to the High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical

It's probably the use of the TLA (three letter abbreviation) that causes the problem. The term HYP has no general financial meaning, so its context isn't clear. Leave out, or not notice, the TLA and the title might be interpreted as "higher yield portfolios (practical)", thus of interest to anyone who was an income seeking investor either with a view to reinvesting or living off it.

Perhaps a board "TMF legacy - HYP" would be better.

You might be onto something there, particularly your observation that "The term HYP has no general financial meaning". I suspect that every other investment strategy discussed here is "mainstream", in the sense that you can probably find websites devoted to it, books written about it and myriad references to it on Twitter, in the financial press and so on. Even something practiced by a relative minority - technical analysis - has its sites, books and is regularly quoted or presented on CNBC and Bloomberg.

Compared with that HYP is like home-brewed beer. There is no external reference to it in the investment media. Rather it is a body of folklore, musings and anecdotes that are collectively assembled as a strategy almost exclusively as the result of one site (TMF) and one individual who (sometimes shamelessly) promoted it. It is local to the UK and focused on about 3% of the global equity universe. As such it is a little like an endangered species, and may well die off in a decade or two as the retirees who are its main followers die off and younger folks instead prefer other and racier approaches.

And i mean none of that as a criticism, but rather as an attempt to understand why HYP should enjoy the special status of having its own board, where dividend-based strategies that are even slightly different are bounced to another board. No other strategy here enjoys that exalted status and protection.

So perhaps this special treatment is justified because, without it, and absent Bland's marketing and the financial interest of TMF behind it, it would otherwise wither on the vine. Moreover it doesn't seem to change or develop, as most strategies do. Partly because criticism is shunted elsewhere, and partly because the original work and texts that developed it are seen as over-arching texts that cannot be too radically questioned.

So your idea that it be deemed a "legacy item" has merit. You could not sell it to BlackStone (believe me, I used to work there). But there is enough local, community support to desire and ensure its survival. If that justifies special treatment then so be it.

CryptoPlankton
Lemon Slice
Posts: 329
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 426 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158413

Postby CryptoPlankton » August 10th, 2018, 1:55 am

Lootman wrote:You might be onto something there, particularly your observation that "The term HYP has no general financial meaning". I suspect that every other investment strategy discussed here is "mainstream", in the sense that you can probably find websites devoted to it, books written about it and myriad references to it on Twitter, in the financial press and so on. Even something practiced by a relative minority - technical analysis - has its sites, books and is regularly quoted or presented on CNBC and Bloomberg.

Compared with that HYP is like home-brewed beer. There is no external reference to it in the investment media. Rather it is a body of folklore, musings and anecdotes that are collectively assembled as a strategy almost exclusively as the result of one site (TMF) and one individual who (sometimes shamelessly) promoted it. It is local to the UK and focused on about 3% of the global equity universe. As such it is a little like an endangered species, and may well die off in a decade or two as the retirees who are its main followers die off and younger folks instead prefer other and racier approaches.

And i mean none of that as a criticism, but rather as an attempt to understand why HYP should enjoy the special status of having its own board, where dividend-based strategies that are even slightly different are bounced to another board. No other strategy here enjoys that exalted status and protection.

So perhaps this special treatment is justified because, without it, and absent Bland's marketing and the financial interest of TMF behind it, it would otherwise wither on the vine. Moreover it doesn't seem to change or develop, as most strategies do. Partly because criticism is shunted elsewhere, and partly because the original work and texts that developed it are seen as over-arching texts that cannot be too radically questioned.

So your idea that it be deemed a "legacy item" has merit. You could not sell it to BlackStone (believe me, I used to work there). But there is enough local, community support to desire and ensure its survival. If that justifies special treatment then so be it.


Hilarious! Also (though possibly inadvertently) very enlightening - thank you... :)

FredBloggs
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2139
Joined: November 12th, 2016, 8:42 am
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 399 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158414

Postby FredBloggs » August 10th, 2018, 3:08 am

csearle wrote:
moorfield wrote:What I'm getting at is other forums I visit tend to list the more general discussions first, with the niche interest ones further down.
I think this idea may have merit. Worth an experiment at any rate. Surely it can't do much harm as we enthusiasts (dare I say followers) will find the High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical board wherever it is.

Somehow it still, despite all our efforts, does not seem to be clear that the board is more-or-less reserved for a particular popular strategy and that if the discussion wanders away from said strategy too far or for too long it is game for moving.

Personally I wish religion had never been invented*, but I don't burst into churches telling them they are all gullible idiots. So providing posters accept this with respect to the High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical board then it shouldn't be too difficult to rub along.

Regards,
Chris

* I read something on TMF which, IMO rightly, argues for religion inasmuch that a lot of our culture and architecture would not exist without it.

Maybe that's where some of us are going wrong we aren't a member of the Pyadic People's Front (PPF) or it's splinter group, the People's Pyadic Front (PPF)?

idpickering
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2850
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:04 pm
Has thanked: 346 times
Been thanked: 658 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158416

Postby idpickering » August 10th, 2018, 5:55 am

Walrus wrote:Sticking my head above the parapet.

There are a lot of misnomers in HYP, the rigid guidelines to be frank are stupid. Unilever is clearly not HYP and DOD is correct, yet I would expect is in the majority of portfolios.

To be frank there's a good few moderators on here that if I was a moderator I would definately moderate.

Anyway, I had already given up posting until this travesty. Now I'm considering giving up reading as well. Nanny state gone mad.

Goodbye


Well said Walrus. I think this sad situation has rocked our community to it's core to be honest. These boards should be a fun place to visit and get involved with. It seems to me it is becoming a lot less so. Who mods the mods I wonder, if anyone?

Ian.

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1345
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 684 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158419

Postby csearle » August 10th, 2018, 7:13 am

idpickering wrote:
Walrus wrote:Sticking my head above the parapet.

There are a lot of misnomers in HYP, the rigid guidelines to be frank are stupid. Unilever is clearly not HYP and DOD is correct, yet I would expect is in the majority of portfolios.

To be frank there's a good few moderators on here that if I was a moderator I would definately moderate.

Anyway, I had already given up posting until this travesty. Now I'm considering giving up reading as well. Nanny state gone mad.

Goodbye


Well said Walrus. I think this sad situation has rocked our community to it's core to be honest. These boards should be a fun place to visit and get involved with. It seems to me it is becoming a lot less so. Who mods the mods I wonder, if anyone?

Ian.

@Walrus
The guidelines for the High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical board are there because, as the guidelines say, the board has a very specific purpose. It also says that discussion of potential shares, and of shares which have been selected in the past, is acceptable on the HYP Practical Board so Unilever is indeed allowed to be discussed, especially in the context of deciding whether to tinker it out as a non-performer, as it has been in people's HYPs in the past (it was top candidate when I added it to my HYP).

@Ian
The mods' posts are primarily moderated by the other mods in the area of the site in question. Their moderations are either discussed as a group before they are made or, if not and become contentious, tend to get discussed afterwards. Ultimately the site owners can intervene if they think changes need to be made (as they did when the guidelines were formulated).

Regards,
Chris

idpickering
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2850
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:04 pm
Has thanked: 346 times
Been thanked: 658 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158422

Postby idpickering » August 10th, 2018, 7:23 am

csearle wrote:
@Ian
The mods' posts are primarily moderated by the other mods in the area of the site in question. Their moderations are either discussed as a group before they are made or, if not and become contentious, tend to get discussed afterwards. Ultimately the site owners can intervene if they think changes need to be made (as they did when the guidelines were formulated).

Regards,
Chris


Thank you for coming back on this Chris, and for the clarification. I meant no disrespect in my post.

Ian.

OZYU
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 133
Joined: December 31st, 2016, 3:52 pm
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158424

Postby OZYU » August 10th, 2018, 7:41 am

G
idpickering wrote:
Walrus wrote:Sticking my head above the parapet.

There are a lot of misnomers in HYP, the rigid guidelines to be frank are stupid. Unilever is clearly not HYP and DOD is correct, yet I would expect is in the majority of portfolios.

To be frank there's a good few moderators on here that if I was a moderator I would definately moderate.

Anyway, I had already given up posting until this travesty. Now I'm considering giving up reading as well. Nanny state gone mad.

Goodbye


Well said Walrus. I think this sad situation has rocked our community to it's core to be honest. These boards should be a fun place to visit and get involved with. It seems to me it is becoming a lot less so. Who mods the mods I wonder, if anyone?

Ian.



Well said, Ian, this is exactly how I feel.

The HYP board is sick, of its own making, by ridiculous insistence on rigid guidelines which demonstrably do not improve results, for that you need to allow a range of views to be expressed, not repressed.

I see the HYP board as controlled by sinister forces at times. One self appointed gendarme/barrack room lawyer plus a possie of mods, but what gets picked on depends a lot more on who is posting rather than content. There are hundreds of errors which don't get picked on, they are much more important to investing than following ruddy arbitrary rules. It could be such a vibrant and relaxed and central investing forum instead. Why should I care, since we have long made it as investors and I am unlikely to last very long, we'll because our, all of the board's posters, grandchildren, and very soon our great grand will be reading this stuff, that why.

Take this thread for example, in the fair play UK, a farewell to Dod should just be filled with thanks from his fans, regrets at his departure, hopes that he may re consider, and those feeling differently should have abstained, it the British way and good manners. But the lengths some posters have gone to, and the time they must have taken over it, to dissect what Dod has or has not said, is sick, plain mean, inappropriate and sick.

On a broader view, how could you pretend to run a HYP board rigidly when you have pyad and TJH investing so differently. One with weird ideas leading potentially to hopelessly unbalanced portfolios and the other trying a systematic approach, although to my mind still too restrictive in the range of investments considered/allowed. HYP investing is as old as investing and way older than pyad, and there are thousands of variations among practitioners. The board should be able to accommodate that. A poster like Dod sat bang in the centre of that spectrum.


Anyway, breakfast time, enough of an old boy's rant, but I would like to post more, but what I witness makes me want to post less,


Ozyu

Walrus
Lemon Pip
Posts: 72
Joined: March 21st, 2018, 12:32 pm
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158427

Postby Walrus » August 10th, 2018, 8:04 am

csearle wrote:
idpickering wrote:
Walrus wrote:Sticking my head above the parapet.

There are a lot of misnomers in HYP, the rigid guidelines to be frank are stupid. Unilever is clearly not HYP and DOD is correct, yet I would expect is in the majority of portfolios.

To be frank there's a good few moderators on here that if I was a moderator I would definately moderate.

Anyway, I had already given up posting until this travesty. Now I'm considering giving up reading as well. Nanny state gone mad.

Goodbye


Well said Walrus. I think this sad situation has rocked our community to it's core to be honest. These boards should be a fun place to visit and get involved with. It seems to me it is becoming a lot less so. Who mods the mods I wonder, if anyone?

Ian.

@Walrus
The guidelines for the High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical board are there because, as the guidelines say, the board has a very specific purpose. It also says that discussion of potential shares, and of shares which have been selected in the past, is acceptable on the HYP Practical Board so Unilever is indeed allowed to be discussed, especially in the context of deciding whether to tinker it out as a non-performer, as it has been in people's HYPs in the past (it was top candidate when I added it to my HYP).

@Ian
The mods' posts are primarily moderated by the other mods in the area of the site in question. Their moderations are either discussed as a group before they are made or, if not and become contentious, tend to get discussed afterwards. Ultimately the site owners can intervene if they think changes need to be made (as they did when the guidelines were


Thank you for taking the time, I can see that I don't use the board as it is intended, if it really is only for the extremist pyad followers. In theory they don't need a board as they have no reason to ever look at the portfolio, only to invest new monies once in a while.

Bottom line is that board is full of information and posts that I don't believe are exclusive to this pyad portfolio and in many cases don't fit it anyway.

I think there is merit for the main board to be high yield portfolio practical with a sub board for this rather extreme HYP strategy in my eyes which I don't feel I would need to venture on.

idpickering
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2850
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:04 pm
Has thanked: 346 times
Been thanked: 658 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158430

Postby idpickering » August 10th, 2018, 8:47 am

OZYU wrote:
Well said, Ian, this is exactly how I feel.

The HYP board is sick, of its own making, by ridiculous insistence on rigid guidelines which demonstrably do not improve results, for that you need to allow a range of views to be expressed, not repressed.

I see the HYP board as controlled by sinister forces at times. One self appointed gendarme/barrack room lawyer plus a possie of mods, but what gets picked on depends a lot more on who is posting rather than content. There are hundreds of errors which don't get picked on, they are much more important to investing than following ruddy arbitrary rules. It could be such a vibrant and relaxed and central investing forum instead. Why should I care, since we have long made it as investors and I am unlikely to last very long, we'll because our, all of the board's posters, grandchildren, and very soon our great grand will be reading this stuff, that why.

Take this thread for example, in the fair play UK, a farewell to Dod should just be filled with thanks from his fans, regrets at his departure, hopes that he may re consider, and those feeling differently should have abstained, it the British way and good manners. But the lengths some posters have gone to, and the time they must have taken over it, to dissect what Dod has or has not said, is sick, plain mean, inappropriate and sick.

On a broader view, how could you pretend to run a HYP board rigidly when you have pyad and TJH investing so differently. One with weird ideas leading potentially to hopelessly unbalanced portfolios and the other trying a systematic approach, although to my mind still too restrictive in the range of investments considered/allowed. HYP investing is as old as investing and way older than pyad, and there are thousands of variations among practitioners. The board should be able to accommodate that. A poster like Dod sat bang in the centre of that spectrum.


Anyway, breakfast time, enough of an old boy's rant, but I would like to post more, but what I witness makes me want to post less,


Ozyu


Thank you Ozyu, for your kind comment, and great post, which I humbly rec. I do hope that the powers that be here do keep abreast of events on their boards. If I were them I'd be a bit embarrassed by recent events, including the subject of this thread. Come back Dod, please. I was mightily relieved when the guys set up the HYP Practical board here for us. We should use it for the purpose it was designed for, and cut out the bitching and nit-picking.

Ian.

Howyoudoin
Lemon Pip
Posts: 99
Joined: June 4th, 2018, 7:58 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158433

Postby Howyoudoin » August 10th, 2018, 9:11 am

melonfool wrote:I don't like football, so I don't go on the football board and tell them football is rubbish.



Wait . . . . there's a football board?


HYD

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2492
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 746 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158438

Postby melonfool » August 10th, 2018, 9:46 am

Howyoudoin wrote:
melonfool wrote:I don't like football, so I don't go on the football board and tell them football is rubbish.



Wait . . . . there's a football board?


HYD


No, sorry :) I dislike it so much I hadn't even noticed we don't have a board for it. There is a sportsing board, I gather.

Mel

Howyoudoin
Lemon Pip
Posts: 99
Joined: June 4th, 2018, 7:58 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158441

Postby Howyoudoin » August 10th, 2018, 9:56 am

melonfool wrote:
Howyoudoin wrote:
melonfool wrote:I don't like football, so I don't go on the football board and tell them football is rubbish.



Wait . . . . there's a football board?


HYD


No, sorry :) I dislike it so much I hadn't even noticed we don't have a board for it.

Mel


Ah shame. Suspect you've unwittingly stumbled onto the solution for the HYP board problems though . . .

<Joke>

HYD

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2105
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 919 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158444

Postby Gengulphus » August 10th, 2018, 10:00 am

Breelander wrote:
melonfool wrote:...it has been AGREED that ULV is and can be discussed...

Even when it leaves the FFTSE100 after its reorganisation is complete? Like Santander, it will be fully traded on the London stock exchange, but no longer included in the index. Strict application of the 'must be in the FT350' rule would seem to make it impossible to discuss.

The HYP Practical guidance also allows discussion of "shares which have been selected in the past", and Unilever has been selected in the past by many different HYPers - enough that it would be totally ridiculous to try to argue that none of them was actually running a HYP, so that it hadn't been selected for a HYP in the past.

In short, it's clear that Unilever does qualify for discussion on the HYP Practical board by that alternative criterion. And that dropping out of the FTSE 350 (if it actually happens, which sounds probable but not 100% certain) won't alter that in the slightest.

A large part of what made the thread concerned very long was not discussions about whether discussing Unilever specifically was allowed, but more generally about how the HYP Practical guidance is to be interpreted. It could be clarified considerably - as just one instance, that "shares which have been selected in the past" can be interpreted as anything from "shares that are an actual existing holding of a HYP, having been selected for it in the past and not sold since, and only for the purpose of discussing a practical question about that existing holding" to "any share that might have been bought for a HYP in the past, no matter whether it actually has been or what issue about that share is being discussed".

And while the OP of that thread was a poll specifically about whether Unilever could be discussed, it wasn't exclusively about that - it did add "(and other shares with average yields)". Also, its subject was the much less specific "HYP Practical discussions", which made it rather non-obvious whether the aim of the thread was just resolving the question about discussing Unilever or a more general discussion about what was acceptable discussion on the board. Add to that the fact that every post contains a reminder of the subject at its top, but not a reminder of what the OP said, and I'm not surprised that the thread drifted towards the more general discussion!

Just to be clear, when I say that the guidance could be clarified considerably, I'm not saying that it could be clarified totally - I think there will always be borderline cases. Nor am I saying that it should be clarified as much as possible: just that there are potential problems both with too-vague guidance that leaves people genuinely uncertain about what's unacceptable or able to divert discussions a long way away from being about practical HYP matters, and with too-tight guidance that leads to 'rules lawyering' or to people being driven away unnecessarily.

Besides unclear guidance, I see two other big reasons for the continuing problems about the HYP Practical board. The first is widespread confusion between the question of which shares a HYP should buy and the question of which shares are allowed to be discussed on the board. Opinions and judgements about the former will vary between users, and indeed there would be little to discuss on the board if they didn't! Answers to the latter need to be the same for all users and as far as possible should be quickly and easily determinable on objective grounds by moderators who aren't experts on HYPs themselves. They should also be broad enough to allow the vast majority of existing HYPs to be discussed, but not so broad that it effectively becomes a clone of another existing board.

That inevitably means that any particular HYPer will see shares being discussed there that they don't feel a HYP should buy. They need to be able to say that - but they also need to avoid saying that the share shouldn't be being discussed on the board at all. Basically, if they feel that way, they should either report the discussion as being against the board guidance or accept that it's within the board guidance even though it's not within their own HYP selection criteria, and therefore that it can be discussed on the board. And when reports about being off-topic are moderated, they should be judged by what the guidance says - I have seen a few remarks by moderators that bring in things that the guidance doesn't say, such as the primary income aim of a HYP, and I suspect they've done that because they either think themselves that it's always been a part of HYP or have been persuaded by the reporter saying it's always been a part of HYP. That's less than ideal even if it has always been a part of HYP (as the primary income aim has been) because it's expecting everybody (including newcomers) to know what's always been a part of HYP without being told, but in addition there are plenty of myths around about what's always been a part of HYP. (And incidentally, debunking those myths is my usual reason for bringing old documents such as pyad's original articles into discussions - they quite simply don't contain a word about HYPs being annuity substitutes or 'strategic ignorance', for instance. If anyone knows of a better way of checking assertions about history than looking at the actual historical documents when they're available, I'd be fascinated to hear it!)

The other big reason I see is simply the history of conflict, which has led to stereotyping of HYPers, often in 'religious' terms such as fanatics or zealots, but also as e.g. going for the highest yield to the exclusion of any other consideration. Maybe some are, but a lot are simply investors like me who have found that the strategy suits their temperament, available time / other resources and investment aims - and are sick and tired of encountering statements such as "True disciples of course would ignore that argument and simply go for the higher yield." that perpetuate such stereotypes. Especially when the person making them has been around quite long enough and seen enough discussions that they ought to have seen HYPers looking at many other factors, especially about dividend sustainability and diversification. And of course, a likely result of that is that such statements often get ignored or responded to in a short, sharp and over-simplified way - both of which unfortunately look just like typical behaviour of someone acting out of blind faith and so reinforce the stereotype...

Fully stopping that stereotyping once it's happening is a hard problem, and I don't know how to do it. But descriptions of other people, especially in ill-defined group terms that leave people uncertain whether they're meant to be included, play a major part in the stereotyping, and so does language with religious associations.

Gengulphus

scotia
Lemon Slice
Posts: 579
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 145 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158452

Postby scotia » August 10th, 2018, 10:28 am

Could we all agree to end this discussion, and let moderators get on with their life.
We cannot run this site without moderation - you only need to look at "discussions" on other financial sites to realise the necessity.
If we think we have been unfairly moderated, then lets accept it without complaint - its a small price to pay for a civilised informative site.

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2492
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 746 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158456

Postby melonfool » August 10th, 2018, 10:36 am

Gengulphus wrote:
Fully stopping that stereotyping once it's happening is a hard problem, and I don't know how to do it. But descriptions of other people, especially in ill-defined group terms that leave people uncertain whether they're meant to be included, play a major part in the stereotyping, and so does language with religious associations.

Gengulphus


And that stereotyping is against the main rules of the site:

"It is forbidden to write defamatory remarks, whether about site users or others."

I suppose calling someone a 'zealot' is not defamatory as such, but it's the underlying ethos here.

"Robust debate is allowed, but it must remain polite and respectful at all times. Stick to the facts and argue the points discussed, rather than criticise the poster."

To me, this also means indirect comments about groups of posters.

"All posters are welcome irrespective of race, faith, nationality, disability, gender or sexual orientation. Any derogatory remarks regarding any groups, whether majority or minority, will be removed"

Now, I know this 'groups' here means recognised groups in society but it could, and I think does, also extend to self-selected groups within the site, so HYPers, football fans, remainers......etc.

I don't think it would be acceptable or within the culture of this site, to say 'all football fans are idiots', for example. So calling people who follow a certain investment strategy 'zealots', or 'disciples' etc is no different. This thread has plenty of examples of people doing that as well, as a way to demean those who want to use the board in its proper way and 'win' this argument.

It feels like a hostile take over - those who want to play around and invest however they want seem to like the board due to the intelligent debate it hosts, but they also don't like people being having a specific strategy so they call them names, tell them they are foolish, tell them that x share should be in all portfolios even if it's clear it doesn't meet the HYP criteria.....it feels never-ending if you look at it from the outside and anyone interested in the strategy would find it impossible to follow.

Someone said no other strategy has its own board - they do, there is a board for passive investing (presumably empty!) and one for TA as examples.

Someone else said there should just be a generic high yield board with HYP as a sub section - there IS a generic high yield board, it's called High Yield Shares & Strategies - general - I'm surprised the poster has not noticed it.

While I agree in principle that moving the board down the list makes sense (and as a rule it is right that we should have the more general boards at the top and more specific lower down, I have seen this elsewhere), I doubt in this case it would be a solution because it's not as if we have a hundred new users a day coming to the site and landing there - it is established users who are using it (and causing the issues). They would just navigate to wherever it was.

Mel

beeswax
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1939
Joined: December 20th, 2016, 11:20 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 170 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158473

Postby beeswax » August 10th, 2018, 11:27 am

Language and words matter and so Mel is quite right to reinforce the rules of the site...

I have just now once again fell into my own trap of using a word that is breaking the rules of the site but has not been moderated or removed...I made a post on the PD board about Christians being 'deluded' because of what they believe, when I could and should have used the word 'mistaken' and there is a huge difference in how people, especially Christians would be insulted as individuals and as a group by my choice of just one word..deluded is a clear insult, mistaken probably not so or not as much certainly.

This is why the Moderators have such a huge task in not only trying to follow all the discussions for context but to have to try and spot an individual word that could be breaking the rules and why they cannot spend time looking at every single post on every single board and why its incumbent on ALL of us to just think a bit more of the words we use that may offend others...I could learn a lot more by re reading any post I may make a couple of times before I press the send button...

I'm not sure we should add to their task by posters asking for emails from the Mods on why their post has been removed or moderated unless they feel as though they need to of course...

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1051
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 200 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158474

Postby gryffron » August 10th, 2018, 11:28 am

Walrus wrote:it really is only for the extremist pyad followers.

Well this moderator just got a slap on the wrists from his fellow mods for describing the High Yield Board as "pyad". Apparently pyad is something different :oops:

I would point out it is one of the busiest boards on TLF. So does need to be carefully controlled to keep it targeted and avoid the discussion becoming overwhelming.

But I do agree putting it right at the top is a mistake. And lures in too many newbies. <edit> Started a separate discussion here viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13110

Gryff

idpickering
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2850
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:04 pm
Has thanked: 346 times
Been thanked: 658 times

Re: Dod's farewell.

#158476

Postby idpickering » August 10th, 2018, 11:30 am

scotia wrote:Could we all agree to end this discussion, and let moderators get on with their life.
We cannot run this site without moderation - you only need to look at "discussions" on other financial sites to realise the necessity.
If we think we have been unfairly moderated, then lets accept it without complaint - its a small price to pay for a civilised informative site.


Well said scotia. This my last post in this thread, as it seems to have drifted elsewhere, again. If you are reading this Dod, come back sir.

Ian.


Return to “Biscuit Bar”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest