Dod's farewell.

[Arborbridge]

Anyway I think there is a general theme to the replies to this post:
1. Please come back Dod
2. Take a look at the raison d'etre of the HYP boards from the point of view of the users and bring them up to date
3. Take a chill pill mods, only act when you really have too.

Yours unBlandly

MM

I have to take issue with point 2. There is nothing to "bring up to date" as far as I am aware, but additionally I would say there is no "general theme" in these posts calling for such a move.

[scotia]

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

I think we should take Mel at her word - and demand that she set up the football board.
I am reasonably certain that she doesn't have a team to support, so could I suggest my wife's favourite team - Wick Academy (Highland league). If you use Google Earth, then Wick is located just before you fall off the top of the Scottish Mainland.
And for those of you in remote southern areas, Wick has an Airport (the call it a Drome up there), so it is quite convenient for dropping in for home games.
And if anyone suggests I'm getting off topic - my response is - About time we did!

[melonfool]

I support Newcastle in fact

Mel

[Gengulphus]

That said, stereotyping is really just a form of characterisation. And unless it is TLF policy to ban all characterisations then it would seem that the problem is restricted to characterisations that are negative. And that is a common enough guideline in many circles. For instance it has become politically incorrect to suggest that blacks commit a lot of crime (even if you believe that they do and have evidence to support that). But it is no problem to note that blacks excel at basketball. Particularly with vulnerable minorities, you can't say things that you can say about privileged classes of people.

Is it the same here? Such that I can assert that HYPers are passionate and diligent? But not that (purely for example) they can be narrowly-focused or too much in love with the strategy?

The general site rules apply to any board on this site. They include:

* "It is forbidden to write defamatory remarks, whether about site users or others." That obviously doesn't apply to favourable remarks, and equally obviously does apply to some unfavourable ones. Just where the boundary lies between defamatory unfavourable remarks and non-defamatory unfavourable remarks, I don't know. It almost certainly depends on a judgement call by the moderators - but given that the site admins have said pretty clearly that they cannot risk legal action, I expect that the judgement will be made not merely without the benefit of the doubt, but with its reverse.

* "To make this a valued and successful discussion forum, LemonFool asks all users to be respectful, understanding and helpful to other posters" and "Robust debate is allowed, but it must remain polite and respectful at all times." Favourable remarks seem very unlikely to run foul of those, unfavourable ones rather more so, especially with regard to the "respectful" parts. And in case anyone is wondering, sticking the phrase "With respect," (or worse, "With the greatest respect,") before remarks just draws attention to the question of whether they're respectful and is often a give-away that they're not!

* "Each discussion board has its own focus for discussions. While the site owners are happy for things to shift slightly off-topic, please respect the fact that the regular users of that board may not wish it to diverge too far away from its stated intent. Once again, mutual understanding and respect is requested." That is obviously board-specific, and it's not always all that clear exactly what a board's "focus" or "stated intent" is. But it is pretty clear that for most of the boards, it does not include "discussion of other users". I'd guess that favourable remarks are pretty likely to count as OK because they're likely to shift the discussion only slightly off-topic (though I have seen a few "mutual admiration" type exchanges where I'm none too certain of that!), while unfavourable remarks are less likely to count as OK because they're likely to shift the discussion off-topic in a more major way - and again, they have an issue about showing respect.

So I think unfavourable remarks on other users are considerably more likely to be against the site rules than favourable ones. And on top of that, they are also almost certainly considerably more likely to be reported and so be specifically drawn to the moderators' attention. Which says that yes, it is similar to the situation you describe: you can make favourable characterisations of people but cannot make unfavourable characterisations of the same, or at least be a lot more likely to get away with the former than the latter.

But only similar to the situation you describe, not the same as it, because one crucial element of the situation you describe is missing here, namely "Particularly with vulnerable minorities, you can't say things that you can say about privileged classes of people." That makes it a case of having one set of rules about the acceptability of favourable and unfavourable characterisations if the people being characterised are a vulnerable minority and a different set of rules if they are privileged. And I very much doubt that anything similar is the case here - for example, I think that a statement of the form "True disciples of course would ignore that argument and ..." in similar circumstances (i.e. the argument referred to is both rational and relevant to the matter being discussed) would get the same moderator reaction regardless of whether the group it was characterising were HYPers, Christians, Muslims, Tory party members, Labour party members or [expletive deleted] supporters, to name just a few of the many groups such a statement might be made about. Obviously I can't prove that - but I'm certainly not going to believe that the moderators are applying different rules about negative characterisations depending on who is being characterised without evidence.

Gengulphus

[Gengulphus]

But really, HYP?

What does it mean exactly?

Is the HY just "high yield" as in "high dividend yield"?

There are two different questions that can easily get confused here: your question about what the acronym "HYP" means, and the other is about the derivation of that acronym. The answer to the second is that the acronym comes from abbreviating "High Yield Portfolio", and yes, the "High Yield" part of that is referring to dividend yield. But the answer to the first is that the acronym means quite a bit more than just a portfolio with a high dividend yield, and as Mel has said, you need to look at the board's guidance to see what.

An analogous situation applies to the acronym "ISA". It comes from abbreviating "Individual Savings Account", but it means quite a bit more than just a savings account that is owned by an individual.

Gengulphus

[Lootman]

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

"Defamatory" has a specific legal meaning. I doubt many TLF comments are defamatory in that sense. If they were, then remedies exist outside of TLF.

However, taking that more generally to mean negative comments, as we both did, then one can accept that as being undesirable in principle. That leaves it as a matter of linguistic gymnastics how you make constructive criticisms of a class of Lemons without falling foul of the guideline. Given that criticism is often the vehicle of self-awareness and improvement, the challenge is to find a way of criticising without the perception of negativity. Difficult, but not impossible, perhaps needing the employment of an array of euphemisms.

So [expletive deleted] supporters may not be members of a cult, but perhaps do sometimes exhibit a pattern of not giving full credit to the merits of Tottenham. They are not zealous but are very enthusiastic. They are not prejudiced but are passionate. They are not disciples but are single-mindedly proud of their tribe. That kind of thing

[csearle]

However, taking that more generally to mean negative comments, as we both did, then one can accept that as being undesirable in principle. That leaves it as a matter of linguistic gymnastics how you make constructive criticisms of a class of Lemons without falling foul of the guideline. Given that criticism is often the vehicle of self-awareness and improvement, the challenge is to find a way of criticising without the perception of negativity. Difficult, but not impossible, perhaps needing the employment of an array of euphemisms.

As well as how, it is also where those criticisms are made. The High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical board is not the place for criticising the strategy, it is a place of practical matters concerning the implementation of the strategy set out in the board's guidelines.

The place to criticise the strategy is High Yield Shares & Strategies - general where one can do that as much as one likes providing any negative criticisms don't spill over into negative comments about site users or others.

Regards,
Chris

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

Matt/Mel

You need to read the guidance on that board as it's a very specific thing. And general high yield strategies can be discussed as much as anyone wants on the other board.

Mel

Thanks Mel,

And indeed Gengulphus followed up with a link to the board's guidance.

I suspected that HYP meant what it meant, and I appreciate the significance that the guidelines give to the posting sub-forums. However what (for us, as newbies) is upsetting, is that posters on this forum are seemingly much more interested in discussing all these HYP things (and as Lootman pointed out indulgence in linguistic gymnastics), than discussing investing other aspects of investing e.g.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=13116

Not that I expect people to rush out and answer all our queries/join all our discussions!! But it's noteworthy that discussion of the entity I mentioned above is much more interesting to people on this forum. I'd like to find a different forum at this point.....but I/we do like LF, and to be honest, I think that other competent UK investment forums are a little thin on the ground.

Matt (and Mel)

[melonfool]

Matt

I think it's just human nature, people are intrinsically selfish.

I don't know enough, ineed, I don't know anything at all, about investing, but I am able to look at a set of rules and apply them. Whether that be rules for investing or rules for posting.

There a lot of history about HYP. I'd just stay away from the board if I'm honest and post in the more general boards where it's fine to also discuss high yield. I started off trying HYP but found it actually more risk and effort than I wanted, so now I have a small legacy HYP but also ETFs and ITs which I find spread the risk better and take up less headspace than looking at individual shares even if there is a set criteria to use.

Having said all that, I've done reasonable OK investing and I had to release some investments last year to buy my house and feel happy that I am mortgage free, with an investment portfolio. This is all due to the Motley Fool, the precursor to this forum, and to a number of posters here, many of whom have become personal friends.

Mel

[Stonge]

As well as how, it is also where those criticisms are made. The High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical board is not the place for criticising the strategy, it is a place of practical matters concerning the implementation of the strategy set out in the board's guidelines.

The place to criticise the strategy is High Yield Shares & Strategies - general where one can do that as much as one likes providing any negative criticisms don't spill over into negative comments about site users or others.

Regards,
Chris

This perfectly illustrates the muddle that the Bland strategy has got into on this site, because not everyone accepts the definition as set out.

Because not everyone accepts the definition, there should be more than one HYP practical board, each implementing in a practical way its own definition as clearly defined in its rules, perhaps:

1. HYP (Dorisian)
2. HYP (non-Dorisian)
3. some other definition
4, some other methodology not the same as 1, 2 and 3
5 similar to 4 but not the same
etc.

1. is pretty clear. 2. might have some variants e.g. how often to revew, when to sell a share, when to buy etc could differ between variants and might require 2.a 2.b 2.c etc to be set up. 3, 4, 5 etc are beyond my ability to discuss but I'm sure would exist in somones' minds.

[Alaric]

A simple rule of thumb is not to post anything on the board "High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical". Someone is bound to object based on postings from a TMF writer of long ago. They might object because the dividend yield is only 2%. In your defence you will have to dig out the history that it used to be much higher, not least because the share price has improved dramatically.

[PinkDalek]

A simple rule of thumb is not to post anything on the board "High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical". Someone is bound to object based on postings from a TMF writer of long ago. ...

There are currently 1699 Topics and 22059 posts over there. I think you'll find it hard to prove what you've said, in that the overwhelming majority of the hundreds of topics that I've read over there have not resulted in such objections.

[Itsallaguess]

Because not everyone accepts the definition, there should be more than one HYP practical board, each implementing in a practical way its own definition as clearly defined in its rules, perhaps:

1. HYP (Dorisian)
2. HYP (non-Dorisian)
3. some other definition
4, some other methodology not the same as 1, 2 and 3
5 similar to 4 but not the same
etc.

1. is pretty clear. 2. might have some variants e.g. how often to revew, when to sell a share, when to buy etc could differ between variants and might require 2.a 2.b 2.c etc to be set up. 3, 4, 5 etc are beyond my ability to discuss but I'm sure would exist in someones' minds.

No.

The fact that not everyone accepts the Practical HYP definition doesn't, and shouldn't, over-ride the clear fact that there *is* a set of TLF guidelines that dictate the definition that *should* be adhered to when discussing the practical running of a HYP on these boards.

Your various 'options' then become redundant after that, as any other flavour of high-yield discussion outside of that TLF guidance should then take place on the 'High Yield Shares & Strategies - General' board.

The vast majority of recent issues seem to have originated in some posters not being able to follow the above process.

More use of the 'High Yield Shares & Strategies - General' board, with perhaps some cross-post links on the Practical board if people think a particular discussion should be brought to Practical readers attention, would remove a great many of the moderator issues having to be dealt with.

I should say here that I don't follow a strict HYP approach myself, but there are clear methods to allow people to post about any flavour of high-yield income approaches that they use, but we do have to actively work together if we're to instil this approach into our collective efforts.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Raptor]

Because not everyone accepts the definition, there should be more than one HYP practical board, each implementing in a practical way its own definition as clearly defined in its rules, perhaps:

1. HYP (Dorisian)
2. HYP (non-Dorisian)
3. some other definition
4, some other methodology not the same as 1, 2 and 3
5 similar to 4 but not the same
etc.

1. is pretty clear. 2. might have some variants e.g. how often to revew, when to sell a share, when to buy etc could differ between variants and might require 2.a 2.b 2.c etc to be set up. 3, 4, 5 etc are beyond my ability to discuss but I'm sure would exist in someones' minds.

No.

The fact that not everyone accepts the Practical HYP definition doesn't, and shouldn't, over-ride the clear fact that there *is* a set of TLF guidelines that dictate the definition that *should* be adhered to when discussing the practical running of a HYP on these boards.

Your various 'options' then become redundant after that, as any other flavour of high-yield discussion outside of that TLF guidance should then take place on the 'High Yield Shares & Strategies - General' board.

The vast majority of recent issues seem to have originated in some posters not being able to follow the above process.

More use of the 'High Yield Shares & Strategies - General' board, with perhaps some cross-post links on the Practical board if people think a particular discussion should be brought to Practical readers attention, would remove a great many of the moderator issues having to be dealt with.

I should say here that I don't follow a strict HYP approach myself, but there are clear methods to allow people to post about any flavour of high-yield income approaches that they use, but we do have to actively work together if we're to instil this approach into our collective efforts.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Itsallaguess must have been mind reading. I was thinking excactly the same as I take a break from decorating.

This is not TMF. Stooz and Clariman have set it up and have set the "rules" for the site and "guidance" for the forums (or some of them). These have been modified and added to as we have gone along based on feedback, learning and having to abide by external "compliance" and I hope will continue to evolve and grow.

I like itsallaguess do not run a "strict" HYP portfolio but have "modified" my spreadsheets so as to conform to the current guidelines and can thus participate over there. I will also say that I, like others feel that the guidelines are "not complete", but that was what was what the "management" felt happy with and I will moderate it based on their wishes.

The "problem", if it is a "problem", is that either posters have not read the guidleines or have read them but do not like them and will "push the boundaries". Like a previous poster said (and thanks) I may not understand all there is a about investing but I can read the "rules" and "guidelines" and adhere to them.

I was an "irregular" poster over on TMF but a daily lurker and my investing has been influenced by discussions over there and here. I have become a "lurker" here with few posts recently. I post my portfolio in its entirety once a year on Portfolio board, post on HYP when I top-up or buy and once a year post my Portfolio and its status. I participate on strategy as I feel that allows more freedom to discuss the "future" on High Yield investing and am an infrequent poster on the IT board. I can use the boards as they have been set-up with no problems. If others did the same it may get us back on track.

A few of my "red flags" from the past.

I posted on HYP Practical as that is where most people are.

Well on TMF that is what the board was for.

This is not TMF it is TLF. Post it on the most relevant board and if you want post a cross-post elsewhere. If unsure post and make a comment to that fact and let the moderators decide if it is the right place. We did that yesterday on HYP Practical, after feedback left it there as no other board seemed to fit.

Must end the walls need another coat of paint.

Raptor.

blimey that was a big post for me...

[beeswax]

I think it's just human nature, people are intrinsically selfish.

Sorry but that is not so and had you written that 'some' people are intrinsically selfish, that would be fine..

I could give many examples but this is not the right board or time to do that...I just thought some correction was required that's all..

[Gengulphus]

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

No, I didn't write that - I quoted it from the site rules, written by someone else (I would guess one or both of the site admins, but that's just a guess). Not a major point, but it does affect the context of the remarks I did make: they're my explanation of something written by others, not something I'm arguing for myself.

"Defamatory" has a specific legal meaning. I doubt many TLF comments are defamatory in that sense. If they were, then remedies exist outside of TLF.

But TLF still want to know about it, so that they can get rid of it promptly and avoid getting caught up in any legal action - and quite possibly avoid any legal action that they could get caught up in even happening at all. It's quickest and cheapest for TLF if a possibly-defamatory comment gets reported and removed without the person it targets ever realising that it was there in the first place. And I say "possibly-defamatory" in that because while "defamatory" has a specific legal meaning, whether a particular remark is defamatory in that legal sense can still be the subject of legal argument and opinion. And since legal argument and opinion costs money and that money is likely to be quite serious in the context of TLF's finances, that means that moderator action is likely to be taken against anything that looks as though it might possibly be defamatory.

However, taking that more generally to mean negative comments, as we both did, then one can accept that as being undesirable in principle. That leaves it as a matter of linguistic gymnastics how you make constructive criticisms of a class of Lemons without falling foul of the guideline. Given that criticism is often the vehicle of self-awareness and improvement, the challenge is to find a way of criticising without the perception of negativity. Difficult, but not impossible, perhaps needing the employment of an array of euphemisms.

The answer to that is very simple: you DON'T make criticisms of other users here, whether constructive or not. Criticise their ideas, yes, but not them. If a user makes a comment you want to respond to and you find yourself having to indulge in linguistic gymnastics to make your reply without describing/criticising the user who made the comment, think again about making that reply, because it's probably not wanted by TLF.

Also, personal criticism will only help someone to become more self-aware or to improve if that's what they actually want to do at the time. They may well not want to, for instance because they don't agree that a particular improvement is wanted (*). And if becoming more self-aware or improving is not what they want at the time, uninvited personal criticism intended to help them do so is liable to be seen at best as the actions of an interfering do-gooder - and I think more likely to be seen as not so constructively motivated...

That does leave open the possibility of invited personal criticism, of course, and I'm uncertain about what the moderator response to that might be. I.e. if I'm after self-awareness and improvement through constructive criticism of me as a person, I could explicitly ask for such criticism. If I were to do so on TLF (**), the moderators might take my request into account and decide not to take any action against such criticism - but only "might", because they might well decide that maintaining the "no personal criticism" norm on TLF was a higher priority than providing a platform for users to help each other in that particular way.

(*) An example is that it's quite clear that some users think I need to improve my posts by making them shorter. I disagree: it might make those users happier, but it's also clear that some other users appreciate my attempts to be thorough and would be made less happy... In any case, such posts are my forte and I've no desire whatsoever to join the tweeting population!

(**) Which is incredibly unlikely - I can think of far better groups to ask than a group of 3000+ strangers, most of whom I know absolutely nothing about and a few of whom have demonstrated outright hostility towards me in the past.

So [expletive deleted] supporters may not be members of a cult, but perhaps do sometimes exhibit a pattern of not giving full credit to the merits of Tottenham. They are not zealous but are very enthusiastic. They are not prejudiced but are passionate. They are not disciples but are single-mindedly proud of their tribe. That kind of thing

Yes, you could try such "linguistic gymnastics" to make personal criticism look like personal approval. It's rather pointless, though: if you succeed and everybody takes it as personal approval, you've failed to make your point, and if you don't succeed, your post is still fairly likely to attract moderator action.

IMHO it's far easier to pay attention to the "play the ball, not the man" principle and make a point about [expletive deleted], Tottenham, or whatever other club comes up in the discussion. If your point is valid and [expletive deleted] supporters have been claiming otherwise, they end up looking like zealots without you ever calling them zealots - and you haven't had to look for suitable euphemisms or do other "linguistic gymnastics".

And one final point: people who have run out of arguments to support their viewpoint often resort to personal criticism as a smokescreen to try to hide their defeat - often enough that using personal criticism runs a significant risk of getting oneself tarred with the same brush in the eyes of one's readers.

Gengulphus

[Lootman]

However, taking that more generally to mean negative comments, as we both did, then one can accept that as being undesirable in principle. That leaves it as a matter of linguistic gymnastics how you make constructive criticisms of a class of Lemons without falling foul of the guideline. Given that criticism is often the vehicle of self-awareness and improvement, the challenge is to find a way of criticising without the perception of negativity. Difficult, but not impossible, perhaps needing the employment of an array of euphemisms.

The answer to that is very simple: you DON'T make criticisms of other users here, whether constructive or not. Criticise their ideas, yes, but not them. If a user makes a comment you want to respond to and you find yourself having to indulge in linguistic gymnastics to make your reply without describing/criticising the user who made the comment, think again about making that reply, because it's probably not wanted by TLF.

Just to be clear, I was not talking about or advocating personal criticism of another individual. I can't think of a case where that is appropriate. I meant criticism of a class of individuals. And the context there was a board that is having problems, and offering up ideas as to why that may be based on the perceived collective behaviours of that board's participants.

And indeed, the moderators themselves engage in that, citing some contributors as intrusive or thoughtless or even troublemakers. I think we have to allow some characterisations, if only to be able to discuss such problems. We just don't want or need to name and shame individuals.

Also, personal criticism will only help someone to become more self-aware or to improve if that's what they actually want to do at the time. They may well not want to, for instance because they don't agree that a particular improvement is wanted.

Again, the context there would not be criticism per se but rather as a response to a perceived problem. So to take the example you gave there, I did comment some weeks ago on the length of your posts. But it was not that I care how long or short your posts are. That only informs how likely I am to read them. But rather you had (at that time) noted that you felt frustration that others not infrequently misunderstand what you said or misrepresent your views. I offered up the theory that that may not be personal. But perhaps is more likely to happen with a long post, because people are more likely to skim or scan them, thereby missing detail and losing meaning. I think that was (an attempt at) legitimate constructive criticism. It was not moderated.

Whether someone actually wants criticism is a factor, but I'm not sure that being closed to any and all feedback is a healthy position to take. Indeed it can be indicative of a lack of flexibility, a certain amount of over-confidence or even arrogance. I sometimes think it is those who most resist or reject criticism who are perhaps in the most need of it (I am not talking about you here, just to be clear. The fact that you engage a topic like this shows that).

Put another way, criticism that is offered in a constructive manner may be valid and instructive regardless of how it is received, and may benefit third parties even if not the target of that criticism.

[Alaric]

I think you'll find it hard to prove what you've said, in that the overwhelming majority of the hundreds of topics that I've read over there have not resulted in such objections.

I was thinking in particular of the long and pointless debate about whether Unilever could be discussed. In context, the dividend yield on Unilever has fallen. That's not because of the dividend being cut, but because the dividend growth has failed to keep pace with the growth in the share price. Eventually words of wisdom were discovered that such a stock could be discussed if it had at some time in the past satisfied the arbitrary rules for qualifying as a HYP stock.

[PinkDalek]

I think you'll find it hard to prove what you've said, in that the overwhelming majority of the hundreds of topics that I've read over there have not resulted in such objections.

I was thinking in particular of the long and pointless debate about whether Unilever could be discussed. In context, the dividend yield on Unilever has fallen. That's not because of the dividend being cut, but because the dividend growth has failed to keep pace with the growth in the share price. Eventually words of wisdom were discovered that such a stock could be discussed if it had at some time in the past satisfied the arbitrary rules for qualifying as a HYP stock.

Yes that is a pertinent Topic (or maybe two), which has since been locked, and I agree with the outcome. Your "arbitrary" detracts from your point imv and I doubt the discussion should be called "pointless", bearing in mind the sensible conclusion was what most posters appeared to want.

That is just one example but what I was replying to was this from you (which I'm repeating, as it may not be obvious to others now we are on the next page):

"A simple rule of thumb is not to post anything on the board "High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical". Someone is bound to object based on postings from a TMF writer of long ago. ..." and the mention of the lengthy Unilever poll thread, which I think was in this Biscuit Bar, doesn't prove your point that there's no point in posting at High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical, as "Someone is bound to object".

I think you'll find such objections are relatively few and far between and may well end up with Moderation action anyway.

[Alaric]

Yes that is a pertinent Topic (or maybe two), which has since been locked, and I agree with the outcome. Your "arbitrary" detracts from your point imv and I doubt the discussion should be called "pointless", bearing in mind the sensible conclusion was what most posters appeared to want.

My point is rather more that the discussion should have been unnecessary. Unilever is a stock that pays dividends at a rate higher than a bank account, therefore of practical interest to any income seeking investor. Anyone wishing to discuss a stock with a dividend yield is liable to be jumped on and told it's off topic if they use the HYP practical board. I nearly used the term "sacred HYP practical" board, but it's the impression you get. I'd guess that if you wanted to discuss a stock with a dividend yield of 2%, you would have to go to the higher yielding strategies board.