Dod's farewell.

[MDW1954]

And I'd add that not all modding is dealing with off-topic or impolite posts and posters.

I do some work directed towards what I'd call data quality issues -- correcting mis-spelled subject lines, clarifying which companies are being posted about, tidying things up, and moving the odd thread to a more appropriate home.

The result is (hopefully) a better user experience, all round.

MDW1954

[redsturgeon]

That said, it seems clear that others are finding the moderation leaning a tad too much towards the oppressive side. And I think there can be a mindset with a moderator of "don't just sit there, moderate something" whereas I would probably let things slide and give people the benefit of the doubt, unless matters deteriorate beyond a reasonable threshold.

I trust the community to decide what kind of site it wants and will support. I'm not sure that "zero tolerance moderation" is that.

On the first point, there is no way that I have any desire "to moderate something" for the sake of it and I would very much doubt if any of the other mods have that viewpoint...we all have better things to do.

Most moderation actions are the result of something being reported by one of the users. However once you get to know the ebb and flow of a particular board it may also be that you know that cutting something off early can prevent more trouble further down the line. Polite Discussions is one of those boards and the HYP board is the other. Those two boards probably are the cause of 90% of moderation actions on this site and probably a dozen or so posters are similarly the cause of 90% of our work.

stooz and Clariman were good enough to provide this site as a service to us refugees from TMF, they have not expected nor have they gained any financial reward from setting it up. It is only possible to run it with the support of a team of volunteer moderators. It may be that those moderators get fed up of the thankless task they perform and give up the "honour" (some already have). The site would not be able to continue with fewer moderators than we have at present.

If any on this thread believe they can help the moderator team to do a better job then they are welcome to put their hands up and join the volunteers.

On the last point, what support are you referring to?

John

[melonfool]

The only board which is moderated by all of us (I think) is Polite Discussions - which has generally been the area needing most moderation.

That's not quite true I don't think. Certainly one mod said they didn't want to and was excluded from that list and a number of mods never get involved at all so I have no idea if they are added to that board or not. But it is true that it needs most intervention, HYP probably being second, and that it has a larger number of mods as a result (in fact, we recently changed it to have more mods on HYP as well, which was partly to do with workload I think, but maybe another reason I have forgotten).

Mel

[Lootman]

once you get to know the ebb and flow of a particular board it may also be that you know that cutting something off early can prevent more trouble further down the line. Polite Discussions is one of those boards and the HYP board is the other. Those two boards probably are the cause of 90% of moderation actions on this site and probably a dozen or so posters are similarly the cause of 90% of our work.

That's interesting because, whilst I would expect more controversy on boards devoted to politics (along with religion and football, perhaps) the fact that an investment board is one of the top two culprits is surprising, given that the other investment boards I have read seem well behaved. And it would appear that it is controversy on the HY board(s) that has driven Dod to despair, and others too reading the comments above.

Is it worth taking a look at why this is the case? On the face of it, there isn't a good reason, it's just an investment strategy. There is maybe a degree of rigidity and zealousness to HYP. And perhaps the problem is that HY investing has been over-defined, leading to a flood of posts that are deemed "off topic". The ponderously long topic recently about whether Unilever should or should not be discussed is surely testament to the fact that the tail seems to be wagging the dog at times. That way, madness lies.

My own view is that having two overlapping boards for HY investing contributes to the ongoing confusion and disagreement. If the distinction between the two is not simple and intuitive, then problems will happen. And if we need to refer to 15/20 year old writings to resolve such disputes, as I have seen happen, then I'm not sure we are on the right track. I do not use TLF in a board-focused way so find this all even more perplexing. In fact I sometimes engage a topic without knowing which board it is on. As such having two HY boards seems redundant at best, and provocatively confusing at worse. I know some claim that it makes it easier to sift out topics of interest, but I do not find that process to be cognitively onerous myself.

Dod is one of the dozen most thanked Lemons. We can't afford to lose too many more or else the creativity and life of the board, and perhaps the site, will be sapped.

[redsturgeon]

Believe me Lootman, there have been many long discussions on the topic of HYP boards. I have not contributed but have watched from the sidelines.

John

[BristolDave]

Although I rarely post I read the boards every day in particular the HYP board. I agree that a level of moderation is required as I also follow several other sites, some of which without moderation have a large percentage of their posts degenerate into abuse between posters.

On the other hand I appreciate alternative views and that is one of the reasons that I follow these boards, Dods views quite often don't agree with my own views and that is the point, when testing an investment decision, we are looking for alternate views not confirmation bias.

On that note I will say I really hope Dod rescinds his decision as I for one value his input.

David

[Gengulphus]

i think you are correct to observe that what may start out as minor abrasive comments can escalate into full-blown knockdown-dragout fights. But that is not to say that such an outcome can be assumed from the start, and that therefore we should adopt a zero tolerance approach to any and every slightly strident post. ...

Straw man - I said nothing whatsoever about adopting a zero-tolerance approach to minor abrasive comments or slightly strident posts.

And I see no evidence whatsoever that the moderators are anywhere near adopting a zero-tolerance approach to those things. Look at the three examples in my first post above (#158115), in the "Trimming Unilever" thread, in the "HSBC Interim Results" thread and again in the "HSBC Interim Results" thread. The first had something removed - I don't know what, but the moderator comment "Misleading and untrue comment removed" indicates pretty clearly that it wasn't for being a minor abrasive remark. The second doesn't appear to have had anything done to it, just a moderator request not to use a particular abrasive phrase because it "does not help with cohesion on this board", followed by another moderator saying that he was sure that it wasn't meant pejoratively, but the "phraseology perhaps wasn't ideal". The third again had something removed, but the moderator comment "Questioning MOD removed. ..." again indicates pretty clearly that it wasn't for being a minor abrasive remark.

So the only one of those three that appears to have been for being an abrasive remark only attracted moderator attention to the extent of a "please don't do it" request, not any action against the post. It's the first of the two remarks I quoted in my later post (#158167), and as far as I can see, the second of them ("Anyone, HYP income seeker or not, is living in a fool's paradise if to them price fluctuations are a matter of supreme indifference, particularly when the price fluctuation is downwards.") didn't even attract that. Hardly a zero-tolerance approach towards minor abrasive remarks, I think - just not quite an infinite-tolerance approach towards them!

Gengulphus

[melonfool]

There is maybe a degree of rigidity and zealousness to HYP.

It is exactly that type of comment that, on the HYP board, leads to disharmony.

My own view is that having two overlapping boards for HY investing contributes to the ongoing confusion and disagreement. If the distinction between the two is not simple and intuitive, then problems will happen.

I think we are aware of your view on this, you tell us on every thread and have been doing so for about ten years. You don't like/agree with/follow HYP - so just don't go to the board, why does it matter to you?

People who do want to follow it can do so.

Mel

[Lootman]

I see no evidence whatsoever that the moderators are anywhere near adopting a zero-tolerance approach to those things.

Well, I do see some posts which could technically be moderated, which in fact are not moderated. That does not prove a contention that there is no zero tolerance policy. It is entirely possible that nobody reported those posts, and/or that no moderator looked at them.

I am not saying there is a zero tolerance policy - Dod might have overstated his case. But the fact that some posts stick around that break the guidelines does not, in and of itself, prove that there isn't. And RS admitted that, on some boards, they moderate early rather than wait and see if trouble arises or not. So maybe "pre-emptive moderation" is a better phrase than "zero tolerance moeration".

It seems that the HY board(s) are creating something like up to 40% of moderator activity. A well-respected contributor is leaving. Something is wrong.

[tjh290633]

The first had something removed - I don't know what, but the moderator comment "Misleading and untrue comment removed" indicates pretty clearly that it wasn't for being a minor abrasive remark.

Gengulphus

I deleted his comment, which was that "ULVR is not and never has been an HYP share".

Since any number of people have shown this not to be the case, I deleted it and an exchange of PM's ensued. He has repeated that comment a number of times, and it could be misleading. I could have deleted the entire post, but that was the only part which merited action.

He went off in a huff after our interchange, and he obviously did not like being corrected.

TJH

[redsturgeon]

And RS admitted that, on some boards, they moderate early rather than wait and see if trouble arises or not. So maybe "pre-emptive moderation" is a better phrase than "zero tolerance moeration".

Just to be clear, I was only speaking for myself. All moderators are free to use their own judgement when deciding what (if any) action to take and when to take it.

John

[Lootman]

The first had something removed - I don't know what, but the moderator comment "Misleading and untrue comment removed" indicates pretty clearly that it wasn't for being a minor abrasive remark.

I deleted his comment, which was that "ULVR is not and never has been an HYP share". Since any number of people have shown this not to be the case, I deleted it and an exchange of PM's ensued.

That's an interesting decision in the sense that the only crime seems to be a statement that you deemed to be factually incorrect.

Now, you may well be correct about that. But should any statement that purports to be truthful be removed if the moderator (or others) disagree that it is true? Put another way, it is an offence to be wrong? As an analogy, I did occasionally get punished at school, but never for simply getting some schoolwork wrong.

Not saying you were wrong, but could it form a dangerous precedent if moderators are deciding matters of fact rather than matters of behaviour? Should a post be removed for no reason other than that it is factually incorrect?

[melonfool]

[

Since any number of people have shown this not to be the case, I deleted it and an exchange of PM's ensued.

TJH

That's funny, Dod has been very clear on this thread and at least two others that moderators never let him know what he has done wrong and don't engage.

It's a total mystery.

Mel

[Raptor]

i think you are correct to observe that what may start out as minor abrasive comments can escalate into full-blown knockdown-dragout fights. But that is not to say that such an outcome can be assumed from the start, and that therefore we should adopt a zero tolerance approach to any and every slightly strident post. ...

Straw man - I said nothing whatsoever about adopting a zero-tolerance approach to minor abrasive comments or slightly strident posts.

And I see no evidence whatsoever that the moderators are anywhere near adopting a zero-tolerance approach to those things. Look at the three examples in my first post above (#158115), in the "Trimming Unilever" thread, in the "HSBC Interim Results" thread and again in the "HSBC Interim Results" thread. The first had something removed - I don't know what, but the moderator comment "Misleading and untrue comment removed" indicates pretty clearly that it wasn't for being a minor abrasive remark. The second doesn't appear to have had anything done to it, just a moderator request not to use a particular abrasive phrase because it "does not help with cohesion on this board", followed by another moderator saying that he was sure that it wasn't meant pejoratively, but the "phraseology perhaps wasn't ideal". The third again had something removed, but the moderator comment "Questioning MOD removed. ..." again indicates pretty clearly that it wasn't for being a minor abrasive remark.

So the only one of those three that appears to have been for being an abrasive remark only attracted moderator attention to the extent of a "please don't do it" request, not any action against the post. It's the first of the two remarks I quoted in my later post (#158167), and as far as I can see, the second of them ("Anyone, HYP income seeker or not, is living in a fool's paradise if to them price fluctuations are a matter of supreme indifference, particularly when the price fluctuation is downwards.") didn't even attract that. Hardly a zero-tolerance approach towards minor abrasive remarks, I think - just not quite an infinite-tolerance approach towards them!

Gengulphus

Just to clarify, I was the mod who deleted some of Dods remarks and added the box about "questioning MOD". There was absolutely nothing wrong with his post, as far as I could see. But, he posted a sentance along the lines of "I expect that this post will be deleted by the moderators". Why would he say that and then complain of moderation? I just did a quick tally and saw 6 reports from 5 different people on Dods posts on 3 seperate threads. Not sure what or if any action was taken by mods on them. Do not have the time, at the moment to delve deeper. However, it does seem like at least 3 different mods were involved.

Maybe, just maybe, we are, this time being painted badly.

And as regular on hyp and IT I will miss Dods posts (in the main). I hope he rethinks about leaving and maybe looks at what he posts instead.


Raptor

[melonfool]

That's an interesting decision in the sense that the only crime seems to be a statement that you deemed to be factually incorrect.

Now, you may well be correct about that. But should any statement that purports to be truthful be removed if the moderator (or others) disagree that it is true? Put another way, it is an offence to be wrong? As an analogy, I did occasionally get punished at school, but never for simply getting some schoolwork wrong.

Not saying you were wrong, but could it form a dangerous precedent if moderators are deciding matters of fact rather than matters of behaviour? Should a post be removed for no reason other than that it is factually incorrect?

No - that is NOT the issue. The issue is that there have been have great* long threads about ULV and it has been AGREED (more than once) that it can be discussed on HYP - so for people to keep saying it can't, or that it's not HYP (if it's not, then none of it should be on there) it tends to feel, when taken in the round, along with other posts by the same person, that this style is constantly goading at the HYP board users and the moderators. Then throw in the name-calling like 'disciples' etc and the board is not flowing at all, it becomes stilted by these 'throwaway' comments.

What the intention is, is not relevant. But it makes the place unfriendly.

But the bottom line is - whether something is or is not an HYP share is subjective, but it has been AGREED that ULV is and can be discussed, so it feels like posters are simply trying to reopen old arguments For fun!

Mel

I mean this in a quantitative way, not qualitative

[Raptor]

[

Since any number of people have shown this not to be the case, I deleted it and an exchange of PM's ensued.

TJH

That's funny, Dod has been very clear on this thread and at least two others that moderators never let him know what he has done wrong and don't engage.

It's a total mystery.

Mel

I would PM Dod and explain the reason, on most occasions, in fact on all occasions I can see (but I have had to delete a lot recently as I busted the limit on pm space) he disagreed with the moderation, even on the occasions he admitted he could not remember what he had written. I have made a point on not engaging in pm ping pong though.

Raptor

[Breelander]

I deleted his comment, which was that "ULVR is not and never has been an HYP share".

Since any number of people have shown this not to be the case, I deleted it...

TJH

Apparent not all the Mods agree with you. It's heavy-handed mod'ing like this example that seems to be trying to restrict the HYP Practical board to a much narrower remit than it ever had in 'the old place'. There have been times I've felt like doing a 'Dod' too.

Moderator Message:
I've moved this.

The HYP practical board is for companies that are now, or were in the past, HYP shares for those practicing that faith.

If ULVR was ever a HYP candidate then it can only have been for a blink of an eye and so does not really count. Unless you are in angels on pins territory....

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=12724&start=20#p153603

[tjh290633]

That's an interesting decision in the sense that the only crime seems to be a statement that you deemed to be factually incorrect.

Not just me but a number of other posters have shown it to be factually incorrect, yet he kept repeating it.

I gave him my own data, which was a purchase in February 2010 at 1915p, with a yield of 3.72% from the next four quarterly dividends. It was above the market average at that time, ranking 20th out of my then 34 shares, 5 of which had no yield, and yielded 93% of the median yield, just below Imperial Tobacco, in the first week in which I held it. In July and August of 2010 the yield had risen above 4% as the price fell further.

TJH

[Breelander]

...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 despite qualifying on size. Strict application of the 'must be in the FT350' rule would seem to make it impossible to discuss.

[Walrus]

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