Dod's farewell.

[Gengulphus]

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

A non-starter in my view, as it attaches the label "legacy" to its users. Maybe that label is justified and they'll die out in time, but maybe not. Opinions will differ about that, but I don't think this site should use language that expresses (or appears to express) an opinion about it.

If a name change is wanted (and I'm not saying that it is, nor that it isn't), I'd suggest "Running HYP Strategies in Practice". The "HYP Practical" name's origins lie in that, but a software limit on board name length made it unusable on TMF (it's 34 characters long, just over the limit of 31 or 32 - I forget exactly which). With what "Practical" is supposed to mean spelt out more clearly in the board name, its subtitle could be made into a brief explanation of what the board guidance says in more detail without becoming excessively long, e.g. "HYP strategies invest in high-yielding FTSE 350 shares, on a diversified LTB&H basis".

Gengulphus

[mc2fool]

...there is nothing wrong with The HYP Pactical Board title.

Maybe not, but the description of it in the listing of boards is "Practical discussions about equity High-Yield Portfolios (HYP) for income", which gives the impression that the board is for any kind of equity high yield portfolios for income, rather than the specific kind known to TMFers as "HYP".

Clearly a full explanation isn't possible in the board description line, but possibly something like "Practical discussions about a specific equity income method known as HYP, see the board guidance for details" would help, or something similar that succinctly says that (a) it isn't about any kind high yield portfolios and (b) refers to where to find out what kind it is about.

[Gengulphus]

I always assumed they were just in alphabetical order, ...

Surely it takes just one glance at the list to see that they're not??? I can't see any discernable order to the list, so I'd guess it's something essentially random, such as the order in which they were created and/or shuffled into their current categories of "Investors' Roundtable", "Sectors & General Shares", etc.

Gengulphus

[PinkDalek]

… Surely it takes just one glance at the list to see that they're not??? I can't see any discernable order to the list, so I'd guess it's something essentially random, such as the order in which they were created and/or shuffled into their current categories of "Investors' Roundtable", "Sectors & General Shares", etc.

Gengulphus

In case anyone has missed it, re-ordering has been mentioned in a new Topic commenced by by gryffron on this board today (it includes some discussion on the order across the boards generally):

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13110

[MaraMan]

Firstly let me say that Dod will be sorely missed if he stays away, I always found his posts interesting and educational.

As for the mods, they have a thankless task and usually do a good job, however I do feel, rightly or wrongly, that there is a level of heavy handedness here that I wasn't as aware of on TMF. IMHO the HYP boards aren't really fit for purpose, but there are a small number of regular posters who seek to protect their original purity very militantly. I have never understood why we can't discuss HY IT's for instance, I am sure many of us hold them, and yes I know there is an IT board. A HYP should be just that, and an evolving thing, not rigidly sticking to something past it's sell by date.

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

[Gengulphus]

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.

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.

With respect, Mel and Gengulphus, there is surely a huge difference between "idiot" and "disciple". One is obviously derogatory, the other a simple statement of fact.

Agreed that there's a big difference - "idiot" is derogatory pretty much in and of itself, "disciple" is quite often not - for instance, "all Christians are disciples of Jesus Christ" would seem pretty obviously non-derogatory to me. There is a possibility that someone regards themselves as a Christian but not a disciple of Jesus Christ, of course, and if so, they might reasonably dispute the statement's truth. But any insult would have been created by their own minds...

And to my mind, when Dod (or anyone else) says something like "True disciples of course would ignore that argument and simply go for the higher yield" they are simply re-stating a tenet of HYP investing: all other things being equal, go for the share with the higher yield.

No, they're leaving out the "all other things being equal" part and adding a "would ignore that argument" part. And the argument concerned was about the dividend prospects for the companies not being equal. The board guidance doesn't actually say that HYPers should pay attention to the dividend prospects, but certainly allows attention to be paid to them by saying "Additional criteria may be used by individuals." And personally, I regard the failure to say anything more about them as a surprising flaw in the guidance, as the dividend prospects are both obviously relevant to a strategy whose primary aim is dividend income and a well-established, normal aspect of HYP strategies, if only through the pretty common use of forecast dividends.

The word "disciple" does have religious associations - it doesn't actually say that the person concerned is acting out of blind faith rather than for rational reasons, but it does at least mildly suggest it. Put it in a statement that they would ignore a rational argument about a very relevant-to-HYP matter, and that suggestion is greatly amplified. I don't think it's actually derogatory, but I certainly regard it as stereotyping and undesirable.

And as IMHO "zealot" is a stronger term than "disciple", and Mel said "I suppose calling someone a 'zealot' is not defamatory as such, but it's the underlying ethos here.", I suspect that she feels similarly.

Gengulphus

[scotia]

Very reluctantly I am back adding to this stream which I hoped would have ended. However I was annoyed by the statement, which appeared to be summarising the views of contributors

3. Take a chill pill mods, only act when you really have too

I believe that the vast majority of users of this site never experience any moderation, and do not feel any need to tell the moderators to take a chill pill.
And if I had been a moderator (which I have no wish to be) I would have taken umbrage at this statement. Well done to the moderators for their tolerance.

[Walrus]

Firstly let me say that Dod will be sorely missed if he stays away, I always found his posts interesting and educational.

As for the mods, they have a thankless task and usually do a good job, however I do feel, rightly or wrongly, that there is a level of heavy handedness here that I wasn't as aware of on TMF. IMHO the HYP boards aren't really fit for purpose, but there are a small number of regular posters who seek to protect their original purity very militantly. I have never understood why we can't discuss HY IT's for instance, I am sure many of us hold them, and yes I know there is an IT board. A HYP should be just that, and an evolving thing, not rigidly sticking to something past it's sell by date.

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

My last post on the matter . I think that's a good summary from my perspective.

[jackdaww]

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

Mel

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

one reason i gave up on the HYP board some time ago .

i did like dod's posts mostly , and learned from him to avoid certain HYP picks - carillion and the like .

many on here did not avoid them , to their cost .

[tjh290633]

Very reluctantly I am back adding to this stream which I hoped would have ended. However I was annoyed by the statement, which appeared to be summarising the views of contributors

3. Take a chill pill mods, only act when you really have too

I believe that the vast majority of users of this site never experience any moderation, and do not feel any need to tell the moderators to take a chill pill.
And if I had been a moderator (which I have no wish to be) I would have taken umbrage at this statement. Well done to the moderators for their tolerance.

Believe me, we do only moderate when the need arises. Sometimes that is a request from the OP, sometimes a report has been raised on the post, sometimes tags have been corrupted, sometimes spelling errors have crept in, often due to predictive text.

In general, any poster who writes politely and sensibly is unlikely to be moderated. Sometimes a post may be deleted and replies to that post also have to be deleted, as they are left hanging.

By the way, your quote above is attributable to MaraMan. If you use the quote marks above his post, his text should be inserted in your reply, which you can then edit as required. You can also do it manually by inserting ="MaraMan" after quote inside the square brackets. I have done that in this reply.

TJH

[scotia]

If you use the quote marks above his post, his text should be inserted in your reply, which you can then edit as required. TJH

Thanks - you have taught an old dog how to do new tricks!

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

I am not planning to fall off my perch any time soon but I am withdrawing from posting on these Boards. I no longer feel welcome so some will I have no doubt be very pleased about that. I am grateful for the 499 thanks I have received in this guise and probably about the same in my previous guise as dod1010. Good luck to all of you.

Dod

That's a shame, me and Mel have since our recent membership appreciated all of your posts/comments. But it's your choice.

Matt

[melonfool]

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

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.

Mel

With respect, Mel and Gengulphus, there is surely a huge difference between "idiot" and "disciple". One is obviously derogatory, the other a simple statement of fact.

And to my mind, when Dod (or anyone else) says something like "True disciples of course would ignore that argument and simply go for the higher yield" they are simply re-stating a tenet of HYP investing: all other things being equal, go for the share with the higher yield.

MDW1954

With respect, some people find being called a 'zealot' insulting.

Mel

[cshfool]

Yes a pity that Dod, but I understand why you feel that way as I see some petty stuff going on here occasionally of the "he said, she said, you said, I said" variety.....

"Oh no I never",
"yeah you did"
"no I didn't",
"yeah you did".
"ooooh get you"
"get lost yourself"
"bend it bend it double it and send it."
"Well it does n't count anyway cos I had keys on"
......etc etc, an infinite variety.

Anyway, enough of the Presidential diplomacy, ("no I never bombed it, yeah you did, no I never, yeah you did") thanks for the many useful posts Dod - hope for more here sometime, let us know if you post elsewhere.

csh

NB ( keys = a sort of insult deflector shield capability N. of Border, equivalent to fingers crossed.)
I sometimes feel I have to use this myself.

[melonfool]

I always assumed they were just in alphabetical order, ...

Surely it takes just one glance at the list to see that they're not??? I can't see any discernable order to the list, so I'd guess it's something essentially random, such as the order in which they were created and/or shuffled into their current categories of "Investors' Roundtable", "Sectors & General Shares", etc.

Gengulphus

I hadn't given it a jot of thought, but after the post of course I went to look and they are nothing like in alphabetical order.

Mel

[Lootman]

The word "disciple" does have religious associations - it doesn't actually say that the person concerned is acting out of blind faith rather than for rational reasons, but it does at least mildly suggest it. Put it in a statement that they would ignore a rational argument about a very relevant-to-HYP matter, and that suggestion is greatly amplified. I don't think it's actually derogatory, but I certainly regard it as stereotyping and undesirable.

I do try and use words carefully, to avoid offence. And I agree that stereotyping people can cause offence, either accidentally or with malice aforethought.

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?

I ask this because there is clearly a corpus of people on this thread who are unhappy with the way the HY boards work, and it takes a disproportionate amount of moderator effort to police them. This can surely be attributed at least partly to the attitudes of at least some of its adherents. But if you cannot characterise those attributes in any way, because characterisations are not allowed, then how do we discuss it, and therefore improve things?

I do not personally believe that it is abusive for me to speculate on what those attributes are, as long as my intention is to reduce the disharmony here and not just to take cheap shots at those adherents. So whilst I am happy to not use or stop using terms like "zealot" or "disciple" or "cultist", there has to be some way to make classifications and note trends.

My earlier post attributed the "special protection" given to HYP to the lack of alternatives to TLF for discussing HYP. To my knowledge there is no other place to talk about it. Thank you for your reply to that, by the way, which I won't reply to in any detail. Except to say that by "special treatment for HYP" I meant that it is the only investment strategy on TLF (and perhaps the only topic) to have two boards rather than one, specifically designed to separate out related subjects. TMF had quite a few topics that divided into "Practical" and "Theory/Strategies" boards, as I recall. It was an affirmative policy for TLF to merge those pairs of related boards into one, but a (special?) exception was carved out for HYP topics.

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

Apologies to Dod for discussing something completely different to his farewell in this thread.

But really, HYP?

What does it mean exactly?

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

Matt

[melonfool]

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

[IanTHughes]

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?

Of course you can say that, although it might be better to describe the Strategy rather than the person, but not on the HYP Practical board. If you wish to criticise the HYP Strategy as put together by Stephen Bland and as understood in the rules for the HYP Practical board, you are quite at liberty to do so, even encouraged to do so. But not on the HYP Practical board.

I ask this because there is clearly a corpus of people on this thread who are unhappy with the way the HY boards work, and it takes a disproportionate amount of moderator effort to police them.

First of all, TLF do not have HY boards, plural, rather there is one entitled "High Yield Shares & Strategies - General" and one entitled "High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical". To suggest, as you are, that they are two similar boards both set up for the same purpose - High Yield - is disingenuous at best.

Secondly, surely the extra moderation required is to do with the popularity of the board and of course those thoughtless people who come on to "High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical" simply to it to criticise the HYP Strategy, which should be done on "High Yield Shares & Strategies - General"

This can surely be attributed at least partly to the attitudes of at least some of its adherents.

Not true. If you disbelieve me then you will have to show me examples

But if you cannot characterise those attributes in any way, because characterisations are not allowed, then how do we discuss it, and therefore improve things?

On "High Yield Shares & Strategies - General"


Ian

[Lootman]

I ask this because there is clearly a corpus of people on this thread who are unhappy with the way the HY boards work, and it takes a disproportionate amount of moderator effort to police them.

surely the extra moderation required is to do with the popularity of the board and of course those thoughtless people who come on to "High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical" simply to it to criticise the HYP Strategy, which should be done on "High Yield Shares & Strategies - General"

Fair point. If the moderation effort is proportionate to the amount of posting activity then it might not be a problem. I only cited the moderation effort that the HY boards attract because a moderator mentioned yesterday that it was significant.

But I don't think it is helpful to just assert that 100% of the blame for the problems is "thoughtless" contributors. If there were just a small number of them causing all the problems, as RS suggested yesterday, then surely that could be managed, even by dishing out suspensions if necessary.

A more balanced view is surely that it goes deeper than that, and that something in the structure of the HY board(s) tends to lead to squabbles between two classes of reader, both of whom are partly to blame. After all, this has been going on for as long as I can recall and I've been on TMF/TLF a looooong time.

In my more general experience, if there are constant arguments and disagreement then both sides contribute to the problem. It's a little too convenient to just blame one side. For my part I can easily ignore topics that do not interest me. I don't resent their presence just because they do not interest me, or even challenge my beliefs.