Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Dod101,Anonymous,Gersemi,robbelg,Clitheroekid, for Donating to support the site

Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

Pull up a chair, have a biscuit - discuss the site and general questions about the LemonFool
Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 5887
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 984 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190137

Postby Lootman » December 30th, 2018, 9:46 pm

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:Considering that the mods read a whole load of stuff submitted on the WWW in their spare time, for no pay, and little thanks, then any level of critique applied to them en-masse or individually, conjures up the phrase "biting the hand that feeds you".

If people really dislike moderation or policy *that much*, why not set up an alternative forum??

I do not believe that it is a principle of TLF that moderation or moderators are never criticised. Indeed it can be argued that this Room 101 board exists specifically for that purpose.

Now, I think it is more constructive to criticise a particular moderation decision or act than to criticise moderators in general. And indeed I'd like to think that moderators welcome such criticism; how can they improve their skills without being corrected when they get it wrong?

My point to Gengulphus (I assume that is what you are replying to here) was more that moderators themselves are not in the best position to self-criticise, like any other class of people. That has to come from without. As such, and as long as done in a civil and constructive manner, criticism is not a personal attack and therefore should not be taken that way. It is more in the nature of feedback, representing an opportunity to improve.

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2883
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1212 times
Been thanked: 700 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190153

Postby melonfool » December 31st, 2018, 12:31 am

Lootman wrote:I do not believe that it is a principle of TLF that moderation or moderators are never criticised. Indeed it can be argued that this Room 101 board exists specifically for that purpose.


All sorts of things 'can be argued' (as we can see), but a) this is not on Room 101, and b) Room 101 was set up for:

If you are unhappy with a moderation decision, have asked the moderator for clarification, and you still feel strongly enough to raise it again - then this is the place to do it.
Something very important about the website which Admin may have not seen


Mel

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 5887
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 984 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190158

Postby Lootman » December 31st, 2018, 3:10 am

melonfool wrote:
Lootman wrote:I do not believe that it is a principle of TLF that moderation or moderators are never criticised. Indeed it can be argued that this Room 101 board exists specifically for that purpose.

Room 101 was set up for: If you are unhappy with a moderation decision, have asked the moderator for clarification, and you still feel strongly enough to raise it again - then this is the place to do it.

Which is exactly why I found it odd that anyone would suggest that moderation should not be critiqued. And of course moderation is discussed on this board as well, in more general terms. As I understand it, the Biscuit Bar board is where the community decides how the site should run, and 101 is for addressing specific perceived cases of poor moderation.

melonfool wrote:Something very important about the website which Admin may have not seen

Not sure who you mean by "Admin". But if you mean Stooz and Clariman then I'm fairly sure they know how this site should work since they designed it. If not them, then whom? Nobody gets better at their job without feedback.

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2964
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 1523 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190159

Postby Gengulphus » December 31st, 2018, 3:25 am

Lootman wrote:My point to Gengulphus (I assume that is what you are replying to here) was more that moderators themselves are not in the best position to self-criticise, like any other class of people. That has to come from without. As such, and as long as done in a civil and constructive manner, criticism is not a personal attack and therefore should not be taken that way. It is more in the nature of feedback, representing an opportunity to improve.

And my point to Lootman is that "He would say that, wouldn't he?" is a personal attack (on the target's motives and truthfulness) and not a criticism.

Gengulphus

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 5887
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 984 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190161

Postby Lootman » December 31st, 2018, 3:34 am

Gengulphus wrote:
Lootman wrote:My point to Gengulphus (I assume that is what you are replying to here) was more that moderators themselves are not in the best position to self-criticise, like any other class of people. That has to come from without. As such, and as long as done in a civil and constructive manner, criticism is not a personal attack and therefore should not be taken that way. It is more in the nature of feedback, representing an opportunity to improve.

And my point to Lootman is that "He would say that, wouldn't he?" is a personal attack (on the target's motives and truthfulness) and not a criticism.

It certainly could be seen that way. But I see it more as the observation that if X is accused of a sin, then it is natural that X might deny it. And typically we do not take such self-serving statements as an adequate defence.

We put juries in charge of trials, not the defendant!

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2964
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 1523 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190162

Postby Gengulphus » December 31st, 2018, 3:36 am

Lootman wrote:
melonfool wrote:Something very important about the website which Admin may have not seen[/i]

Not sure who you mean by "Admin". But if you mean Stooz and Clariman then I'm fairly sure they know how this site should work since they designed it. If not them, then whom? Nobody gets better at their job without feedback.

In case you haven't realised, melonfool didn't write those words herself. As indicated by the italics she used (and which appear to have been lost in your quote), she was quoting someone else - and that someone was Clariman! (See viewtopic.php?f=91&t=13513.)

Gengulphus

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2964
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 1523 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190163

Postby Gengulphus » December 31st, 2018, 3:51 am

Lootman wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:
Lootman wrote:My point to Gengulphus (I assume that is what you are replying to here) was more that moderators themselves are not in the best position to self-criticise, like any other class of people. That has to come from without. As such, and as long as done in a civil and constructive manner, criticism is not a personal attack and therefore should not be taken that way. It is more in the nature of feedback, representing an opportunity to improve.

And my point to Lootman is that "He would say that, wouldn't he?" is a personal attack (on the target's motives and truthfulness) and not a criticism.

It certainly could be seen that way. But I see it more as the observation that if X is accused of a sin, then it is natural that X might deny it. And typically we do not take such self-serving statements as an adequate defence.

We put juries in charge of trials, not the defendant!

And we tell them that they should only convict if the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt! If that's been done, then "He would say that, wouldn't he?" is an unnecessary addition; if it hasn't, then "He would say that, wouldn't he?" doesn't magically convert it into such proof. Either way, it just serves as an attack on the defendant's motives and truthfulness without actually improving the prosecution case.

But it's pretty clear that we're not going to agree about this particular point, and I've said all I wish to about it - so I'll stop here.

Gengulphus

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2964
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 1523 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190164

Postby Gengulphus » December 31st, 2018, 4:11 am

With my bold:

csearle wrote:
absolutezero wrote:And if there are a significant number of people (which there are) who have problems with the moderation stemming from the guidelines, then the moderation stemming from the guidelines and/or the guidelines themselves are the problem. Not the people.
I think there is probably an even more significant number of people who don't have problems with the moderation and wish we could get on with business as usual. C.

Having backtracked in the thread to see where we went down the "He would say that, wouldn't he?" blind alley, I think this is the point. It's perfectly possible for both absolutezero and csearle to be right in that exchange - all it requires is for there to be problems in the HYP Practical board guidelines. Which IMHO there pretty obviously are, as highlighted in other threads on this board - to name just a couple of them, disagreements about what "Potential shares" covers (almost any share might potentially become a HYP candidate at some point in the future, but the guidance clearly isn't intended to be that all-encompassing) and about what trades "management ... of HYPs" covers.

Gengulphus

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1982
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 1189 times
Been thanked: 464 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190171

Postby csearle » December 31st, 2018, 8:32 am

Gengulphus wrote:It's perfectly possible for both absolutezero and csearle to be right in that exchange - all it requires is...
Yes, absolutezero's statement was in the format if A then B.

I simply think that his A is probably not true.

Whether the number of people unhappy with moderation is "significant" is surely affected by the number of people largely ok with it.

Regards,
Chris

tjh290633
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3602
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 1195 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190182

Postby tjh290633 » December 31st, 2018, 9:12 am

I wonder how many on here remember Mandy Rice Davies? Also where she made the famous remark?

TJH

mc2fool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1408
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 329 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190187

Postby mc2fool » December 31st, 2018, 10:18 am

tjh290633 wrote:I wonder how many on here remember Mandy Rice Davies? Also where she made the famous remark?

Yes. In court.

OT: I saw a postcard size drawing of her by Stephen Ward at a viewing at Christies earlier in the year. A good likeness but overall (IMO) an easily missable ho-hum drawing with only who the subject and artist were vaguely justifying the £1000-£1500 estimate ... but it actually sold for £15000. If you google the two names plus "Christies" you'll find it.

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 5887
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 984 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190225

Postby Lootman » December 31st, 2018, 1:15 pm

Gengulphus wrote: It's perfectly possible for both absolutezero and csearle to be right in that exchange - all it requires is for there to be problems in the HYP Practical board guidelines. Which IMHO there pretty obviously are, as highlighted in other threads on this board - to name just a couple of them, disagreements about what "Potential shares" covers (almost any share might potentially become a HYP candidate at some point in the future, but the guidance clearly isn't intended to be that all-encompassing) and about what trades "management ... of HYPs" covers.

As I recall there was an extensive debate about "potential" HYP candidates a few months ago and, as a result, there was broad agreement that such shares are within scope as long as there is a reasonable basis for their inclusion. And that "reasonable basis" is only determined by a discussion, so that clearly such discussions should take place!

But personally I think the ongoing problems with the HY boards are much more than just a matter of imprecise guidelines. These fights have been going on for at least a decade, and I can recall some disagreements stretching back 20 years. Which leads me to believe that there is no form of the guidelines that will resolve the problem. Rather there is a structural and fundamental issue with HYP that tends to polarise people into either being fervent supporters who frown upon any criticism or incredulous critics who think the Emporer has no clothes.

And I don't see that changing after all this time. There are two classes of HY contributors and both of them blame the other class.

TUK020
Lemon Slice
Posts: 733
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 329 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190234

Postby TUK020 » December 31st, 2018, 2:00 pm

Lootman wrote:
Gengulphus wrote: But personally I think the ongoing problems with the HY boards are much more than just a matter of imprecise guidelines. These fights have been going on for at least a decade, and I can recall some disagreements stretching back 20 years. Which leads me to believe that there is no form of the guidelines that will resolve the problem. Rather there is a structural and fundamental issue with HYP that tends to polarise people into either being fervent supporters who frown upon any criticism or incredulous critics who think the Emporer has no clothes.

And I don't see that changing after all this time. There are two classes of HY contributors and both of them blame the other class.

I think this takes us back to the OP in this thread - the label "HYP" means different things to two groups of people, and there will never be agreement between those who think it means "Purist Bland Annuity Replacement", and those who think it means "Portfolio of Predominantly Higher Yielding Equities and Equity Instruments, which will need regular tinkering to manage"

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2883
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1212 times
Been thanked: 700 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190238

Postby melonfool » December 31st, 2018, 2:07 pm

Lootman wrote: there was broad agreement that such shares are within scope as long as there is a reasonable basis for their inclusion.


Any such 'agreement' means nothing unless the guidelines are changed to reflect it.

Mel

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 5887
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 984 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190239

Postby Lootman » December 31st, 2018, 2:15 pm

melonfool wrote:
Lootman wrote: there was broad agreement that such shares are within scope as long as there is a reasonable basis for their inclusion.

Any such 'agreement' means nothing unless the guidelines are changed to reflect it.

I agree, but the Guidelines already contained a statement granting the ability to discuss "potential HYP shares". There were some who argued that should be changed to omit such candidates. But as I recall there was not a critical mass of support to make such a change and therefore the Guidelines were left "as is", meaning that we can continue to discuss potential HYP shares.

I'm not aware that the great HYP wars are caused by the current guidelines. The issues run much deeper than that. And writing ever longer and more precise guidelines may cause as many problems as they solve.

DiamondEcho
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2857
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:39 pm
Has thanked: 2120 times
Been thanked: 424 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190308

Postby DiamondEcho » December 31st, 2018, 9:47 pm

There aren't any guidelines, no 'set of 4-5 core rules, or tenets'. There's nothing by which a reader could sift their own HYP top-20/30 from the FTSE-350. No one posts such periodic sift-lists, like they used to do in years gone by, when we'd bicker whether say numbers 19-21 relatively merited being in or out for the time being.

No one can post what a 'model HYP' would be for a beginner right now, as no one can define what it is. And then some wonder why there is disagreement... :lol:

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2883
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1212 times
Been thanked: 700 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190312

Postby melonfool » December 31st, 2018, 10:02 pm

DiamondEcho wrote:There aren't any guidelines, no 'set of 4-5 core rules, or tenets'. There's nothing by which a reader could sift their own HYP top-20/30 from the FTSE-350. No one posts such periodic sift-lists, like they used to do in years gone by, when we'd bicker whether say numbers 19-21 relatively merited being in or out for the time being.

No one can post what a 'model HYP' would be for a beginner right now, as no one can define what it is. And then some wonder why there is disagreement... :lol:


The guidelines are for how to use and post on the board, not how to invest - the site is not run by investment advisors.

Mel

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1982
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 1189 times
Been thanked: 464 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190320

Postby csearle » January 1st, 2019, 12:17 am

DiamondEcho wrote:There aren't any guidelines, no 'set of 4-5 core rules, or tenets'. There's nothing by which a reader could sift their own HYP top-20/30 from the FTSE-350. No one posts such periodic sift-lists, like they used to do in years gone by, when we'd bicker whether say numbers 19-21 relatively merited being in or out for the time being.

No one can post what a 'model HYP' would be for a beginner right now, as no one can define what it is. And then some wonder why there is disagreement... :lol:
What are you on old bean? C. :)

tjh290633
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3602
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 1195 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190327

Postby tjh290633 » January 1st, 2019, 8:16 am

DiamondEcho wrote:There aren't any guidelines, no 'set of 4-5 core rules, or tenets'. There's nothing by which a reader could sift their own HYP top-20/30 from the FTSE-350. No one posts such periodic sift-lists, like they used to do in years gone by, when we'd bicker whether say numbers 19-21 relatively merited being in or out for the time being.

No one can post what a 'model HYP' would be for a beginner right now, as no one can define what it is. And then some wonder why there is disagreement... :lol:

There is nothing to stop you doing just that. Why not set a trend?

TJH

DiamondEcho
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2857
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:39 pm
Has thanked: 2120 times
Been thanked: 424 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#190331

Postby DiamondEcho » January 1st, 2019, 9:16 am

melonfool wrote:The guidelines are for how to use and post on the board, not how to invest - the site is not run by investment advisors. Mel


I was discussing what the HYP board is for; is this the wrong place to do that? I'm not suggesting anything re: investment advisers, just to follow a strategy, and the HYP IS a strategy, one must be able to define what it is, and hence what investments currently qualify. Hint: it's broadly lifted from Benjamin Graham's theory of Dividend Investing, just made even simpler by setting hurdle rates for capitalisation/FY%/etc. It was meant to be simple, Doris wasn't expected to become Einstein to build her pension :lol:
But there is no published strategy, and hence the board is a rudderless mish-mash of pretty much any stocks that individual posters own and feel qualifies, whether they do or not. ... I wonder how the Mods deem a stock discussed here as off-topic? Such Modding used to be a periodic event, but not recently.

@TJH, I tried doing that in 2017. Dredged up the original 'ethos' and tried to wiki updated metrics here. IIRC the whole thing descended into infighting over what a HYP actually is. People have created their own ethos's [!?] and get very defensive that they are on the one true path.
Perhaps we start with Benjamin Graham again? ...
ps. TJH, I remember you as being one of the old-school HYPers, you certainly seemed to know the metrics, as IIRC you set the metrics for use of the the HYPTUSS etc.


Return to “Biscuit Bar”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests