dealtn wrote:Gengulphus wrote:And more widely, those rules about being respectful are site-wide. Remarks about HYPers not tolerating "blasphemy", about the "HYP Taliban", about "backslapping HYP adherents", about "HYP zealots", etc, do not show respect for those site users who are HYPers, no matter which board they're posted on - and don't assume that just because it's not a HYP board, there aren't HYPers reading it. By posting such remarks, people are not only breaking site rules, but also contributing to a general feeling of unpleasantness on the site that is liable to drive people away.
Absolutely, but at least recognise this is 2-way.
Already done by the time you posted that - see the second paragraph of my reply
viewtopic.php?p=441073#p441073 to Lootman above. (Not blaming you for having missed it in a voluminous thread - just establishing that I had already done it.)
dealtn wrote:The first reference to "Investment Strategy Taliban" was actually made by referring to "Total Return Taliban", not on HYPP, and reported to moderators with little effect. More generally much of the issues you refer to, and the concerns about moderation, aren't taking place on HYPP, and aren't about the HYP strategy. Much of it is about other strategies that don't appear to have either the profile or protection of HYP.
In the bit of my post you've quoted, "those rules" refers to the preceding paragraph:
Gengulphus wrote:Also, this site will only work if people pay proper attention to the site rules that users are expected "to be respectful, understanding and helpful to other posters", "remain polite and respectful at all times" and that they should "Stick to the facts and argue the points discussed, rather than criticise the poster". For every user, that involves refraining from posting their thoughts willy-nilly all over the place, whenever they see a connection with a discussion that's ongoing, and instead choosing to post on appropriate boards. If you think that the HYP Practical board is just "a bunch of HYPers talking about the same shares over and over again", you might or might not be right - but respect their right to talk about that subject, without major intrusions from other subjects or dismissive remarks.
All discussions on TLF, whether about HYP strategies, any other type of investment strategy, or not about investment strategies at all, get the protection of those rules. I agree that HYP strategies get the additional protection of having a board of their own, but that's not the protection I was talking about.
And as far as I am aware, the only reason that no other type of strategy gets that additional protection is that nobody has even tried to obtain it. I cannot of course guarantee that a well-thought-out proposal for an analogous board to HYP Practical for a different type of strategy would succeed, but I would certainly hope that it would for the sake of fairness (provided only that a reasonable number of users wanted to use it). The essential parts of being well-thought-out are IMHO:
* That it identifies the type of strategy it's about in terms that the moderators can reasonably easily use to decide whether a strategy is on-topic or off-topic for the board, at least in the great majority of cases (there will of course always be some grey areas at the edges of any board's topic).
* That it confines itself to practical matters to do with running strategies of that type, and
not whether to use that type of strategy - regarding posts about why people
should use such strategies as just as off-topic as ones about why they
shouldn't use them (this is because the "shouldn't use" side of such a discussion would be grossly handicapped by not being allowed to talk about the alternatives, and it would be completely unreasonable to allow the "should use" side to be argued without also allowing the "shouldn't use" side to be argued).
Gengulphus