Double posting on Company News and HYP-P

[Wizard]

Quite frequently news items about shares are posted in that company's thread on the Company News Board, but also posted on HYP-P. There is nothing wrong with this in principle, however, the new guidance for HYP-P does mean that I think additional diligence is now required. Many posters on TLF are now not permitted to post on HYP-P as they are not HYP investors. Therefore I think it is now more important than ever that any discussion of the news item should be relevant only to the practical impact of running an HYP and more general discussion of the consequences of the news item should be on the Company News board. Otherwise some posters who may have valuable input may find themselves unable to contribute to aspects of the discussion.

[tjh290633]

I think that cross-posting of relevant news is already a common practice. It is the subsequent discussion that may end up being duplicated without being cross-posted.

TJH

[Arborbridge]

Quite frequently news items about shares are posted in that company's thread on the Company News Board, but also posted on HYP-P. There is nothing wrong with this in principle, however, the new guidance for HYP-P does mean that I think additional diligence is now required. Many posters on TLF are now not permitted to post on HYP-P as they are not HYP investors. Therefore I think it is now more important than ever that any discussion of the news item should be relevant only to the practical impact of running an HYP and more general discussion of the consequences of the news item should be on the Company News board. Otherwise some posters who may have valuable input may find themselves unable to contribute to aspects of the discussion.

All the more reason to tweak this new guideline for HYP-P. I must say "additional diligence" does suggest the emergence of a lynch mob atmosphere from some individuals determined to make trouble for the sake of it. Situation normal.

[Wizard]

Quite frequently news items about shares are posted in that company's thread on the Company News Board, but also posted on HYP-P. There is nothing wrong with this in principle, however, the new guidance for HYP-P does mean that I think additional diligence is now required. Many posters on TLF are now not permitted to post on HYP-P as they are not HYP investors. Therefore I think it is now more important than ever that any discussion of the news item should be relevant only to the practical impact of running an HYP and more general discussion of the consequences of the news item should be on the Company News board. Otherwise some posters who may have valuable input may find themselves unable to contribute to aspects of the discussion.

All the more reason to tweak this new guideline for HYP-P. I must say "additional diligence" does suggest the emergence of a lynch mob atmosphere from some individuals determined to make trouble for the sake of it. Situation normal.

Well, I presume you do not mean me. I am neither a moderator nor an HYPer, I therefore cannot conduct any diligence with regard to the discussion on HYP-P.

But that aside, what tweak do you now suggest? This is not related to your other (IMHO misplaced) concern about making new HYPers unwelcome. If I am honest I am back to some people demonstrating 'wanting to have their cake and eat it' thinking. They seem to want a board where they can discuss anything they want to cover, but at the same time they want to be able to prevent anyone not 'in their club' saying anything they don't like.

[Wizard]

I think that cross-posting of relevant news is already a common practice. It is the subsequent discussion that may end up being duplicated without being cross-posted.

TJH

I agree TJH. As I made clear I see no issue with the cross posting. But given the greater restrictions now in place on who can post on HYP-P it seems to me only reasonable that non-HYP practical matters are discussed on the Company News Board and not HYP-P.

Take for example the cross post that made me think of this, the announcement of structural legal changes at Unilever. I and I am sure many others appreciate this being posted on the Company News Board. I am sure HYPers also appreciate it being posted on HYP-P. If the news raises questions about how an HYPer has to manage Unilever as part of their HYP or as a potential new holding in their HYP then clearly HYP-P is the place for that to be discussed. All I am saying is that any wider discussion on what it means for Unilever as a company should be on Company News as that discussion is open to all.

Is that reasonable?

[tjh290633]

I think that cross-posting of relevant news is already a common practice. It is the subsequent discussion that may end up being duplicated without being cross-posted.

TJH

I agree TJH. As I made clear I see no issue with the cross posting. But given the greater restrictions now in place on who can post on HYP-P it seems to me only reasonable that non-HYP practical matters are discussed on the Company News Board and not HYP-P.

Take for example the cross post that made me think of this, the announcement of structural legal changes at Unilever. I and I am sure many others appreciate this being posted on the Company News Board. I am sure HYPers also appreciate it being posted on HYP-P. If the news raises questions about how an HYPer has to manage Unilever as part of their HYP or as a potential new holding in their HYP then clearly HYP-P is the place for that to be discussed. All I am saying is that any wider discussion on what it means for Unilever as a company should be on Company News as that discussion is open to all.

Is that reasonable?

Eminently reasonable.

TJH

[IanTHughes]

As I made clear I see no issue with the cross posting. But given the greater restrictions now in place on who can post on HYP-P it seems to me only reasonable that non-HYP practical matters are discussed on the Company News Board and not HYP-P.

As I understand it, the only "restrictions now in place on who can post on HYP-P" are on those that have been banned from posting as a result of their trolling:

viewtopic.php?p=316703#p316703

Anyone trolling on the HYP Practical board or repeatedly ignoring the board guidelines, can now be barred from posting on this specific board. This is a new capability that Stooz has created. We hope never to have to use it, but it will be used if need be.

Ian

[Wizard]

As I made clear I see no issue with the cross posting. But given the greater restrictions now in place on who can post on HYP-P it seems to me only reasonable that non-HYP practical matters are discussed on the Company News Board and not HYP-P.

As I understand it, the only "restrictions now in place on who can post on HYP-P" are on those that have been banned from posting as a result of their trolling:

viewtopic.php?p=316703#p316703

Anyone trolling on the HYP Practical board or repeatedly ignoring the board guidelines, can now be barred from posting on this specific board. This is a new capability that Stooz has created. We hope never to have to use it, but it will be used if need be.

Ian

I believe you to have misunderstood the new guidance then, as it clearly states:

If you are not a HYP investor, then do not post here.

[IanTHughes]

As I made clear I see no issue with the cross posting. But given the greater restrictions now in place on who can post on HYP-P it seems to me only reasonable that non-HYP practical matters are discussed on the Company News Board and not HYP-P.

As I understand it, the only "restrictions now in place on who can post on HYP-P" are on those that have been banned from posting as a result of their trolling:

viewtopic.php?p=316703#p316703

Anyone trolling on the HYP Practical board or repeatedly ignoring the board guidelines, can now be barred from posting on this specific board. This is a new capability that Stooz has created. We hope never to have to use it, but it will be used if need be.

I believe you to have misunderstood the new guidance then, as it clearly states:

If you are not a HYP investor, then do not post here.

So? If you believe that instruction refers to you, then don't post on the board. Many other people will of course think it does not refer to them, and they will happily post.

You will be missed, I am sure


Ian

[dealtn]

As I understand it, the only "restrictions now in place on who can post on HYP-P" are on those that have been banned from posting as a result of their trolling:

viewtopic.php?p=316703#p316703

I believe you to have misunderstood the new guidance then, as it clearly states:

If you are not a HYP investor, then do not post here.

So? If you believe that instruction refers to you, then don't post on the board. Many other people will of course think it does not refer to them, and they will happily post.

You will be missed, I am sure


Ian

At least one other thinks it applies to them too. I would respectfully say all members might lose out as a result if it means knowledge can't be disseminated by such a restriction.

Modesty prevents the analogy being taken seriously, but were someone such as Warren Buffett, or the Governor of the Bank of England, to stumble upon the site, and find someone questioning something in which they were generally, or specifically, qualified to answer on the HYP-P (as was) Board, I am sure their input would be welcomed by both HYPers and non-HYP readers on that Board.

As it stands they either choose to respect the Board guidelines, and don't, or ignore the guidelines and risk potential consequences.

[IanTHughes]

I believe you to have misunderstood the new guidance then, as it clearly states:

So? If you believe that instruction refers to you, then don't post on the board. Many other people will of course think it does not refer to them, and they will happily post.

You will be missed, I am sure

At least one other thinks it applies to them too. I would respectfully say all members might lose out as a result if it means knowledge can't be disseminated by such a restriction.

Modesty prevents the analogy being taken seriously, but were someone such as Warren Buffett, or the Governor of the Bank of England, to stumble upon the site, and find someone questioning something in which they were generally, or specifically, qualified to answer on the HYP-P (as was) Board, I am sure their input would be welcomed by both HYPers and non-HYP readers on that Board.

As it stands they either choose to respect the Board guidelines, and don't, or ignore the guidelines and risk potential consequences.

There will not be a man on the gate, checking passes for entry! Only if a poster decides to restrict themselves by not posting on the board, will there be any restriction.

The Moderators will only delete a post if that post itself does not meet the Board's Guidelines. No post is going to be deleted because of an unsubstantiated belief that the poster does not own an HYP.


Ian

[Wizard]

So? If you believe that instruction refers to you, then don't post on the board. Many other people will of course think it does not refer to them, and they will happily post.

You will be missed, I am sure

At least one other thinks it applies to them too. I would respectfully say all members might lose out as a result if it means knowledge can't be disseminated by such a restriction.

Modesty prevents the analogy being taken seriously, but were someone such as Warren Buffett, or the Governor of the Bank of England, to stumble upon the site, and find someone questioning something in which they were generally, or specifically, qualified to answer on the HYP-P (as was) Board, I am sure their input would be welcomed by both HYPers and non-HYP readers on that Board.

As it stands they either choose to respect the Board guidelines, and don't, or ignore the guidelines and risk potential consequences.

There will not be a man on the gate, checking passes for entry! Only if a poster decides to restrict themselves by not posting on the board, will there be any restriction.

The Moderators will only delete a post if that post itself does not meet the Board's Guidelines. No post is going to be deleted because of an unsubstantiated belief that the poster does not own an HYP.


Ian

But you are therefore suggesting that those who are not HYP investors knowingly break the rules in order to post on HYP-P. That sounds a morally dubious suggestion in my view.

[dealtn]

So? If you believe that instruction refers to you, then don't post on the board. Many other people will of course think it does not refer to them, and they will happily post.

You will be missed, I am sure

At least one other thinks it applies to them too. I would respectfully say all members might lose out as a result if it means knowledge can't be disseminated by such a restriction.

Modesty prevents the analogy being taken seriously, but were someone such as Warren Buffett, or the Governor of the Bank of England, to stumble upon the site, and find someone questioning something in which they were generally, or specifically, qualified to answer on the HYP-P (as was) Board, I am sure their input would be welcomed by both HYPers and non-HYP readers on that Board.

As it stands they either choose to respect the Board guidelines, and don't, or ignore the guidelines and risk potential consequences.

There will not be a man on the gate, checking passes for entry! Only if a poster decides to restrict themselves by not posting on the board, will there be any restriction.

The Moderators will only delete a post if that post itself does not meet the Board's Guidelines. No post is going to be deleted because of an unsubstantiated belief that the poster does not own an HYP.


Ian

Well when I get that response from a Mod I will be minded to believe it (and expected such a response, even if it was by PM when first brought to attention at the beginning of the thread - not happened yet).

That still leaves the door open to episodes where a known, and perhaps frequent flouter, of HYP-P Board etiquette provides an answer and is met with "you can't post here" type responses. It's difficult with "shades of grey", so rules are "black and white". I can't see why it's not moderate the post, not moderate (with a blunt instrument) the poster.

[dspp]

At least one other thinks it applies to them too. I would respectfully say all members might lose out as a result if it means knowledge can't be disseminated by such a restriction.

Modesty prevents the analogy being taken seriously, but were someone such as Warren Buffett, or the Governor of the Bank of England, to stumble upon the site, and find someone questioning something in which they were generally, or specifically, qualified to answer on the HYP-P (as was) Board, I am sure their input would be welcomed by both HYPers and non-HYP readers on that Board.

As it stands they either choose to respect the Board guidelines, and don't, or ignore the guidelines and risk potential consequences.

There will not be a man on the gate, checking passes for entry! Only if a poster decides to restrict themselves by not posting on the board, will there be any restriction.

The Moderators will only delete a post if that post itself does not meet the Board's Guidelines. No post is going to be deleted because of an unsubstantiated belief that the poster does not own an HYP.


Ian

Well when I get that response from a Mod I will be minded to believe it (and expected such a response, even if it was by PM when first brought to attention at the beginning of the thread - not happened yet).

That still leaves the door open to episodes where a known, and perhaps frequent flouter, of HYP-P Board etiquette provides an answer and is met with "you can't post here" type responses. It's difficult with "shades of grey", so rules are "black and white". I can't see why it's not moderate the post, not moderate (with a blunt instrument) the poster.

Pretty much Mods only respond to Alerts. We have our own busy lives. There is no ticket inspection going on, only responses to Alerts. You, the users, are in fact the first and most important line of defense in the moderation war against spammers, trolls, bots, general unpleasantness, and all sorts of bad behaviour.

regards, dspp

[IanTHughes]

At least one other thinks it applies to them too. I would respectfully say all members might lose out as a result if it means knowledge can't be disseminated by such a restriction.

Modesty prevents the analogy being taken seriously, but were someone such as Warren Buffett, or the Governor of the Bank of England, to stumble upon the site, and find someone questioning something in which they were generally, or specifically, qualified to answer on the HYP-P (as was) Board, I am sure their input would be welcomed by both HYPers and non-HYP readers on that Board.

As it stands they either choose to respect the Board guidelines, and don't, or ignore the guidelines and risk potential consequences.

There will not be a man on the gate, checking passes for entry! Only if a poster decides to restrict themselves by not posting on the board, will there be any restriction.

The Moderators will only delete a post if that post itself does not meet the Board's Guidelines. No post is going to be deleted because of an unsubstantiated belief that the poster does not own an HYP.

But you are therefore suggesting that those who are not HYP investors knowingly break the rules in order to post on HYP-P. That sounds a morally dubious suggestion in my view.

Actually they are Board Guidelines, not rules. But in any case, with regard to the Board Guideline:

If you are not a HYP investor, then do not post here.

I very clearly stated:

If you believe that instruction refers to you, then don't post on the board.

In other words do not break the Board Guidelines.

I don't know how to say it clearer


Ian

[Wizard]

There will not be a man on the gate, checking passes for entry! Only if a poster decides to restrict themselves by not posting on the board, will there be any restriction.

The Moderators will only delete a post if that post itself does not meet the Board's Guidelines. No post is going to be deleted because of an unsubstantiated belief that the poster does not own an HYP.

But you are therefore suggesting that those who are not HYP investors knowingly break the rules in order to post on HYP-P. That sounds a morally dubious suggestion in my view.

Actually they are Board Guidelines, not rules. But in any case, with regard to the Board Guideline:

If you are not a HYP investor, then do not post here.

I very clearly stated:

If you believe that instruction refers to you, then don't post on the board.

In other words do not break the Board Guidelines.

I don't know how to say it clearer


Ian

But you also said the bold statement above, which to me at least sounded like a suggestion that anyone can post on HYP-P as long as they are willing to say they have an HYP, whether they do or not.

[IanTHughes]

But you are therefore suggesting that those who are not HYP investors knowingly break the rules in order to post on HYP-P. That sounds a morally dubious suggestion in my view.

Actually they are Board Guidelines, not rules. But in any case, with regard to the Board Guideline:

If you are not a HYP investor, then do not post here.

I very clearly stated:

If you believe that instruction refers to you, then don't post on the board.

In other words do not break the Board Guidelines.

I don't know how to say it clearer

But you also said the bold statement above, which to me at least sounded like a suggestion that anyone can post on HYP-P as long as they are willing to say they have an HYP, whether they do or not.

Yes I did.

Any poster who believes that the instruction not to post on the board DOES refer to themselves, as apparently you yourself do, would be breaching that particular Board Guideline if they posted in spite of that self-imposed restriction..

Contrarily, any poster that believes the instruction not to post on the board DOES NOT refer to themselves, would not be breaching that particular Board Guideline. How could they when it does not refer to them?


Ian

[Wizard]

Actually they are Board Guidelines, not rules. But in any case, with regard to the Board Guideline:

I very clearly stated:

In other words do not break the Board Guidelines.

I don't know how to say it clearer

But you also said the bold statement above, which to me at least sounded like a suggestion that anyone can post on HYP-P as long as they are willing to say they have an HYP, whether they do or not.

Yes I did.

Any poster who believes that the instruction not to post on the board DOES refer to themselves, as apparently you yourself do, would be breaching that particular Board Guideline if they posted in spite of that self-imposed restriction..

Contrarily, any poster that believes the instruction not to post on the board DOES NOT refer to themselves, would not be breaching that particular Board Guideline. How could they when it does not refer to them?


Ian

The problem with your efforts to rationalise away your previous comment is you kept suggesting it is about what any individual decides about themselves. However, the new guidelines apply an objective test, specifically, is an individual an HYP investor. Now, I will concede that there could be some grey areas*, but generally speaking somebody either will or will not be an HYP investor. If for example they only own ITs then whatever they may believe does not change the fact that they are not an HYP investor. In most cases it is not a matter of personal choice as you suggest, it is a matter of fact. What you then went on to say initially was that there was no way that fact could be checked, the words you used were "No post is going to be deleted because of an unsubstantiated belief that the poster does not own an HYP.". The conclusion I drew (and continue to believe is what you meant) is that you were suggesting that as whether somebody was an HYP investor or not could not be checked, therefore anyone could post on HYP-P even if they were not an HYP investor if they did not admit to that fact.

* I am actually in that grey area, I hold more than 15 shares that could be in an HYP, so I could label that an HYP portfolio if I wanted to post on HYP-P. But the fact remains I tried HYP and it did not work for me, so I have now abandoned it as an investment approach, even though I still own all the shares I bought when I was following the HYP approach.

[tjh290633]

* I am actually in that grey area, I hold more than 15 shares that could be in an HYP, so I could label that an HYP portfolio if I wanted to post on HYP-P. But the fact remains I tried HYP and it did not work for me, so I have now abandoned it as an investment approach, even though I still own all the shares I bought when I was following the HYP approach.

You obviously wish to disqualify yourself. If you want to requalify, then keep your claimed HYP shares in a separate jamjar and talk only about them on the HYP-P board.

It's not difficult.

TJH

[dspp]

Moderator Message:
EVERYONE,

1. Please stop trying to over-interpret things and trying to argue over how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
2. Just get on with using the (HYP-P, or HYSS-G) boards for real, or indeed any of the many other boards.
3. Do not alert your own posts unless you have made a genuine error that needs correcting*.
4. Only alert other posts if there is a material issue that should be brought to the attention of Mods.
5. Do not respond to troll-bait in posts that are out-of-bounds, instead alert them and move on.

There is plenty of interesting stuff going on in the world and the markets at present, so focus on that, not on minutiae of the revised HYP-P guidelines which are now in force.

regards, dspp

*I say this because Mods are not here to issue rulings for you to store in your back pocket for later (such behaviour is very much discouraged). The practical test is whether a normal user of a normal board stumbles across a post that either transgresses the general TLF Ts & Cs, or the board-specific guidance.