When does "should" mean "must" and when doesn't it?

[Wizard]

RVF,

I'm trying to HELP you, not criticise you. The current historic FTSE 100 yield is 3.8%, according to dividenddata.co.uk, and the forecast yield is currently 3.6% according to some figures from July. With the present Covid-19 situation, both figures seems high. 3IN's dividends will suffer only slightly from Covid-19, if it all. 3IN is higher yield, on any reasonable basis.

And yes, it's SHOULD have a dividend yield higher... and not MUST have a dividend yield higher...

MDW1954

As I pointed out in a now deleted reply on that thread the Rules in the Guidelines state a number of things following the word "should". These include the point on minimum yield, but also a restriction to ordinary shares not preference shares and a limitation to FTSE350 constituents. If somebody were to suggest buying a preference share on HYP-P I am 100% sure it would be deemed contrary to the Rules. I recently suggested buying a foreign share and was told the FTSE350 requirement made that off topic.

This really is a bit chaotic when the same instance of "should" means different things in different instances. Why not say "should" where there is some flexibilty and "must" where there is not? I think it would make life a lot easier for Mods.

[CryptoPlankton]

RVF,

I'm trying to HELP you, not criticise you. The current historic FTSE 100 yield is 3.8%, according to dividenddata.co.uk, and the forecast yield is currently 3.6% according to some figures from July. With the present Covid-19 situation, both figures seems high. 3IN's dividends will suffer only slightly from Covid-19, if it all. 3IN is higher yield, on any reasonable basis.

And yes, it's SHOULD have a dividend yield higher... and not MUST have a dividend yield higher...

MDW1954

As I pointed out in a now deleted reply on that thread the Rules in the Guidelines state a number of things following the word "should". These include the point on minimum yield, but also a restriction to ordinary shares not preference shares and a limitation to FTSE350 constituents. If somebody were to suggest buying a preference share on HYP-P I am 100% sure it would be deemed contrary to the Rules. I recently suggested buying a foreign share and was told the FTSE350 requirement made that off topic.

This really is a bit chaotic when the same instance of "should" means different things in different instances. Why not say "should" where there is some flexibilty and "must" where there is not? I think it would make life a lot easier for Mods.

There is a simpler way to make life easier for the mods...

[Wizard]

RVF,

I'm trying to HELP you, not criticise you. The current historic FTSE 100 yield is 3.8%, according to dividenddata.co.uk, and the forecast yield is currently 3.6% according to some figures from July. With the present Covid-19 situation, both figures seems high. 3IN's dividends will suffer only slightly from Covid-19, if it all. 3IN is higher yield, on any reasonable basis.

And yes, it's SHOULD have a dividend yield higher... and not MUST have a dividend yield higher...

MDW1954

As I pointed out in a now deleted reply on that thread the Rules in the Guidelines state a number of things following the word "should". These include the point on minimum yield, but also a restriction to ordinary shares not preference shares and a limitation to FTSE350 constituents. If somebody were to suggest buying a preference share on HYP-P I am 100% sure it would be deemed contrary to the Rules. I recently suggested buying a foreign share and was told the FTSE350 requirement made that off topic.

This really is a bit chaotic when the same instance of "should" means different things in different instances. Why not say "should" where there is some flexibilty and "must" where there is not? I think it would make life a lot easier for Mods.

There is a simpler way to make life easier for the mods...

I'm lost, what is that?

[Wizard]

There is a simpler way to make life easier for the mods...

I'm lost, what is that?

I suspect the answer is to stay out of that forum, or at least not to post in there or question the faithful who inhabit that space.

RVF

That would only help if nobody new ever tried to understand the rules. So I would be interested to hear CrytoPlankton's answer.

The reality is that I am genuinely trying to help. If the Rules said '...must be FTSE350, must be ordinary shares and ideally should yield more than the FTSE100... when purchased...' that would make clear the three criteria are treated differently to anyone minded to post. It still wouldn't preclude the other wiggle room in the Rules, the Breelander convention.

[Clariman]

To answer the original question, the Mods and site owners want users to recognise what that board is about and that posts should he supportive of that board's objectives. In short, constructive and relevant posts that abide by its guidelines are welcome.

To support this, there are rules and guidelines. The "should" is to give the Mods a little flexibility where they see that someone has posted in a constructive way, and the vast majority of their portfolio conforms to these "shoulds", but maybe one bit doesn't.

However please do not abuse that flexibility.

Clariman

[Gengulphus]

As I pointed out in a now deleted reply on that thread the Rules in the Guidelines state a number of things following the word "should". These include the point on minimum yield, but also a restriction to ordinary shares not preference shares and a limitation to FTSE350 constituents. If somebody were to suggest buying a preference share on HYP-P I am 100% sure it would be deemed contrary to the Rules. I recently suggested buying a foreign share and was told the FTSE350 requirement made that off topic.

This really is a bit chaotic when the same instance of "should" means different things in different instances. Why not say "should" where there is some flexibilty and "must" where there is not? I think it would make life a lot easier for Mods.

There is a simpler way to make life easier for the mods...

I'm lost, what is that?

I suspect CryptPlankton's simpler method might be to treat "should" as "must" (i.e. rules) when posting, so that the moderators don't have difficult decisions to make about reports of your posts, and to treat "should" as Clariman indicates - i.e. rules with a bit of flexibility - when reading, so that the moderators don't have to deal with reports from you about minor infringements and/or from others about non-constructive debates triggered by objections posted by you about minor infringements. I.e. to take care to err a bit on the side that avoids creating moderator work, even though that means erring in opposite directions when posting and when reading.

One other point I would make is that on the questions of preference shares and non-FTSE350 shares, infringements are rarely all that minor - basically, it's very rare for a share to be "nearly an ordinary share", and fairly rare for one to be "nearly a FTSE350 share" (with some exceptions around the times of the quarterly reviews of the FTSE UK indices, but they don't often affect all that many shares). But missing the FTSE100 yield target can very easily be by only a tenth of a percentage point or two, so it is quite plausible that an infringement of that criterion is a minor one (especially given the current difficulty of establishing just what the FTSE100 yield should be considered to be - the subject of a thread I posted a short while ago).

Gengulphus

[Clariman]

take care to err a bit on the side that avoids creating moderator work, even though that means erring in opposite directions when posting and when reading

That is a really good way of putting it thanks.

[Wizard]

take care to err a bit on the side that avoids creating moderator work, even though that means erring in opposite directions when posting and when reading

That is a really good way of putting it thanks.

To be honest I was thinking less of myself as I don't post much on HYP-P anymore and certainly I'm not going to suggest any purchases on that Board in future. My point was really about other posters, particularly new ones without the historic context. But it was just a suggestion, so I don't think I need to add any more.