Donate to Remove ads

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

Thanks to Rhyd6,johnstevens77,Anonymous,MyNameIsUrl,6Tricia, for Donating to support the site

A whinge

For questions or input on how the site works or improvement you would like to see.
absolutezero
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1086
Joined: November 17th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 259 times
Been thanked: 341 times

A whinge

#440737

Postby absolutezero » September 8th, 2021, 6:47 pm

I think I'm getting to the point where I'm done with this place.

It's ceased to be a useful resource.
From the policing of what is and isn't acceptable to talk about, and where, to the tone the mods are now taking ("sanctions" and "give us the word and we will close the thread"), it's little wonder the more useful posters have upped and left.

You're just going to be left with a bunch of HYPers talking about the same shares over and over again.
Is that really what the mod team want?

As mods, I do think you need to consider your policies of this site and ask why so many of the older (useful) contributors have stopped bothering.

CryptoPlankton
Lemon Slice
Posts: 622
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1173 times
Been thanked: 632 times

Re: A whinge

#440755

Postby CryptoPlankton » September 8th, 2021, 7:21 pm

absolutezero wrote:I think I'm getting to the point where I'm done with this place.

It's ceased to be a useful resource.
From the policing of what is and isn't acceptable to talk about, and where, to the tone the mods are now taking ("sanctions" and "give us the word and we will close the thread"), it's little wonder the more useful posters have upped and left.

You're just going to be left with a bunch of HYPers talking about the same shares over and over again.
Is that really what the mod team want?

As mods, I do think you need to consider your policies of this site and ask why so many of the older (useful) contributors have stopped bothering.

Firstly, I think that's a pretty tasteless and inappropriate rehash of a thread title honouring a greatly valued contributor.

Secondly, I really don't understand all this unpleasantness towards people who choose to invest in HYPs (too many examples littered around the site to bother to pick examples out). There are TWO boards dedicated to high yield investing - avoid those and there are numerous possibilities for discussion on other subjects. I think it may be possible that some posters may have left for reasons other than the one you suggest - I have certainly considered it for such a reason...

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3493
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 2727 times
Been thanked: 1149 times

Re: A whinge

#440763

Postby csearle » September 8th, 2021, 7:34 pm

absolutezero wrote:As mods, I do think you need to consider your policies of this site and ask why so many of the older (useful) contributors have stopped bothering.
For my part I've considered it. I reckon the older contributors keep posting until they no longer inhabit their bodies. C.

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4220
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2543 times

Re: A whinge

#440883

Postby Gengulphus » September 9th, 2021, 10:15 am

absolutezero wrote:I think I'm getting to the point where I'm done with this place.

It's ceased to be a useful resource.
From the policing of what is and isn't acceptable to talk about, and where, to the tone the mods are now taking ("sanctions" and "give us the word and we will close the thread"), it's little wonder the more useful posters have upped and left.

You're just going to be left with a bunch of HYPers talking about the same shares over and over again.
Is that really what the mod team want?

As mods, I do think you need to consider your policies of this site and ask why so many of the older (useful) contributors have stopped bothering.

For goodness sake! The HYP Practical board is for discussions about running HYPs in practice. Expect it to be used by those who want to discuss that subject, and expect them not to take too kindly to attempts to start up political discussions about tax policy on that board, or general discussions about Safe Withdrawal Rates, or all sorts of other subjects that aren't actually about running HYPs in practice. There's no problem about discussing those subjects on TLF, but it's YOUR job as a poster to put your posts on the right board, not the moderators' job to fix up all the mistakes you make in that respect, no matter how many of them you make. The moderators will try to steer people to the right boards, but they don't have unlimited time to devote to the job (especially as it isn't a job they get paid for!), so expect them to quite quickly move on to stronger, harder-to-mistake indications if people don't learn what's expected from gentle hints.

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.

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. You may feel that you're getting to the point where you're done with this place because of how it's being moderated, but I'm getting to that point because of the behaviour of users who are treating it as their god-given right to insult other users just because they have chosen to use a particular investment strategy and want to discuss how to do so. (There is of course a moderation-related angle to that: the moderators aren't managing to get those users to take the site rules about insulting other users of the site seriously. Personally, I don't think they're going to manage that without taking serious enforcement action, such as a series of escalating-length bans from the site until the message that insults are not allowed is driven home, or the occasional poster who insists that they are allowed to make them no matter what the site rules say ends up being banned permanently... But it's stooz & Clariman's site, not mine, and they can choose to run it the way they are if they like.)

One other point about those insulting remarks: the best way to treat them is as an admission by the person making them that they don't have any rational arguments for their point of view that stand up to scrutiny... I.e. resorting to insulting the other side in a debate is basically a smokescreen to try to hide a defeat on the matter being debated. If you want to keep the respect of those watching the debate, do not insult those on its other side. (Other site users are of course required by the site rules to treat you with respect, but how they regard you is a matter for themselves...)

To sum this up, a lot of conflict about HYPs could (and should!) be avoided by observing two rules:

1) Leave the HYP Practical board alone to discuss what it's for: running HYPs in practice. (And more generally, leave every other board alone to discuss what it's for.)

2) Don't insult HYPers anywhere on the site. (And more generally, don't insult any other group of site users either.)

And a final note about rule 1: it might be that you encounter someone posting on HYP Practical advocating that others should use a HYP strategy (*), and feel it's only fair that you should be able to reply advocating that they should instead use your preferred type of strategy. And you'd be quite right that that's only fair - but don't reply to that effect on HYP Practical, because you will be breaking HYP Practical's guidance against discussing "making decisions about whether to use such an approach, nor decisions about whether to stop using one, the effectiveness and performance of HYP strategies versus other strategies, the desirability or otherwise of investment trusts as an alternative to HYP shares, nor discussions of other types of approaches". Instead, recognise that the post you want to respond to itself breaks that guidance by discussing whether others should decide to use a HYP approach. Then either write your reply, starting it with a link to the post you're replying to and post it on HYSS (not HYP Practical), followed by posting a brief "I've replied at <link>" note on HYP Practical, or report the post you want to reply to for breaking the guidance, asking the moderators either to remove the advocacy from it or to move it to HYSS so that you can reply to it within the rules, and await developments. (And yes, I know both of those ways of dealing with the situation are a bit cumbersome. I'm afraid that it's a fact of life that avoiding stepping on each other's toes is sometimes going to be cumbersome...)

(*) But don't mistake an account of someone's personal experience with using a HYP strategy and expression of satisfaction with how it's worked out for such advocacy: it's not. The guideline is broken when a poster says explicitly that others should use HYP strategies.

Gengulphus

Dod101
Lemon Half
Posts: 9580
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 2237 times
Been thanked: 4242 times

Re: A whinge

#440893

Postby Dod101 » September 9th, 2021, 10:31 am

I have not read all of G's contribution and am constantly amazed that he can be bothered. There ought to be a limit on the number of words per post, but my point is simply that I think the mods can be a bit overzealous. There is a balance to keeping things in order and not being seen to be over enthusiastic although I acknowledge that given some of the stuff on other sites, this one is good.

I have no problem with HYP discussions taking place on HYP Boards even although I think the whole practice of HYP is flawed. That is up to those who follow it though.

What we really need is a constant infusion of new blood otherwise we just get a rehash of the views of posters like me and other regulars which is not really getting any of us very far.

Dod

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4220
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2543 times

Re: A whinge

#440937

Postby Gengulphus » September 9th, 2021, 12:20 pm

Dod101 wrote:I have not read all of G's contribution and am constantly amazed that he can be bothered. ...

Whereas I am constantly amazed that you can be bothered commenting on the length of my posts...

Dod101 wrote:There ought to be a limit on the number of words per post, ...

There is a limit on the length of posts, actually, and I've very occasionally run into it...

But more important, if you think there should be a rather tighter limit than that one, why don't you start a discussion on this board proposing that TLF adopt one? You never know: the site's users, moderators and admins might end up agreeing with you and impose such a limit, and if they do, I'll commit to abiding by it. Starting such a discussion would almost certainly cost you far less effort than you've spent over the years moaning about the length of my posts, and it does stand some chance of achieving the result you evidently desire, whereas just moaning about the length of my posts from time to time stands no chance of doing so.

To make that commitment plain, I'll regard a post length limit imposed as a result of such a decision as a matter of site policy, not just a technical limitation of the posting software - so I won't work around it by splitting what is really a post that exceeds the limit into multiple, separately-posted parts.

Finally, I will not reply further on this thread about the idea of such a post length limit. If you or anyone else wants to discuss it any further, start a new thread on the idea - don't hijack this thread for the purpose.

Gengulphus

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 5045
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 1075 times

Re: A whinge

#440941

Postby Alaric » September 9th, 2021, 12:31 pm

absolutezero wrote:You're just going to be left with a bunch of HYPers talking about the same shares over and over again.
Is that really what the mod team want?


That is the impression given. Particularly when a wide ranging discussion about Dividends on the High Yield Strategies Board is abruptly terminated once it moved into how dividends fitted into total return measurement and whether sale of assets worked as an alternative means of drawing income. The excuse given that it was going off topic. Whether that was because it was off topic for the Board title or the subject title wasn't really stated.

Discussions wander, moderators should learn to live with that. If a majority of posters use the "New Posts" short cut, even the board title doesn't really matter.

Dod101
Lemon Half
Posts: 9580
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 2237 times
Been thanked: 4242 times

Re: A whinge

#440945

Postby Dod101 » September 9th, 2021, 12:37 pm

Gengulphus wrote:
Dod101 wrote:I have not read all of G's contribution and am constantly amazed that he can be bothered. ...

Whereas I am constantly amazed that you can be bothered commenting on the length of my posts...

Dod101 wrote:There ought to be a limit on the number of words per post, ...

There is a limit on the length of posts, actually, and I've very occasionally run into it...

But more important, if you think there should be a rather tighter limit than that one, why don't you start a discussion on this board proposing that TLF adopt one? You never know: the site's users, moderators and admins might end up agreeing with you and impose such a limit, and if they do, I'll commit to abiding by it. Starting such a discussion would almost certainly cost you far less effort than you've spent over the years moaning about the length of my posts, and it does stand some chance of achieving the result you evidently desire, whereas just moaning about the length of my posts from time to time stands no chance of doing so.

To make that commitment plain, I'll regard a post length limit imposed as a result of such a decision as a matter of site policy, not just a technical limitation of the posting software - so I won't work around it by splitting what is really a post that exceeds the limit into multiple, separately-posted parts.

Finally, I will not reply further on this thread about the idea of such a post length limit. If you or anyone else wants to discuss it any further, start a new thread on the idea - don't hijack this thread for the purpose.

Gengulphus


I know, I know. I will not continue this discussion. Maybe I am just being grumpy as I have accused others of being but I do think that long posts tend to lose their impact............

Dod

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4220
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2543 times

Re: A whinge

#440955

Postby Gengulphus » September 9th, 2021, 12:57 pm

Alaric wrote:If a majority of posters use the "New Posts" short cut, even the board title doesn't really matter.

No. The board title will continue to matter until and unless the overwhelming majority use the "New Posts" short cut. Merely establishing e.g. that the board title doesn't matter to 55% of board users (even supposing that you could somehow establish that) doesn't justify ignoring the fact that it does matter to the other 45%.

Gengulphus

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 11309
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 2533 times

Re: A whinge

#440960

Postby Lootman » September 9th, 2021, 1:39 pm

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. You may feel that you're getting to the point where you're done with this place because of how it's being moderated, but I'm getting to that point because of the behaviour of users who are treating it as their god-given right to insult other users just because they have chosen to use a particular investment strategy and want to discuss how to do so. (There is of course a moderation-related angle to that: the moderators aren't managing to get those users to take the site rules about insulting other users of the site seriously. Personally, I don't think they're going to manage that without taking serious enforcement action, such as a series of escalating-length bans from the site until the message that insults are not allowed is driven home, or the occasional poster who insists that they are allowed to make them no matter what the site rules say ends up being banned permanently... But it's stooz & Clariman's site, not mine, and they can choose to run it the way they are if they like.)

The idea that HYP is a form of faith-based investing is quite common here, and one might take the view that there is some substance to that claim. It is certainly not an industry standard approach like the investing strategies discussed on most other investment boards. And those who practice HYP can tend to be rather defensive about it in some cases. It should be possible to make observations like that without being deemed "unpleasant" or "disrespectful"

Perhaps "zealot" or "Taliban" is a little excessive. But anyone who adopts a more alternative and non-standard approach to investing is likely to receive more critical comments than, say, someone who just buys an index fund. In much the same way people who become vegan, avoid vaccinations or home school their children can be very sincere, but will inevitably be on the receiving end of some satire.

If I like the HYP investment strategy, should I expect immunity from such criticism? The very idea of that has the effect of conjuring up a notion of HYP people being "special" in some way and needing a safe space, thereby reinforcing the criticism. Indeed do I really have any right to never see criticism of what I say and do here? Do I have a right to never be offended here? There is certainly no such right in the real world.

Absolutezero seems to be saying that the rules and the moderation are too strict. If I understand you correctly you are saying the opposite - that they do not go far enough. Aren't the moderators in fact trying to thread a needle here? And strike a balance between both of those views? So everyone ends up being a bit unhappy, rather than one extreme getting all their way and the other side leaves the site in despair?

My own view is that the site sponsors have it about right. The serious transgressions of rules are moderated, if they are reported anyway. But it is also a gentle hand that guides that, so there is no zero tolerance policy. The unwritten approach can be seen as being moderate with moderation, which also has the benefit of being less work than acting on every minor violation of the rules. And that light touch works well as long as people collectively accept that they will from time to time be criticised and perhaps even satirised. Is that really such a bad thing?

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2604
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 1179 times

Re: A whinge

#440963

Postby scrumpyjack » September 9th, 2021, 1:53 pm

Yes I do hope people can retain a sense of proportion and humour on these boards and accept light hearted comments as the good natured banter they are meant to be.

While I do not subscribe to the HYP philosophy I have sometimes posted in its defence pointing out that it is meant as an alternative to an annuity and should be viewed in that light.

So I apologise if my joke about beards etc has upset someone, but really - get a life. The one thing we should not put up with on these boards is the appalling cancel culture. We must not let that creep in in any way.

Every post should be well intentioned but that doesn't mean we have to stick with dreary, plodding diatribes.

CryptoPlankton
Lemon Slice
Posts: 622
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1173 times
Been thanked: 632 times

Re: A whinge

#440970

Postby CryptoPlankton » September 9th, 2021, 2:34 pm

CryptoPlankton wrote:Firstly, I think that's a pretty tasteless and inappropriate rehash of a thread title honouring a greatly valued contributor.


Thanks to whoever took care of that.

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 5045
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 1075 times

Re: A whinge

#440975

Postby Alaric » September 9th, 2021, 2:44 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:While I do not subscribe to the HYP philosophy I have sometimes posted in its defence pointing out that it is meant as an alternative to an annuity and should be viewed in that light.


Even as an annuity alternative it's controversial given that no measures are taken in the purist form to mitigate against dividend fluctuation or catastrophe. There's also the impression that many posters are actually just growth investors employing a strategy of seeking growth in their portfolio values by receiving and reinvesting dividend income.

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3153
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 779 times
Been thanked: 827 times

Re: A whinge

#441003

Postby richfool » September 9th, 2021, 4:13 pm

I tend to stick to the "Investment Trust & Unit Trust" board these days, or Investment Strategies, and try and avoid other specialist boards, unless I get drawn in by a topic title that is of particular interest to me.

Oh, just a minute, come to think of it, how did I get drawn into this topic, with its vague and obscure title: "A whinge". - I normally avoid vague or obscure topic titles *. Ah, I know, ..... because it was on the "Improve the Recipe" board,- a board where one would hope that suggestions are viewed with a positive and relatively open mind. ;)

* viewtopic.php?p=439575#p439575

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4220
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2543 times

Re: A whinge

#441010

Postby Gengulphus » September 9th, 2021, 4:35 pm

Lootman 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. You may feel that you're getting to the point where you're done with this place because of how it's being moderated, but I'm getting to that point because of the behaviour of users who are treating it as their god-given right to insult other users just because they have chosen to use a particular investment strategy and want to discuss how to do so. (There is of course a moderation-related angle to that: the moderators aren't managing to get those users to take the site rules about insulting other users of the site seriously. Personally, I don't think they're going to manage that without taking serious enforcement action, such as a series of escalating-length bans from the site until the message that insults are not allowed is driven home, or the occasional poster who insists that they are allowed to make them no matter what the site rules say ends up being banned permanently... But it's stooz & Clariman's site, not mine, and they can choose to run it the way they are if they like.)

The idea that HYP is a form of faith-based investing is quite common here, and one might take the view that there is some substance to that claim. It is certainly not an industry standard approach like the investing strategies discussed on most other investment boards. And those who practice HYP can tend to be rather defensive about it in some cases. It should be possible to make observations like that without being deemed "unpleasant" or "disrespectful"

With the exception of the observation about HYPers tending to be defensive, those are all observations about HYP strategies, which are perfectly acceptable under the "Stick to the facts and argue the points discussed, rather than criticise the poster" rule. Whereas all my examples are comments about HYPers, which that rule disallows.

Lootman wrote:Perhaps "zealot" or "Taliban" is a little excessive. But anyone who adopts a more alternative and non-standard approach to investing is likely to receive more critical comments than, say, someone who just buys an index fund. In much the same way people who become vegan, avoid vaccinations or home school their children can be very sincere, but will inevitably be on the receiving end of some satire.

No, using the word "Taliban" about someone who adopts a peaceful investing approach is NOT a "little excessive" - it is totally over the top and completely unmerited, and there is no "perhaps" about it. And I would suggest that people avoid using arguments that some types of people will inevitably find themselves receiving more critical comments than others to justify making such critical comments - there are various real-life situations in which doing that will get one into far more serious trouble than just for breaking a website's rules.

Lootman wrote:If I like the HYP investment strategy, should I expect immunity from such criticism? ...

Yes - the site rules are clear that you should be able to expect immunity from such personal criticism, and indeed other site users should be able to expect you not to be subjected to such personal criticism even if you yourself don't mind being subjected to it. That's in the interests of keeping the site free of such personal criticism - it's much harder for users to understand that it isn't allowed if they observe that it's being widely tolerated.

It's not the only way a site can be run. If stooz and Clariman wanted, they could get rid of the "Stick to the facts and argue the points discussed, rather than criticise the poster" rule. Until and unless they do that, though, it's their site and what they say about personal criticism goes.

Lootman wrote:... The very idea of that has the effect of conjuring up a notion of HYP people being "special" in some way ...

No, it doesn't - it would only have that effect if the "Stick to the facts and argue the points discussed, rather than criticise the poster" rule said it applied only to posters who are HYPers. It doesn't - it's a general site rule that applies to all posters.

Lootman wrote:... Indeed do I really have any right to never see criticism of what I say and do here? ...

No, of course you don't have the right to never see what you say criticised here: that's a case of arguing the points discussed. If you say something idiotic here, don't be surprised if what you said is criticised, with reasons why it's wrong, and the moderators shouldn't take any action against a post that only criticises what you say. But you do have the right to expect not to be called an idiot here, because that's a case of criticising the poster, and the same goes for other forms of personal criticism.

Lootman wrote:... Do I have a right to never be offended here? There is certainly no such right in the real world.

No, of course you don't have the right never to be offended here. Whether you feel offended by something is a matter for you to decide, so giving you such a right would allow you to dictate what the site does and doesn't do. You do have the right not to be insulted here - the crucial difference being that whether something is an insult is determined not by how you feel about it, but by its generally-accepted meaning. (That right not to be insulted is provided by the site rules, so don't expect it to extend as comprehensively to the real world.)

Lootman wrote:Absolutezero seems to be saying that the rules and the moderation are too strict. If I understand you correctly you are saying the opposite - that they do not go far enough. ...

You don't understand me correctly. I'm not saying that the rules and the moderation are either too strict or too lax. I'm saying that they're mismatched: the existing moderation is not succeeding in getting a sizeable proportion of the site's users to take the existing site rules seriously. That's my diagnosis of what's causing this sort of outbreak; I'm not prescribing any particular cure because while I can see that it's frustrating for the moderators, I can't see what type of cure the admins (especially) and the moderators want to achieve... If any, that is - it's entirely possible that they've settled for leaving things in their current mismatched state and hoping nothing will blow up too seriously.

Gengulphus

absolutezero
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1086
Joined: November 17th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 259 times
Been thanked: 341 times

Re: A whinge

#441018

Postby absolutezero » September 9th, 2021, 4:57 pm

richfool wrote:I tend to stick to the "Investment Trust & Unit Trust" board these days, or Investment Strategies, and try and avoid other specialist boards, unless I get drawn in by a topic title that is of particular interest to me.

Oh, just a minute, come to think of it, how did I get drawn into this topic, with its vague and obscure title: "A whinge". - I normally avoid vague or obscure topic titles *. Ah, I know, ..... because it was on the "Improve the Recipe" board,- a board where one would hope that suggestions are viewed with a positive and relatively open mind. ;)

* viewtopic.php?p=439575#p439575

Interestingly, I didn't originally call it 'A Whinge'.
It seems someone else, of all the names they could have chosen, has decided that 'a whinge' would be a good name for it.
That's telling in itself.

Dod101
Lemon Half
Posts: 9580
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 2237 times
Been thanked: 4242 times

Re: A whinge

#441021

Postby Dod101 » September 9th, 2021, 5:11 pm

Gengulphus wrote:
Lootman wrote:Perhaps "zealot" or "Taliban" is a little excessive. But anyone who adopts a more alternative and non-standard approach to investing is likely to receive more critical comments than, say, someone who just buys an index fund. In much the same way people who become vegan, avoid vaccinations or home school their children can be very sincere, but will inevitably be on the receiving end of some satire.

No, using the word "Taliban" about someone who adopts a peaceful investing approach is NOT a "little excessive" - it is totally over the top and completely unmerited, and there is no "perhaps" about it. And I would suggest that people avoid using arguments that some types of people will inevitably find themselves receiving more critical comments than others to justify making such critical comments - there are various real-life situations in which doing that will get one into far more serious trouble than just for breaking a website's rules.


Sorry Gengulphus it is you who is being a little over the top. These are your opinions only. You write as though you are a moderator which as far as I know is not the case. You appear to be attempting to lay down the law, the very thing that Gostevie commented upon.

Dod

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 11309
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 2533 times

Re: A whinge

#441027

Postby Lootman » September 9th, 2021, 5:29 pm

Gengulphus wrote:
Lootman wrote:The idea that HYP is a form of faith-based investing is quite common here, and one might take the view that there is some substance to that claim. It is certainly not an industry standard approach like the investing strategies discussed on most other investment boards. And those who practice HYP can tend to be rather defensive about it in some cases. It should be possible to make observations like that without being deemed "unpleasant" or "disrespectful".

With the exception of the observation about HYPers tending to be defensive, those are all observations about HYP strategies, which are perfectly acceptable under the "Stick to the facts and argue the points discussed, rather than criticise the poster" rule. Whereas all my examples are comments about HYPers, which that rule disallows.

True although what seems to happen on a number of boards is that you have a clique of Lemons who post a lot there, and who become very familiar with each other. At some point it becomes hard to divorce what is being discussed with the personalities involved and their history together, in much the same ways as families or groups of friends sometimes feud.

With HYP that happens more, perhaps because the strategy is associated with one individual, Pyad, whose name and writings gets evoked regularly, thereby muddying the distinction between the topic and personality. It gets further personalised when a criticism of the method is met by shibboleths like "capital doesn't matter" when the capital performance of a HYP is criticised, which can come across as quoting from a stone tablet rather than debating the issue properly.

I guess what I am saying is that the way some defenders of HYP talk, it can lead to criticism of themselves and not just the subject. I do not believe that the blame is all one one side.

Gengulphus wrote:
Lootman wrote:If I like the HYP investment strategy, should I expect immunity from such criticism? ...

Yes - the site rules are clear that you should be able to expect immunity from such personal criticism, and indeed other site users should be able to expect you not to be subjected to such personal criticism even if you yourself don't mind being subjected to it. That's in the interests of keeping the site free of such personal criticism - it's much harder for users to understand that it isn't allowed if they observe that it's being widely tolerated.

I would agree that personal remarks are widely tolerated here. That is particularly clear on the Current Affairs and News board, although perhaps that is considered a special case from a moderation perspective.

The question I would ask is why does this toleration exists? Despite the rule that you cited, is it possible that the site sponsors are not really that concerned about personal remarks unless they rise to a certain level of abuse? With minor examples of that being allowed to stay to avoid the moderation being perceived as too draconian or petty? When the text of a rule or law conflicts with its perceived enforcement, then I tend to think that the de facto enforcement is the over-riding factor. Much like a law that is on the statute book but which the police never stop, cite or arrest anyone for.

Gengulphus wrote:
Lootman wrote:... Do I have a right to never be offended here? There is certainly no such right in the real world.

No, of course you don't have the right never to be offended here. Whether you feel offended by something is a matter for you to decide, so giving you such a right would allow you to dictate what the site does and doesn't do. You do have the right not to be insulted here - the crucial difference being that whether something is an insult is determined not by how you feel about it, but by its generally-accepted meaning. (That right not to be insulted is provided by the site rules, so don't expect it to extend as comprehensively to the real world.)

I agree that feeling offended is a matter for each individual to decide for himself or herself. When someone says they are offended, my first reaction is not "Oh my God, how terrible for you" but rather to ask myself whether it is reasonable for that person to be offended. And that requires knowing what exactly was said to them, its context and the motive of the utterer.

If someone refers to "the HYP Taliban" I would not personally interpret that as someone suggesting that you are a terrorist or that you advocate violence. It might just be a light-hearted way of suggesting that your investment approach can appear fundamentalist or intolerant to some. Whether you regard it as whimsy or an insult is very much a personal decision. As Ricky Gervais quipped: "Just because you are offended, doesn't mean you are right".

If I invest by using tarot cards, the I Ching or throwing darts at a list of possible investments then I can reasonably expect to be mocked for it. Perhaps my results will be so good that I can prevail in a debate. But nonetheless if I receive a torrent of ridicule for my approach then that might also be a learning opportunity if it causes me to question my underlying beliefs.

Gengulphus wrote:
Lootman wrote:Absolutezero seems to be saying that the rules and the moderation are too strict. If I understand you correctly you are saying the opposite - that they do not go far enough. ...

You don't understand me correctly. I'm not saying that the rules and the moderation are either too strict or too lax. I'm saying that they're mismatched: the existing moderation is not succeeding in getting a sizeable proportion of the site's users to take the existing site rules seriously. That's my diagnosis of what's causing this sort of outbreak; I'm not prescribing any particular cure because while I can see that it's frustrating for the moderators, I can't see what type of cure the admins (especially) and the moderators want to achieve... If any, that is - it's entirely possible that they've settled for leaving things in their current mismatched state and hoping nothing will blow up too seriously.

I am not sure what you mean by "blow up too seriously". In the end it is just words and, absent some kind of lawsuit for libel, the harm done is mainly just to egos and pride. But I would have to believe that the situation here is some kind of compromise between literal enforcement and a more liberal and flexible approach. And that goes back to the balance that I spoke of before.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2604
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 1179 times

Re: A whinge

#441033

Postby scrumpyjack » September 9th, 2021, 5:52 pm

Hey guys, if someone irritates you, just put them on your ignore list, That is what that function is for.

One improvement I would suggest would be that any post quoting the ignored poster should also not be shown. Apart from that you really do not need to read stuff you don't want to. :D

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3153
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 779 times
Been thanked: 827 times

Re: A whinge

#441061

Postby richfool » September 9th, 2021, 7:03 pm

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:
absolutezero wrote:
richfool wrote:I tend to stick to the "Investment Trust & Unit Trust" board these days, or Investment Strategies, and try and avoid other specialist boards, unless I get drawn in by a topic title that is of particular interest to me.

Oh, just a minute, come to think of it, how did I get drawn into this topic, with its vague and obscure title: "A whinge". - I normally avoid vague or obscure topic titles *. Ah, I know, ..... because it was on the "Improve the Recipe" board,- a board where one would hope that suggestions are viewed with a positive and relatively open mind. ;)

* viewtopic.php?p=439575#p439575

Interestingly, I didn't originally call it 'A Whinge'.
It seems someone else, of all the names they could have chosen, has decided that 'a whinge' would be a good name for it.
That's telling in itself.

That's not all that's happening. My post agreeing with you and saying about ignoring a poster (that I actually did not name) has disappeared without trace. I am sorry, this has gone too far. It's my turn to say that's me done.

Admin will get a PM in a minute requesting that my account and posts are deleted is next.

Goodbye.

RVF

That is a shame. I must admit I felt frustrated over two things recently.

Firstly, I felt that my post about obscure titles, on this board, wasn't really taken seriously or with an open mind. It seemed like posters, not least moderators, were taking it in turns to belittle or mock what was to me a sensible and serious suggestion. Despite the board being called: "Improve the Recipe".

Secondly, a particular poster who had irritated me a lot over recent weeks, yet again jumped in to mock me, even on that thread, despite the fact that, in a PM, he had previously agreed to leave my posts alone. Ironically my frustration with him had been because, all too often, no sooner had I made a post, he would pop up to make some irritating remark, usually ignoring the question I had posed, or even saying that he had no knowledge to answer my question, but instead he would make some comment about my stamp collection of holdings, or ask why I held so many, or suggest that a tracker might be more suitable, or even once just to say he had no relevant knowledge. It was like I was asking him personally and he felt he had to give an answer.

Then we had the spat over EPIC's, when he took issue with one particular post where I had re-quoted another post which only listed the EPIC's, despite the fact, in most of my posts and listings of my IT holdings, I do give the full names, ironically, primarily for his benefit. Even in one of those, he then commented on my mis-spelling of Dunedin (DIG) in a list of some 25 IT's. For him to then find my "Improve the Recipe" post and belittle that too, rather took the biscuit for me.

If only I could put him on an "Ignore Me" list! :(


Return to “Lemon Fool - Improve the Recipe”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dealtn and 7 guests