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