Announcement: Separate private forum

Hard to keep up with all the posts and ongoing developments.

Hopefully the discussion will gravitate towards cooperation as opposed to confrontation.

It sounds like both open and closed forums each have different but valuable roles to play.

Aye archie a canny notion privacy may be required to research, discuss and hone questions. Sometimes friends seek out time together at other times they may crave their own space, friendship
should be a mutually inclusive and an enriching experience it should never be overbearing or egocentric on either part. The pursuit of an acceptable coexistence should be our mutual endevour and an attainable goal. Friendship is a gift not an unalienable right of passage it needs working at in a spirit of trust and mutual respect.

Next to a successful and enriching marriage friendships follow on as a close second in creating a solid foundation upon which we can build our lives. 

My word Sarah, that is going back a few years, carpet bagging, Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley and the rest. Ex NR shareholders are still hopeful of a compensation claim in respect of the nationalisation?

When is the next wave of demutualisation - or was that a one off? I suspect so.

You must have a full time job keeping up with investments over a dozen platforms, care to share your experiences?


EDIT: I looked you up Sarah - you are immortalised in a PhD thesis:

Key contributors
:

regularly change with Miss Marple ceasing contact in early 2000 and Danbert Nobacon beginning shortly after. Of course it is possible that a contributor may change or

operate simultaneous identities, a practice often used by Robert Shilling/Building
Society Bob, along with 'jokes' about the apparently close relationship between these

two pseudonyms. Additionally there are historical posters that receive the occasional
valedictory comments. These are either founders or former key contributors, most no

longer post or make occasional interjections. Examples of these include: Hawkeye,
Sarah Count, Tim, Lady Bagchester, Two Bags, Beccles, and Ali Bagger. Of the

original commentators only Ord has remained continually involved although Ali Bagger
and Beccles have returned in the last year.


usir.salford.ac.uk/14731/1/DX225449.pdf

An interesting read!

mrclondon , why would the proposed DD Central forum need to be restricted to a small subset of P2PIF members?  I can understand why it would need to be a private forum, so that borrowers could be named for DD purposes, but why restrict access to only a few P2PIF members? 

I mention this, as if the DD Central forum idea went ahead, I'd be inclined to take anything posted on here from the DD Central forum with a large pinch of salt - how do I know it's true, and not an attempt by the DD Central people to manipulate the market in a particular loan? 

For example, if the DD Central report was that a loan was fine with no problems, how could I be sure the loan isn't really dodgy, but the DD Central people want to pretend it's fine, so they can sell their holdings in the loan before it possibly defaults? 

Or if DD Central reported a loan was dodgy, how could I know that the loan isn't actually fine, but that the DD Central members want to create a run on this loan, so that they could buy up large holdings in it, possibly at a discount (if on a platform that allows discounts on the secondary market)? 

As well, what if a member who's not part of the DD Central select few has some very relevant DD information? 

I would suggest that if the DD Central idea goes ahead, that membership of the DD Central forum is opened to all P2PIF members who meet reasonable criteria - say been a member for 30 days, made at least 10 posts, and not in any trouble with the moderators. 

happy
Tremendous post. I wish I'd written it myself.

Greenwood2
As I understand it, rule 1 of the internal sub-forum, if it is created, will be that significant findings must be and will be shared with the wider forum. By contrast, rule 1 of the private external forum would seem to be absolute secrecy. That's a pretty fundamental difference.

If I was a moderator some of the posts on here (and I don't mean yours) would sorely tempt me to jack it in.  I hope that does not happen.  Their efforts in the public interest are much appreciated. 

I value the p2pif, but this seems to me that some of the staff, who from personal experience can seem a bit rude at times (personal opinion - I understand people get frustrated) if you get on the wrong end of the rules, got a bit fed up and told people that if they didn't like it, to go off and do their own thing. Now someone has, they think they are missing out and are looking at ways to resolve this.  If they were looking to grow this community, they perhaps took their eye off the ball.  Given they were feeling fairly invulnerable as the only real p2p discussion forum around, this is somewhat understandable. I don't participate as much in these forums as I did after having been told off and being left feeling like a chastised schoolboy some time ago (yes, I broke the rules). I resorted to more lurking than posting as a result. I do understand why they feel the need for some of these rules, but it can make life difficult if you want to actively contribute. Threatening to close a forum that hosts over 3,500 users because 60 or so (figures from other posts) went to discuss things somewhere else more freely at the staffs suggestion seems silly to me. If as moderators you are no longer enjoying running the board, please be sure to offer the reins to someone else. it would be a great shame to see this platform hard close. Using it as leverage, or a reason to shut the boards though is not I think genuine.

I cannot see the 'DD Central' forums, so to me, it's just another hidden forum where I do not know what goes on behind closed doors.

How is DD central any different?  

If a piece of information comes to light in DD central, who decides if that is distributed to the wider public and when?

As this is all about fairness and ensuring no one has advantages, would there be an agreement that people participating in DD central cannot act on information gained from it before adequately distributing it to the wider public?  How would this be policed given the users are all anonymous? Would the initiator of such information act prior to disclosing it to the closed group?

Would p2p platform staff have access to DD central?  

Would all MODs from here automatically be given access?

You can see how hard it would be I think for the 2 groups to co-exist under the same umbrella without the majority of users feeling the same things the mods are now.

There seems to be a suggestion from the staff here that the 'other' board is bad. From an outsider looking in, I'm not really seeing how the proposed DD central is any different (apart from the fact it may be based on a different set of users from here which excluded the p2pif staff). The only difference I'm reading in these comments is that the p2pif staff would be involved, thereby making sure all is above board. Everything goes via them. There's a suggestion that information from this closed sub-board would be distributed to the rest of us when relevant. As the other forum is apparently built on members from here, this may already happen to some extent. I would be sure that like every other forum out there, it is moderated in some way too, if not by the staff here of course.  With just 60 users though, perhaps it is more of a discussion group and their user base is well behaved enough to not need expensive moderation to the scale required here. A plus I guess for smaller groups.  I personally know no-one from either board. All users here are anonymous users with vested interests. I would not act on any piece of information without first checking it myself, though there are some users here I have learned over time offer more useful information than others. Everyone that has been here a for a while knows who they are and I am sure values their contributions.

I find it hard to comprehend how a separate board here with an exclusive set of users (publicly acknowledged or otherwise) can comfortably co-exist due to the current rules.  If the p2pif wants to encourage more DD in public I would suggest it needs to find a way to encourage users to do so. This could be by relaxing the rules, making the forum login only, changing MOD rules, and generally making the place more conducive to that activity, for all. Creating a subset of 'super' users is not I think the answer, given they will always be the great minority of users here and everyone always wants to see what is on the other side of the fence. It's natural.

How many people on here chat via PM or get together in a Telegram group (yes, they exist)  to share docs and discuss opportunities they cannot publicly via here? Hell, maybe some of you even talk over a pint at the pub (in secret of course).  How is this different? The only thing that can (IMO) change this is to create an environment where people can freely exchange ideas in a more convenient way and I acknowledge that has some challenges in an open public forum. If you can't or won't do that, for whatever reason, people will simply do it elsewhere by necessity.

One final question for Mods. What do you get out of this, really? Do you do it for the love of the hobby? Is it because you simply want to help others? Is it because you might have access to information you otherwise would not? As I understand it, the mods are completely unpaid? Assuming you get absolutely nothing in direct compensation, there must be a reason each of you commits his/her time, even if it's simply for the love of interaction with fellow p2p'rs?  I really would be interested to know why each of you became a mod (truthfully) and why you continue to commit your time? Perhaps with the leaving of 60 or so users (thought it sounds like all didn't actually leave as such), these reasons no longer exist?