EC ed

I'm pretty sure you're still a noob, as well...as am I

Don't be so sure that Chris sees it that way...Chris probably views that "veteran member" as a noob as well, since he's "only" been here since 2011...tricky business defining "noob"...seems to be a relative term, and Chris has been here since '03. Just keep contributing and don't let it agitate you...that just stokes the flames.

My was made in a larger context...this logic of 'doing something because someone else is doing it' has been used a lot aroun... oh, forget it. If you look at my post, I wasn't even facepalming you. But now that you have engaged me, let me ask you...If you were indeed looking for at least a VF+ copy of X-Men 51 for your collection, why did you hammer down the 'take it' on Dale's VF- copy? edit: OOOH...trigger happiness...read back and got it...

don't want to get my message lost in the translation. I did not say that he violated a rule, but that he did not provide the necessary information to have his sales thread be more successful. That doesn't excuse the threadcrapping in the slightest.

What marketplace rule did he violate? I didn't see one...

Yep - reading that thread makes me hope the "no threadcrapping" guidelines aren't starting to become relaxed...

Yeah...that's it....yeah...just forgot to post up the yeah. Just kidding around in a charity thread...that's it... :censored: :censored: :censored:

His first post on the boards was a threadkrap: HERE Immensely annoying.

I'm assuming that you're referring to me. If not, you can understand how I might make that assumption. I didn't realize that raising a concern for discussion in the marketplace general discussion thread (which was created just for that purpose) was "stirring up controversy." Your points are duly noted. Thank you for that opinion.

Sigh... Or, don't do any of these things. Again, nothing personal, not my "cause"...just trying to be helpful by identifying what I perceived to be a problem and offering a couple of constructive suggestions. I apologize for the disturbance.

Now that you mention it, Bob Storms does look an afwul lot like Franciscan friar Luca Pacioli, the "Father of Accounting."

Look, this is nothing personal with me any way you slice it. I'm new here. I love it here. I love buying and selling books here. I plan and hope to be a part of this community for the indefinite future, if you'll have me. In my estimation, this issue we're discussing is an important one. Look at the issues it's causing out there in the marketplace...I'm not causing those issues, the current location rules dynamics are. Because I love this place, I'm suggesting that we might want to address this. But again...here come the comments that trivialize the issue...a few books here and there, etc...I hear you, but it's not that simple...look out there at the issues that are arising. Further, I don't know how much more clear I can be about this: I DON'T CARE WHETHER WE HAVE THE RULE ABOUT SEPARATE LOCATIONS. REMOVE IT...RETURN TO AN ALL MIXED SALES FORUM. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT IF WE HAVE A RULE, MAKE IT CLEAR AND EASY TO ENFORCE. OTHERWISE GET RID OF IT. OK, enough from me again...back to my cabinets...

I'm assuming that if we want to start an effort to remove the listing rules, that effort will take a lot of time to accomplish. Could I suggest that in the meantime, we go ahead and ask arch to explicitly codify the acceptable years into the existing sub-forum guidelines? Real simple...something like this, as I outline above: "In the marketplace, books are to be listed in the correct sub-forum. It is acceptable to list books published before 1986 in G/S/B, and it is acceptable to list books published after 1979 in C/M." Put this into the marketplace rules, and modify the subforum general descriptions that are currently in place on the selling are entry page HERE ...for example, under the description of G/S/B, replace "This forum is for golden age, bronze age, and silver age specific postings" with "This sub- forum is for comic books published before (and not including) 1986", and under the description of C/M, replace "A sub-forum for sales that contain only copper or modern age comics" with "This sub-forum is for comic books published after (and including) 1980", or something simple like that? It's an easy argument to make that, given the existence of location rules, doing a year codification like this will make everyone's life easier: sellers AND moderators, because neither would need to make judgment calls that lead to inconsistencies that we are currently seeing. How could we go about making this suggestion?

No time like the present to correct the situation going forward...what should we do?

Thank you...I completely agree with you that we do have rules. But apparently those rules are not consistently enforced, there is disagreement among our community members about whether those rules should be enforced, and there is scorn directed by some community members in the direction of those who try to enforce these rules. So what do we do? That's what I mean when I say that we need to decide. Should we communicate to Arch and let him know that it is the community's preference that we not have location rules, and would he please consider removing that rule? (my Scenario 2 from above) If that's not what we (or he) wants to do, I suggest that we at minimum suggest to Arch that we codify some dates into the existing rules as I suggest above, which would make the existing rule better, easier to enforce, more consistent, etc... (my Scenario 1 from above)

Those threads "should be" in Mixed only if we decide that we want to have rules about thread location, otherwise the threads can be in whichever section they want them to be. We need to decide.

The even crazier thing about this thread is that Jking3437 was running a C/M thread and actually tried to do the right thing by starting a separate thread in G/S/B for these two books because he thought they belonged there based on his opinion of the 1985 cutoff! You see, if the years were codified (use my hypothetical example), all his books could have stayed in one thread in C/M and clearly been inside the rules, because all books are 1980 and after. Or, he could have left these 2 in G/S/B had that been his preference, because they're both before 1986. No judgment call needed...it's codified. edit: again...of course, if we decide we don't want location rules, fine with me, and there would be no such thing as humping buttons or moving threads for location...we need to decide.

Should we decide that we want to keep the marketplace ages separate, actually codifying the acceptable years in the rule would remove moderator judgment about correct location and thereby minimize inconsistent moderation, which is another problem in this entire situation. As a side example, take a look at Jking3437's thread HERE . This thread has 2 books in it...one from 1984 and one from 1985. The thread was moved by moderation from G/S/B to C/M. There is discussion in the thread about whether the books are copper or not. Under my hypothetical codification, no judgment call is necessary, and this thread should/would not have been moved.

I'll chime in again, since the discussion is continuing. We need to have either one of two scenarios, and frankly, at this point I don't care which one we have...but we need to decide which one it's going to be, and the "board guidelines" need to be updated to reflect which one it is: Scenario 1: We decide that the "separate age" structure of the marketplace will exist. Acknowledge that there is difference of opinion about start/end dates of the ages. This difference of opinion does not prevent the codification of a rule. The earliest interpretation of the beginning of the Copper age that I know of is 1980, and the latest is 1986...so, that would be where the "enforcement" could begin and end...books after 1985 in the G/S/B thread are in the wrong place; books before 1980 in the C/M thread are in the wrong place. So, here is but one example of how the rule could be written: "In the marketplace, books are to be listed in the correct sub-forum. It is acceptable to list books published before 1986 in G/S/B, and it is acceptable to list books published after 1979 in C/M." If we go with scenario 1, enforcement of this rule needs to be expected and encouraged, just like all the other rules. Or, Scenario 2: We completely wipe the rule off the books about putting books in the correct location...i.e., the will be no "correct location", and sellers just list what they want where they want. Again, if we want this, I have no problem with it....but it needs to be an ACTIVE decision that this is what we want. Again, we the community need to decide which one it's going to be, clearly and actively. Not everyone is going to agree about which scenario is better...the discussion that's going on is great, but at some point it needs to turn from an unofficial discussion to an official one - the official board guidelines need to reflect one or the other - there is no plausible middle ground...otherwise, this could go on, and on, and on, and on..... Some of your comments lead me to believe that some of you have the opinion that we don't need to clarify which one it is....I guess I just don't get that. Two problems with this, one before the comma and one after the comma. The problem before the comma: "like it's been here for years" is not a good reason to continue doing something. More importantly, as markets evolve and become larger and more complex (as I imagine is happening with these boards) clarity and enforcement of rules surrounding the marketplace becomes MORE important. I can give you numerous parallels using the analogy of U.S. capital markets as they developed. Again, I'm not arguing at this point for Scenario 1...if we don't want a rule about this, FINE...at least that would be clear...but let's make it official. The problem after the comma: define "minutiae." Respectfully, my

Well, the gentle rules reminder that I posted in HusTrucK's thread got POOFed. That fact, along with the general vibe thus far, tells me that I'm harping on something that the general community feels is not important. OK...fair enough...I'll back off this. I've tried to lay out the arguments concerning my opinion as to why the current situation is problematic. However, as mentioned, I'm not going vigilante. If someone else wants to reinitiate the discussion, I'll contribute. I'm not going to hump any buttons, and I'm not going to post any (more) rules reminders about location issues. Now, I'm going to go reorganize my cabinets.

Thanks for your thoughts, Hector. (by the way, thanks also for setting an example by running your threads in accordance with the existing rules) I need a history lesson, since I've only been here since February. I imagine that long ago, the marketplace was one big sales area...just one big Mixed thread. Then, I imagine that some member or group of members thought that it was too messy, and thought that the current sub-forum structure and its rules would be better. I bet there was a democratic process that then established the current structure...a poll, perhaps? Is this basically how it went? If so, who among you veteran boardies spent energy accomplishing the current structure, and how do you feel about the current state of affairs, where the separate sub-fora are de facto returning to one big Mixed thread again because of lukewarm enforcement of the structure you helped create?

Also, I have no desire to be some vigilante about this thing. Quite the contrary...trying to be helpful. If there's general lack of support among the community for enforcement of this rule, I'll back off. That's what I'm trying to get a sense of by continuing to bring this up for discussion here. However, if that's the case, I would encourage someone to lead an effort to remove this rule from the books so that in the future we can avoid issues that have arisen as a result of the lukewarm and inconsistent enforcement of this rule.

I completely agree about picking the battles. I'm not trying to fight multiple battles...right now just this one, for some reason I still don't quite understand. And I agree about posting a "couple" being no big deal, as I stated above: But when does it become a big deal? Never? Then, we're back to the earlier issue of why have the rule and the different sub-fora in the first place. Also, the bigger issue becomes a feeling of unfairness that I presume exists on behalf of people trying to do it the right way and people who have their threads moved by moderation. As for regulating the ages, if we're going to have this rule, we have to take a stab at it. A rule that is unenforceable should not be a rule. If you look at my proposed template, I acknowlege that there are differences of opinion...the earliest interpretation of the beginning of the Copper age that I know of is 1980, and the latest is 1986...so, that would be where the "enforcement" would begin and end...books after 1985 (i.e., beginning in 1986) in the G/S/B thread are in the wrong place; books before 1980 in the C/M thread are in the wrong place.