PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[MetalPSI]

I just stumbled on this discussion, I think its mostly B...

 

As for buyer beware, I totally agree on this point. I currently have someone who has never made a post in a forum, has a recent (The day I posted my WTB thread) for an exceptionally rare item I would wish to have. Not to mention pointed me to an eBay sale of said item with same credentials.

 

Hmm....indeed....

[jsilverjanet]

Ed/Sharon make the best point which is how/who will enforce.

 

There's someone who's on the PL list, who's been on there since last December and I see them have sales threads an no one says anything (any people buy their items), which personally baffles me. Unless they have the same name as the person on the PL list, so if they can't be stopped what makes any rules enforceable unless it's something within the technology to allow/disallow

[Dr. Balls]

I guess at this point I have to question why the opposition of a minimum post count before selling?

 

I'm not trying to be combative, but I don't recall reading the argument against it, other than "how to police the new rule" which is no more complicated than reminding sellers right there in the thread of the other rules when they get ignored.

[Dr. Balls]

Ed/Sharon make the best point which is how/who will enforce.

 

There's someone who's on the PL list, who's been on there since last December and I see them have sales threads an no one says anything (any people buy their items), which personally baffles me. Unless they have the same name as the person on the PL list, so if they can't be stopped what makes any rules enforceable unless it's something within the technology to allow/disallow

 

I think it's enforced by the people in the know - lots of people will chime in when someone doesn't include shipping prices, etc - because those are the rules. If we make a minimum post count part of the actual rules, I think it will be mentioned in the sellers threads pretty quickly.

 

And, it's also up to us to help enforce it. I don't know about anyone else, but I am lurking this site most of the day and usually pop into sales threads just out of curiosity. I know Miraclemet and I have our fair share of pointing out rules to people that either miss or ignore them.

[skypinkblu]

Ed/Sharon make the best point which is how/who will enforce.

 

There's someone who's on the PL list, who's been on there since last December and I see them have sales threads an no one says anything (any people buy their items), which personally baffles me. Unless they have the same name as the person on the PL list, so if they can't be stopped what makes any rules enforceable unless it's something within the technology to allow/disallow

 

I think it's enforced by the people in the know - lots of people will chime in when someone doesn't include shipping prices, etc - because those are the rules. If we make a minimum post count part of the actual rules, I think it will be mentioned in the sellers threads pretty quickly.

 

And, it's also up to us to help enforce it. I don't know about anyone else, but I am lurking this site most of the day and usually pop into sales threads just out of curiosity. I know Miraclemet and I have our fair share of pointing out rules to people that either miss or ignore them.

 

 

Let's see,

1. who is going to test the posts to see if they meet quality?

will this require another rule? What are considered adequate posts?

 

Then there will be another rule and another rule...and then we all find the buried treasure (sorry, wrong movie;)

 

 

2. What happens when a large dealer who is well known shows up and half the place drools...while the other half tells that person to post 100 times?

 

3. Someone's relative passes and leaves a fantastic collection ...he/she is a friend of someone, but they are told they need to post 100 times.

 

4. Someone posts 101 times then runs a scam

 

5. Many of the scammers have the post counts.

 

Those are off the top of my head, but I have plenty of posts, so if you really need to do this, I'm not going to get all upset...

 

HOWEVER.

Has anyone even asked Arch if that will be allowed?

 

He's the one that posted the rules. We can't sticky something. He will have to agree.

[Beige]

First Poll - I can't imagine it would be a "no" but for transparencies sake...

It's a 72 hr poll. Should be enough time for most people to see it, or enough to decide wether to go to the next poll.

 

 

Pov is going to flip when he sees a poll that only goes for 72 hours. This type of rules change is going to take a longer voting period than just 72 hours.

 

it's a poll to see if any changes should be considered - not changed.

You vote was obviously worthless as you didn't even bother to read it properly.

[oakman29]

Can you really enforce these rules? I do agree that this is becoming a huge problem around here,and like a cancer can grow with time.I like the post count idea,but really what you need to do is do your homework before you buy from these boneheads.

If you don't give them a chance to flourish with their scams they will go away.

[MetalPSI]

First Poll - I can't imagine it would be a "no" but for transparencies sake...

It's a 72 hr poll. Should be enough time for most people to see it, or enough to decide wether to go to the next poll.

 

 

Pov is going to flip when he sees a poll that only goes for 72 hours. This type of rules change is going to take a longer voting period than just 72 hours.

 

it's a poll to see if any changes should be considered - not changed.

You vote was obviously worthless as you didn't even bother to read it properly.

 

+1

[Dr. Balls]

Ed/Sharon make the best point which is how/who will enforce.

 

There's someone who's on the PL list, who's been on there since last December and I see them have sales threads an no one says anything (any people buy their items), which personally baffles me. Unless they have the same name as the person on the PL list, so if they can't be stopped what makes any rules enforceable unless it's something within the technology to allow/disallow

 

I think it's enforced by the people in the know - lots of people will chime in when someone doesn't include shipping prices, etc - because those are the rules. If we make a minimum post count part of the actual rules, I think it will be mentioned in the sellers threads pretty quickly.

 

And, it's also up to us to help enforce it. I don't know about anyone else, but I am lurking this site most of the day and usually pop into sales threads just out of curiosity. I know Miraclemet and I have our fair share of pointing out rules to people that either miss or ignore them.

 

 

Let's see,

1. who is going to test the posts to see if they meet quality?

will this require another rule? What are considered adequate posts?

 

Then there will be another rule and another rule...and then we all find the buried treasure (sorry, wrong movie;)

 

 

2. What happens when a large dealer who is well known shows up and half the place drools...while the other half tells that person to post 100 times?

 

3. Someone's relative passes and leaves a fantastic collection ...he/she is a friend of someone, but they are told they need to post 100 times.

 

4. Someone posts 101 times then runs a scam

 

5. Many of the scammers have the post counts.

 

Those are off the top of my head, but I have plenty of posts, so if you really need to do this, I'm not going to get all upset...

 

HOWEVER.

Has anyone even asked Arch if that will be allowed?

 

He's the one that posted the rules. We can't sticky something. He will have to agree.

 

Here's how I envision the scenario playing out:

 

New User with <100 posts: "Buy my stuff, dudes!"

 

Dr. Balls: "You need 100+ posts to start a sales thread"

 

Miraculously, I did not sprain any fingers or lose any valuable time from my life typing out that typical scenario above. I don't think it's going to be that hard to implement.

 

Actually, we've probably expended more effort repeating ourselves here in this discussion than we would have explaining to new users that there is a minimum post count to start a sales thread.

 

I'm not sure I can weigh in about the large dealers showing up or dead relative's collections - I'd venture a guess that we have 10X the amount of problematic posts than we do dead relative comic collections being sold here.

 

I simply don't see the problem in having a minimum post count. Again - the minimum post count is a deterrent - not a solution. Yes, you are right that there will be people that post one over the minimum and run a scam. No one has that this would cure scammers, but it will slow a lot of them down who show up here and try to sell within their first 3 posts.

 

And that's about it. Of course, I think 100 is too low, I'd say more like 200-300.

[Dr. Balls]

Can you really enforce these rules? I do agree that this is becoming a huge problem around here,and like a cancer can grow with time.I like the post count idea,but really what you need to do is do your homework before you buy from these boneheads.

If you don't give them a chance to flourish with their scams they will go away.

 

I'm guessing enforcement will be simply telling the user that they can't post with less than X posts, then notifying mods. Just as if he didn't follow any of the other rules in listing items. This is just one more thread that gets notified to them - I don't see it as being a massive strain on the infrastructure.

[jaybuck43]

Dr. Balls I think what Sharon is saying is the following:

New User with <100 Posts: "Buy my IH 181 CGC 9.2 for $1000"

Dr. Balls: "You need 100+ posts to start a sales thread"

Jaybuck43:

PM from New User with <100 Posts: send me a check for $1000

Jaybuck43: I sent $1000 and never got my book

We need some kind of way from preventing people from posting in the first place.

[AJD]

I know this statement is going to upset a few very good friends of mine, but I hope they will forgive me.

 

Rules are toothless without enforcement. Who is going to enforce these rules? Do you have mods on a leash ready to take action? Arch has made it clear we need to run our own sales forum.

 

The more rules you toss up, the more rules you will need.

 

I still think it's up to the buyer/seller to use common sense, no one can regulate that.

 

Ask questions, ask for references, insist on regular PP, speak up in a timely manner when something goes awry, don't put it off for 5 months.

 

Look before you leap.

 

If something is too good to be true...well, guess what?

 

Andy, you've been a big proponent of this...let me ask you a question...I saw a thread where you were extraordinarily happy about making a profit on a book.

 

Some people were upset.

 

What if that became one of the new "rules"...that you can't make more than a certain amount of profit?

 

What if, people decide that we have to go by GPA? GPA is not perfect for the books I collect...what use is data that is 10 years old and has been reported on 2 books:?

 

It's just like anything else, a guide...

 

Who is going to determine price?

 

Who is going to determine shipping costs?

 

Who is going to determine good constructive post counts?

 

I wish everyone here were just honest and nice and played together well...but a few bad apples will spoil any bunch.

 

I voted no. I'm an adult, I shop carefully and if I decide to take a chance on someone and I lose...well, I'll have the same breakfast tomorrow because I don't gamble over my head.

 

I've never minded "thread crapping" though...as long as it was constructive and not just mean.

 

I'm usually quite impressed with the sleuths:)

 

This is a very sensible post. The bolded part is the crux to all of this.

[oakman29]

Can you really enforce these rules? I do agree that this is becoming a huge problem around here,and like a cancer can grow with time.I like the post count idea,but really what you need to do is do your homework before you buy from these boneheads.

If you don't give them a chance to flourish with their scams they will go away.

 

I'm guessing enforcement will be simply telling the user that they can't post with less than X posts, then notifying mods. Just as if he didn't follow any of the other rules in listing items. This is just one more thread that gets notified to them - I don't see it as being a massive strain on the infrastructure.

I like your post count idea,but one could post a hundred posts like in that strange post count thread(ask Porcupine about that one) in a day if they wanted.Maybe your three month waiting period might be better?

[thunderstick]

I don't get it?

 

Is someone forcing you to purchase comic books from an individual on this internet forum board?

 

Are you doing this under duress?

 

Is no one here old enough to make a logical and intelligent decision on their very own?

 

Simply hilarious.

 

[jsilverjanet]

New User with <100 posts: "Buy my stuff, dudes!"

 

I pictured Keeanu Reeves when I read that

 

Maybe your three month waiting period might be better?

 

I've mentioned a waiting period as the strongest deterrent.

 

Time unlike posts cannot be manipulated

 

I can't imagine a scammer opening an account, making random posts over a 3 month period, then deciding "now I will spring my scam".

 

 

[Beige]

I agree with Hector tbh.

However the way the vote is going, it seems this will be academic anyway.

Bit surprised tbh, but that's what polls are for - to gain concensus.

I guess this is a great example of this at its best.

[miraclemet]

New User with <100 posts: "Buy my stuff, dudes!"

 

I pictured Keeanu Reeves when I read that

 

Maybe your three month waiting period might be better?

 

I've mentioned a waiting period as the strongest deterrent.

 

Time unlike posts cannot be manipulated

 

I can't imagine a scammer opening an account, making random posts over a 3 month period, then deciding "now I will spring my scam".

 

 

does anyone know if this forum host has a way to set a time restriction for the ability to post in designated subforums?

 

I know of other forums that had such a restriction which was enforced by the subforum configuration.

 

Would make it nice and easy and at least get rid of the "nuisance" listings. And require users to get some time observing before posting in threads with rules.

[oakman29]

The only real way of getting past all of this is to know who you are buying from.There are many great board members here who are trustworthy,stick with them.I have a select few I buy from,and don't go to anyone else.I never have had a problem,ever.

[PovertyRow]

First Poll - I can't imagine it would be a "no" but for transparencies sake...

It's a 72 hr poll. Should be enough time for most people to see it, or enough to decide wether to go to the next poll.

 

 

Pov is going to flip when he sees a poll that only goes for 72 hours. This type of rules change is going to take a longer voting period than just 72 hours.

 

Nah. As the poll says: " do we need to impose conditions on buyers/sellers in the cgc forums?" It is not proposing any specific changes. Besides, the way it is worded, it doesn't really have any impact, since we already impose conditions on buyers/sellers via the Usage Guidelines:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1460472#Post1460472.

[Bio-Rupp]

And just to throw this out there... lets say a 100 post rule to sell does eventually come into effect.

 

This won't stop a potential (greedy or otherwise) buyer from PMing the new seller.

 

If that buyer gets hosed behind the scenes and the new seller hasn't fulfilled the requirements to sell here... does that mean the buyer has no recourse?

 

No recourse as in caveat emptor ?

 

I mean I want no boardie to be shafted... but if you are warned how to prevent a shaft, given a way to avoid the shaft and you still take the shaft out on a trial date... and then the shaft ties you up and has its way with you... weren't you really just asking for the shaft?

 

Would the buyer not equally be considered breaking a buyer/seller rule set forth by the boards? Would we throw rocks and beanie babies at him/her as well?

 

This could turn into a Lord of the Flies situation of Biblical proportions

 

Or not.