General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[Ghost Town]

Just call a mod and have it moved back

I pm'd Arch and asked him what was up. I hated even doing that much. It seems so silly.

 

Did Arch answer you GT ?

I just PM'd him tonight. So not yet. I hope he's not working and enjoying a movie and a glass of wine.

[Bosco685]

JKing3437 thread was also moved from GA/SA/BA to the Copper/Modern Section.

 

The best was when the mod got confused and split Rupp's thread in half, and then had to join it back together without anyone noticing.

 

 

Hint - it was noticed.

[Bio-Rupp]

Just call a mod and have it moved back

I pm'd Arch and asked him what was up. I hated even doing that much. It seems so silly.

 

Did Arch answer you GT ?

I just PM'd him tonight. So not yet. I hope he's not working and enjoying a movie and a glass of wine.

 

I PMd him about it on 12/9 and then Dena on 12/10. No answer from either one.

 

That said, some seem to be able to get ahold of them immediately... while some can't.

 

[Bio-Rupp]

JKing3437 thread was also moved from GA/SA/BA to the Copper/Modern Section.

 

The best was when the mod got confused and split Rupp's thread in half, and then had to join it back together without anyone noticing.

 

 

Hint - it was noticed.

 

Good lord that was a mess wasn't it

 

And ALL that was in Mixed too

[comix4fun]

The friggin button humpers are gonna get the whole marketplace shut down eventually by constantly pestering the mods.

 

Maybe button humping shouldn't remain anonymous.

 

I would give a lot to see that happen. A whole bunch of disingenuous turds would have some 'splainin to do.

 

 

I predict people creating shills just to hump the button in that scenario.

 

Much like the old Reese's PB Cup commercials people will get annoyed if they think,

 

"You got my aggressive on my passive!"

 

When they REALLY prefer to keep the two apart, if at all possible, if you don't mind.

If not, no big deal. It's not like it bothers me. Seriously, it's ok.

[Bosco685]

JKing3437 thread was also moved from GA/SA/BA to the Copper/Modern Section.

 

The best was when the mod got confused and split Rupp's thread in half, and then had to join it back together without anyone noticing.

 

 

Hint - it was noticed.

 

Good lord that was a mess wasn't it

 

And ALL that was in Mixed too

 

It was a Beta test that night of the Screwyoursalesthreadup 3000.

 

[comix4fun]

Here's a blast from the past that will divide the forum further in to old fogies and wet behind the ears whippersnappers.

 

[Park]

The friggin button humpers are gonna get the whole marketplace shut down eventually by constantly pestering the mods.

 

Maybe button humping shouldn't remain anonymous.

 

I would give a lot to see that happen. A whole bunch of disingenuous turds would have some 'splainin to do.

 

 

I predict people creating shills just to hump the button in that scenario.

 

Much like the old Reese's PB Cup commercials people will get annoyed if they think,

 

"You got my aggressive on my passive!"

 

When they REALLY prefer to keep the two apart, if at all possible, if you don't mind.

If not, no big deal. It's not like it bothers me. Seriously, it's ok.

 

 

Sigh. You are right.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Here's a blast from the past that will divide the forum further in to old fogies and wet behind the ears whippersnappers.

 

 

Walkmans

[Kramerica]

You realize that every second spent debating the merits of grown men being able to sell their comic books in a particular fashion, within a particular forum thread, brings the danger of a permanent and retroactive specter of virginity on the collecting hobby as a whole.

 

+ 1,000,000

 

Let's talk about the Seahawks/New York Giants game instead (thumbs u Or did that already happen?

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Here's a blast from the past that will divide the forum further in to old fogies and wet behind the ears whippersnappers.

 

 

From the YouTube comments.

 

The guy looks familiar too.

 

segafan7

2 years ago

 

Yes, the girl is INDEED Diane Franklin whom you can see naked in "The Last American Virgin" and "Amityville II: The Possession". You might also remember her from "Better Off Dead" with John Cusack or "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure". She will be 50 years old in Feb of 2012.

[mschmidt]

 

Well it must depend on percentages. Dale said he was only listing "5% moderns" and that the mods should cut him some slack.

 

What was your percentage of moderns?

I made a quick count, but I think it's even less than 5% (7 out of 224). And as I mentioned earlier, some of the other books are borderline books like New Mutants #1-20.

 

I wasn't the one hitting the button and I mean no particular offense here, but you have a ton of Copper books in your sales thread - far more than just 7.

 

All the New Mutants books, Thor #344, Captain America Annual #8, Guardians of the Galaxy #1, ASM 289, ASM 296, Iron Man #282, ASM 245, ASM 256, ASM 261, ASM 263, ASM 268, UXM 244, etc, etc.

 

Your thread is pretty much the perfect example of a Mixed Age thread :shrug:

[Bio-Rupp]

 

Well it must depend on percentages. Dale said he was only listing "5% moderns" and that the mods should cut him some slack.

 

What was your percentage of moderns?

I made a quick count, but I think it's even less than 5% (7 out of 224). And as I mentioned earlier, some of the other books are borderline books like New Mutants #1-20.

 

I wasn't the one hitting the button and I mean no particular offense here, but you have a ton of Copper books in your sales thread - far more than just 7.

 

All the New Mutants books, Thor #344, Captain America Annual #8, Guardians of the Galaxy #1, ASM 289, ASM 296, Iron Man #282, ASM 245, ASM 256, ASM 261, ASM 263, ASM 268, UXM 244, etc, etc.

 

Your thread is pretty much the perfect example of a Mixed Age thread :shrug:

 

Below was the stats on Dale's thread as of 12/11... also far more than 7 books and far more than "5%".

 

Why are the rules different concerning Ghost Town or others? Why couldn't his listings stay in thread he started them in? Shouldn't he be able to request they be put back?

 

Looks bad

 

 

72 "misplaced" listings out of 281 total listings to date, according to my personal calculations. 72/281 = 25.6%. This is using January, 1984 as the beginning of the Copper Age. Of course, if you believe the Copper Age started before January, 1984, the numerator increases.

 

(As has been stated, this is indeed not the core issue...just an interesting statistic...I like statistics )

[Jeffro.]

 

Or like it's been here for years, people can resist the urge to hit the notify button for minutiae.

 

Well no, because agendas and butthurt are in play.

This sales thread moving thing seems like a recent development. I know Dale's thread was initially moved to the Mixed section before it was given a reprieve. And my thread was living happily for 10 days before a kind soul decided to report it.

 

And having the occasional mid-eighties book in GSB has never seemed to be a problem before.

 

The moving thing has always happened. However, now it's being taken to extremes. Again, I suspect agendas, grudges, and butthurt.

I do agree that people should resist the urge to hump the button over minutiae.

[Ghost Town]

 

Well it must depend on percentages. Dale said he was only listing "5% moderns" and that the mods should cut him some slack.

 

What was your percentage of moderns?

I made a quick count, but I think it's even less than 5% (7 out of 224). And as I mentioned earlier, some of the other books are borderline books like New Mutants #1-20.

 

I wasn't the one hitting the button and I mean no particular offense here, but you have a ton of Copper books in your sales thread - far more than just 7.

 

All the New Mutants books, Thor #344, Captain America Annual #8, Guardians of the Galaxy #1, ASM 289, ASM 296, Iron Man #282, ASM 245, ASM 256, ASM 261, ASM 263, ASM 268, UXM 244, etc, etc.

 

Your thread is pretty much the perfect example of a Mixed Age thread :shrug:

 

I'll easily agree with you on the Spideys, Iron Man #282, Guardians of the Galaxy, X-Men #244 and the Cap Annual, but not so much on the early New Mutants and Thor #344. They're 1984 or before and more like "tweener" books to me.

 

I'm sure you can point out other books too. But the vast majority of listings in thread are from 1984 or before.

 

If you use 1984 as the cut-off, and I think that's fair, and my count is more careful now, there are 25 post-1984 listings out of 224.

 

If you're a glass half-empty kind of guy, that's right around 11% copper.

 

Having these books in GSB has never been an issue before. In fact, I've had these books in GSB before and it's never been a problem. Until now.

[EC ed]

I'd rather just be told clearly the date age cut-offs for each section. And good luck with that because there will never be a universally accepted definition of Gold, Silver, and Bronze.

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.

 

Or like it's been here for years, people can resist the urge to hit the notify button for minutiae.

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

 

 

 

[crassus]

For me the problem with measuring percentages is that it is not a static metric, threads unfold over time, %% of this or that will vary depending upon how a thread is organized and when you measure.

 

 

[crassus]

I'd rather just be told clearly the date age cut-offs for each section. And good luck with that because there will never be a universally accepted definition of Gold, Silver, and Bronze.

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."

 

 

I would go along with Scenario 1. I personally don't think there needs to be universal theological agreement on the cut off dates, and your formula takes that into account. The cut off dates don't have to be dogma, just a community decision to have functional categories of separation.

[Speedy-D]

I still don't think I've seen a good argument for not posting comics in both sections. It's not really much harder...you can basically copy/paste your first post with thread rules, and after that, with each post being a comic for sale (the standard method of selling around here), what's the difference if it's all in one thread? If you add both threads to your watch list, it barely matters that it's not a single one.

 

Add to that the fact that you will actually be missing potential customers if you post in the wrong section, and I just don't see what the issue is.

[EC ed]

I would go along with Scenario 1. I personally don't think there needs to be universal theological agreement on the cut off dates, and your formula takes that into account. The cut off dates don't have to be dogma, just a community decision to have functional categories of separation.

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.