General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[EC ed]

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.

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.

Edited December 18, 2013 by edowens71

[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:

 

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.

 

That's all fine & well, but it doesn't change the fact that you're running a Mixed age thread - and it should therefore be in the Mixed age forum. So should Dale's thread, for that matter.

[EC ed]

That's all fine & well, but it doesn't change the fact that you're running a Mixed age thread - and it should therefore be in the Mixed age forum. So should Dale's thread, for that matter.

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.

[Speedy-D]

That's all fine & well, but it doesn't change the fact that you're running a Mixed age thread - and it should therefore be in the Mixed age forum. So should Dale's thread, for that matter.

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.

We do have rules. That's why there are multiple sections and threads are being moved, no? :shrug:

[mschmidt]

That's all fine & well, but it doesn't change the fact that you're running a Mixed age thread - and it should therefore be in the Mixed age forum. So should Dale's thread, for that matter.

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.

 

No, we don't - Arch already did that when he split the sales forum into 3 sub-forums.

[comix4fun]

 

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.

 

 

I am totally old.....all those books are moderns to me.

[slym2none]

Ed, I agree with you here. What is the point of having different sections based on comic age if the "rules" aren't going to be enforced, and it really isn't difficult to start another thread in the "correct" section if one does have different age comics to sell and doesn't want them in the Mixed section.

 

If a seller can't bother to un-jumble their books, then the thread goes in the jumbled-book section.

 

Like a few have said, you very well might be missing sales by not using the "correct" section for your books.

 

I also agree that these rules need to be decided on, one way or the other, and that decision needs to be abided by for everyone, equally.

 

 

 

-slym

Edited December 18, 2013 by slym2none

[EC ed]

We do have rules. That's why there are multiple sections and threads are being moved, no? :shrug:

No, we don't - Arch already did that when he split the sales forum into 3 sub-forums.

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)

[Speedy-D]

We do have rules. That's why there are multiple sections and threads are being moved, no? :shrug:

No, we don't - Arch already did that when he split the sales forum into 3 sub-forums.

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)

I think if you discount some of the butthurt and acknowledge some complacency due to lax enforcement of a rule that's not exactly going to be saving any lives, you'll see that it's not actually that complicated a situation.

 

If you bring up practically any rule here for discussion, you'll get plenty of it. That's what we do here...we talk about stuff.

[Ghost Town]

That's all fine & well, but it doesn't change the fact that you're running a Mixed age thread - and it should therefore be in the Mixed age forum. So should Dale's thread, for that matter.

If these distinctions had been previously and universally enforced, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case at all.

 

[EC ed]

If these distinctions had been previously and universally enforced, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case at all.

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

[slym2none]

I saw a guy run a red light right in front of a policeman once. I guess I can use your thought-process and say I should never have to stop for another red light again.

 

:shrug:

 

 

 

-slym

[mschmidt]

We do have rules. That's why there are multiple sections and threads are being moved, no? :shrug:

No, we don't - Arch already did that when he split the sales forum into 3 sub-forums.

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)

 

This particular rule isn't being consistently enforced because the mods don't have the time to crawl through every single sales thread on the boards - they're alerted when someone hits the notify mod button and take action based on that. No amount of "codifying" is going to change that.

 

I just don't see what the big deal is here :shrug:

[crassus]

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)

 

I think there is a large consensus that the rule is necessary and that rules must be fairly and consistently enforced, and so I agree Ed that the issue narrows down to clarifying the existing rule.

 

Personally I think your proposed wording is fine, but I have no knowledge of the process involved here so someone will have to clarify what the next step is.

 

 

[Ghost Town]

If these distinctions had been previously and universally enforced, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case at all.

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

Ed, I just don't understand the sudden insistence that these rules need to be enforced to the very letter, or in this instance, arguable dates.

 

The Sales Forum on these boards have been a spectacular success for many years. Yes, there have been occasional problems, but that's true of any marketplace. Having some Copper books sneak their way into GSB isn't that big a deal in the total scheme of things. And any major issue that occurred here didn't have anything to do with whether a book belonged in the Bronze or Copper Age.

 

If you were talking about protecting people from scammers, I'd say go all out. Scream from the mountaintops. But this entire discussion and sudden insistence about the demarcation between Bronze and Copper seems a bit out of proportion to me.

[EC ed]

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

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?

[comicdonna]

How could we go about making this suggestion?

Wait for the next new moon. During the first hour, say "All hail mighty Arch" 3 times. He will appear before the second quarter, and make the changes.

 

[EC ed]

Ed, I just don't understand the sudden insistence that these rules need to be enforced to the very letter, or in this instance, arguable dates.

 

The Sales Forum on these boards have been a spectacular success for many years. Yes, there have been occasional problems, but that's true of any marketplace. Having some Copper books sneak their way into GSB isn't that big a deal in the total scheme of things. And any major issue that occurred here didn't have anything to do with whether a book belonged in the Bronze or Copper Age.

 

If you were talking about protecting people from scammers, I'd say go all out. Scream from the mountaintops. But this entire discussion and sudden insistence about the demarcation between Bronze and Copper seems a bit out of proportion to me.

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...

[comix4fun]

Ed, I just don't understand the sudden insistence that these rules need to be enforced to the very letter, or in this instance, arguable dates.

 

The Sales Forum on these boards have been a spectacular success for many years. Yes, there have been occasional problems, but that's true of any marketplace. Having some Copper books sneak their way into GSB isn't that big a deal in the total scheme of things. And any major issue that occurred here didn't have anything to do with whether a book belonged in the Bronze or Copper Age.

 

If you were talking about protecting people from scammers, I'd say go all out. Scream from the mountaintops. But this entire discussion and sudden insistence about the demarcation between Bronze and Copper seems a bit out of proportion to me.

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 IF 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...

 

 

What I don't understand, Ed, is why your Avatar is Bob Storms in a monk's robe.

[Jeffro.]

We do have rules. That's why there are multiple sections and threads are being moved, no? :shrug:

No, we don't - Arch already did that when he split the sales forum into 3 sub-forums.

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)

 

This particular rule isn't being consistently enforced because the mods don't have the time to crawl through every single sales thread on the boards - they're alerted when someone hits the notify mod button and take action based on that. No amount of "codifying" is going to change that.

 

I just don't see what the big deal is here :shrug:

 

Exactly