General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[Speedy-D]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

You obviously want the terrorists to win. smh

 

 

"VOTED NO? OH, HE MUST BE A DEVIL WORSHIPPER!"

smh is my new thing. I'mma be doing it a lot.

[Bio-Rupp]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

You obviously want the terrorists to win. smh

 

 

"VOTED NO? OH, HE MUST BE A DEVIL WORSHIPPER!"

 

 

 

and just to be safe.... /

[ChiSoxFan]

A vote of no does not support scammers. It only indicates that they do not support that particular proposition. There are any number or reasons why people may have voted no. No one on this board, NO ONE supports scammers. You're out of line

+1 Well said.

 

A bank keeps getting robbed every few weeks, but let's not vote to make the bank more secure, makes sense to me...

 

So if you had your account at a bank that got robbed every few weeks, and the bank decided that everyone entering it was subject to a full body cavity search, then I guess you'd have no problem with that, right? And if you did, you'd obviously be in favor of supporting the bank robbers, I guess.

 

There's no equation of a post limit on a message board to a body cavity search -- obviously -- but that's what you get when you deal in absolutes. And as has been pointed out, the issue at hand isn't a question with an absolute, easy-fix answer. Belittling or dismissing the people who weren't in favor of the particular proposal that was made as being supporters of scammers is insulting, unnecessary, and so dismissive as to stifile positive debate on the matter, and it does nothing to encourage rational, reasonable discussion.

 

And for the record, I voted "yes" on the poll (though not completely 100% convinced that doing so was the "right" decision). And that said, I'm insulted by the insinuation, and it wasn't even targeted at me.

[skypinkblu]

You just want the 2 year rule to get rid of me, is that it Sha ?

 

No, I don't want the 200 post rule BECAUSE of people like you

 

The problem I see is that people who are jerks are going to be the same at 201 posts. I just don't see it as the answer, and I don't want to have to go back and ask for another favor that we will not get later.

 

I spent a lot of years on rules committees. I don't hate rules, I just don't like ones that are useless because they are easily circumvented.

 

Someone did a survey on here and showed that most of the people on the probie list had much more than 200 posts.

 

How do I save people who are so rash that they will go off and buy from someone who just posted here for the first time, or week, or month? I might save them from buying a book, but I'm not going to save them from running out in the street and not looking at traffic.

Edited January 28, 2014 by skypinkblu

[Speedy-D]

It's almost like my thread didn't get shut down!! Please, everyone, rehash the same three points ad infinitum.

 

And Jeffro, you and the terrorists ... smh man, smh.

[skypinkblu]

remind me what smh means, ?

[A.Romeo]

I was not surprised to see that almost 40% of the votes in that poll support potential scammers smh...

 

Can I ask on what basis you assume that a "no" vote equals support for scammers? You're just kidding, right?

 

Not kidding

 

Who wouldn't want to try to make the boards a better/safer place for sales by implementing some tighter rules with all the NOOB sellers/buyers around here in the past few months who can't take the time to read the rules of the forums, or try to scam someone out of money. Maybe giving a grace period to these new people will allow for the proper time to learn some board etiquette before buying/selling?

 

Also, adding a waiting period for new sellers who are trying to scam may eventually drive them away from here because they don't want to wait weeks to be able to sell since they are looking for the quick $$$ from those people who are caught off guard. It also forces them to interact on the boards by having a post count and gives the rest of the community a chance to get a feel of who the boardie is before deciding to buy from them when they have 1 post.

 

So having a different opinion means I support scammers?

 

How about looking at it this way.

 

Someone who BUYS from someone with 1 post might be supporting a scammer.

 

Someone who posts with one post might be an honest seller.

 

Someone who buys with one post without spending time to check out the boards might be a gambler.

 

You can change the "one" to "200" if it helps you.

 

Someone who reacts to how others vote with such a strong reaction might be over-reacting a tiny bit?

 

I'll stand by my first suggestion last night. We should not allow anyone to post until they have been here for 2 years. Makes as much sense as some of this other stuff, and it's MUCH more likely to protect new people from their own enthusiasm.

 

(yes, I'm joking about the 2 years, but think about the consequences;)

 

 

Let me clear this up, No I don't think everyone supports scammers who voted no, it was more of a smart way of saying that it comes across to me like 40% of people don't think there is a problem in the sales forums. I know I've been deterred from selling or buying from a lot of people because of the increase in sketchy sales threads on here in the past few months.

[Ryan.]

Wait, I forget what smh means. Was it sweaty man hugs?

[Bosco685]

[Ryan.]

I was not surprised to see that almost 40% of the votes in that poll support potential scammers smh...

 

Can I ask on what basis you assume that a "no" vote equals support for scammers? You're just kidding, right?

 

Not kidding

 

Who wouldn't want to try to make the boards a better/safer place for sales by implementing some tighter rules with all the NOOB sellers/buyers around here in the past few months who can't take the time to read the rules of the forums, or try to scam someone out of money. Maybe giving a grace period to these new people will allow for the proper time to learn some board etiquette before buying/selling?

 

Also, adding a waiting period for new sellers who are trying to scam may eventually drive them away from here because they don't want to wait weeks to be able to sell since they are looking for the quick $$$ from those people who are caught off guard. It also forces them to interact on the boards by having a post count and gives the rest of the community a chance to get a feel of who the boardie is before deciding to buy from them when they have 1 post.

 

So having a different opinion means I support scammers?

 

How about looking at it this way.

 

Someone who BUYS from someone with 1 post might be supporting a scammer.

 

Someone who posts with one post might be an honest seller.

 

Someone who buys with one post without spending time to check out the boards might be a gambler.

 

You can change the "one" to "200" if it helps you.

 

Someone who reacts to how others vote with such a strong reaction might be over-reacting a tiny bit?

 

I'll stand by my first suggestion last night. We should not allow anyone to post until they have been here for 2 years. Makes as much sense as some of this other stuff, and it's MUCH more likely to protect new people from their own enthusiasm.

 

(yes, I'm joking about the 2 years, but think about the consequences;)

 

 

Let me clear this up, No I don't think everyone supports scammers who voted no, it was more of a smart way of saying that it comes across to me like 40% of people don't think there is a problem in the sales forums. I know I've been deterred from selling or buying from a lot of people because of the increase in sketchy sales threads on here in the past few months.

 

So when a sales thread has looked sketchy, you just didn't make a purchase. Seems like this problem has solved itself.

[A.Romeo]

It's almost like my thread didn't get shut down!! Please, everyone, rehash the same three points ad infinitum.

 

And Jeffro, you and the terrorists ... smh man, smh.

 

Sorry, I didnt get to participate in the original thread, and when I went to respond at the end of that thread, thats when I noticed it got locked so I posted in here.

[Iceman399]

I was not surprised to see that almost 40% of the votes in that poll support potential scammers smh...

 

Can I ask on what basis you assume that a "no" vote equals support for scammers? You're just kidding, right?

 

Not kidding

 

Who wouldn't want to try to make the boards a better/safer place for sales by implementing some tighter rules with all the NOOB sellers/buyers around here in the past few months who can't take the time to read the rules of the forums, or try to scam someone out of money. Maybe giving a grace period to these new people will allow for the proper time to learn some board etiquette before buying/selling?

 

Also, adding a waiting period for new sellers who are trying to scam may eventually drive them away from here because they don't want to wait weeks to be able to sell since they are looking for the quick $$$ from those people who are caught off guard. It also forces them to interact on the boards by having a post count and gives the rest of the community a chance to get a feel of who the boardie is before deciding to buy from them when they have 1 post.

 

So having a different opinion means I support scammers?

 

How about looking at it this way.

 

Someone who BUYS from someone with 1 post might be supporting a scammer.

 

Someone who posts with one post might be an honest seller.

 

Someone who buys with one post without spending time to check out the boards might be a gambler.

 

You can change the "one" to "200" if it helps you.

 

Someone who reacts to how others vote with such a strong reaction might be over-reacting a tiny bit?

 

I'll stand by my first suggestion last night. We should not allow anyone to post until they have been here for 2 years. Makes as much sense as some of this other stuff, and it's MUCH more likely to protect new people from their own enthusiasm.

 

(yes, I'm joking about the 2 years, but think about the consequences;)

 

 

Let me clear this up, No I don't think everyone supports scammers who voted no, it was more of a smart way of saying that it comes across to me like 40% of people don't think there is a problem in the sales forums. I know I've been deterred from selling or buying from a lot of people because of the increase in sketchy sales threads on here in the past few months.

 

Turn the computer off for a while, breath a bit and come back with some common sense. Should I really need to put a warning on the fish hook that says "DANGEROUS IF SWALLOWED"?

[Bosco685]

[ChiSoxFan]

remind me what smh means, ?

 

Shaking my head?

 

[Speedy-D]

remind me what smh means, ?

Shake My Head (I think) ... that noob who instantly went off the deep end on Jimmy Linguinii used it a lot.

[skypinkblu]

I was not surprised to see that almost 40% of the votes in that poll support potential scammers smh...

 

Can I ask on what basis you assume that a "no" vote equals support for scammers? You're just kidding, right?

 

Not kidding

 

Who wouldn't want to try to make the boards a better/safer place for sales by implementing some tighter rules with all the NOOB sellers/buyers around here in the past few months who can't take the time to read the rules of the forums, or try to scam someone out of money. Maybe giving a grace period to these new people will allow for the proper time to learn some board etiquette before buying/selling?

 

Also, adding a waiting period for new sellers who are trying to scam may eventually drive them away from here because they don't want to wait weeks to be able to sell since they are looking for the quick $$$ from those people who are caught off guard. It also forces them to interact on the boards by having a post count and gives the rest of the community a chance to get a feel of who the boardie is before deciding to buy from them when they have 1 post.

 

So having a different opinion means I support scammers?

 

How about looking at it this way.

 

Someone who BUYS from someone with 1 post might be supporting a scammer.

 

Someone who posts with one post might be an honest seller.

 

Someone who buys with one post without spending time to check out the boards might be a gambler.

 

You can change the "one" to "200" if it helps you.

 

Someone who reacts to how others vote with such a strong reaction might be over-reacting a tiny bit?

 

I'll stand by my first suggestion last night. We should not allow anyone to post until they have been here for 2 years. Makes as much sense as some of this other stuff, and it's MUCH more likely to protect new people from their own enthusiasm.

 

(yes, I'm joking about the 2 years, but think about the consequences;)

 

 

Let me clear this up, No I don't think everyone supports scammers who voted no, it was more of a smart way of saying that it comes across to me like 40% of people don't think there is a problem in the sales forums. I know I've been deterred from selling or buying from a lot of people because of the increase in sketchy sales threads on here in the past few months.

 

I see you have not been here two years yet...getting a bit nervous?

 

Seriously, if you have learned to be a bit more careful, then these threads are working.

[Mr Sneeze]

I was not surprised to see that almost 40% of the votes in that poll support potential scammers smh...

 

Can I ask on what basis you assume that a "no" vote equals support for scammers? You're just kidding, right?

 

Not kidding

 

Who wouldn't want to try to make the boards a better/safer place for sales by implementing some tighter rules with all the NOOB sellers/buyers around here in the past few months who can't take the time to read the rules of the forums, or try to scam someone out of money. Maybe giving a grace period to these new people will allow for the proper time to learn some board etiquette before buying/selling?

 

Also, adding a waiting period for new sellers who are trying to scam may eventually drive them away from here because they don't want to wait weeks to be able to sell since they are looking for the quick $$$ from those people who are caught off guard. It also forces them to interact on the boards by having a post count and gives the rest of the community a chance to get a feel of who the boardie is before deciding to buy from them when they have 1 post.

 

So having a different opinion means I support scammers?

 

How about looking at it this way.

 

Someone who BUYS from someone with 1 post might be supporting a scammer.

 

Someone who posts with one post might be an honest seller.

 

Someone who buys with one post without spending time to check out the boards might be a gambler.

 

You can change the "one" to "200" if it helps you.

 

Someone who reacts to how others vote with such a strong reaction might be over-reacting a tiny bit?

 

I'll stand by my first suggestion last night. We should not allow anyone to post until they have been here for 2 years. Makes as much sense as some of this other stuff, and it's MUCH more likely to protect new people from their own enthusiasm.

 

(yes, I'm joking about the 2 years, but think about the consequences;)

 

 

Let me clear this up, No I don't think everyone supports scammers who voted no, it was more of a smart way of saying that it comes across to me like 40% of people don't think there is a problem in the sales forums. I know I've been deterred from selling or buying from a lot of people because of the increase in sketchy sales threads on here in the past few months.

 

It would have sounded more reasonable to have said that 40% of people think the sales forums are fine the way they are. To my mind I would think the percentage is higher than that.

[Speedy-D]

It's almost like my thread didn't get shut down!! Please, everyone, rehash the same three points ad infinitum.

 

And Jeffro, you and the terrorists ... smh man, smh.

 

Sorry, I didnt get to participate in the original thread, and when I went to respond at the end of that thread, thats when I noticed it got locked so I posted in here.

[joecgcmaniac]

Hey Speedy,

 

If you got a wrist slap in solar's sales thread, that just means that "you're doing it all wrong".

 

[Speedy-D]

I didn't, I'm just playing.