General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[CCGmod2]

 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 9/23/2021 at 2:08 PM, CCGmod2 said:

 

That was quick! Well done CCGmod2. Credit where credit is due 

There's nothing of substance in the post alas, putting aside the thinly veiled threats and the implied expectation that the good among us should all be mind readers, but thanks anyway for trying.

[zzutak]

On 9/15/2021 at 10:22 AM, MrBedrock said:

A moderator locked your original thread for being clearly a joke.

I personally do not believe MrB's sale listing was a joke.  However, the nearly continuous stream of absolutely useless "comments" posted in response turned his sale thread into a complete and undeniable joke.  These nearly continuous "contributions" kept MrB's thread pinned at /near the top of the GA/SA/BA Selling Forum for more than a day (if I recall correctly), while other more typical sale threads drifted off into oblivion (also known as page 2 and beyond).

To repeat: I do not believe that MrB's offering was a joke.  But the over-the-top response to it by so many members of our community turned his thread into one.  These responses were, individually and collectively, 100% appropriate for one of the era-specific discussion forums.  However, these comments, collectively, turned the Selling Forum into a Discussion Forum.  Inappropriate. 

One man's opinion, offered with my greatest respect for MrB, the Mods, and the community.  

[grebal]

On 9/23/2021 at 10:19 AM, zzutak said:

These nearly continuous "contributions" kept MrB's thread pinned at /near the top of the GA/SA/BA Selling Forum for more than a day (if I recall correctly), while other more typical sale threads drifted off into oblivion (also known as page 2 and beyond).

 

One thread alone moves only one other thread off the top page. Bump it a hundred times and it still only displaced a single thread. 

Edited September 23, 2021 by grebal
this is a community, right?

[zzutak]

An interesting observation, but I'm not sure why you're quoting me.    I did not claim or insinuate that the "continuous contributions" to MrB's thread caused even one other sale thread to fall off the first page. I stand by what I wrote above:  that the continuous chit-chat, taken as a whole, turned the Selling Forum into a Discussion Forum. 

To everything there is a season (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8) and for every post there is an appropriate forum. 

[thehumantorch]

On 9/20/2021 at 2:59 PM, MrBedrock said:

And this is the distinction I make - I never specifically called Sharon a buffoon. I said the moderators as a whole were buffoons. You may say that is splitting hairs but I think it is pretty clear that most folks here are disgusted with the moderation. And for me it has gotten to point that I felt I needed to get belligerent to get the point across. In fact by doing so my position became entirely clear. You may not agree with the means, but we are now at the ends you yourself say you desire.

Calling people names and getting belligerent - your words not mine - is not the best way to behave.  You're smart enough to get your point across without insulting people who're volunteering their time to keep this board running.

[chrisco37]

On 9/23/2021 at 6:59 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

We don't know who CCGmod2 is, or who they work for, so it's a bit unfair of them to post here that we should direct moderation related feedback to them. 

 

[CGC Mike]

So, there is a current discussion about changes in the way for sale threads will be moderated in the future.  Let me attempt to copy the posts on the discussion so far.  Your input is appreciated.

On 10/21/2021 at 9:22 PM, CGC Mike said:

One of the changes that has been made regarding for sale threads is, threads will no longer be pulled and a waning issued for missing rules.  Instead, a post will be made in the thread asking the OP to comply with the violation.  I will give them 24 hours to make the changes before removing the thread.  This has already been tested about a dozen times and the rate of success has exceeded my expectations.  

 

On 10/22/2021 at 1:32 PM, CGC Mike said:

I just wanted to add to this.  A few exceptions may come into play.

 

If the entire thread has items not allowed, it will be removed.  

If there is nudity in the first post, I would have to remove the whole thread.

If someone new shows up and just posts a link to is Instagram account, the whole thread will be removed.

 

There may be other exceptions as well but, in most all cases, a post will be made in the thread, and the OP will be given time to comply with the rules.

 

On 10/22/2021 at 6:00 PM, crassus said:

My question is whether you intend to continue the standardized "acceptable to post" template which members use to notify sellers when something was missing in their rules?

I also recommend starting a discussion in the sales area ("General Discussion"?) as there may indeed be other violations that should get immediate action, eg. sellers posting without ask prices and soliciting offers....there may be others worth debating.... 

 

 

On 10/22/2021 at 9:03 PM, CGC Mike said:

That is a good question, and one I think should be debated.  If the thread is reported, I would make a post, and the seller would be given 24 hours to make the appropriate changes.  If the template is posted, I may not know there is a problem in the thread.  If the seller doesn't fix any problems, the thread will remain open longer while violating the rules.  Most likely, it would be a new person who refuses to fix things.  This happened about a month ago.  The thread turned into a fiasco.  I thought an admin was going to give 6 or more board members unneeded warnings, even though they made amends to the OP later on in the thread.  Until something is decided by the community and I, it is ok to post the template.

 

 

[crassus]

On 10/22/2021 at 9:26 PM, CGC Mike said:

  On 10/22/2021 at 9:03 PM, CGC Mike said:

That is a good question, and one I think should be debated.  If the thread is reported, I would make a post, and the seller would be given 24 hours to make the appropriate changes.  If the template is posted, I may not know there is a problem in the thread.  If the seller doesn't fix any problems, the thread will remain open longer while violating the rules.  Most likely, it would be a new person who refuses to fix things.  This happened about a month ago.  The thread turned into a fiasco.  I thought an admin was going to give 6 or more board members unneeded warnings, even though they made amends to the OP later on in the thread.  Until something is decided by the community and I, it is ok to post the template.

I remember that thread, and it was unusually shambolic, and the seller started off with lots of childish remarks bound to provoke members, such as "but I can do that on Clink and Ebay so why not here?" (cue meme of 6 year old). The seller might as well have handed members a bat and said  "hit me". Even so it worked itself out and 99% of all thread problems are minor compared to that one.

As for the template, I think you are right to let the practice stand, as there is no reason out of the gate to think it will necessarily conflict with your planned approach. The template does not promise moderator action (as it can't by definition) it merely gives a friendly "heads up" that moderation "can" remove posts...not will but can etc...My opinion is that the template advisory would only be a problem if by its contents it conflicted with or undermined your approach to Moderation. Experience may of course show that it does create problems, but even then I would think that some variation or amended version would still benefit Moderation, as it is part of the positive "self-regulating" features of the marketplace. 

Of the rule violations that are serious enough to suggest immediate removal, and in addition to the absence of "ask prices" on items (soliciting only offers etc) I would also consider for discussion violations of the "Boards exclusive" rule, where the seller has the same item(s) up on one or more other sites. In the 24hrs given to the seller, that could be long enough to create trouble, and just my  from personal observation, that is another rule that sometimes meets stubborn resistance...."o gee I had no idea, I'll get that taken care of, thanks bud" etc...and then a week later the books are still up elsewhere....

...and from a Moderation perspective, these two rules, when violated, are also more likely to create general drama, as Boardies seem to have more patience for some violations and much less patience for others. From what I have seen in the sales forum, Boardies get impatient quickly if sellers drag their feet on either of these two rules...Boards exclusivity, and must post prices etc...perhaps as they are seen to have the potential for more immediate harm, but I am just guessing....

[Bird]

what he said

[Ryan.]

Totes. 

[Point Five]

On 10/22/2021 at 9:26 PM, CGC Mike said:

  On 10/21/2021 at 9:22 PM, CGC Mike said:

One of the changes that has been made regarding for sale threads is, threads will no longer be pulled and a waning issued for missing rules.  Instead, a post will be made in the thread asking the OP to comply with the violation.  I will give them 24 hours to make the changes before removing the thread.  This has already been tested about a dozen times and the rate of success has exceeded my expectations.  

Sounds much better. Thanks!

 

[CGC Mike]

On 10/23/2021 at 10:24 AM, crassus said:

As for the template, I think you are right to let the practice stand, as there is no reason out of the gate to think it will necessarily conflict with your planned approach. The template does not promise moderator action (as it can't by definition) it merely gives a friendly "heads up" that moderation "can" remove posts...not will but can etc...My opinion is that the template advisory would only be a problem if by its contents it conflicted with or undermined your approach to Moderation. Experience may of course show that it does create problems, but even then I would think that some variation or amended version would still benefit Moderation, as it is part of the positive "self-regulating" features of the marketplace. 

I agree with this.  I don't see any harm coming from the template being posted in FS threads.  

On 10/23/2021 at 10:24 AM, crassus said:

Of the rule violations that are serious enough to suggest immediate removal, and in addition to the absence of "ask prices" on items (soliciting only offers etc) I would also consider for discussion violations of the "Boards exclusive" rule, where the seller has the same item(s) up on one or more other sites. In the 24hrs given to the seller, that could be long enough to create trouble, and just my  from personal observation, that is another rule that sometimes meets stubborn resistance...."o gee I had no idea, I'll get that taken care of, thanks bud" etc...and then a week later the books are still up elsewhere....

You make a good point.  Maybe I will take it on a case by case basis.  Perhaps, give a much shorter time period to fix the problems, or immediate removal if I feel things might get out of hand.  Usually, the missing ask prices come from someone that is new to the marketplace.  As far as books listed elsewhere, I see this happening from new people, and veteran board members.  Maybe give a little time for people that haven't violated this rule in the past, and immediate removal for those that continue to abuse the rule.  

 

My goal is to drastically reduce removal of FS threads but, I understand there will be cases where removal is necessary.  I think in time, I will have a better feel for what is the right thing to do.  Any other suggestions are appreciated.  

[jimjum12]

Why did Parker's thread with 1st Edition novels get pulled from the Mixed Forum ? It seemed fairly popular. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

[KCOComics]

On 10/23/2021 at 8:19 PM, CGC Mike said:

I agree with this.  I don't see any harm coming from the template being posted in FS threads.  

You make a good point.  Maybe I will take it on a case by case basis.  Perhaps, give a much shorter time period to fix the problems, or immediate removal if I feel things might get out of hand.  Usually, the missing ask prices come from someone that is new to the marketplace.  As far as books listed elsewhere, I see this happening from new people, and veteran board members.  Maybe give a little time for people that haven't violated this rule in the past, and immediate removal for those that continue to abuse the rule.  

 

My goal is to drastically reduce removal of FS threads but, I understand there will be cases where removal is necessary.  I think in time, I will have a better feel for what is the right thing to do.  Any other suggestions are appreciated.  

I really appreciate that you guys are reading people's feedback and making a sincere effort to respond. 

The changes look good and I also agree with @crassus suggestions.  

 

[Buzzetta]

Don't know if this is the right place to post it.  But since this is about sales, I was wondering if I should share. 

I accidentally discovered a flaw in the USPS system that can create a phantom package that actually leaves the USPS office that was the point of origin and then gets "lost in the system" all for the price of postage.

There are quite a few scenarios where this could be exploitive in claiming a package was sent when it actually was not or in making a claim against the Post Office for an insured sum. 

[grebal]

On 11/20/2021 at 1:57 PM, Buzzetta said:

Don't know if this is the right place to post it.  But since this is about sales, I was wondering if I should share. 

I accidentally discovered a flaw in the USPS system that can create a phantom package that actually leaves the USPS office that was the point of origin and then gets "lost in the system" all for the price of postage.

There are quite a few scenarios where this could be exploitive in claiming a package was sent when it actually was not or in making a claim against the Post Office for an insured sum. 

Presumably you could recreate the scenario that leads to lost package.

But of course you won't describe the process here, that would be counterproductive (like publishing how to make bombs from household chems).

So, basically we're on notice that getting a USPS "tracking #" does not always mean a package is on its way to us?  Am I correct in assuming this "lost package" scenario you stumbled upon generates a tracking # ?

[Buzzetta]

On 11/20/2021 at 4:40 PM, grebal said:

Presumably you could recreate the scenario that leads to lost package.

But of course you won't describe the process here, that would be counterproductive (like publishing how to make bombs from household chems).

So, basically we're on notice that getting a USPS "tracking #" does not always mean a package is on its way to us?  Am I correct in assuming this "lost package" scenario you stumbled upon generates a tracking # ?

Yes

As far as PayPal or eBay would be concerned the tracking number generated would show up in the system as received by the post office.  It even shows that it "left" the post office later that day with the collected parcels.  However, after that it shows no movement.  It has been a month.  I know for a fact that the Post Office does not have possession of a package with that tracking number, yet if I wanted I could still file a claim.

[grebal]

On 11/20/2021 at 3:48 PM, Buzzetta said:

Yes

As far as PayPal or eBay would be concerned the tracking number generated would show up in the system as received by the post office.  It even shows that it "left" the post office later that day with the collected parcels.  However, after that it shows no movement.  It has been a month.  I know for a fact that the Post Office does not have possession of a package with that tracking number, yet if I wanted I could still file a claim.

I'd say it's a good thing you're not the evil-Buzz twin.

[mattn792]

On 11/20/2021 at 4:54 PM, grebal said:

I'd say it's a good thing you're not the evil-Buzz twin.

Or is he...