General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[drbanner]

...azzkissing, inbred, dealer-loving, kow-towing, knucklehead...

Hey, I think that accurately describes what went on in the Dale Roberts thread.

Actually, the thread was closed by the seller in a more or less mature fashion when the rules were pointed out, and the thread was dead. Then, you lumbered in... ...and it went downhill. Sorry if that doesn't agree with your version of what happened, but that's exactly how that thread evolved. (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

So, in other words, you guys are trying to come up something other than a new seller having to click on the thread at the top of forum and read this:

Not really, more like a revision in the board code that verifies that a new seller has clicked on the thread and read it (a check-box of some sort).

 

EXACTLY. you should not be able to sell unless all fields are filled in. Those fields are then visible in the selling thread (ie. can't be bs'd). Any person that posts a selling thread without all fields filled in get's pulled. No questions asked. That should be draconian enough for even the most hardcore forumites and user friendly enough for everyone.

 

R.

 

 

[drbanner]

Well, not to be a stick in the mud, but if they won't read the guidelines thread and no one here has the ability to meter out any consequences, then the only thing that will be achieved is . A pop up window will not solve the problem.

Oh, I agree that there would need to be a "hammer", and that would be deleting the post, and/or more effectively, banning the poster from starting a new thread in the marketplace for a week, a month, whatever.

[DrWatson]

Who would delete the offending threads and why don't they just do that now?

[cd4ever]

So, in other words, you guys are trying to come up something other than a new seller having to click on the thread at the top of forum and read this:

Not really, more like a revision in the board code that verifies that a new seller has clicked on the thread and read it (a check-box of some sort).

 

EXACTLY. you should not be able to sell unless all fields are filled in. Those fields are then visible in the selling thread (ie. can't be bs'd). Any person that posts a selling thread without all fields filled in get's pulled. No questions asked. That should be draconian enough for even the most hardcore forumites and user friendly enough for everyone.

 

R.

 

As in title, issue #, grade, price?

[VintageComics]

Who would delete the offending threads and why don't they just do that now?

 

Again. It's easier for software to set a flag to a moderator (if it is bypassed, tampered with) than for 100 people to bash a newbie, then 40 of those people pm arch, then he reads the thread, etc.

[drbanner]

Who would delete the offending threads and why don't they just do that now?

 

Arch, and he does do it now. As Arch said earlier, he does it when "It's a simple application of common sense, isn't it?" (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

So, in other words, you guys are trying to come up something other than a new seller having to click on the thread at the top of forum and read this:

Not really, more like a revision in the board code that verifies that a new seller has clicked on the thread and read it (a check-box of some sort).

 

EXACTLY. you should not be able to sell unless all fields are filled in. Those fields are then visible in the selling thread (ie. can't be bs'd). Any person that posts a selling thread without all fields filled in get's pulled. No questions asked. That should be draconian enough for even the most hardcore forumites and user friendly enough for everyone.

 

R.

 

As in title, issue #, grade, price?

 

The fields would cover the basics...payment methods, credentials, issues, grades, prices, location of time...that way you don't have 50 people always asking the same questions. Almost like filling out a CGC submission form.

 

 

R.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2008 by r1970d

[Flaming_Telepath]

Who would delete the offending threads and why don't they just do that now?

 

Arch hasn't got the time. However, we have. A committee could judge a thread and if it's found to be in breach, and if there is no response to a committee PM, one of the members PMs Arch and simply says...delete thread...job done. (thumbs u

 

And Vince, I know what you're saying, but the key will be in who is chosen for that committee.

[drbanner]

So, in other words, you guys are trying to come up something other than a new seller having to click on the thread at the top of forum and read this:

Not really, more like a revision in the board code that verifies that a new seller has clicked on the thread and read it (a check-box of some sort).

 

EXACTLY. you should not be able to sell unless all fields are filled in. Those fields are then visible in the selling thread (ie. can't be bs'd). Any person that posts a selling thread without all fields filled in get's pulled. No questions asked. That should be draconian enough for even the most hardcore forumites and user friendly enough for everyone.

R.

As in title, issue #, grade, price?

Hmmm, I'm not sure a "form" for posting books for sale is a good idea, in fact, it's probably a really bad idea. I don't think this needs to be any more complicated than a one-time check-box a newbie clicks to acknowledge they have read the guidelines and have been informed that "...Threads may be removed for failure to comply, and repeated issues could result in strikes. And that's just if we're in a good mood. ;)"

 

Ignorance is no excuse, but if you checked the box, a newbie couldn't even claim ignorance!

[VintageComics]

So, in other words, you guys are trying to come up something other than a new seller having to click on the thread at the top of forum and read this:

Not really, more like a revision in the board code that verifies that a new seller has clicked on the thread and read it (a check-box of some sort).

 

EXACTLY. you should not be able to sell unless all fields are filled in. Those fields are then visible in the selling thread (ie. can't be bs'd). Any person that posts a selling thread without all fields filled in get's pulled. No questions asked. That should be draconian enough for even the most hardcore forumites and user friendly enough for everyone.

R.

As in title, issue #, grade, price?

Hmmm, I'm not sure a "form" for posting books for sale is a good idea, in fact, it's probably a really bad idea. I don't think this needs to be any more complicated than a one-time check-box a newbie clicks to acknowledge they have read the guidelines and have been informed that "...Threads may be removed for failure to comply, and repeated issues could result in strikes. And that's just if we're in a good mood. ;)"

 

Ignorance is no excuse, but if you checked the box, a newbie couldn't even claim ignorance!

 

I think this is the most important point. Acknowledgement of the terms or dismissal. It makes it real easy to police a thread, no repeat posts about the guide lines etc.I do think a mention of the garding forum is a great idea. That wayeven if newbs can't grade they can't plead ignorance as most of the forum can give a consensus on grade.

 

Think of the problems we have in the selling forum:

 

1) grade

2) outside links

3) prices

4) credentials and references

5) location

6) flame wars

7) neg comments in threads

8) scans

9) payment methods

10) notifiying mods

 

all these things can be policed to a very hi degree with a single click of a mouse button.

 

"I Agree"

 

that's it.

 

I like it.

 

 

R.

 

 

 

 

 

[Pitboss]

...azzkissing, inbred, dealer-loving, kow-towing, knucklehead...

Hey, I think that accurately describes what went on in the Dale Roberts thread.

Actually, the thread was closed by the seller in a more or less mature fashion when the rules were pointed out, and the thread was dead. Then, you lumbered in... ...and it went downhill. Sorry if that doesn't agree with your version of what happened, but that's exactly how that thread evolved. (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

another thing that bugs me is posting a hosted scan without a description. many of us spend time on here while using other networks (whether at work, on lunch...whatever) and those networks do not allow hosted pics. A description of what you are selling should be mandatory no matter how nice the scan.

 

A little blue square with a $900 beside it is almost meaningless.

 

R.

 

 

[Mac Man]

I see your point in wanting to reduce the hassle, but unfortunately Dr. B, it seems the self-monitoring option hasn't really worked well as evidenced by recent activity. Perhaps a little tighter regulation as Roy and I initially mentioned would help?

 

Then, if someone still fails to properly adhere to the listing... perhaps have that committee on standby to mete out a judgement. Donut and skao (spelling ?) were appointed limited mod for the VCC...maybe we need the powers that be to annoint a few limited mods for the marketplace? :shrug:

 

Anyhow, meeting with my boss and off to lunch. Be back later!

[joe_collector]

Actually, the thread was closed by the seller in a more or less mature fashion when the rules were pointed out, and the thread was dead. Then, you lumbered in... ...and it went downhill. Sorry if that doesn't agree with your version of what happened, but that's exactly how that thread evolved. (thumbs u

 

Hey, I admit coming in late, and replying to a few posts before reading the 8-10 pages of drivel, but since a) the books, scans and prices were still there and b) the thread was still active, I really had no idea anyone had done some bizarre "soft close".

[cd4ever]

Actually, the thread was closed by the seller in a more or less mature fashion when the rules were pointed out, and the thread was dead. Then, you lumbered in... ...and it went downhill. Sorry if that doesn't agree with your version of what happened, but that's exactly how that thread evolved. (thumbs u

 

Hey, I admit coming in late, and replying to a few posts before reading the 8-10 pages of drivel, but since a) the books, scans and prices were still there and b) the thread was still active, I really had no idea anyone had done some bizarre "soft close".

Ok, that subject is now closed. Done.

[DrWatson]

another thing that bugs me is posting a hosted scan without a description. many of us spend time on here while using other networks (whether at work, on lunch...whatever) and those networks do not allow hosted pics. A description of what you are selling should be mandatory no matter how nice the scan.

 

A little blue square with a $900 beside it is almost meaningless.

 

R.

 

I don't disagree with you Roy, but doesn't asking all these things from people who won't even read the ten or so selling guidelines seem a little optimistic?

[awe4one]

I don't disagree with you Roy, but doesn't asking all these things from people who won't even read the ten or so selling guidelines seem a little optimistic?

 

It removes the ignorance factor...

 

Jim

[DrWatson]

I don't disagree with you Roy, but doesn't asking all these things from people who won't even read the ten or so selling guidelines seem a little optimistic?

 

It removes the ignorance factor...

 

Jim

Impossible.

[Sal]

All this talk of committees and rules and extra PHP programming is all just blah blah blah by my thinking.

 

Seriously.

 

What the forum needs is a primer in how to construct a sales thread, which of course won't be read by those who are violating the rules already in place. Therein lies the whole of the problem. Getting dumbashes to RTFM.

 

Giving them another thing to not read and then click is a waste of everybody's time.

 

 

If you see a thread that's in violation, hit the Notify button. Pretty simple.

 

 

 

You all do realise that no matter what happens, no matter who implements it, and no matter how it all turns out, not everyone is going to be happy. Trying to force a system to that end is a pretty pointless task