USAGE GUIDELINES - comment thread 3 3

[Transplant]

I want say here that I think I responded to JC in a less than appropriate manner last night. I made a sarcastic remark to him based on an incorrect assumption on my part. I haven't gone back to read the whole DaleRoberts thread but I think I understand now that he was breaking at least 1 of the rules of posting here. I did not see that at the time.

 

My apologies to JC.

[Sal]

What Sal wrote...

 

'It would be sort of possible, based on my limited knowledge of the way UBBthreads Admin tools work. You would have to make all new users a new "group" who would only have read rights in the Marketplace. But you couldn't automate the PM process, nor the confirmation / rights change process, unless you had a pretty good PHP scripter on hand who knew the UBB PHP code inside and out.'

 

What FT understood...

 

'It would be sort of possible... :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:'

 

Would a simple "no" have sufficed, then?

[Architecht]

The Dale thread is borderline in terms of guideline violations. Let's set aside judgments about whether there are actually duplicate books here or not. I assume they are duplicate books. However, what matters is that we don't want a situation where everyone and their brother lists books here and on ebay and they all claim that they're duplicate copies. We would have no way to determine whether the rules were being abused or not.

 

The purpose of forum only selling was to identify unique buying opportunities that couldn't be found elsewhere. This is because the marketplace was becoming redundant to searching ebay, and there wasn't much point in that. People wanted a place to offer unique deals to each other as members of the board community and to be able to spot those as separate and distinct from simple advertising of run-of-the-mill sales.

 

That having been said, I can fully understand why someone would want to use existing scans for identical grade books. It doesn't seem out of line, but it does make keeping this marketplace a good resource to the community harder, so I think we need to come down on the side of wanting scans, when provided, to be uniquely offered here.

 

I know that can be a hassle / lots of work, but I don't see a way around it while keeping the marketplace oriented towards its intended purpose.

 

The appropriate response in the thread is to quote "the template" - I LIKE the idea of doing it as a PM first. If that doesn't work, post it in the thread and notify the moderators. The appropriate response if you're skeptical that you've violated the guidelines is to PM me and/or make a post here in this thread asking for clarification and community opinions.

 

Thanks,

Arch

Edited April 3, 2008 by Architecht

[Architecht]

Is the thread gone? I couldn't find it, but I thought that Dale did agree to close his sale.

 

Sure, but all the books, scans, prices, and dealer website links were still there, so I assume the Mods took a dim view of his *closing*.

 

The individual thread just isn't that big of a deal. Often times we won't pull something just because it's a violation. The ensuing community discussion - IF KEPT CIVIL - is valuable to the community coming to a shared understanding of the guidelines. The "damage" of one aging thread that falls off the front page with some violations on it is minimal as long as the poster understands the issues and doesn't repeat them.

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

I went TJ Hooker on him?

 

I asked a simple question and Dale absolutely blew a fuse, calling me names, insulting my intelligence and basically acting like a tool. He also blew up on several other posters who brought the transgressions, and insulted them as well.

 

But I'm the bad guy, right?

 

EDIT: It looks like the thread got nuked.

 

Vince, you were neither saint, nor victim, so let's get that out of the way up front...

 

However, Dale had the arse and the tone of his responses were not what I would hope for. The 'I suppose I might have slightly bent a little titchy-witchy rule or two' defense is poor, especially from one of the better-known sellers on the boards, and he did go into semi-meltdown with his 'thanks to icefires and GACollectibles' snide comment.

 

That it was then declared that all transgressions should be pointed out by PM firstly is also total BS. We don't go the PM route with newbs, so why do it with someone who should know better (and, let's be honest, actually does)?

 

I'm sick to death of giving people a pass if they are 'nice' or have 'nice books'. that...play by the rules or have it pointed out to you. And don't act the arse when it is pointed out to you in your thread, and don't start arguing whether they are good rules or not...they are the ones we've got until they change.

 

Besides, if you did things properly in the first place, none of this would happen, now, would it?

 

I assume the part in RED was directed at me. I'm not sure who the "WE" part of this statement is directed at since it doesn't include me.

 

There are a more than a couple of ways to deal with infractions:

 

1) PM the person first and ask them to clarify/fix the problem. I've done this before with various posters. It's called fixing the problem "behind the scenes". Minimal fuss. No one's feelings get hurt. Situation resolved.

 

I have no problem with calling attention to the problem IN THE THREAD if it isn't resolved.

 

2) Call the poster a N00B. Attack them for not reading the Guidelines posted by Arch. Disrupt their sales thread with what you think are clear and open statements, but actually read as attacks by most everyone else. Invite others to jump in with their own comments thereby guaranteeing thread disrupture. Eventually, the thread degenerates into personal attacks about the posters themselves.

 

One method potentially helps the person without calling them out. The other method just causes resentment and/or a flame war.

 

Both methods will eventually lead to a resolution.

 

(I don't care if the poster has been on the board since 2002 or s/he just came on last month.)

 

 

 

Shin, on this occasion you raised the matter first, so yeah, this example is directed at you. Apologies for not being more direct...or less antagonistic.

 

However, you're not the only one to do it....not the first, nor the last.

 

The problems with PMs are numerous. Firstly, especially if it is a noob, they sometimes don't know how the PM system works. Hell, they don't know how the community works, and all they've done is barely work out how to pimp their sh!te. That flashing envelope might be something that totally confounds them...and it has done with noobs in the past.

 

Secondly, to PM somebody, you put yourself in the position of being 'you versus them' and it can be seen as personal. It can also be brushed off, or it can decend into nastiness. If they ignore it, you then have to post to the thread anyway...and then they sure as hell do something. As it's my time I'm wasting on people who couldn't be arsed wasting any of theirs to read up on the rules, I'm going to be taking the most effective and quickest route to address the issue.

 

Lastly, if you PM, you run the risk of a slow, or perhaps non-existent, response...whilst all the time the thread is commanding Marketplace real estate in clear violation of board rules. That's just simply unfair to the law-abiding community members.

 

There is no need whatsoever to be confrontational when you post to the thread. A simple 'Wrong forum. Could you please move the thread to this area.' with a link should never offend anyone, or start a flame war.

 

The fact that it does from time to time is more about the original poster's attitude to this community than anything else, IMHO.

 

Finally, as I've said before, why are we worried about upsetting the occasional poster if they can't be arsed reading...or can't be arsed heeding...the rules around here?

[Dale Roberts]

Thank you I think that what is being stated is that there are non-antagonistic ways to inform sellers that there are fairly strict guidelines to follow for selling in the marketplace.

 

But in this case it wouldn't have mattered, as Dale never admitted he broke any rules, and even slammed the Sales Guidelines themselves.

 

Some people will never listen, and if someone wants to post on the CGC Forums, and NOT follow CGC rules, then we should be free to point this out to them, especially those that have been around and were obviously trying to circumvent them.

 

This is completely untrue. There are several posts by me which stated that I was in violation of the rules, which I did not know about, because I had never taken the time to read all the guidelines. Again, my fault.

 

Believe me, if I thought I had not broken the rules, the thread would still be up, or at least I would have not ended the thread voluntarily.

[Dale Roberts]

I can't believe that JC is actually trying to play the victim here. Poor Joe. He never does anything to anyone. Everyone just picks on him.

 

Yes, I was wrong in the way I handled the books I offered. I explained it very clearly and even showed pics of both books scanned together. Regardless, when my mistakes had been pointed out to me, I voluntarily closed the thread, long before JC started making comments from the peanut gallery.

 

What is the point once I have closed the thread? Other than to just be antagonistic. Especially when it is over and over and over on a thread which by all accounts would have been dead and gone if he had stayed out of it.

 

FT, I am not an "experienced" board seller. I have offered items 3 or 4 times at most (and sold very little). This is the first time I have gone about it in this way, and I learned something. I was simply trying to move a little excess inventory and pass some good deals along to forumites.

 

I guess I probably received 20 or so PMs, all positive and most critical of people like JC (mostly specifically JC) and others who were not even going to buy anything, but just wanted to police the board. I politely told all of them thanks for the support, but I would try to follow board rules more closely next time.

 

This doesn't make what I did any more right. But you don't have to beat a dead horse either, and sometime it would be better to just let something go, as to keep on and on about it.

[joe_collector]

The Dale thread is borderline in terms of guideline violations. Let's set aside judgments about whether there are actually duplicate books here or not.

 

But outside of that, what about the website blurb/URL to his dealer site?

Links to outside sites for any purpose involving purchasing the offered books are not allowed.

[joe_collector]

I guess I probably received 20 or so PMs, all positive and most critical of people like JC (mostly specifically JC)

 

Wow, big surprise, as most of the groupies on here would kiss the feet of anyone with nice books to sell. Hitler's ghost could post on here and get support if his books were nice, so don't go patting yourself on the back too hard.

[joe_collector]

Ah, you gotta love this place.

 

After being advised nicely of the board guidelines by several different people, this is what we get back:

 

Listen if I use the term go fornicate thineself to some of you will that get me a strike?

[Sal]

Ah, you gotta love this place.

 

After being advised nicely of the board guidelines by several different people, this is what we get back:

 

Listen if I use the term go fornicate thineself to some of you will that get me a strike?

 

Who says "thineself" these days?

[joe_collector]

Ah, you gotta love this place.

 

After being advised nicely of the board guidelines by several different people, this is what we get back:

 

Listen if I use the term go fornicate thineself to some of you will that get me a strike?

 

Who says "thineself" these days?

 

Hitler's ghost?

[Count]

[mica]

Ah, you gotta love this place.

 

After being advised nicely of the board guidelines by several different people, this is what we get back:

 

Listen if I use the term go fornicate thineself to some of you will that get me a strike?

 

Who says "thineself" these days?

I did yesterday....

[joe_collector]

Ah, you gotta love this place.

 

After being advised nicely of the board guidelines by several different people, this is what we get back:

 

Listen if I use the term go fornicate thineself to some of you will that get me a strike?

 

Who says "thineself" these days?

I did yesterday....

 

Tis sooth, he doth say it not more than a fortnight agone!

[Flaming_Telepath]

Ah, you gotta love this place.

 

After being advised nicely of the board guidelines by several different people, this is what we get back:

 

Listen if I use the term go fornicate thineself to some of you will that get me a strike?

 

Who says "thineself" these days?

I did yesterday....

 

Tis sooth, he doth say it not more than a fortnight agone!

 

Verily.

[mica]

 

Verily.

I say that one a lot as well.

[cd4ever]

I like the little pointer to the guidelines on the home page. That may help.

Probably not though.

[Mac Man]

Roger that! Seems like it's been a little out of hand than normal. :shrug:

[Architecht]

We've had alot of discussion about multiple versus consolidated threads lately. Part of the problem is that there is no real sense of a community guideline on when to split threads and when not to.

 

Post your idea of the guidelines for when to break up threads and when not to. Perhaps we'll have a vote after we have some options.

 

I imagine that the criteria should be built around something like:

 

1. Total number of books being offered

 

2. Total number of categories of books being offered and some examples of "separation worthy" categories.

 

3. Anything else you think is relevant.