Subject:
|
Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:55:50 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
5387 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.terms, James Brown writes:
> > [...]
> > I agree with Mike. My personal preference is to not see any market • traffic
> > unless I go looking for it.(1) Also, if the double standard didn't • exist,
> > and there were a single rule for market postings, it would go a long way • to
> > eliminating gray area.
>
> I disagree that there is a "double-standard" (but that's just wording),
> but I agree that it would go a long way toward eliminating gray areas -- if
> the boundaries could be defined clearly (which I'm very skeptical of).
I think there is a "double standard" in that auction posts are singled out
as particularly bad. This is not necessarily a bad thing (we also have a
"double standard" on language, I probably won't get censured for saying "oh
crud, I missed the buy any polybag set and get a free 4558 Metroliner set",
but if I had a habit of saying "you g* d* f* a* why didn't you tell me
Dreams R Us was handing out the f*ing cool 4558 Metroliner set to everyone
who came to the store today", I'm sure I'd quickly become quite unwelcome
here.
The problem then is not so much that the rules are different, but that it is
hard for people to understand them. I see two major problems with the way
auction posts are treated.
The first problem is that of it not being clear whether an OBO is an auction
or not (I know Todd has in his mind where the line is, but different people
draw the line differently).
The second problem is that people see how misplaced auction posts are
treated, and mistakenly think that buy-sell-trade activity of ANY kind is
not allowed. Then people take it upon themselves to publicly chastise
people, and then things blow up like the time Jason Briscoe got roasted for
offering trades in .trains.
I don't see ANY way to solve these issues, short of forcing ANY post which
has any hint of making an offer or soliciting offers be banned from Lugnet
at all (or at least confined to a single group). If you allow any of this
kind of posting in more than one group, someone will always be mortally
offended at some post or another, and climb on their high horse and make a
spectacle.
One thing which would help the problem is to require all supposed
infractions to be handled by Todd. People would be allowed to e-mail Todd to
point out a problem, but any post which rebukes someone for misposting would
be treated as almost as serious a problem as a mis-placed auction post.
Another way to handle the issue is to accept that there are always
borderline cases, and people who don't fully understand why Lugnet works
better if people post in the right place, and actually ease the prohibition
on misplaced auction posts. When someone posts a market type post in a
clearly inappropriate place, Todd would send a gently worded e-mail to the
person explaining why it is strongly preferred that posts be put in their
proper group. Of course some people may ignore the polite reminders, and
continue to post inappropriately. They can be dealt with. Under the current
T&C, if someone insisted on continuing to prattle on about their cool space
ships in lugnet.castle, eventually they would be shown the door.
As an aside, Todd's examples of various market related posts (almost all of
which look appropriate for various groups), does suggest that there might be
times when an auction post might be appropriate in a loc group. Here's an
example:
"I've decided we need to raise some money for a web page for The Greatest
LUG On Earth, and to that extent, at our next meeting, I will be offering
the following sets for auction. Tony Sweettalker will be the auctioneer.
Bring your checkbooks."
It seems that such a post would be much more appropriate in the appropriate
loc group(s) than in lugnet.market.auction, but it is also quite clearly an
auction announcement, which under the current rules could not be made in the
loc group.
One thing I would strongly encourage in thinking about how to handle these
issues is to carefully look at the underlying reasons for the rules. Are
auction announcements really so offensive that people would leave if they
saw an occasional misplaced one? I totally understand the need to
compartmentalize Lugnet, but is more friction caused by inflexible rules or
by an occasional misplaced post.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
| <frank's well thought words snipped> (...) or (...) I do not pretend to speak for everyone. The problem for me is that I can not discernbetween trade/sale/auction posts. They are all the same to me. I attribute a value to a set I want, if I can get (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
| (...) I disagree that there is a "double-standard" (but that's just wording), but I agree that it would go a long way toward eliminating gray areas -- if the boundaries could be defined clearly (which I'm very skeptical of). Some things to figure (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
