Subject:
|
Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:30:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5436 times
|
| |
|
|
<frank's well thought words snipped>
> 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.
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 it at, or below, that value
I do not care what the route is for me to get it - as long as I can trust
the seller. I can not see how anyone can think any different. I can
understand that some peolep do not like ebay as a entity, but that is about
it. Either way, I think all market posts should be treated the same way. I
still think the best way to progress this is to install market.theme
groups{1}, but I do not pretend to speak for everyone.
Scott A
e.g. .market.technic
Technic is a good example, as many Techies do not venture outside technic
sets.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
| Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) traffic (...) exist, (...) to (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 12-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
|
|
|
|
