Subject:
|
Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:50:18 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
5677 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.terms, Todd Lehman writes:
> > I disagree that there is a "double-standard" (but that's just wording),
>
> I think there is, and I chose that word/phrase because I thought it would
> indicate that it is a potentially charged issue.
I suppose it depends on what standard one sees as being doubled. Normally
the term applies to cases where there shouldn't be a double standard, like
sexes or races. In this case, if the standard is "selling" or "flogging,"
then, yes, it's a double standard in that auctions are strictly verboten
by the Terms of Use Agreement and non-auctions aren't strictly verboten by
it (although they are still not encouraged in any way). OTOH, if the base
standard is "gouging people" (which is what auctions do by putting multiple
buyers in fierce competition with one another) then by that standard, there
isn't a double standard.
> People are forbidden to post auctions to any group but .market.auction.
> People can post "I'm selling this ..." messages anyplace they want and all
> they get is frowned on.
>
> I read .castle to read castle stuff. I don't WANT to read about someone
> selling anything there - period. I would wager that *I* don't want to read
> that just as much as the people who don't want to read auction stuff.
>
> If the true reason for making auction postings verboten is reader/member
> desire/likes/offendability, I don't see why bst posts are any different.
> It is still commerce.
You're right -- (IMHO) -- they're not much different in that point of view.
The reason they weren't written as being strictly prohibited in the Terms of
Use Agreement is that the area of gray is so much larger in non-auction
commerce than it is in auction commerce -- or at least that was the original
thinking. Blatant flogs of any type are bad, and nobody (I hope! :) wants to
encourage them.
I don't disagree at all that blatant flogs should be made verboten across
the board, and I'd love to see the Terms simplified so that "auction" (if
possible) didn't even occur in the document, except as part of an exemplary
list of stuff.
The "devil is in the details" here -- in rewording things. (That's one of
the reasons for the existence of this .admin.terms newsgroup, as well -- to
have a discussion area focused on fixing up the wording.) FrankF made some
good headway into this a while back...
> Or does it really matter so much that someone is uptight enough to not like
> a METHOD of commerce? Because that's the only other possible justification
> imo, and that's pretty weak.
I can surely understand someone hating auctions on basic principle and not
hating straight sales. But I'll bet even the auction haters probably hate
blatant non-auction flogs of the really annoying "spam" type, which would
definitely be good to prevent.
> [...]
> Fine (given the unwritten agreement that some market stuff is ok in .loc
> groups). NOT fine in .castle.
Yah, I think we'll have to make certain allowances or exceptions for .loc.*
groups, and definitely for .org.* groups.
> Here's one that nobody can argue with:
>
> "Hey, I have a MISB copy of 6067 that I'm going to sell. First offer above
> $150 takes it."
>
> I don't want to see that or anything remotely resembling it in .castle.
> Themed discussion, not themed commerce.
Yeah, those would be super-bad. I've seen some of that, but not much. It's
nice that people (mostly) understand that those sorts of posts are highly
frowned upon without them having to be explicitly written into the Terms of
Use as being verboten (because of the difficulty in defining them).
Yet, if the Terms of Use do need that more explicitly spelled out, then we'll
need to change things appropriately. More and more it is seeming as though
the clause about auctions simply needs to be broadened a bit to include any
self-serving market flog -- left fuzzy there, but pointing to tons of
examples. There's really no way (but I'd love to be proven wrong) to define
what's acceptable and what's unacceptable without giving examples.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
| Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) of (...) original (...) to (...) Perhaps something on the lines of: ---...--- Posts offering items for sale, trade, auction, or "wanted" posts, or anything else related to "market" type activities are (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
| | | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
| (...) {some snippage} (...) Todd, I cannot agree with you here. Auctions have competition when multiple bidders are present--this may not happen in all auction cases. And when some bidders have more money, desire, etc to buy with than others--well (...) (25 years ago, 15-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
| (...) I think there is, and I chose that word/phrase because I thought it would indicate that it is a potentially charged issue. People are forbidden to post auctions to any group but .market.auction. People can post "I'm selling this ..." messages (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
