| |
New thread here...on the coattails of a controversial thread in .admin.general
and in response to Frank Filz's post:
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=4474
Let's define (as best we can) what constitutes an auction announcement or
update. Then we can link to that definition from the Terms of Use page to
further clarify it and give examples and counter-examples.
My (uncollected and random) thoughts:
- Pointing to an auction for discussion or educational purposes is OK. For
example, this is -not- an auction announcement or update:
http://www.lugnet.com/general/?n=9370
- Doing same with one's own auction for sneaky purposes, however, is not OK.
(This is probably too fuzzy and subjective since we can't read peoples'
minds, but it's probably good to note anyway.)
- An announcement of an auction is something which draws attention to one's
own auction, either already running or to be launched soon. Mentioning
that something (say, a set or some pieces) might be auctioned isn't
necessarily an auction announcement, but if it includes auction-related
URLs or talk of opening bids or auction launch dates or timeframes, then
it probably is an auction announcement.
- Sealed-bid auctions are "technically" (by name) auctions but in fundamental
principle are no different from "or-best-offer" straight sales. OBO's are
OK in .buy-sell-trade because OBO is a completely natural way to conduct
this type of barter, but to avoid flamage, announcements of this type
probably shouldn't use the word auction.
- Crossposting between .auction and .buy-sell-trade is not verboten, but in
most cases is probably not the right thing to do. An example of something
which probably should be OK is a post-auction straight sale listing things
which didn't sell in an auction (after it has run its course and closed).
Such a posting should probably have the 'Followup-To:' header field set like
this:
Newsgroups: lugnet.market.auction,lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade
Followup-To: lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade
- An auction update is (roughly speaking) anything which includes additional
or new details about an auction currently underway. Outside of .auction,
it is OK refer to an auction for the purposes of discussing or noting
market prices, as appropriate (not to be abused, of course, for example
covert spamming via repeated non-relevant references). A closed auction
is also much more clearly a non-spam than a currently running auction,
especailly if talking about one's own aution.
- It is OK to post an announcement to lugnet.announce about a new auction
website or service -- but not to post individual auction announcements
there. For example, IIRC, Mike Stanley announced his BRICKS auction service
to .announce once upon a time, and this would be perfectly OK.
- Posting auction announcements to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade is wrong, but
posting auction announcements to lugnet.announce or lugnet.general is even
more wrong. (The "off-topic-ness" of a post must be judged at least
partially by how "far off" the newsgroup is from where it should have been.)
- Auction announcements in .off-topic.clone-brands are currently off-limits
according to the LUGNET Discussion Group T&C. IMHO, clone-brand auctions
are "reasonably related" to LEGO toys, and should (begrudgingly) IMHO be
allowed in .market.auction.
- Within reason (this is highly subjective, but I'm sure we'd all recognize
abuse when we saw it), auction announcements or updates CAN be posted to
lugnet.off-topic.test -- but only for the purposes of diagnosing posting
problems. I suppose that technically in this case, the announcement
wouldn't truly be an announcement, but the charter for .off-topic.test
probably still should be modified to account for this. To avoid flamage,
it's probably best to cancel such a test-post after diagnosing the problem,
or to use .market.auction as the test area (weighing the two options based
on minimizing the maximum disruption, I suppose).
- Posting an auction announcement to the wrong group, followed immediately by
an apology, is worth tolerating, but if it becomes a pattern, then that's
something not worth tolerating. Sincere intentions IMHO ought to count in
the beginning, but after repeated botch-ups, the intentions matter less and
less, leaving the actions to speak for themselves. Scotty on Star Trek
once said, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
However, at least initially, people deserve the benefit of the doubt,
and it shouldn't be assumed that initial transgressions are intentional,
especially if the poster is a newbie.
--Todd
[followups to .market.theory]
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
8 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
