Change the no-pm rule on the for sale forum

rubadub

Most rules in charters make sense. Not this one. Here is a thread where somebody was banned for asking people to pm them.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054899077

Seems the mods are just sick of people not reading charters and are sick of warning people about this unobvious rule. Most charters do not have to be read since anything wrong is usually obvious, like selling illegal goods etc. The rule is broken so much since people would never expect it to be such a bad thing to do, and it is not.

Since the issue of off-thread dealing seems to be the chief day-to-day violation on the tickets forum, people will simply be banned for it. No warning. One week and only going upwards.

All dealing are to be preformed on thread. That means that all offers/questions for items as well as rejection of offers should be discuss on thread. We don't want to see pm me, email me or phone me messages.

If you can't get to a pc or your net connection is bad or whatever ... use the Buy and Sell and not Boards.ie. So if we see your phone number or your email or you know... a banning we shall go!

The more posts you have on your items the more likely you are to achieve your asking price.

There are lots of reasons why we've started this rule. The main reason is to make the whole process more transparent. We've been getting complaints about abusing the systems. There are a lot of "I've had a better offer elsewhere" replies without any conformation of this. We don't know whether they have or whether they are just trying to bump up the price. It's unfair.

So say you have a last minute concert ticket to sell (buy and sell out of the question), and the gig is on the next day. Imagine the post is something like this.

I have a ticket for U2 tomorrow I am hoping for face value €65 but will accept the best offer. I will not be able to get to a PC very much in that time. If you make an offer please pm me your number too. The best offer will obviously be the one I phone tomorrow. If they pull out I will contact the next best offer. I do not want to have to formally accept the offer and have wait for you to then pm your number which may take hours to happen, you or I may not be able to get to a PC much before the gig. I will obviously post in the thread that it is sold and who it is sold to once I phone the posters.

This seems a perfectly reasonable request yet would get you banned.

RuggieBear

rubadub wrote:

This seems a perfectly reasonable request yet would get you banned.

If they can't get to a computer then it shouldn't be being sold on boards.

rubadub

RuggieBear wrote:

If they can't get to a computer then it shouldn't be being sold on boards.

But they CAN get to a PC, they just do not want to wait for the pm to be sent. Even if they have full access to a PC it is an annoyance.

What is the problem with pm'ing a phone number when you make an offer? Why would you ring the other people? what is the problem with having their phone numbers?

2 people may miss out, the ticket going to complete waste. Why would you wish that on people?

RuggieBear

But it's totally open to abuse. In a perfect world, it would be great and handy but when it comes to selling things people are always trying to rip each other off

WizZard

Exactly - the PM rule is one of the best things about the FS forums on boards. Most other forums don't have it and it's a pain to buy stuff on them


"Someone else offered me 3 times that amount" etc.

rubadub

RuggieBear wrote:

But it's totally open to abuse.

It still is! it is the seller who decides whether or not to accept pm'd bids of better offers or not. Ban them if you find out they did. Of course bids should be kept on thread. I am not talking about pm'ing secret bids, JUST phone numbers. Whats the problem with that?

WizZard wrote:

"Someone else offered me 3 times that amount" etc.

that usually happens when people foolishly offer something at a very low price to begin with. People jump in accepting, and then people pm saying "I will pay you €10 more, simply say you sold it to your brother". The charter suggests states people should start high to stop this. If the seller asks for €100, and somebody offers €30 and the seller says "somebody offered me €90", then they are either lying to try and get the price up, or they should ask the pm'd message to post in the thread so they can formally accept there.

stevenmu

The fact that people keep breaking a rule doesn't make a good argument for changing it. It's probably a little harsh to ban someone outright when they could just be warned and given a chance to change it, but it is a very busy forum with a lot of problems for the mods to deal with.

As for the ticket example, I'd guess someone could get away with asking people to bid on the thread, but pm their numbers when they do. Then when the seller gets to his time cut off point he can see the highest bid on the thread, get that users number from the pm and finish the thread. I know there's been a few times where I've made an offer on something but wouldn't have net access for the next few days so I've made the bid on thread and sent the seller a pm with my details in case it's accepted.

oscarBravo

rubadub wrote:

Most charters do not have to be read...

Oops! You just went off the rails right there.

All charters have to be read. How do you know the rules in them are obvious if you don't read them? As an example, the Archery board has specific rules for the sale of equipment, since the FS boards don't allow the sale of weapons. You're not going to know those rules unless you read the charter.

Lemming

Tell you what rubadub. I'm going to propose that you get exactly what you want.

How about we scrub the FS-charter for the tickets forums this summer and let the carnage unfold. When users are screaming about being ripped off, cheated, screwed, f*cked sideways, etc we'll simply say "sorry, you [the user] wanted this".

And then I'll say "I told you so ... "

[Mods & Admins I am deadly serious about this]

As of this moment, I suggest that all reports on the tickets forums be ignored by the mods & admins, and the forum be simply ignored until the end of September.


What exactly is your suggestion? You pointed out what you see is wrong. I want you to now tell me what you suggest instead. And I want you to start thinking about the "what if" scenarios as well .....

Please. By all means.

Giblet

Not reading the charter is a bannable offence.

rubadub

oscarBravo wrote:

Oops! You just went off the rails right there.

All charters have to be read.

I know, and I think you know what I meant, usually it is obvious what you would get banned for. In this case it seems harsh and many people say so. After a warning and they repeat it, then a ban, though I still think it an odd rule.

The rule is to stop off thread dealing, I would not consider simply giving a phone number to be off thread dealing.

rubadub

Lemming wrote:

let the carnage unfold.

Think thats a bit dramatic for people pming phone numbers! most rules are sound and make perfect sense

Lemming wrote:

What exactly is your suggestion? You pointed out what you see is wrong. I want you to now tell me what you suggest instead. And I want you to start thinking about the "what if" scenarios as well .....

Please. By all means.

Simply allowing just the pming of phone numbers and possibly email addresses too (some people may have boards/the web blocked out on particular pcs they use). That is still not off thread dealing in my book, just contact info that they would have put in their post on the actual thread, but didnt because they do not want it published on the internet.

WhiteWashMan

i dont really see why you shouldnt be able to PM people.
cavaet emptor and all that.

people are dealing in commerce, not a love and flowers, all is right with the world hippy commune.

Lemming

rubadub wrote:

The rule is to stop off thread dealing, I would not consider simply giving a phone number to be off thread dealing.

Then tell me, rubadub dearest, what exactly off-thread dealing is ....

I'll give you a clue. Look at the name

rubadub

Lemming wrote:

Then tell me, rubadub dearest, what exactly off-thread dealing is ....

I'll give you a clue. Look at the name

Don't see the need for your smug condescending tone. You are the one asking for suggestions in this post and the one I linked in the first post. I am giving what I think are reasonable answers/suggestions...

In this case
off thread, -via pm
dealing, -a potential buyer offering a price, and the price/offer being accepted or declined by the potential seller. The price being accepted is usually by default to the person who offers the most on the thread, if they pull out, the next highest gets it.

After the deal is done/offer accepted, in 99% of cases the next step is for the seller to ask the buyer to pm them their details. I honestly cannot see the problem with the seller having these details beforehand.

Can you please explain to me what will go wrong? what carnage will unfold? who will be screaming they were ripped off?

Lemming

rubadub wrote:

Don't see the need for your smug condescending tone. You are the one asking for suggestions in this post and the one I linked in the first post. I am giving what I think are reasonable answers/suggestions...

In this case
off thread, -via pm
dealing, -a potential buyer offering a price, and the price/offer being accepted or declined by the potential seller. The price being accepted is usually by default to the person who offers the most on the thread, if they pull out, the next highest gets it.

After the deal is done/offer accepted, in 99% of cases the next step is for the seller to ask the buyer to pm them their details. I honestly cannot see the problem with the seller having these details beforehand.

Can you please explain to me what will go wrong? what carnage will unfold? who will be screaming they were ripped off?

There is a very good reason why we simply say "no pm's before a deal is agreed" rubadub.

1. It keeps everything on-thread, thus provides accountability and keeps people honest.
2. If we allow off-thread dealing at all, then we either have to start stating explicit circumstances where it is/isn't allowed or simply remove the rule. And that is a long slippery slope into "if they can pm, why can't I?" etc, and from there ... well .. it's pretty obvious where it would end up.
3. Everybody knows exactly where they stand with regards off-thread dealing.

There is no difference between pm'ing someone your number with an offer, then someone else doing it, and then an auction ensuing out of sight of boards. Which has happened in the past. And is precisely one of the reasons why this rule is in place. These rules aren't here to make it awkward for users rubadub. They're here to stop you [the user] getting fleeced. And to date they've been pretty successful.

The FS-charter is extensive enough without adding caveats for when off-thread dealing would be acceptable and not. And quite frankly the FS mods have enough to keep them busy than added ambiguity for the sake of a few lazy posters who want instant-gratification.

As for my condescending tone? I've heard this argument trotted out time and time again rubadub, so you'll forgive me if I've become very jaded towards it.

WizZard

rubadub wrote:

that usually happens when people foolishly offer something at a very low price to begin with. People jump in accepting, and then people pm saying "I will pay you €10 more, simply say you sold it to your brother". The charter suggests states people should start high to stop this. If the seller asks for €100, and somebody offers €30 and the seller says "somebody offered me €90", then they are either lying to try and get the price up, or they should ask the pm'd message to post in the thread so they can formally accept there.

I was actually giving an example of a reply that I have gotten when offering a price on another forum where off thread dealing is the norm.

CuLT

No.

nxbyveromdwjpg

rubadub wrote:

So say you have a last minute concert ticket to sell (buy and sell out of the question), and the gig is on the next day. Imagine the post is something like this.

This seems a perfectly reasonable request yet would get you banned.

This has already happened; I've seen it countless times on that forum already. E.g.: "Ian Brown ticket for tonight if anyone wants it face value text me @ 0871234567 ill give it you outside the gig", next thing the phone number is edited out of the post and the user banned.
Not only is the user banned for offering something perfectly reasonable, but anyone that wanted to go to the sold out gig is now prevented from doing so... why? I mean what is the point in that, who did that benefit?

lemming wrote:

2. If we allow off-thread dealing at all, then we either have to start stating explicit circumstances where it is/isn't allowed or simply remove the rule. And that is a long slippery slope into "if they can pm, why can't I?" etc, and from there ... well.. it's pretty obvious where it would end up. .

No it’s not that obvious at all... do you really think that people wont understand that off-thread is acceptable only under certain circumstances, and only at the moderators’ discretion? (I.e.: Examples like the above)

I don’t see how that can be that difficult.

Lemming

nm wrote:

This has already happened; I've seen it countless times on that forum already. E.g.: "Ian Brown ticket for tonight if anyone wants it face value text me @ 0871234567 ill give it you outside the gig", next thing the phone number is edited out of the post and the user banned.
Not only is the user banned for offering something perfectly reasonable, but anyone that wanted to go to the sold out gig is now prevented from doing so... why? I mean what is the point in that, who did that benefit?

Read. The. Rules. Before. You. Post.

In fact, if people bothered their @rses to read the "Please read this before you post" sticky (in big bold print I might add) at the top of the forum,they'd not end up banned.

Off-thread dealing is off-thread dealing regardless. We have to say "no" to all of it.

Who benefits? The community does, since chancing muppets are rarely given the chance to try pull something. These people use boards. They use it frequently. To that myself and the entire Shop forum mod-team can attest. If I could show you the amount of pm's from people regarding this issue, you'd see the level of trouble it causes. But that's not going to happen, so you'll have to take my (and every other mod's) word for it.

Do you think the rule was just dreamt up out of thin air just to annoy people? Or out of repeated trial-and-error combined with a heavy dose of observed user behaviour over the life-time of boards.ie?

No it’s not that obvious at all... do you really think that people wont understand that off-thread is acceptable only under certain circumstances, and only at the moderators’ discretion? (I.e.: Examples like the above)

I don’t see how that can be that difficult.

On the obviousness ... it actually is when you apply any amount of common sense as to how people will behave to what they perceive. They will always, _always_ somehow manage to justify how _their_ circumstance is somehow uniquely different to absolutely everyone else's. Thus will start the "but but but .... that poster was allowed .. wahhhh wahhhh" and the "ah, butthe rules don't state that _my_ circumstance isn't allowed". Bollocks to all of that. As CuLT said, rather eloquently, "no".

As for how difficult your reasoned argument is? It's quite simple actually. It's difficult because people WILL chance their arm, people WILL be unscrupulous, people WILL act so desperately that all common sense will go out the window, and some people WILL just be utterly thick sh*tes incapable of understanding a simple rule like ... oh funnily enough ... "no off-thread dealing" ... or ... "no touting" ... or "no auctions" .. or how far do you want me to go with this particular argument? Time, and time, and time, and f*cking time again this happens.

Your argument is all fine and well if we take the following factors out of the equation: greed, desire, desperation, deceit, and plain-old "ah sure what harm can it do, sure isn't only for me?" Since all of the above appear alarmingly frequently, that argument falls flat on its ass.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Lemming wrote:

Read. The. Rules. Before. You. Post.

We.Read.Them.Already.And.This.Thread.Is.About.Changing.Them.That.Is.The.Whole.Point

Lemming wrote:

Off-thread dealing is off-thread dealing regardless. We have to say "no" to all of it.

Again this is the whole point. No you dont, not in examples like the above.

Lemming wrote:

Who benefits? The community does, since chancing muppets are rarely given the chance to try pull something. Do you think the rule was just dreamt up out of thin air just to annoy people? Or out of repeated trial-and-error combined with a heavy dose of observed user behaviour over the life-time of boards.ie?

Who are you arguing with? Why are you answering like anyone said to abandon the rule completely?
We are talking about allowing it only under certain extreme circumstances, and always at the moderators discretion.
Ie: again the example above.

This does not prevent -
- "touting"
- "no auctions"
- "acting unscrupulous"
- "utterly thick sh*tes"

This does prevent -
- one person from selling a ticket to another boards.ie member for face value
- one person from buying a ticket outside and enjoying the gig

I still fail to see who wins in that case.

Lemming wrote:

They will always, _always_ somehow manage to justify how _their_ circumstance is somehow uniquely different to absolutely everyone else's. Thus will start the "but but but .... that poster was allowed .. wahhhh wahhhh" and the "ah, butthe rules don't state that _my_ circumstance isn't allowed". Bollocks to all of that.

Again..

nm wrote:

Only at the moderators’ discretion

The rest of your post is more of the same point repeated which arent relevent to the actual suggestion made in this thread so I wont bother responding to it all.

Seems to just boil down to 2 options

1) When no harm is being done by it, and the transaction cannot reasonably be completed on thread for all to see (eg: "gig in one hour, im on my way out the door"), allow boards members to contact each other in the free world to complete their transaction.

2) Ban all of these people and prevent anyone dying to buy the product from doing so, pissing off two reasonable people in the process and probably having the example ticket go to waste, because...

CuLT wrote:

No.

:rolleyes:

GoneShootin

nm wrote:

Seems to just boil down to 2 options

1) When no harm is being done by it, and the transaction cannot reasonably be completed on thread for all to see (eg: "gig in one hour, im on my way out the door"), allow boards members to contact each other in the free world to complete their transaction.

2) Ban all of these people and prevent anyone dying to buy the product from doing so, pissing off reasonable two people in the process and possibly having the example ticket go to waste, because...

Id go with option 2 all the time. Id rather piss off two reasonable people than have 100's get caught out by dodgey dealers. The best method of security is always to disallow everything, and allow only what you want. You forgot option 3.

3) Let those "gig in one hour" boards members **** off and use another service. Boards.ie is not the only place in the world to sell stuff. Boards.ie is not forcing anyone to use the service. People that use boards.ie have no real recourse when something goes wrong as its a free service, so boards.ie/fs_mods dont really owe anyone anything.



For the effort that FS mods put into policing their forums, you would imagine that they/boards.ie get paid to do it. Shock! They don't. So why don't you and rubadub setup your own buyMyTicketQuick.ie website?

Gordon

I think it's quite difficult for us to be open to such ideas considering the amount of hassle the FS fora seem to have had in the past. Although I think it could be a good idea for the FS tickets forum (presumably pointless for other FS fora as no other item has such an expiry date [we don't sell food do we?!]) I am not an FS mod and I know that they have a tough enough time as it is.

However, in saying that, it has been mused that there will be an overhaul of the FS boards by an Admin a wee while ago. If DeV's around maybe he can give some input on his ideas for the future?

rubadub

Lemming wrote:

There is a very good reason why we simply say "no pm's before a deal is agreed" rubadub.

1. It keeps everything on-thread, thus provides accountability and keeps people honest.

Not everything is on-thread. phone numbers are only given off-thread.

Lemming wrote:

2. If we allow off-thread dealing at all, then we either have to start stating explicit circumstances where it is/isn't allowed or simply remove the rule. And that is a long slippery slope into "if they can pm, why can't I?" etc, and from there ... well .. it's pretty obvious where it would end up.

Explicit circumstances- You may only pm people a phone number.

Lemming wrote:

There is no difference between pm'ing someone your number with an offer, then someone else doing it, and then an auction ensuing out of sight of boards.

Agreed, ONLY phone numbers can be pmd. NOT OFFERS

rubadub

GoneShootin wrote:

Id go with option 2 all the time. Id rather piss off two reasonable people than have 100's get caught out by dodgey dealers.

I have yet to hear how people will be ripped off and going mental if people pm a phonenumber at the same time as they mention it in a thread. The only reason they are not putting it in the thread is they do not want the whole world to see it.

There have been scenarios explained here as to why it is a good idea to allow users to pm phonenumbers in advance.

Can you please give me a scenario where somebody pms another person a phone number AND NOTHING ELSE at the same time as making a post with an offer. And this scenario resulting in the "carnage" and 1000's of complaints?

GoneShootin wrote:

So why don't you and rubadub setup your own buyMyTicketQuick.ie website?

Cop-on. I am only trying to make it better for all members here. One of the mods already admitted to doing the exact thing I propose, should he be banned? Seems you would actually go out of your way to fuk people over, enforcing rules where you know there would be no complaints, like in the example the other poster gave about the gig being on in an hour. Most Gardai/judges/Mods have the common sense to know when to turn a blind eye when a rule is broken, others are just pedantic arseholes who like nothing better than to see others suffer due to their power.

Zombrex

rubadub wrote:

Not everything is allowed on-thread. phone numbers are only given off-thread.

But until the sale is agreed the only purpose of having the phone number would be to make offers over that number surely.

Everyting must be on thread until a sale is agreed. Because of this there is no need to PM any other contact details. If you can't arrange sales off the thread then there is no need for the other contact details.

My understanding is that the rule is to keep everything on thread for the benefit of the buyers not the seller.

If you were allowed give out PMs, emails, phone numbers etc you could end up with multiple buying discussions independent of each other. That would get confusing and annoying very quickly.

For example I post "XBox, 4 games for sale €60" ... people discuss it on thread, ask questions, make offers, someone matches offer, someone else raising offer. Then a week later I say, oh sorry lads, I've been talking to blah on PM and I sold it yesterday.. people would be annoyed

It is not the best system in all situations, but it is the best system in most situations, and it is far better than the alternative

rubadub

Wicknight wrote:

But until the sale is agreed PMing a phone number would be to make an offer surely.

The person makes an offer on thread and pms the number in advance, in anticipation that he may be asked to pm his number later on if he ends up the highest "bidder". That person now leaves work and has no pc. Other members come on and offer more in the thread and pm phone numbers.

The seller comes on and picks the highest offer. Says on thread that he is accepting that offer, checks his pms and phones the highest "bidder". He ignores the other pms.

The first person comes back to work on monday and sees somebody else offered more, and that is why nobody rang him.

Who is complaining in this situation? If you are only allowed pm numbers I cannot see anything dodgy going on.

Wicknight wrote:

My understanding is that the rule is to keep everything on thread for the benefit of the buyers not the seller.

phone numbers will benefit the buyer, who does not have to keep logging on to see if a seller is asking for him to pm a number. It benefits the seller who does not have to ask for the number to be pmd and then wait around for the buyer to do so.

Wicknight wrote:

If you were allowed give out PMs, emails, phone numbers etc you could end up with multiple buying discussions independent of each other.

How/why would independent discussions be happening? all you can send is a phone number. The seller then phones the highest bidder, he has no reason to phone others.

Wicknight wrote:

Then a week later I say, oh sorry lads, I've been talking to blah on PM and I sold it yesterday.. people would be annoyed

And rightly so, you should be banned in this case, no question.

I am talking about phone numbers NOTHING ELSE

Gordon

Maybe the boards beep could be used? Although I'm not quite sure what exactly that is!

The type of system you are getting at, rubadub, seems as if there will be a great deal more mod intervention needed.

tSubh Dearg

But there is no way of proving that all they have PM'd is a phone number and nothing else. The mods can't check these PMs. What's to stop the person saying, "I'll throw in an extra tenner if you give the ticket to me" along with their phone number? The person receiving the PM is unlikely to report this as it means they're getting extra money.

This (in my opinion) is what undermines the idea.

GoneShootin

rubadub wrote:

ONLY phone numbers can be pmd. NOT OFFERS

And how would you propose that us moderators police the private messages for content other than phone numbers? Would you encourage us to actively sneek into the PMs to check for non-charter alloweable content? Or would you like the admins to come up with new plugin for vBulletin to check the pm content?

rubadub wrote:

If you are only allowed pm numbers I cannot see anything dodgy going on.

Then sir you are blind.

rubadub wrote:

Cop-on. I am only trying to make it better for all members here. One of the mods already admitted to doing the exact thing I propose, should he be banned?

You could make it better for all members here by offering your own service, then you can manage it anyway you see fit. Give the members another method of selling their wares. You don't like this system? TOUGH!

rubadub wrote:

Seems you would actually go out of your way to fuk people over, enforcing rules where you know there would be no complaints, like in the example the other poster gave about the gig being on in an hour. Most Gardai/judges/Mods have the common sense to know when to turn a blind eye when a rule is broken, others are just pedantic arseholes who like nothing better than to see others suffer due to their power.

1) I love the word "seems". Blanket statement without evidence to baclup the statement. Link me to posts where I went out of my way to fuk people over while moderating FS Mobiles. Hell take a poll of the FS Mobiles regulars and ask them for feedback on my moderating. Seems to me that you are an idiot. But then would be a blanket statement without any evidence now wouldn't it?

2) You have a serious mental deficit if you are putting "gardai/juges/mods" in the same category.

3) I like your veiled insult at me with the "pendantic arsehole" comment. Kudos.

Talliesin

The simple fact is that this rule was put in place long ago because the FS forums (though there were fewer of them back then, it may well have been when there was just a single FS forum) were unmanagable with people unable to even be sure an agreed sale was likely to continue due to PM-d gazzumping.