Change the no-pm rule on the for sale forum

Lemming

I'm going to reply to a previous post by nm here. APologies - will read the subsequent posts at lunch-time .. eyeball deep at work right now

nm wrote:

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

You were complaining about people getting banned for the exact action explicitly mentioned in the "read me" thread. On that matter, I point you to read the rules. On the matter of discussing the rules, you're quite right.

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

No, it's not, and no you don't.

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.

If we lift the rule for "certain extreme circumstances" then we open the flood gates. As I've said people will somehow find a way to justify how and why their reason for wanting to off-thread deal is somehow more uimportant or uniquely different frmo everyone elses and is therefore valid. ANd when they're told no, will scream oppression.

This is what happens anyway. So how would things be any different under your argument? Simple. They wouldn't. And would be in fact worse for the mod.team trying to maintain order on the Shop forums.

Further, aS I've already pointed out, the FS charter is comprehensive enough without having to add caveats for certain, fairly contrived, situations. These caveats will be nothing but utter pain for the mod team to deal with because, as I believe I've already said, people will find ways to interpret them so that they can "justify" their actions when really, they're chancing their arm. I'm going to give you a little revelation .... people do this now. Regardless of the rules. Wow! Who'd have thought it!!!

I'll also point out a rather gaping flaw in your above quote, which i've also already mentioned but you're just not seeing it. "Certain extreme circumstances and always at the moderators discretion" = " but but but .... that user was allowed .... STOP OPPRESSING ME YOU FACIST!! OMFG!!!!11111".

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

Actually it does, and it has - I speak from memory on this. People have attempted to tout tickets off-thread and try auctioneering by playing people off against each other with the "Oh I got an offer of x ... " (to name but one example). I can recall quite a few instances were people have even conducted sales "successfully" on boards, then a week later the mod team are receiving pm's from upset buyers who've been screwed for such circumstances.

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.

NO, it does not stop one person from selling a ticket to another boards.ie member for face value. No it does not stop one person from buying a ticket outside and enjoying the gig. Cut with the melodrama please.

Again..

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.

Actually, it's all very very relevant. I've been modding the ticket forums for near two years now and I've seen a lot of crap repeated time and time again (including this particular topic of conversation). I started at the height of one particular summer of festival ticket madness. So you could say I got a fairly swift education on the subject matter.

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.

"No harm done" is very subjective and wide open to interpretation. As I believe I've said (and I'm getting sick of saying it now), people will find a way to justify it to themselves when they know that really, they're pushing the boat out. As has been pointed out, people *can* get to a computer, it's just not "convenient" for them, and relaxing this rule for somebody who wants instant-gratification is a very bad idea.

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...

SET MY PEOPLE FREE!!!! :rolleyes:

rubadub

Gordon wrote:

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

it is not some new system I am suggesting. I am talking about eliminating 2 steps.

seller- ok rubadub I accept your offer, please pm me your number
<wait>
me-pm sent.
<wait>
seller logs on again to find if I have sent the pm, then rings me

With my "system"

seller- ok rubadub I accept your offer

seller then rings me

Talliesin

GoneShootin wrote:

Then sir you are blind.

And more to the points, so would the mods be, since they wouldn't be able to see what's going on.

Talliesin

rubadub wrote:

it is not some new system I am suggesting. I am talking about eliminating 2 steps.

You could remove even more steps with this system:

1. Seller places items in a convenient location with note as to asking price (say The Central Bank). Seller places rock on top of it if it's a ticket or something that could blow away.
2. Buy takes item and puts down money under a rock.
3. Seller returns and takes money.

There, we've removed all of the steps except the actual delivery and payment. We've also exposed the sales to a wider audience.

Can you find a reason why this might not work?

rubadub

tSubh Dearg wrote:

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.

GoneShootin wrote:

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?

This can happen at the moment, and could happen if you were allowed to just pm phone numbers, so what? it is wrong and should be a bannable offence if it happens. I see no extra issues with allowing the seller in the initial post to ask people to pm ONLY phone numbers but keep all offers on thread.

GoneShootin wrote:

Then sir you are blind.

I have yet to hear your scenario that would be any different than what can (and does) take place at the moment with the current rules.

GoneShootin wrote:

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!

Yeah tough. The feedback forum is for suggestions on improving things and changing the system. Why bother with it if every suggestion is countered with "want a change, tough the system is in place and not changing, all suggestions for changes are welcome, but there is no way they will happen"

GoneShootin wrote:

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.

Id rather piss off two reasonable people than have 100's get caught out by dodgey dealers.

- when you refuse to give examples of how additional dodgy dealings could take place any differently than they can right now.

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

They are all people with authority who can impose rules at will, most are reasonable people who realise the original purpose of the rules and will not get satisfaction from pedantically enforcing them simply because they can, realising that if the rule is broken in certain cases that absolutely no harm will be done, no complaints, 2 happy members instead of 2 unhappy members.

GoneShootin

rubadub wrote:

it is not some new system I am suggesting. I am talking about eliminating 2 steps.

seller- ok rubadub I accept your offer, please pm me your number
<wait>
me-pm sent.
<wait>
seller logs on again to find if I have sent the pm, then rings me

With my "system"

seller- ok rubadub I accept your offer

seller then rings me

Holy ****! Such a boon to humanity surely deserves a prize of somekind. The benefit of your system would be minimal compared to the effort involved in effective policing and implementation of your system.

"You mean people have to wait while attempting to conduct a deal on a free service? That's crazy talk!!"

rubadub

Talliesin wrote:

And more to the points, so would the mods be, since they wouldn't be able to see what's going on.

Yes, just like it now, so what?

Talliesin wrote:

[*]Seller places items in a convenient location with note as to asking price (say The Central Bank). Seller places rock on top of it if it's a ticket or something that could blow away.
[*]Buy takes item and puts down money under a rock.
[*]Seller returns and takes money.
[/list]
There, we've removed all of the steps except the actual delivery and payment. We've also exposed the sales to a wider audience.

Can you find a reason why this might not work?

Yes, somebody may take the ticket or the money. Not sure if you were actually being scarcastic as it seems you cannot grasp my simple idea.

Now can you give me a reason why my idea will lead to more complaints? what can happen if it went ahead that cannot already happen at present?

People seem to have this very well thought out so surely you can answer that simple question.

rubadub

GoneShootin wrote:

The benefit of your system would be minimal compared to the effort involved in effective policing and implementation of your system.

What additional policing and implementation? it is one line in the rules to be implemented.
No additional policing is needed since the system is open to abuse either way. And there is no additional potential for abuse in allowing phones numbers

In fact less policing is needed since mods don't have to waste their time banning people and editing threads.

GoneShootin wrote:

"You mean people have to wait while attempting to conduct a deal on a free service? That's crazy talk!!"

Yeah it is a bit crazy that they have to wait around for a phone number that could be sent in advance.
It would be similar to a situation whereby ebay insisted potential buyers remain anonymous until they win the bid, then the seller has to contact them and ask for their details and wait for a response rather than just having the winning bidders details there automatically. A pointless step. I think you are finally understanding my point.

Lemming

rubadub wrote:

it is not some new system I am suggesting. I am talking about eliminating 2 steps.

seller- ok rubadub I accept your offer, please pm me your number
<wait>
me-pm sent.
<wait>
seller logs on again to find if I have sent the pm, then rings me

With my "system"

seller- ok rubadub I accept your offer

seller then rings me

Errrr .... you DO realise that's how it works now right? Since you've basically said the seller has agreed the offer, then that's your sale right there.

Jeez people, come on. Start thinking!!!

Honestly, rubadub, nm ... your ideas are all fine and well when people _abide_ by what would effectively be an "honour" system. People do not, and will not, do that. Period.

rubadub

Lemming wrote:

Errrr .... you DO realise that's how it works now right? Since you've basically said the seller has agreed the offer, then that's your sale right there.

The bits in red are how it works right now. If pmd numbers were allowed to be requested and sent those steps and waiting times are eliminated.

Lemming wrote:

Honestly, rubadub, nm ... your ideas are all fine and well when people _abide_ by what would effectively be an "honour" system. People do not, and will not, do that. Period.

People do not and will not follow the rules at the moment. Period.
I have yet to hear what additional harm/dodgy deals are possible by allowing phone numbers to be pm'd in advance.

Why are you all keeping this secret, tell me and I will stop asking.

Lemming

rubadub wrote:

The bits in red are how it works right now. If pmd numbers were allowed to be requested and sent those steps and waiting times are eliminated.


People do not and will not follow the rules at the moment. Period.
I have yet to hear what additional harm/dodgy deals are possible by allowing phone numbers to be pm'd in advance.

Why are you all keeping this secret, tell me and I will stop asking.

So ... what you're suggesting is the following line of thinking:

"Since the FS forums have enough trouble trying to enforce the rules to stop people getting screwed, we should just let them do what they want"

Riiiiiiight ........


And exactly what am I keeping "secret"? I don't follow your remark there. The countless pm's that I've received over the last two years over this? Kind of obvious - I either don't have them any more or else would have to go seeking permission to reprint a private conversation in public.

rubadub

Lemming wrote:

"Since the FS forums have enough trouble trying to enforce the rules to stop people getting screwed, we should just let them do what they want"

I have no problem with rules to stop people getting screwed. And cannot see the potential for additional "screwing" by my suggestion. This will lessen the current "trouble" they have enforcing rules that do not serve to stop people being ripped off.

Lemming wrote:

And exactly what am I keeping "secret"? I don't follow your remark there.

I said I have yet to hear what additional harm/dodgy deals are possible by allowing phone numbers to be pm'd in advance. Nobody seems to be able to answer me.

Lemming

rubadub wrote:

I have no problem with rules to stop people getting screwed. And cannot see the potential for additional "screwing" by my suggestion

As GS said, then you sir, are blind.

I said I have yet to hear what additional harm/dodgy deals are possible by allowing phone numbers to be pm'd in advance. Nobody seems to be able to answer me.

For the love of ...

What the hell do you think I've been writing up to this point? Would you ever f*cking BOTHER to go read for christ sake .... allow me to help your poor, instant-gratification-craving mind:

lemming wrote:

People have attempted to tout tickets off-thread and try auctioneering by playing people off against each other with the "Oh I got an offer of x ... " (to name but one example). I can recall quite a few instances were people have even conducted sales "successfully" on boards, then a week later the mod team are receiving pm's from upset buyers who've been screwed for such circumstances.

Look, mods .. I am *really* tempted to just lift all resctrictions for this summer on the FS-Ticket forums. Then tell rubadub and nm to deal with it. This is just ridiculous. It's the same tired argument wheeled out time and again by people either unwilling or unable to join the dots.

So, I'm going to put up a request in the mod forusm that both be given mod.ship of the ticket forums. Then I'll post an announcement on the ticket forums that the entire FS charter no longer applies.

GoneShootin

Lemming wrote:

Look, mods .. I am *really* tempted to just lift all resctrictions for this summer on the FS-Ticket forums........... Then I'll post an announcement on the ticket forums that the entire FS charter no longer applies.

Probably not the best course of action. The current FS mods were selected for their ability to fairly and justly moderate the forums. I never saw rubadubs name or nm's name entered into the selection. As an aside Lemming if you find you need an extra hand then I'm sure us other FS mods will help out. Just ask

rubadub wrote:

I have yet to hear your scenario that would be any different than what can (and does) take place at the moment with the current rules.

You never asked me for one nor should I present one to you. I have yet to hear your response to your accusations.

rubadub

Lemming wrote:

As GS said, then you sir, are blind.

I think you are the blind one, did you miss the word ADDITIONAL
I put it in bold last time, maybe you will see it now :rolleyes:

People have attempted to tout tickets off-thread and try auctioneering by playing people off against each other with the "Oh I got an offer of x ... " (to name but one example). I can recall quite a few instances were people have even conducted sales "successfully" on boards, then a week later the mod team are receiving pm's from upset buyers who've been screwed for such circumstances.

this is not additional, this can happen either way, and would be against the rules either way. If people sent a pm with their phone number the seller could phone them and start making new offers, so what? at present they could pm them and make new offers, whats the difference? whats adding to the problem?
It is up to the potential buyer to report the seller either way.

Lemming wrote:

Look, mods .. I am *really* tempted to just lift all resctrictions for this summer on the FS-Ticket forums. Then tell rubadub and nm to deal with it. This is just ridiculous.

No, thats a ridiculous suggestion, I do not see any other restricitons in the charter that make no sense, and do not benefit either the seller or buyer.

Gordon

Just out of morbid curiosity, rubadub, would you be able to help out modding some of the FS fora if needed? Just curious.

irlrobins

rubadub

Gordon wrote:

Just out of morbid curiosity, rubadub, would you be able to help out modding some of the FS fora if needed? Just curious.

I am not completely sure what modding entails. If it meant no commitments to being there at specific times, i.e. just sorting out things if I happend upon a dodgy post then I would have no problems giving it a shot.

Gordon

rubadub wrote:

I am not completely sure what modding entails. If it meant no commitments to being there at specific times, i.e. just sorting out things if I happend upon a dodgy post then I would have no problems giving it a shot.

Personally I view modding as protecting both users and the forum [including boards as a whole] from any negative aspects that tend to occur. To do so one does not have to be online all the time but as with all interests - the more time and passion you put into something - the better it can be.

It doesn't mean no commitments. You have a strong commitment to the users of your forum and to boards.ie. If you turn up every week and sort out a dodgy post then you let your users down (and of course your co-mods). That's not to say that all mods are online every day of course, I'm just giving extreme examples.

rubadub

Gordon wrote:

Personally I view modding as protecting both users and the forum [including boards as a whole] from any negative aspects that tend to occur. To do so one does not have to be online all the time but as with all interests - the more time and passion you put into something - the better it can be.

Thats what I would have thought. I was unsure if there was technical stuff you needed to know or online meetings to attend etc.

You have a strong commitment to the users of your forum and to boards.ie. If you turn up every week and sort out a dodgy post then you let your users down (and of course your co-mods)

That sounds fair enough. Like I said I was wondering if there were specific times I MUST be online, like meetings or if mods are given different time slots to be attending online.

rsynnott

Oh, give it up; it's a silly idea and it's not going to happen.

rubadub

rsynnott wrote:

it's a silly idea

AHA! now see, thats the type of well reasoned argument I was looking for, it is perfectly clear now why it would be a complete disaster, what was I thinking! people would have been ripped off left, right & centre.

rsynnott

rubadub wrote:

AHA! now see, thats the type of well reasoned argument I was looking for, it is perfectly clear now why it would be a complete disaster, what was I thinking! people would have been ripped off left, right & centre.

The reasons have been outlined perfectly adequately above.

Lemming

rubadub wrote:

I think you are the blind one, did you miss the word ADDITIONAL
I put it in bold last time, maybe you will see it now :rolleyes:

Oh, "adduitional", as if what happens already isn't bad enough.

this is not additional, this can happen either way, and would be against the rules either way. If people sent a pm with their phone number the seller could phone them and start making new offers, so what? at present they could pm them and make new offers, whats the difference? whats adding to the problem?
It is up to the potential buyer to report the seller either way.

The difference is that you are encouraging them. We don't. The problem is there, although for the most part negligible. What you propose is to make it so wide-scale that any attempt to tackle a problem with it would require draconian censur on the part of the admins.

No, thats a ridiculous suggestion, I do not see any other restricitons in the charter that make no sense, and do not benefit either the seller or buyer.

It's not a ridiculous suggestion. It would show you the extent the problem can reach, in all its "glory". And it might remind a lot of Boards.ie membres what the situation was like two summers ago on the ticket forums. As for whom benefits, I don't think you're in a position to determine that.

Boston

Points to lemmings sig, points to rubadub

Devious

My brain is fried from reading this thread. Mods, just hand the keys of the asylum to the lunatics for a week, then send in the riot squad to beat them back in to line. :-/

KrankStricher

This may be too powerful an idea to cxecute, but would it be possible to create a special kind of spoiler tag, which can only be read by a specified person and of course the mods/admins.

For eg.

Basquille is selling a chimney pot

and I, Zanzibarcoo decide to buy it,
so I decide to send her my phone number on the thread using a special spoiler as mentioned above that only her or the mods can read.

Would that be plausible?

CuLT

It works how it works, we're not mucking around with anything for now because the For Sales section is likely to change dramatically at some point this year. It's simply not going to be allowed now, for reasons that have been very clearly outlined in this thread and in the charter. You break those rules and we find out, you will be banned permanently. Simple as that.

KrankStricher: you do that when you've made the deal on thread. The idea is to keep "dealing" on thread, not the finer points of how the users intend to transfer goods and cash.

rubadub

LiouVille wrote:

Points to lemmings sig, points to rubadub

So I presume you think stevenmu is also an idiot?

stevenmu wrote:

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.

CuLT wrote:

You break those rules and we find out, you will be banned permanently. Simple as that.

So are you going to ban stevenmu?

ai ing

Ok so auctions are not allowed and there must be a guidline price up front.

If you offer less than the guideline then you should wait for the seller to accept it before PMing - kinda presumptuous otherwise.

If you offer the guideline then you could PM your details because that offer would be accepted.

Where is the need for PMs to be sent other than when the seller accepts an offer less than the guideline or a buyer offers the guideline?