Banned from FS discs.

daveg

Boards user was selling 2 UMD movie discs in FS discs for €15. I offered €5 for one as I had genuinely bought the other one he was selling in Golden Discs for €10 the week before (the one I put an offer of €5 on had been in Golden Discs also for sale at €10). So, to clarify, I was simply justifying my offer of €5, and letting the seller know he was overpricing his UMD discs. Golden Disc prices are not available on line so I could only state this.

Lemming then comes along and gives me a 6 week ban, stating the severity of the ban was due to my mod status and my length of time on boards/post count.

To my mind this is bullshít. I have seen as many users link to retailer prices (ie not on-line prices) as I have seen people bumping threads. I understand that a direct link to a website is better than stating a shop is selling product X for price Y, but what was I supposed to do when Golden Discs prices were not available on-line.

Also I do not expect favouritism for my Mod status, nor do I expect to be made an example of because I am a mod (by receiving a ban of length 6 TIMES more than any other user would get).

feylya

That does seem a bit harsh alright. I assume you've pmed Lemming?

Mr. Presentable

As a good Boardsie, I have read the various charters etc, and doesn't the For Sale one state that Mods can ignore the rules therein?

feylya

I would imagine that that rule applies only to FS mods. Mods are just ordinary posters on forums which they don't mod.

daveg

feylya wrote:

That does seem a bit harsh alright. I assume you've pmed Lemming?

Indeed I have. He is sticking to the ban. He say's I did not link to the price, and my stance of "you'll have to trust me it's €10 in Golden Discs" doesn't cut it. I think it's unfair to discriminate against a link to an actual shop as opposed to an on-line shop is unfair. He didn't have to except my offer.

daveg

nipplenuts wrote:

As a good Boardsie, I have read the various charters etc, and doesn't the For Sale one state that Mods can ignore the rules therein?

LoL. I presume thats a joke?

Lemming

From the charter thread-spoiling rules

FS Charter wrote:

reply saying "you can get XXX cheaper here". We don't care. Replying like that end up in flame wars. It is up to the buyer to find that out. Is is a buyers market after all. Genuine comments are welcomed if someone is really trying to rip someone off. We personally think let the buyer beware. You have net access, we have Elara and Komplett to name but a few low cost suppliers, a bit of research never hurts. If you are interested and want to haggle... post a link to the relevant price... if someone is way off the mark with an asking and we mean way off.. post a link to the current available price (like for like vat and postage must be commented on).

I've highlighted the relevant part of the quote. You did not do this, and then said "you'll just have to trust me". Do you know how many times in the past users have tried to pull crap like this DaveG?

Further to the point, you even quoted that rule when trying to justify yourself in the thread in question. So you were aware of it before you posted.

Why do you think that rule was put there? Why do you think the explicit mention of linkage is mentioned?

You have no excuse.

daveg

Lemming wrote:

From the charter thread-spoiling rules



I've highlighted the relevant part of the quote. You did not do this, and then said "you'll just have to trust me". Do you know how many times in the past users have tried to pull crap like this DaveG?

Further to the point, you even quoted that rule when trying to justify yourself in the thread in question. So you were aware of it before you posted.

Why do you think that rule was put there?

You have no excuse.

As I said the poster did not have to take my offer. I assumed that rule would stretch to allow someone to say that a bricks and morter retailer is selling the item for whatever price. What was I supposed to do? Take a digital picture of the item's price in Golden discs?

Doctor J

reply saying "you can get XXX cheaper here". We don't care. Replying like that end up in flame wars. It is up to the buyer to find that out. Is is a buyers market after all.

Was daveg not the buyer in this case? He knew what the prices were and made an offer based on that. Seems a trifle harsh alright.

daveg

Doctor J wrote:

Was daveg not the buyer in this case? He knew what the prices were and made an offer based on that. Seems a trifle harsh alright.

Yep I was the buyer.

Asok

Seems too harsh to me.

TerrorFirmer

Even if the banning itself is debatable six weeks seems awfully harsh. I've seen blatant thread spoilers get far less.

Lemming

On reviewing this, I will reduce the ban to two weeks and even then I believe reluctantly. The core contention for me is the fact that DaveG not only posted the rules, but also highlighted the exact part which he then violated in bold print.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Lemming

Solitaryman666 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Excuse me? Who the f*ck do you think you are? No I am not on a power-trip f*ck you very much. As for the rest of your post, I wont bother the effort of a response.

daveg

Lemming wrote:

On reviewing this, I will reduce the ban to two weeks and even then I believe reluctantly. The core contention for me is the fact that DaveG not only posted the rules, but also highlighted the exact part which he then violated in bold print.

I understand this was the biggest issue for you. However please realise I was highlighting the rule because I thought verbally linking a price to a bricks and morter store (I mean what other way can you link to a retailer price if not available on-line) was within the rules. Do you honestly think that I would break said rule, then quote the rule, then highlight that particular section in bold.

Thanks for reducing the ban but, to be honest, speaking as a mod, I don't think you should have banned me at all. A simple PM or post outlining your stance would have been enough. Even a warning, imo, would have sufficed. I still think what I did was not wrong.

At the end of the day my post was not meant to be belittling to the seller (and maybe it came accross that way but that was not my intention). I was not trying to spoil his thread. All I was trying to say was I'll offer €5 as a retailer is selling the same product for €10. He was overpricing his product.

Can I take it you'll be applying the same law to everyone Lemming as I see this happening an awful lot. Not that I agree with the rule but if your going to make the rule apply to me then it should apply to everyone.

Fighting Irish

fight

I agree though, the ban was harsh and so was the lenght of the ban, this is why i think ban lengths should be put in place so EVERYONE who breaks a rule gets the same length ban as other people who break that rule

Lemming

daveg wrote:

I understand this was the biggest issue for you. However please realise I was highlighting the rule because I thought verbally linking a price to a bricks and morter store (I mean what other way can you link to a retailer price if not available on-line) was within the rules. Do you honestly think that I would break said rule, then quote the rule, then highlight that particular section in bold.

Thanks for reducing the ban but, to be honest, speaking as a mod, I don't think you should have banned me at all. A simple PM or post outlining your stance would have been enough. Even a warning, imo, would have sufficed. I still think what I did was not wrong.

At the end of the day my post was not meant to be belittling to the seller (and maybe it came accross that way but that was not my intention). I was not trying to spoil his thread. All I was trying to say was I'll offer €5 as a retailer is selling the same product for €10. He was overpricing his product.

Can I take it you'll be applying the same law to everyone Lemming as I see this happening an awful lot. Not that I agree with the rule but if your going to make the rule apply to me then it should apply to everyone.

I'm going to raise this issue with the other FS mods DaveG and see what the general consensus is regarding b&m price-"linkage" for want of a better term. I can see your reasoning, but at the same time I can't ignore the unsubstanciated claim.

Pending what they say the ban will stay enforced.

rubadub

Lemming wrote:

Excuse me? Who the f*ck do you think you are? No I am not on a power-trip f*ck you very much.

Classic stuff, just what I would expect!


Shouldnt there be a big bold statement in the For sale charter.
"Common sense is not tolerated in any way shape or form here"

Raiser

.....There only one person looking just a tad unreasonable, petty and fanatical on this thread.....

super_furry

Golden Discs have many UMDs for sale at a €10 each. I believe it's €10 each or six for €50.

Hobart

In defence of the Mod that called it, the for sale forum is one of the busiest area's and with all the messing and heartache of the past, it does need to be moderated quite strictly.

Having said that Dave really did nothing wrong (imo) and the area is, at best, grey. I don't see somebody quoting a rule and breaking it in the same breath, even if they are bubbles.

I think there is an issue over the "your a mod and you should know better" stance which was originally taken. We (Mods) go out of our way to show and enforce that Mods are treated no differently than any other users, on the boards we moderate. Yet here you are treating a user differently, because he is a mod.

I know you have reconsidered your decision, and fair play to you.

I just wonder would you have been so eager to do so if Asok had not posted his views on this.

daveg

super_furry wrote:

Golden Discs have many UMDs for sale at a €10 each. I believe it's €10 each or six for €50.

Regardless of the outcome of my ban I think this rule needs to be re-looked at. I don't think it's fair to discriminate against "bricks and morter" shops as opposed to on-line shops. I know there is the muppet element to consider where potential buyers would claim "I saw that in X shop for Y price". As super_furry as stated above my claim was correct. Fúck it, if it comes to it Lemming I'll go into Golden Discs and take a digital camera shot of the price.

RotalicaV

DaveG for president, lemming is an idiot.

You're forever pulling out your e-cock lemming, when no one wants to see it.

DublinWriter

RotalicaV wrote:

You're forever pulling out your e-cock lemming, when no one wants to see it.

Quote of the Month!

daveg

Hobart wrote:

In defence of the Mod that called it, the for sale forum is one of the busiest area's and with all the messing and heartache of the past, it does need to be moderated quite strictly.

I 100% agree with this. I wouldn't fancy modding FS forums tbh.

Hobart wrote:

Having said that Dave really did nothing wrong (imo) and the area is, at best, grey. I don't see somebody quoting a rule and breaking it in the same breath, even if they are bubbles.

I think there is an issue over the "your a mod and you should know better" stance which was originally taken. We (Mods) go out of our way to show and enforce that Mods are treated no differently than any other users, on the boards we moderate. Yet here you are treating a user differently, because he is a mod.

This what pissed me off the most. In my 5 years or so posting on boards I've never being banned before. I'm not a muppet (some may disagree). I'll be honest with you here I was so pissed I was going to resign as mod over this issue. I feel I did nothing wrong and had I been a regular user I rekon I would have got a warning/1 week ban at most.

rubadub

Hobart wrote:

the area is, at best, grey.

No, black & white and apparently no common sense is allowed when moderating FS forums.

daveg wrote:

if it comes to it Lemming I'll go into Golden Discs and take a digital camera shot of the price.

Then the gob****e will be claiming photoshopping and ban you even longer!

Hobart

Folks,

the "beat Lemming across the head with words" type posts are childish and will result in bannage. Why don't ye all stfu?

Beruthiel

RotalicaV wrote:

DaveG for president, lemming is an idiot.

You're forever pulling out your e-cock lemming, when no one wants to see it.

banned from feedback


isn't it great the way a mod gets nothing but abuse for all the hard work they do, lemming has to do more than most of us, yet gets no thanks for it.

the rest of ye better start giving some proper feedback or this won't be the last banning.

Flush Phill

Beruthiel wrote:

it's it great the way a mod gets nothing but abuse for all the hard work they do, lemming has to do more than most of us, yet gets no thanks for it.

What about all the good things hitler did?

Raiser

Over-zealous modding seems to be growing rampantly on www.boards.ie. Of course Mods need to apply the rules to encourage threads to stay on topic & within the prescribed limits of their charter. This is great - all of the charters are carefully drafted to promote healthy, interesting posting of information, debate or whatever else it is that combines to make www.boards.ie so justifiably popular.

Where it then seems to go wrong is in the case of the very regular and unfortunate instances of banning threats and "jackboot modding" [usually mods own egos in my experience] or when the charter gets turned against people in a spirit apart from the one in which it was originally drafted. That is to say that the charter is there to make the site great for everyone - not to be used in a petty way to find obscure, convoluted reasons to ban them.

Finally, good judgement is a prerequisite - one that was sorely lacking in this instance [in my opinion] & this is unfortunately quite common among a certain group of www.boards.ie Mods. This website is not serving you Mods, you are not tolerating the posters - yet at times you like to grimace and act like this is the case, and threaten bannings with feigned weariness and a pretence of not enjoying it.

Post-script - as for the accused, I recommend an admission of misjudgment, an apology and a brisk desertion of a sinking ship, pick up your pride on the next business day.