Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Change the no-pm rule on the for sale forum

  • 15-03-2006 06:01PM
    #1
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭


    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.
    Post edited by Shield on


«1

Comments

  • #2
    RuggieBear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,958 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #3
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #4
    RuggieBear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,958 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #5
    WizZard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,762 ✭✭✭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.


  • #6
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    stevenmu
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #8
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #9
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,157 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #10
    Giblet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,998 ✭✭✭✭Giblet


    Not reading the charter is a bannable offence.


  • #11
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #13
    WhiteWashMan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #14
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,157 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #15
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #16
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,157 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #17
    WizZard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,762 ✭✭✭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.


  • #18
    CuLT
    Subscribers Posts: 9,716 ✭✭✭CuLT


    No.


  • #19
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭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? :confused:
    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.


  • #20
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,157 ✭✭✭✭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? :confused:

    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.


  • #21
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭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:


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    GoneShootin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,478 ✭✭✭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?


  • #23
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,522 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #24
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #25
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #26
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #27
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #28
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,522 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #29
    tSubh Dearg
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 5,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #30
    GoneShootin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,478 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Talliesin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭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.


  • #32
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,157 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • #33
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #34
    Talliesin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    Talliesin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭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?


  • #36
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    GoneShootin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,478 ✭✭✭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!!"


  • #38
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,157 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,157 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,157 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    GoneShootin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,478 ✭✭✭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 :p
    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.


  • #46
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,522 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


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


  • #48
    irlrobins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,541 ✭✭✭irlrobins


    amptest.jpg


  • #49
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,522 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #51
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement