Newly-implemented changes to the Classifieds Rules. Please have a look!

[SpAmRaY]

Will we be seeing any new rules/regulations on vendors/group buys etc?

[IPT]

I like almost all of it, with the exception of the final paragraph:

A note about making profit on reselling goods:
The classifieds subforum is a perk of community membership. It is not a retail outlet or a resource to be deliberately exploited for profit; you are encouraged to buy, sell, and trade more or less at cost. That said, reasonable profit on sales and trades cannot in practice be stopped and is not disallowed. Please use good judgment and discretion.  Remember that other forum members are not customers -- they're friends, fellow hobbyists, and community members. Posting huge markups on items (while not forbidden) is generally frowned upon by other members and may have social consequences on the forum. Polite discussion of prices in the Classifieds is encouraged (particularly in this thread) to help both buyers and sellers arrive at a fair price.

If you wish to respond to someone's listing and point out constructively and politely that the average sale price of an item is lower than what they chose, you may do so, but do include references.  Any personal insults or aggression in price arguments may be subject to moderator action, potentially including muting or banning of participants."

The line: '[the classifieds] is not to be deliberately exploited for profit; you are encouraged to buy, sell and trade more or less at cost.'

To me, and others, this sets a bad tone. The rest of the preceding document sets up rules, a policy. This entire paragraph amounts to more of a manifesto than a policy. The use of the word 'exploited' casts users who seek a profit in a negative light, which doesn't help the document outline a policy. This line is then followed up by: 'That said, reasonable profit on sales and trades cannot in practice be stopped and is not disallowed.' Again, the subtext is negative: "The owners of the forum would really like to police sellers to make sure they don't make a profit, but we don't have the technology to get deep enough inside everyone's intestines to do so. But we really wish we could."

It feels like we installed an in-ground pool, and put up a sign that says: 'No Splashing, No Urinating in the Pool, Fun Should Be Kept to a Minimum.*'
* That said, reasonable 'fun' in the pool cannot in practice be stopped and is not disallowed.

Let's stick to the facts -- don't pee in the pool, don't splash. Leave out the manifesto stuff. Or just get rid of the pool entirely.

The language about forums members being more than just customers, great. The bits about public, polite and constructive discussion of prices, the possible social consequences of elevated prices, that's all great -- very good ideas. But the slant on the first part will leave a bad taste in people's mouths, and it will hurt the forum.

How about this:

The classifieds subforum is a perk of community membership. Remember that other forum members are not only customers -- they are friends, fellow hobbyists, and community members. Posting huge markups on items (while not forbidden) is generally frowned upon by other members and may have social consequences on the forum. Polite discussion of prices in the Classifieds is encouraged (particularly in [link]this thread) to help both buyers and sellers arrive at a fair price.

Comments in sales threads are now not only allowed but encouraged, so long as they are relevant (to the sale), constructive and polite. This includes discussions of price, the condition of the items, the provision of photographs, etc. Personal insults, aggression (passive or overt) in sales threads (by anyone, including the seller) will be subject to moderator action. Citing previous sales is encouraged. Complaints about large markups and 'price gouging' will receive the sympathy of moderators but no action will be taken.

Shorter and more focused on the policy. It doesn't enshrine capitalism as a 'Force for Good' and it doesn't make the self-flagellating socialist percentage of this community into superstars.

agree with krogenar here, especially this line

Posting huge markups on items (while not forbidden) is generally frowned upon by other members and may have social consequences on the forum

So we're gonna have the forum karma hit squad go nuts on you in other forum topics if you're selling something higher than what they deem is fair market value?

[SpAmRaY]

agree with krogenar here, especially this line

Posting huge markups on items (while not forbidden) is generally frowned upon by other members and may have social consequences on the forum

So we're gonna have the forum karma hit squad go nuts on you in other forum topics if you're selling something higher than what they deem is fair market value?

That already happens now, I mean the pitchforks haven't been out too much lately but the usual hecklers come out pretty regularly.

[Melvang]

Might there be a possibility of getting a subsection for sales where all proceeds will go to GH?

[Krogenar]

So we're gonna have the forum karma hit squad go nuts on you in other forum topics if you're selling something higher than what they deem is fair market value?

I don't think the mods could be expected to control people's emotions on whether a price was too high. It is stupid for third parties to be upset about transactions in which no one claims injury. There are people on GeekHack who seethe when someone sells a $40 Clack for $200. The buyer and seller are both fine with it, but these third parties are enraged.

Let them be enraged -- it's their right. They should be allowed to express their righteous fury in a polite and constructive way.*

Might there be a possibility of getting a subsection for sales where all proceeds will go to GH?

Why? Would the rules be any different?

*Expressions of righteous fury may have social consequences on the forum.

[IPT]

So we're gonna have the forum karma hit squad go nuts on you in other forum topics if you're selling something higher than what they deem is fair market value?

I don't think the mods could be expected to control people's emotions on whether a price was too high. It is stupid for third parties to be upset about transactions in which no one claims injury. There are people on GeekHack who seethe when someone sells a $40 Clack for $200. The buyer and seller are both fine with it, but these third parties are enraged.

Let them be enraged -- it's their right. They should be allowed to express their righteous fury in a polite and constructive way.*

*Expressions of righteous fury may have social consequences on the forum.

agree with krogenar here, especially this line

Posting huge markups on items (while not forbidden) is generally frowned upon by other members and may have social consequences on the forum

So we're gonna have the forum karma hit squad go nuts on you in other forum topics if you're selling something higher than what they deem is fair market value?

That already happens now, I mean the pitchforks haven't been out too much lately but the usual hecklers come out pretty regularly.

yeah but im saying they're basically condoning this pitchforking now.
Its kinda silly.  Also does this count as constructive posting in the sale thread then? 

Seriously should just close classified on GH and let those karma****s be happy to circlejerk themselves.

[Krogenar]

yeah but im saying they're basically condoning this pitchforking now.
Its kinda silly.  Also does this count as constructive posting in the sale thread then? 
Seriously should just close classified on GH and let those karma****s be happy to circlejerk themselves.

If you bought CC (or anything else) for $40 and then try to resell it for $200, I would consider these comments to be constructive and relevant."

"This item normally sells for $40 -- why are you selling it for $200?"
Possible responses: "That's what it's worth to me." or "Yes, $40 versions of this product are available. This one I found and cleaned and refurbished and/or is special in some way."

"Always check the connectors on this -- this model is notorious for having wiring problems. Can the seller confirm that the cord is working?" Possible responses: Silence, or a guarantee that it was tested and works. A photo of the area of concern, etc. If the seller ignores relevant questions, well, that speaks volumes doesn't it?

Add rude comments to these statements, and they're out. I think the ToS requires basic civility, right?

Give me an example of "pitchforking"? Give me an actual statement from someone - is it rude, or is it just an upsetting statement of fact? Or both?

[samwisekoi]

Good rules.  Thanks for doing this.

 - Ron | samwisekoi

Disclaimer: I am not a moderator, and was not involved with the creation or publication of these new TOS.  This post is just me liking them. 

[Melvang]

yeah but im saying they're basically condoning this pitchforking now.
Its kinda silly.  Also does this count as constructive posting in the sale thread then? 
Seriously should just close classified on GH and let those karma****s be happy to circlejerk themselves.

If you bought CC (or anything else) for $40 and then try to resell it for $200, I would consider these comments to be constructive and relevant."

"This item normally sells for $40 -- why are you selling it for $200?"
Possible responses: "That's what it's worth to me." or "Yes, $40 versions of this product are available. This one I found and cleaned and refurbished and/or is special in some way."

"Always check the connectors on this -- this model is notorious for having wiring problems. Can the seller confirm that the cord is working?" Possible responses: Silence, or a guarantee that it was tested and works. A photo of the area of concern, etc. If the seller ignores relevant questions, well, that speaks volumes doesn't it?

Add rude comments to these statements, and they're out. I think the ToS requires basic civility, right?

Give me an example of "pitchforking"? Give me an actual statement from someone - is it rude, or is it just an upsetting statement of fact? Or both?

I think the issue with the massive upcharges is that some people know they are orignally sold for $40 but are of very limited quantity in said color scheme ergo no new ones are being sold for $40.  That would be like someone getting butthurt for a painstakingly accurate restored 1969 Yenko Camaro being sold for $50,000+ when window price was was around $4,000.

[SpAmRaY]

Give me an example of "pitchforking"? Give me an actual statement from someone - is it rude, or is it just an upsetting statement of fact? Or both?

I would say both, but more than that its the mentality that when one person decides to be negative then all their buddies (you know GH is made up of cliques, they are like girls who always have to go to the bathroom together) decide to come and bash the person/thread also and sometimes it can be awful/hateful PM's as well.

[Krogenar]

Give me an example of "pitchforking"? Give me an actual statement from someone - is it rude, or is it just an upsetting statement of fact? Or both?

I would say both, but more than that its the mentality that when one person decides to be negative then all their buddies (you know GH is made up of cliques, they are like girls who always have to go to the bathroom together) decide to come and bash the person/thread also and sometimes it can be awful/hateful PM's as well.

Hateful PMs -- are they covered under the ToS in regards to civility? If so, people who receive hateful PMs should report them to the moderating team. And yeah, I've noticed there's a Mean Girls sort of thing here sometimes. I think the "social cost" phrase is a mostly useless reminder of what should be obvious.

"Picking your nose to a depth of two knuckles during a date may reduce your chance of receiving a goodnight kiss."

But to continue the Mean Girls thing, "Wearing knockoff Ugg boots (heretofore to be known as "Fuggs") could reduce your social standing. Maybe outside observers won't realize that sort of thing, I dunno.

[hashbaz]

The line: '[the classifieds] is not to be deliberately exploited for profit; you are encouraged to buy, sell and trade more or less at cost.'

To me, and others, this sets a bad tone. The rest of the preceding document sets up rules, a policy. This entire paragraph amounts to more of a manifesto than a policy. The use of the word 'exploited' casts users who seek a profit in a negative light, which doesn't help the document outline a policy. This line is then followed up by: 'That said, reasonable profit on sales and trades cannot in practice be stopped and is not disallowed.' Again, the subtext is negative: "The owners of the forum would really like to police sellers to make sure they don't make a profit, but we don't have the technology to get deep enough inside everyone's intestines to do so. But we really wish we could."

People _have_ exploited the classifieds though, e.g., winning a Clack in an EK auction and flipping it for a huge markup before it even arrives.  I think 'resource to be exploited' is a fair description of that kind of behavior, and it's also fair to state that we, the forum staff, do not want the classifieds to be used in this way.  The rules don't explicitly prohibit that behavior, but we wish you wouldn't do it, and are warning you that others do not like it and will hold it against you.  I think you're reading too much into what's written about our feelings about what we _wish_ we could do.

[IPT]

yeah but im saying they're basically condoning this pitchforking now.
Its kinda silly.  Also does this count as constructive posting in the sale thread then? 
Seriously should just close classified on GH and let those karma****s be happy to circlejerk themselves.

If you bought CC (or anything else) for $40 and then try to resell it for $200, I would consider these comments to be constructive and relevant."

"This item normally sells for $40 -- why are you selling it for $200?"
Possible responses: "That's what it's worth to me." or "Yes, $40 versions of this product are available. This one I found and cleaned and refurbished and/or is special in some way."

"Always check the connectors on this -- this model is notorious for having wiring problems. Can the seller confirm that the cord is working?" Possible responses: Silence, or a guarantee that it was tested and works. A photo of the area of concern, etc. If the seller ignores relevant questions, well, that speaks volumes doesn't it?

Add rude comments to these statements, and they're out. I think the ToS requires basic civility, right?

Give me an example of "pitchforking"? Give me an actual statement from someone - is it rude, or is it just an upsetting statement of fact? Or both?

I was gonna go back to my posts as i recall i said someone was threadcrapping a few days ago but I see a moderator already deleted it.


Regarding the profit/not profit markup claims:

What if im gonna sell my EK Grey CC?  I list it for $140.  I can assure you i'll get messages saying im profitering and what not and why am i trying to sell an EK Clack for so much of a markup.  To me I know I'm not selling it at a markup, but you can't convince those who refuse to be convinced otherwise.

The line: '[the classifieds] is not to be deliberately exploited for profit; you are encouraged to buy, sell and trade more or less at cost.'

To me, and others, this sets a bad tone. The rest of the preceding document sets up rules, a policy. This entire paragraph amounts to more of a manifesto than a policy. The use of the word 'exploited' casts users who seek a profit in a negative light, which doesn't help the document outline a policy. This line is then followed up by: 'That said, reasonable profit on sales and trades cannot in practice be stopped and is not disallowed.' Again, the subtext is negative: "The owners of the forum would really like to police sellers to make sure they don't make a profit, but we don't have the technology to get deep enough inside everyone's intestines to do so. But we really wish we could."

People _have_ exploited the classifieds though, e.g., winning a Clack in an EK auction and flipping it for a huge markup before it even arrives.  I think 'resource to be exploited' is a fair description of that kind of behavior, and it's also fair to state that we, the forum staff, do not want the classifieds to be used in this way.  The rules don't explicitly prohibit that behavior, but we wish you wouldn't do it, and are warning you that others do not like it and will hold it against you.  I think you're reading too much into what's written about our feelings about what we _wish_ we could do.

so yeah what you're saying is you're giving the OK for others to bad mouthing and ganging up on someone who is gonna sell for profit or at a price the collective group doesn't believe in.

[Photoelectric]

No, if you read the rules carefully, there's never an okay for rudeness and bad-mouthing, nor is there room for it in the current ToS.  If you look at it from all directions, the bit about Profit is just a statement of the fact: we can't control prices as moderators, we can't verify prices for every item, and we can only moderate based on behavior and specifically breaking rules.  Yes, there are social consequences from overpricing--that's what it's like to be a human in a society of other humans--we're not just making it up to encourage some pitchfork mobs.  It's going to happen anyway, and we can only deal with results.  Imagine if we said "no profit"--how are we going to police that?  Imagine the amount of pitchfork mobs happening then, trying to argue every other ad with something like "you said 'at cost', but charging $3 more for it".  There are reasons for the wording being what it is, and not everyone is going to agree with it.  But we have to think as moderators and administrators for the greater benefit of the community.

[IPT]

No, if you read the rules carefully, there's never an okay for rudeness and bad-mouthing, nor is there room for it in the current ToS.  If you look at it from all directions, the bit about Profit is just a statement of the fact: we can't control prices as moderators, we can't verify prices for every item, and we can only moderate based on behavior and specifically breaking rules.  Yes, there are social consequences from overpricing--that's what it's like to be a human in a society of other humans--we're not just making it up to encourage some pitchfork mobs.  It's going to happen anyway, and we can only deal with results.  Imagine if we said "no profit"--how are we going to police that?  Imagine the amount of pitchfork mobs happening then, trying to argue every other ad with something like "you said 'at cost', but charging $3 more for it".  There are reasons for the wording being what it is, and not everyone is going to agree with it.  But we have to think as moderators and administrators for the greater benefit of the community.

so instead of taking a stand and also saying pitchfork mob mentality/comments will not be tolerated, its an open warning that it will happen and we'll look into it, but maybe not and be ready to take on the pitchfork mob?

I'm just saying the wording seems to condone the fact that pitchfork mobbing will happen and really its your fault if it does happen because you tried to profit.

[Melvang]

No, if you read the rules carefully, there's never an okay for rudeness and bad-mouthing, nor is there room for it in the current ToS.  If you look at it from all directions, the bit about Profit is just a statement of the fact: we can't control prices as moderators, we can't verify prices for every item, and we can only moderate based on behavior and specifically breaking rules.  Yes, there are social consequences from overpricing--that's what it's like to be a human in a society of other humans--we're not just making it up to encourage some pitchfork mobs.  It's going to happen anyway, and we can only deal with results.  Imagine if we said "no profit"--how are we going to police that?  Imagine the amount of pitchfork mobs happening then, trying to argue every other ad with something like "you said 'at cost', but charging $3 more for it".  There are reasons for the wording being what it is, and not everyone is going to agree with it.  But we have to think as moderators and administrators for the greater benefit of the community.

so instead of taking a stand and also saying pitchfork mob mentality/comments will not be tolerated, its an open warning that it will happen and we'll look into it, but maybe not and be ready to take on the pitchfork mob?

I'm just saying the wording seems to condone the fact that pitchfork mobbing will happen and really its your fault if it does happen because you tried to profit.

That actually seems pretty fair so long as comments are made to be personal attacks.  So, long as it is the same for everybody.

My question is this. 

Will raffle type sales still be allowed?

[jdcarpe]

It's always about Clacks with you guys, isn't it?

The forum staff has a position, and it's stated in the new rules. It is what it is.

[IPT]

It's always about Clacks with you guys, isn't it?

The forum staff has a position, and it's stated in the new rules. It is what it is.

fine same example back when I was selling Filco keyboards
I was attacked for overpricing my keyboards compared to Amazon/keyboard co prices even though they didn't have the specific filco switch models in stock.
Same principal.  Its just easier to use clacks as the example now because that's what gets jimmies worked up.

Or we can talk about the black realforce with white/grey caps classified thread last week, where our comments disappeared from.

And how can it always be about clacks to me?  Look at my post history if you feel like it.
I've sold clacks once on these forums, WASD and Arrow cluster like 3 years ago.

[Photoelectric]

so instead of taking a stand and also saying pitchfork mob mentality/comments will not be tolerated, its an open warning that it will happen and we'll look into it, but maybe not and be ready to take on the pitchfork mob?

I'm just saying the wording seems to condone the fact that pitchfork mobbing will happen and really its your fault if it does happen because you tried to profit.

Again, it's all right there in the new Rules and the ToS:

• Discussion in sale threads
  All discussion in the Classifieds threads should be limited to direct questions regarding items for sale/trade, shipping & handling inquiries, or relevant polite and constructive comments about sellers (such as if you suspect a dishonest seller) and prices, and corresponding answers.

[...]

• A note about making profit on reselling goods:
  [...]
  If you wish to respond to someone's listing and point out constructively and politely that the average sale price of an item is lower than what they chose, you may do so, but do include references.  Any personal insults or aggression in price arguments may be subject to moderator action, potentially including muting or banning of participants."

NOTE: You must agree to these TOS (Terms of Service) before using GeekHack Forums
[...]
Personal Attacks - Personal attacks often lead to the trading of insults, and can throw the discussion of a legitimate topic off-track.  Personal attacks are defined as issuing a single or repeated personal attack or attacks aimed at another member, rather than at their opinions or ideas.  Criticizing a member's post is not considered a personal attack, but using terms that are derogatory, or designed to discredit a member is not permitted   Furthermore, comments of a racist or sexist nature, as well as derogatory comments about national origin or sexual orientation, will be dealt with harshly, up to and including a ban from the forums.


Trolling - Trolling can be defined as when a member posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent or consequence of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Trolling can also be accomplished by harassing another member by following them through various threads, creating threads directed at another member or group of members, or intentionally creating the same thread in various forums despite being warned or told to post in the correct forum.  Members who feel they are being "trolled" should contact a moderator immediately, as this is the only effective way to prevent this behavior.

[jdcarpe]

So you guys would be okay with the following scenario?

1. WASDkeyboards gets limited stock of ten (10) CODE Keyboard w/Clears. Sells @ $150.
2. jdcarpe uses his savings to buy 10x CODE w/clears @ $150/ea. $1500.
3. jdcarpe sells each CODE for $250, because they are no longer available anywhere, but market demand is high. $2500.
4. jdcarpe makes 67% ROI in just a few days by taking advantage of a niche marketplace.

So that is okay?

Forum staff is tired of opportunists seeing forum members as their personal "wallet" when they need to make quick cash.

[IPT]

So you guys would be okay with the following scenario?

1. WASDkeyboards gets limited stock of ten (10) CODE Keyboard w/Clears. Sells @ $150.
2. jdcarpe uses his savings to buy 10x CODE w/clears @ $150/ea. $1500.
3. jdcarpe sells each CODE for $250, because they are no longer available anywhere, but market demand is high. $2500.
4. jdcarpe makes 67% ROI in just a few days by taking advantage of a niche marketplace.

So that is okay?

Forum staff is tired of opportunists seeing forum members as their personal "wallet" when they need to make quick cash.

So by not allowing this on GH, how are you stopping any of these steps?

What happens if the following:

jdcarpe posts on say OCN/[H] forums/Reddit or eBay/Craigslist etc and people post in great finds or bring it up in a thread on GH?
Or someone who's a member at GH goes to these said forums and ends up buying the keyboard because its hyped at GH
jdcarpe still makes his 67% ROI in a few days by taking advantage of a niche marketplace.

What im saying is this doesn't stop your point of profiteering off of a niche market.  The fact is if something's in high demand and discussed on GH, its most likely going to cause people to go buy it at overpriced cost.  Allowing it on Geekhack or not doesn't change the fact its going to happen.

Not to mention i guarantee you the way this is going to be now is people are going to put up items at a high set price or say for trade.
Or if someone's looking for specific item, someone's gonna PM him/her and offer them the item at the high price as its what the "market" dictates.
you're gonna end up having offers given through PMs and sold at above your market prices.  This is not going to stop profiteering.

[jdcarpe]

So you guys would be okay with the following scenario?

1. WASDkeyboards gets limited stock of ten (10) CODE Keyboard w/Clears. Sells @ $150.
2. jdcarpe uses his savings to buy 10x CODE w/clears @ $150/ea. $1500.
3. jdcarpe sells each CODE for $250, because they are no longer available anywhere, but market demand is high. $2500.
4. jdcarpe makes 67% ROI in just a few days by taking advantage of a niche marketplace.

So that is okay?

Forum staff is tired of opportunists seeing forum members as their personal "wallet" when they need to make quick cash.

So by not allowing this on GH, how are you stopping any of these steps?

What happens if the following:

jdcarpe posts on say OCN/[H] forums/Reddit or eBay/Craigslist etc and people post in great finds or bring it up in a thread on GH?
Or someone who's a member at GH goes to these said forums and ends up buying the keyboard because its hyped at GH
jdcarpe still makes his 67% ROI in a few days by taking advantage of a niche marketplace.

What im saying is this doesn't stop your point of profiteering off of a niche market.  The fact is if something's in high demand and discussed on GH, its most likely going to cause people to go buy it at overpriced cost.  Allowing it on Geekhack or not doesn't change the fact its going to happen.

Not to mention i guarantee you the way this is going to be now is people are going to put up items at a high set price or say for trade.
Or if someone's looking for specific item, someone's gonna PM him/her and offer them the item at the high price as its what the "market" dictates.
you're gonna end up having offers given through PMs and sold at above your market prices.  This is not going to stop profiteering.

Regardless of your philosophical stance, which I don't agree with obviously, I don't care what goes on on other forums. I care about what goes on at GH. That is the difference.

[Krogenar]

The forum staff has a position, and it's stated in the new rules. It is what it is.

The point of this thread was to discuss the new rules, right? Or was the thread title changed?

No, if you read the rules carefully, there's never an okay for rudeness and bad-mouthing, nor is there room for it in the current ToS.  If you look at it from all directions, the bit about Profit is just a statement of the fact: we can't control prices as moderators, we can't verify prices for every item, and we can only moderate based on behavior and specifically breaking rules.  Yes, there are social consequences from overpricing--that's what it's like to be a human in a society of other humans--we're not just making it up to encourage some pitchfork mobs.  It's going to happen anyway, and we can only deal with results.  Imagine if we said "no profit"--how are we going to police that?  Imagine the amount of pitchfork mobs happening then, trying to argue every other ad with something like "you said 'at cost', but charging $3 more for it".

You're right Photo -- so why make a philosophical statement of wanting to eradicate profit in the first place? All that achieves is a chilling effect on economic activity. State the rules, not "positions". State what will happen, not what we'd like to happen.

The line: '[the classifieds] is not to be deliberately exploited for profit; you are encouraged to buy, sell and trade more or less at cost.'

To me, and others, this sets a bad tone. The rest of the preceding document sets up rules, a policy. This entire paragraph amounts to more of a manifesto than a policy. The use of the word 'exploited' casts users who seek a profit in a negative light, which doesn't help the document outline a policy. This line is then followed up by: 'That said, reasonable profit on sales and trades cannot in practice be stopped and is not disallowed.' Again, the subtext is negative: "The owners of the forum would really like to police sellers to make sure they don't make a profit, but we don't have the technology to get deep enough inside everyone's intestines to do so. But we really wish we could."

People _have_ exploited the classifieds though, e.g., winning a Clack in an EK auction and flipping it for a huge markup before it even arrives.  I think 'resource to be exploited' is a fair description of that kind of behavior, and it's also fair to state that we, the forum staff, do not want the classifieds to be used in this way.  The rules don't explicitly prohibit that behavior, but we wish you wouldn't do it, and are warning you that others do not like it and will hold it against you.  I think you're reading too much into what's written about our feelings about what we _wish_ we could do.

This language achieves nothing except a chilling effect on economic activity. How is someone supposed to know how much profit is too much? Maybe they should sell it at a loss, just to be safe? No, they won't do that -- they'll go someplace else, get the price that they want, and that's a little less activity for GH. Keyboards and keycaps go outside the GH community, or, even worse, they remain unsold, get dropped into closets and forgotten. People searching for unique, or rare items will find them in some other manner. Likely, these transactions that so twist the panties of some community members will just happen under the table. So nothing is achieved except less traffic for GH, less openness, less expression.

It's "fair" for the GH staff to word this any way they want. I don't think this wording is wise. The rest of the document is generally excellent. The new policy on open discussion of market pricing is the single best thing to come out of it. But this last bit sets a very negative tone. Under the new policy, the aggrieved third partiers could warn people: "Those are won in a lottery for $40! Don't pay $150!" all they like, and if the buyer still goes ahead -- where's the harm? There is no harm, except to the delicate constitutions of the third partiers.

Or just ban Classifieds entirely -- then you really could eliminate all economic "exploitation". So the statement of their inability to root out all exploitative profit is a lie. The staff could eliminate all exploitative profits at GH, but they don't have the courage to ban Classifieds.

[jdcarpe]

It's always about Clacks with you guys, isn't it?

The forum staff has a position, and it's stated in the new rules. It is what it is.

The point of this thread was to discuss the new rules, right? Or was the thread title changed?

Exactly. So why the debate on a statement of fact? Let's talk about rules.

[IPT]

Regardless of your philosophical stance, which I don't agree with obviously, I don't care what goes on on other forums. I care about what goes on at GH. That is the difference.

but it'll happen on GH just out of your sight.
Or do you deny deals are done in PMs?

The rules should be fair on both sides.
Set a price, but don't be threadcrapping about the price.
You personally condone threadcrapping about prices as you don't view it as threadcrapping.

[Krogenar]

Exactly. So why the debate on a statement of fact? Let's talk about rules.

To what fact are your referring?

[SpAmRaY]

Exactly. So why the debate on a statement of fact? Let's talk about rules.

Will we be seeing any new rules/regulations on vendors/group buys etc?

^^

[Photoelectric]

Will we be seeing any new rules/regulations on vendors/group buys etc?

^^

This thread is about the Classifieds Rules only.  Other things will come at a later date.

[hashbaz]

The rules should be fair on both sides.
Set a price, but don't be threadcrapping about the price.
You personally condone threadcrapping about prices as you don't view it as threadcrapping.

Can you define threadcrap?  Is it any criticism of the seller or his/her asking price?

[jdcarpe]

Exactly. So why the debate on a statement of fact? Let's talk about rules.

To what fact are your referring?

The FACT that forum staff discourages profiteering off our forum members. I mean that's a FACT, bro.

[Krogenar]

The rules should be fair on both sides.
Set a price, but don't be threadcrapping about the price.
You personally condone threadcrapping about prices as you don't view it as threadcrapping.

I don't think it would be in violation of ToS to point out that you think a price is high. If you do it in an insulting, rude way, then yes, you've broken ToS. Being factually correct should be no defense for rudeness. People should be allowed to point out what your markup is and their opinion of that markup. I support that change completely. Sellers who respond to a polite discussion of price with rudeness should face a penalty. Someone shouldn't be able to sell something without any fear of a discussion of their wares and prices.

The declaration that GH is philosophically opposed to profit (but can do nothing about it) weakens the document and create a negative atmosphere not just for "evil" exploiters but ordinary people trying to achieve a "reasonable" profit.

[hashbaz]

This language achieves nothing except a chilling effect on economic activity. How is someone supposed to know how much profit is too much? Maybe they should sell it at a loss, just to be safe? No, they won't do that -- they'll go someplace else, get the price that they want, and that's a little less activity for GH. Keyboards and keycaps go outside the GH community, or, even worse, they remain unsold, get dropped into closets and forgotten. People searching for unique, or rare items will find them in some other manner. Likely, these transactions that so twist the panties of some community members will just happen under the table. So nothing is achieved except less traffic for GH, less openness, less expression

I think it achieves the goal of stating how we want the classifieds to be in practice, above and beyond what the rules require them to be.  We don't want the classifieds to be a pure market.  We want goods to circulate more or less at cost.  Enforcing that is impossible, but we would like that to be the end result, ideally.

[jdcarpe]

The declaration that GH is philosophically opposed to profit (but can do nothing about it) weakens the document and create a negative atmosphere not just for "evil" exploiters but ordinary people trying to achieve a "reasonable" profit.

"Ordinary people" trying to make a "reasonable profit" will most likely be selling their wares in the Artisan Goods forum, and not Classifieds, anyway.

[IPT]

The rules should be fair on both sides.
Set a price, but don't be threadcrapping about the price.
You personally condone threadcrapping about prices as you don't view it as threadcrapping.

Can you define threadcrap?  Is it any criticism of the seller or his/her asking price?

So again as much as it annoys jdcarpe, i'll go back to my clack example
IF I was to sell my EK Grey for $140.00, what do you think the comments would be?
I'd venture to guess i'd get "why are you selling it for $140 when it was XX dollars on sale on EK.  Why are you trying to profiteer off our community!"
or something along those lines
i'd consider those to be threadcrapping comments.

Its as if I personally have to justify why im selling it at $140.  Why should I have to justify what I find is a fair price on this?
And really the only reason im using that as an example is because that's the clack I paid $140 for.
And the history is available for viewing by anyone on GH as where I got that clack from, but i'd assure you it would be met with pitchforking.

Or say i'm selling my Realforce 45g for $200.   Its happened before recently where people'll go "EK had it for $200 so and so ago, and they have the 55g at 200 now so what makes your board special that we should pay $200." when EK is currently selling the 45g for $225 + shipping.

I think those above are all threadcrapping posts.

Now if you're saying i'm selling a filco tkl MX Black for $150 right now, and you come and post a link to keyboardco's amazon page saying its for sale for $140, then fine i have no problem with that.  But when you bring up past sales that aren't relevant now, or just start getting butthurt about prices which i know people do especially on clacks, then i personally think that's threadcrapping and shouldn't be allowed in the classified thread.

[SpAmRaY]

Is the below quoted response considered a threadcrap?

i know how im going to get rich now.

buy a black and white 87u, switch caps, sell them for 70 more "because these don't come standard".

I'M QUITTING MY JOB TOMORROW.

[Krogenar]

Exactly. So why the debate on a statement of fact? Let's talk about rules.

To what fact are your referring?

The FACT that forum staff discourages profiteering off our forum members. I mean that's a FACT, bro.

Discourage how? Through what actions? Right, Mean Girls stuff. Nasty PM's, etc. That language about exploitation, wanting to do something, but not being able to do it, but warning that yeah, we might pillory you if we feel like it? We're gonna get on our single-gear vintage bikes, hook up our growlers full of microbrews and not invite you and you'll be so sorry... it's laughable. Just stick to the policy, not your feelings about profit. It is a FACT that there's a seriously screwed up clique here at GH. I see it more and more.

[hashbaz]

Its as if I personally have to justify why im selling it at $140.

I think you do.  Price is relevant to your sale.  If someone can say why they think it's a terrible price, others reading your thread should know.  If someone attacks you in your sale thread, their posts will be removed.  If they say "this key is available here for half the price", that's legit and will be left alone.

[hashbaz]

Is the below quoted response considered a threadcrap?

i know how im going to get rich now.

buy a black and white 87u, switch caps, sell them for 70 more "because these don't come standard".

I'M QUITTING MY JOB TOMORROW.

I consider it a threadcrap, yes.  In fact I linked this exact post to the other mods right after it happened and said "here's an example of something we'd remove immediately under the new rules".

[Krogenar]

This language achieves nothing except a chilling effect on economic activity. How is someone supposed to know how much profit is too much? Maybe they should sell it at a loss, just to be safe? No, they won't do that -- they'll go someplace else, get the price that they want, and that's a little less activity for GH. Keyboards and keycaps go outside the GH community, or, even worse, they remain unsold, get dropped into closets and forgotten. People searching for unique, or rare items will find them in some other manner. Likely, these transactions that so twist the panties of some community members will just happen under the table. So nothing is achieved except less traffic for GH, less openness, less expression

I think it achieves the goal of stating how we want the classifieds to be in practice, above and beyond what the rules require them to be.  We don't want the classifieds to be a pure market.  We want goods to circulate more or less at cost.  Enforcing that is impossible, but we would like that to be the end result, ideally.

So, let's codify our impotence? Ok, I see your point -- the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter. Ok, but the social consequences clause, the more I read it, seems to give people a tacit go-ahead on being rude to people who break the spirit of these rules. The language feels needlessly hostile.

[IPT]

Its as if I personally have to justify why im selling it at $140.

I think you do.  Price is relevant to your sale.  If someone can say why they think it's a terrible price, others reading your thread should know.  If someone attacks you in your sale thread, their posts will be removed.  If they say "this key is available here for half the price", that's legit and will be left alone.

so wait since this specifically applies to clacks and lets be honest the main complaint about classified profit revolves around clacks, I'd be ok with declaring im selling it at $140 because I paid $140?
You're telling me as long as I put that in my sale thread noone can question me about the price?  Or any posts about that price being a "rip off" will be removed?

If this is how its being moderated, I'd have no problems with that.  But the fact is i've seen in my thread this isn't how its moderated, and the posts were left along and crapped on.
http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=27058.msg509406#msg509406

irony is there's even mention that the same posts were done on OCN and OCN mods removed and warned for threadcrapping.

[hashbaz]

Discourage how? Through what actions?

Discourage by means of a paragraph in the Rules that all newbies read and internalize before they post.

Right, Mean Girls stuff. Nasty PM's, etc. That language about exploitation, wanting to do something, but not being able to do it, but warning that yeah, we might pillory you if we feel like it? We're gonna get on our single-gear vintage bikes, hook up our growlers full of microbrews and not invite you and you'll be so sorry... it's laughable. Just stick to the policy, not your feelings about profit. It is a FACT that there's a seriously screwed up clique here at GH. I see it more and more.

This is not a fair characterization of the Classifieds Manifesto.  I think we'd be ok to take out the "social consequences" line if that feels like it's condoning pitchforking.  But I am not convinced that any of the rest of it has the negative associations or consequences that you are attributing to it.

[Soarer]

So... what has changed since the last draft? Anything much?

[hashbaz]

so wait since this specifically applies to clacks and lets be honest the main complaint about classified profit revolves around clacks, I'd be ok with declaring im selling it at $140 because I paid $140?
You're telling me as long as I put that in my sale thread noone can question me about the price?  Or any posts about that price being a "rip off" will be removed?

If this is how its being moderated, I'd have no problems with that.  But the fact is i've seen in my thread this isn't how its moderated, and the posts were left along and crapped on.
http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=27058.msg509406#msg509406

irony is there's even mention that the same posts were done on OCN and OCN mods removed and warned for threadcrapping.

We are laying the foundation here for being stricter on what is allowed in classified threads, yes.  Baseless accusations, spammy garbage, and meandering side discussions will be nuked without notice.  See the post that spamray referenced a few posts back in this thread.

[Krogenar]

This is not a fair characterization of the Classifieds Manifesto.

Is it really being called a 'Manifesto'?  ) Will the pages be illuminated?  )

I think we'd be ok to take out the "social consequences" line if that feels like it's condoning pitchforking.

That would be great. Thank you for considering removing it. This way, when people inevitably do pitchfork, the moderating staff can hold them just as accountable as sellers who angrily and insultingly attack people who point out relevant information in their sales threads.

But I am not convinced that any of the rest of it has the negative associations or consequences that you are attributing to it.

We'll find out eventually.

[demik]

These rules are bad and you should feel bad!

[jdcarpe]

These rules are bad and you should feel bad!

bad demik

[Moderation Team]

After some discussion among the moderation team, it became clear that the statement on profit was somewhat vague and could be interpreted in ways we did not intend.  Thus that section has been revised, and the latest version is now in the first post.

[riotonthebay]

I appreciate the explicit lack of a stance here

Thank you for listening to and acting on feedback!

[IPT]

btw, just another thing i was thinking about (slow day at work lol)

such as if you suspect a dishonest seller

i know you don't want a blacklist of some sort, so we're ok to maintain our own blacklist so to speak and call out people who have bad records in their threads?

[Photoelectric]

btw, just another thing i was thinking about (slow day at work lol)

such as if you suspect a dishonest seller

i know you don't want a blacklist of some sort, so we're ok to maintain our own blacklist so to speak and call out people who have bad records in their threads?

If you want to point in a constructive manner to a past thread describing a transaction gone bad, sure.  Pointing fingers without proof is not good, however, especially basing opinion on hearsay.  If you did not participate in a transaction that went wrong, you don't really know all the details and both sides of the story--good to keep that in mind.  It's all too easy to slander someone without a solid enough reason.