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

[SpAmRaY]

But will it be considered threadcrapping if we point out something is over priced?

Actually, that is more relevant than all the useless "GLWS" posts.

So if I sold something to someone for say $20 and they try and sell it for $100 is that fair game as well?

[Photoelectric]

Mostly yes, unless done in a very polite, helpful, and constructive manner.  It's up to buyers to do their research and decide if it's worth to pay a certain amount and to bargain with the seller.

[demik]

Can I sell something for the price I paid but charge 400 dollars for shipping?

Fwiw I totally agree with the picture rule. If you have time to sell you have time to take a pic.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Can I sell something for the price I paid but charge 400 dollars for shipping?

Only if you format the FS thread correctly and it isn't an auction...

[Photoelectric]

Extreme cases will always be extreme cases.  One of their properties is that they are uncommon.  Every thread will be dealt with individually.

[Soarer]

How on earth is limiting people to two current sales threads NOT going to lead to messy threads with more items than can be described adequately in the thread title?! The rule even says "1 unified thread is highly encouraged"!! If you also demand that thread titles be reasonably descriptive, you are limiting people to selling perhaps 4 or 5 items. Good luck policing that! Far simpler to just be firm on number of bumps allowed - per user per day - and far simpler to explain and enforce.

ALL the Etiquette is Rules? Well that could be clearer! I suggest removing words like 'please', ' refrain', 'condone', 'encouraged' etc. and replacing them with simpler language such as 'will' and 'cannot', if that's what you mean.

I think some rules could just as well be guidelines (repeated wilful behaviour against any guidelines could still result in moderator action).

[Photoelectric]

Actually those phrases were used for legal reasons, since we cannot tell people what not to do.  We can only regulate what they have done.

Are you saying that people should be listing their entire household all the time?  4-5 items at a time is limiting?  Some things could be combined into "novelty caps" or "keycap sets" and "keyboards".
 
The title is "Classifieds Rules".  It means everything inside is expected behavior.

[SpAmRaY]

Personally I am having much more success selling one item at a time and then closing the thread.

[jdcarpe]

Personally I am having much more success selling one item at a time and then closing the thread.

Yeah, that seems to work better. Then you don't have multiple threads to bump, either.

[SpAmRaY]

Personally I am having much more success selling one item at a time and then closing the thread.

Yeah, that seems to work better. Then you don't have multiple threads to bump, either.

Well I meant versus trying to sell 4 or 5 items at once!!

[demik]

Personally I am having much more success selling one item at a time and then closing the thread.

Yeah, that seems to work better. Then you don't have multiple threads to bump, either.

Pacifist has made the same 3 threads over and over. Multi Threads And Multi bumps is clutter.

[Soarer]

Actually those phrases were used for legal reasons, since we cannot tell people what not to do.  We can only regulate what they have done.

You can preface the list of rules with something like "To comply with our rules and avoid moderation, ...".

Are you saying that people should be listing their entire household all the time? 

Ad absurdum. 

4-5 items at a time is limiting?

Given the number of current combi-threads with crap titles, yes, it clearly would be.

There's nothing wrong with selling a bunch of stuff at once - a seller can't know in advance how quickly things will sell, so selling things sequentially could be tedious.

Just to pick one at random, Selling all my **** has 6 unrelated items that could happily use a thread each in order to get a decent description into the titles.

A limit on bumps per user would be far better, IMO.

Some things could be combined into "novelty caps" or "keycap sets" and "keyboards".

Seriously? That's hardly descriptive anywhere, let alone on a keyboard forum.

The title is "Classifieds Rules".  It means everything inside is expected behavior.

Fine. Just cut out the 'Etiquette' sub-heading then, it's clearly superfluous.

[regack]

Fine. Just cut out the 'Etiquette' sub-heading then, it's clearly superfluous.

I agree with this.  Specifying those items under the 'Thread Etiquette' lightly implies that they are optional accepted behaviour, but not specifically REQUIRED behaviour.

[Soarer]

And, well, etiquette pretty much means 'expected behaviour'

[berserkfan]

TO throw in some ideas:

1) I am working on a big sticky addressing scams now. I feel it isn't good enough so I haven't posted it after several weeks. But newbies are more likely to get scammed than old timers.

2) methinks we need a trade record section in the forums. Where you record, X sold Y to Z at price A, conditions B, mode of payment C. Delivery made within D days. (Or Delivery not made at all within 2 months).
Result: Z satisfied/ unsatisfied/ delighted.

Trade record should be made as soon as payment is made, and updated later.

I am talking to a mod about this now. Basically a trade record section must be extremely dry, objective, point based. No trading of insults. No comments accepted from other parties, unless they had direct involvement (Eg as Proxies). There should be ways to ensure the trade records are easily searchable, so that by 2020 you can go back 6 years and find an ancient trade where X had an unsatisfied buyer.

[ebacho]

TO throw in some ideas:

1) I am working on a big sticky addressing scams now. I feel it isn't good enough so I haven't posted it after several weeks. But newbies are more likely to get scammed than old timers.

2) methinks we need a trade record section in the forums. Where you record, X sold Y to Z at price A, conditions B, mode of payment C. Delivery made within D days. (Or Delivery not made at all within 2 months).
Result: Z satisfied/ unsatisfied/ delighted.

Trade record should be made as soon as payment is made, and updated later.

I am talking to a mod about this now. Basically a trade record section must be extremely dry, objective, point based. No trading of insults. No comments accepted from other parties, unless they had direct involvement (Eg as Proxies). There should be ways to ensure the trade records are easily searchable, so that by 2020 you can go back 6 years and find an ancient trade where X had an unsatisfied buyer.

That's similar to how head-fi does it.  Each feedback has to be linked to a thread/transaction with some comments about how the deal went down (in addition to the normal positive/neutral/negative feedback).  If GH can come up with something like that integrated into the forum it'd be great I think.

[berserkfan]

Another thing that bothers me are the rules against profiteering. I have ranted against profiteering for a long time by now. But even I don't want to cut out the incentive for sellers to make a profit. Otherwise instead of listing here, they list on ebay and geekhackers run up the prices to thousands of dollars.


As suggested in my post above Ebacho's, if we have detailed transaction records, anyone who searches for Wonderful Keyboard X in the Records sections, should be able to run up every Wonderful Keyboard X transaction. He would be able to see the details, and decide how much to price accordingly. This prevents newbies from being too enthusiastic with bidding and running prices up too much.

[Krogenar]

The Classifieds subforum is not provided for the purposes of a resale outlet.  With that said, we cannot monitor everyone’s transaction history effectively, especially outside of GeekHack.org, so some profitable sales / trades will occur.

I hope this language doesn't go into the final Rule List -- it feels somewhat hostile to profit-seekers, who are valuable, creative members of our community and deserve respect. "Some profitable sales / trades will occur" -- the subtext being, "we're so sorry! If we could we would monitor all transactions and root out profit-seekers, but we're not North Korea."

This paragraph just panders to profit martyrs, socialists, and people who think the only worthy hobbyists in the community are the ones who consistently lose money while pursuing the hobby. I hope it's removed from the final document.

[demik]

Little too much fox news in that reply.

[Photoelectric]

That was basically the point of the statement about profiteering in the Rules.  Making a profit is a hot topic that causes drama in the Classifieds consistently.  Just look at the opposing views in this discussion thread even within this same page!  And everyone feels strongly about their respective opinion. 

That is why it was included as a blurb.  A reference on our stance.  We can't really regulate it as moderators.  It is up to members to do their own research, compare prices, ask questions.

[SpAmRaY]

That was basically the point of the statement about profiteering in the Rules.  Making a profit is a hot topic that causes drama in the Classifieds consistently.  Just look at the opposing views in this discussion thread even within this same page!  And everyone feels strongly about their respective opinion. 

That is why it was included as a blurb.  A reference on our stance.  We can't really regulate it as moderators.  It is up to members to do their own research, compare prices, ask questions.

I think part of what krog was referring to is say you have a guy/girl who puts a lot of time and effort into making some sort of specialty cap and maybe it cost him/her $10 to make a cap and they'd like to sell it for $20.

I don't believe that's what your guys were addressing anyway.

[jdcarpe]

That was basically the point of the statement about profiteering in the Rules.  Making a profit is a hot topic that causes drama in the Classifieds consistently.  Just look at the opposing views in this discussion thread even within this same page!  And everyone feels strongly about their respective opinion. 

That is why it was included as a blurb.  A reference on our stance.  We can't really regulate it as moderators.  It is up to members to do their own research, compare prices, ask questions.

I think part of what krog was referring to is say you have a guy/girl who puts a lot of time and effort into making some sort of specialty cap and maybe it cost him/her $10 to make a cap and they'd like to sell it for $20.

I don't believe that's what your guys were addressing anyway.

No, this doesn't have anything to do with an artisan cap crafter selling their wares. Just a blanket statement of the community's philosophy toward those who would tend to "buy low, sell high" to make a profit of their fellow community members.

[riotonthebay]

That was basically the point of the statement about profiteering in the Rules.  Making a profit is a hot topic that causes drama in the Classifieds consistently.  Just look at the opposing views in this discussion thread even within this same page!  And everyone feels strongly about their respective opinion. 

That is why it was included as a blurb.  A reference on our stance.  We can't really regulate it as moderators.  It is up to members to do their own research, compare prices, ask questions.

This is confusing for the same reason that the "Etiquette" subheading is confusing. When Soarer pointed that out, you said: "The title is 'Classifieds Rules'.  It means everything inside is expected behavior." But that statement apparently doesn't apply to "Profit."

For clarity, the document should contain only rules that will be enforced, not opinions or stances that won't.

[Photoelectric]

Correct, that's not what that statement is about.  It's more about buying a spacebar off a member for $10 and reselling it next week for $15.  Or getting a cheap deal on an SSK on Craigslist and reselling here for 3x as much.  Or less extreme: we even have people arguing to no end whether including shipping price in original expenses should count or not, which I believe should be evaluated on a case by case basis. 

In any event, we don't have the resources or people with enough time to go through every single post and research every item, ask people for purchase receipts or invoices, and all that and then moderate based on our findings.  Not only would that require a dedicated team of people, it would also be an invasion of privacy.  hence realistically, we want to remind that it is the task left to our members. 

[SpAmRaY]

That was basically the point of the statement about profiteering in the Rules.  Making a profit is a hot topic that causes drama in the Classifieds consistently.  Just look at the opposing views in this discussion thread even within this same page!  And everyone feels strongly about their respective opinion. 

That is why it was included as a blurb.  A reference on our stance.  We can't really regulate it as moderators.  It is up to members to do their own research, compare prices, ask questions.

I think part of what krog was referring to is say you have a guy/girl who puts a lot of time and effort into making some sort of specialty cap and maybe it cost him/her $10 to make a cap and they'd like to sell it for $20.

I don't believe that's what your guys were addressing anyway.

No, this doesn't have anything to do with an artisan cap crafter selling their wares. Just a blanket statement of the community's philosophy toward those who would tend to "buy low, sell high" to make a profit of their fellow community members.

^^ Thanks for clearing that up.

Correct, that's not what that statement is about.  It's more about buying a spacebar off a member for $10 and reselling it next week for $15.  Or getting a cheap deal on an SSK on Craigslist and reselling here for 3x as much.  Or less extreme: we even have people arguing to no end whether including shipping price in original expenses should count or not, which I believe should be evaluated on a case by case basis. 

In any event, we don't have the resources or people with enough time to go through every single post and research every item, ask people for purchase receipts or invoices, and all that and then moderate based on our findings.  Not only would that require a dedicated team of people, it would also be an invasion of privacy.  hence realistically, we want to remind that it is the task left to our members. 

AND I think this is where people who perhaps know what things have sold for in the past and/or what a realistic price should be need to feel free to speak up , in a positive manner of course, and let buyers know if they are about to make a bad deal.

[Photoelectric]

If they want to be polite about it--that's fine.  In a constructive and polite manner.  These are the sorts of replies that would not be good:

"Why is this KMAC so expensive?  Is it 3x better than my QFR?"  -  that should go into a different dedicated thread, either in Keyboards, or added to Simple Questions, or What Is It Worth?, etc.  Or better to do some searching for KMACs and see what goes into making them.

"So I see that you got this Skull a month ago from someone for $30 and now you're reselling it for $200?  And hope no one noticed?" - pretends to be constructive but is more insulting

Here's how you could word it though:

"The average price of these skulls is currently $150, though in the past they've gone for as little as $30 (link to original sale price).  Would you consider dropping the price?" - I see no problem with this sort of a reply.  Technically if a seller wants to resell for $200--there's nothing you can do to stop him or her.  If there's a buyer NOW who wants it and has $200 to spare, they may not care that the seller got it for much less, as there are no other options at this time.

[Soarer]

There's a huge gulf between "making a profit" on some item, and "profiteering", in my book.

If someone chances on a few SSKs for cheap on craigslist or wherever, then I don't think they should be bound to sell them at anything other than market rate - it's simply lucky for them!

If someone is entering clack sales with the sole intention of selling for a profit, then sure, we can frown on it, but you can't realistically make any rule about it. Same goes for anything else where the seller is generous enough to sell at less than market rate, hoping the buyer will actually appreciate it.

I'd say only the latter case is bad, and would call it profiteering, but the bad happens _before_ the time of the sale - it's all in the intent.

[SpAmRaY]

Someone should write up a buying/selling guide

[jdcarpe]

Someone should write up a buying/selling guide

1. Be kind to each other.
2. Trust no one.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Can't we just get rid of the classifieds and hold an annual GH flea market? I feel like people would be much less butthurt if they could complete their keyboard purchases face-to-face...

#sarcasm

[SpAmRaY]

Can't we just get rid of the classifieds and hold an annual GH flea market? I feel like people would be much less butthurt if they could complete their keyboard purchases face-to-face...

#sarcasm

No butthurt just some fist fights and people getting rolled eventually leading to someone going to jail after bludgeoning someone with a model m.

Who's up for having a buy/sell therapy thread?

[IPT]

Spam, you seem to have lots of experience with therapy....

[SpAmRaY]

Spam, you seem to have lots of experience with therapy....

yeah I need lots of it

[Krogenar]

Little too much fox news in that reply.

Whatever that means.

[Krogenar]

No, this doesn't have anything to do with an artisan cap crafter selling their wares. Just a blanket statement of the community's philosophy toward those who would tend to "buy low, sell high" to make a profit of their fellow community members.

I'm not alone when I say this 'blanket statement' doesn't represent how I feel about profit and profit-seeking. I could easily write another 'blanket statement' expressing my disdain for butthurted-ness, but that would be equally wrong and useless. I think the philosophy expressed by the 'blanket' is utter garbage that will drive people away. So let's just drop the 'blanket' entirely. Drop the political, philosophical crap from the document. Riot makes this point, too:

For clarity, the document should contain only rules that will be enforced, not opinions or stances that won't.

We likely don't agree on much else, but I agree with Pirate -- take out the opinions and stances.

Best new idea:

If they want to be polite about it--that's fine.  In a constructive and polite manner.  These are the sorts of replies that would not be good:

"Why is this KMAC so expensive?  Is it 3x better than my QFR?"  -  that should go into a different dedicated thread, either in Keyboards, or added to Simple Questions, or What Is It Worth?, etc.  Or better to do some searching for KMACs and see what goes into making them.

"So I see that you got this Skull a month ago from someone for $30 and now you're reselling it for $200?  And hope no one noticed?" - pretends to be constructive but is more insulting

Here's how you could word it though:

"The average price of these skulls is currently $150, though in the past they've gone for as little as $30 (link to original sale price).  Would you consider dropping the price?" - I see no problem with this sort of a reply.  Technically if a seller wants to resell for $200--there's nothing you can do to stop him or her.  If there's a buyer NOW who wants it and has $200 to spare, they may not care that the seller got it for much less, as there are no other options at this time.

I think Photo's got it right -- give people concrete examples on how to react. Don't just give them a guideline or a rule, give them an example, a plan, a planned response. Not happy with a seller's responsiveness? Having a little guide that proposes some positive, constructive ways to handle this situation is a great idea.

[Soarer]

[Soarer]

I was looking for an appropriate flow chart for instructing people on _exactly_ how to behave, but couldn't find one anywhere.

Broadly speaking though...

Do you want the item, and like the price, and trust the seller?

Yes: buy it.

No: move along.

[Photoelectric]

I was looking for an appropriate flow chart for instructing people on _exactly_ how to behave, but couldn't find one anywhere.

Broadly speaking though...

Do you want the item, and like the price, and trust the seller?

Yes: buy it.

No: move along.

That's just common sense...

[Lanx]

Really don't like the 2 months before starting a thread rule.

Just enforce a strict posting etiquette, but the 2 months won't prevent any scam attempt. Let me explain you why this sucks, with my current case:

I ordered a WASD V2 keyboard with MX Blue. This is my first experience with MX Blue and sadly, it's not working out for me. It costed me a lot to get it, (shipping US > EU, Custom taxes etc) and I really need to sell it back asap to buy a new one. Sadly, with the new potential rules I won't be able to do it fast (whereas i'm currently grinding my way to 60 posts).

It makes no difference if I need 60 posts OR 2 months being around, since people don't know me here they'll ask me to send the keyboard out first, and then they'll pay me. Which is perfectly fine by me as long as the buyer is somewhat reputable. So what's the point preventing me to sell now ? Enforcing strict etiquette is one thing, but the change you're suggesting doesn't really bring anything good imo.

Yes it does, what does it do? it makes it more difficult for "drive by sellers". what can be done in one day? 60 posts that are not spam, TRUST me, i've done it to bypass the (10posts to view, 20 posts to bid, 50 posts in VIP section) post number, and none of it can be flagged as spam. As long as you can type 2 sentences a post, not sound like an idiot "lolz that's cool dude!", you can get 60 posts easily, if motivated, and  "drive by sellers" are motivated, all you have to do is reply to 2 posts a sub-section every 6 hours and you're under the radar.

What they cannot bypass is a timestamp, in thise case, when the timestamp of the account was created, spam as much as you want, you still gotta wait 60 days, and by then "MOST" "drive by sellers" look at other easier targets to defraud in other forums.

[Norz]

Really don't like the 2 months before starting a thread rule.

Just enforce a strict posting etiquette, but the 2 months won't prevent any scam attempt. Let me explain you why this sucks, with my current case:

I ordered a WASD V2 keyboard with MX Blue. This is my first experience with MX Blue and sadly, it's not working out for me. It costed me a lot to get it, (shipping US > EU, Custom taxes etc) and I really need to sell it back asap to buy a new one. Sadly, with the new potential rules I won't be able to do it fast (whereas i'm currently grinding my way to 60 posts).

It makes no difference if I need 60 posts OR 2 months being around, since people don't know me here they'll ask me to send the keyboard out first, and then they'll pay me. Which is perfectly fine by me as long as the buyer is somewhat reputable. So what's the point preventing me to sell now ? Enforcing strict etiquette is one thing, but the change you're suggesting doesn't really bring anything good imo.

Yes it does, what does it do? it makes it more difficult for "drive by sellers". what can be done in one day? 60 posts that are not spam, TRUST me, i've done it to bypass the (10posts to view, 20 posts to bid, 50 posts in VIP section) post number, and none of it can be flagged as spam. As long as you can type 2 sentences a post, not sound like an idiot "lolz that's cool dude!", you can get 60 posts easily, if motivated, and  "drive by sellers" are motivated, all you have to do is reply to 2 posts a sub-section every 6 hours and you're under the radar.

What they cannot bypass is a timestamp, in thise case, when the timestamp of the account was created, spam as much as you want, you still gotta wait 60 days, and by then "MOST" "drive by sellers" look at other easier targets to defraud in other forums.

I guess it makes sense.

I'm gonna have to get my 60 posts before the new rules are enforced lol

Or would the rules change apply retroactively anyway ? that'd suck !

[Pacifist]

When is this going into effect?

[norbauer]

FWIW, I am enthusiastically in favor of the proposed changes re auctions, and the new external auctions forum. I hope they'll happen soon.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

One other major thing I think should be addressed here (this may have been answered already, if it was my apologies):

What about raffles?

[SpAmRaY]

One other major thing I think should be addressed here (this may have been answered already, if it was my apologies):

What about raffles?

Like selling tickets to get to punch someone?

Or FREE topre keyboard minimum 10 tickets sold @$20 apiece (one ticket per person)...hey...maybe I should try that.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

One other major thing I think should be addressed here (this may have been answered already, if it was my apologies):

What about raffles?

Like selling tickets to get to punch someone?

Or FREE topre keyboard minimum 10 tickets sold @$20 apiece (one ticket per person)...hey...maybe I should try that.

Hmm... that's not a bad idea for a GH charity raffle...

"[CHARITY RAFFLE] Punch demik in the face!"

GH would get enough funding to keep it running for at least the next ten years...

[Moderation Team]

Attention: the Classifieds Rules draft has been updated, and the latest version is now in the first post!

[Pacifist]

is it still a draft? Or is it implemented now?

also for those with over 2 threads will they be auto locked or what? Seems like a huge task

[Moderation Team]

It's a draft.  This thread is called "upcoming changes".  When the new rules are implemented, they will be posted in the Classifieds section in place of the current ones.

Extra threads will likely be locked or merged, depending on individual situations.

[SpAmRaY]

Ok that all seems reasonable.

One question I have, will it be ok to put up a classified thread and lock it immediately and ask people interested to send PM's? 

[Krogenar]

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.