Hans (J.A.W) deleted my post

[Ron S]

First, Jim said it's an unspoken rule which implies a custom or practice. As you know a custom or a practice can be just as effective as a written rule.

Second, the first written rule says as follows:

"1) The Organissimo Forums support the notion of free speech, although the definition of "free" is defined by the owners and operators of this board. We reserve the right to edit, delete, or otherwise moderate any post we deem inappropriate at any time for any reason." I did not add the emphasis by the way.

Based on the foregoing, it seems that Jim and the mods have wide latitude in what should be allowed and not.

Goddamn lawyers.

[Bright Moments]

Hans - do you know of a better way that i could have raised the issue of "deleting posts" fairly and honestly without publishing the PM's? Was there anything that you said in the PM's of such a sensitive nature that it needed to be kept "private"?

nobody is perfect. sometimes umpires make bad calls. being an umpire (moderator) is not an easy job. it is also not easy admitting that you made a bad call - but it is the right thing to do. can you acknowledge that you made a bad call in deleting my post?

[Dan Gould]

Why should he acknowledge any such thing when Jim has given his approval for the action Hans took?

[J.A.W.]

Hans - do you know of a better way that i could have raised the issue of "deleting posts" fairly and honestly without publishing the PM's? Was there anything that you said in the PM's of such a sensitive nature that it needed to be kept "private"?

nobody is perfect. sometimes umpires make bad calls. being an umpire (moderator) is not an easy job. it is also not easy admitting that you made a bad call - but it is the right thing to do. can you acknowledge that you made a bad call in deleting my post?

I don't agree that I made a bad call (see also Jim's comment in this thread); on the contrary, I stand by my decision and I still think you shouldn't have made my PMs public (whether they contained anything sensitive or not is not the point), you should have contacted Jim instead.

[AllenLowe]

you can still have a bad call, even when it stands up to the rules - witness that non-perfect game from last week. C'mon JAW, there's still a chance for redemption -

Edited June 8, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Claude]

Hans,

If the reason is personal attack, you should delete tens (if not more) of posts from the political forum.

The politics forum can't be moderated in the same way as the rest of the board, that would be too much of a task. People visit it at their own risk.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Claude

[Christiern]

I hope this thread has run its course and that both sides can now return to whatever it is we do best here..

BTW, Looks like JC could have used a spot of nail varnish. Not since Landa Wandowska flashed her fingers at me from across a room have I see such dainty hands.

[Ron S]

BTW, Looks like JC could have used a spot of nail varnish. Not since Landa Wandowska flashed her fingers at me from across a room have I see such dainty hands.

Definitely NOT the hands of a carpenter.

[Brad]

First, Jim said it's an unspoken rule which implies a custom or practice. As you know a custom or a practice can be just as effective as a written rule.

Second, the first written rule says as follows:

"1) The Organissimo Forums support the notion of free speech, although the definition of "free" is defined by the owners and operators of this board. We reserve the right to edit, delete, or otherwise moderate any post we deem inappropriate at any time for any reason." I did not add the emphasis by the way.

Based on the foregoing, it seems that Jim and the mods have wide latitude in what should be allowed and not.

Goddamn lawyers.

Yeah, we're a necessary evil, aren't we

Hans - do you know of a better way that i could have raised the issue of "deleting posts" fairly and honestly without publishing the PM's? Was there anything that you said in the PM's of such a sensitive nature that it needed to be kept "private"?

nobody is perfect. sometimes umpires make bad calls. being an umpire (moderator) is not an easy job. it is also not easy admitting that you made a bad call - but it is the right thing to do. can you acknowledge that you made a bad call in deleting my post?

I think you could have said something to the effect that you had exchanged pms with Hans about the issue but that you didn't see eye to eye. In other words, talk about the issues with publishing the pms verbatim.

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

If the reason is personal attack, you should delete tens (if not more) of posts from the political forum.

The politics forum can't be moderated in the same way as the rest of the board, that would be too much of a task. People visit it at their own risk.

Yes, that's correct.......but we try to keep it a nice low key, comfy, friendly vibe sorta place.

[Dan Gould]

I think its time to shut this down. Evan thinks he's been wronged, Jim doesn't and has Hans' back. There won't be satisfaction for either side so why keep arguing it?

I think we should all take to heart the following lessons from this contretemps:

1. Don't post in Offering and Looking For to criticize the prices of anyone's auction or sale. Unwritten rule or not, its now been discussed to death and should be understood by everyone.

2. If you have a problem with a Mod, discuss it via PM. If you are still unhappy, take it to Jim.

3. Don't post PMs without the other person's permission.

[RDK]

I hope this thread has run its course and that both sides can now return to whatever it is we do best here..

BTW, Looks like JC could have used a spot of nail varnish. Not since Landa Wandowska flashed her fingers at me from across a room have I see such dainty hands.

Well, I'd argue that what we often "do best here" is, um, argue.

And yeah, those ain't the hands of any carpenter I've ever met.

[mellowT]

And yeah, those ain't the hands of any carpenter I've ever met.

Well, he wasn't doing carpentry his last 3 years, so those hands had plenty of time to heal.

[Ron S]

And yeah, those ain't the hands of any carpenter I've ever met.

Well, he wasn't doing carpentry his last 3 years, so those hands had plenty of time to heal.

And get manicures.

[neveronfriday]

...

[Jim Alfredson]

Recently another board I post on frequently made a change to the rules governing the FOR SALE section. At first I thought the rules were a bit stringent, but now I see that they've worked extremely well and could be used as a model for here. Basically, the rules state that sellers cannot bump their own threads until at least five days have passed (and five days between bumps, too) and that all those interested in the wares should use the PM system and not post anything within the thread itself. Any sales / edits to the list of things for sale should be done by the original poster to the first post. So basically, if you look at that forum's FOR SALE section, it's just a series of threads with single posts, perhaps one or two "bump" posts for items that haven't sold. All transactions are handled privately. It works really well and lends to a very clean, streamlined forum.

Each section of forums like these have to be handled differently. The politics forum is a pretty rough and tumble place.

We're working on a new set of rules.

Evan, I'm sorry you feel wronged, but I still stand behind Hans' actions, which I believe are consistent with the rules (written or not) of the board. It's a deleted post. It's not the end of the world. Thanks!

[AllenLowe]

I wouldn't be so sure of that - just spotted this with my trusty telescope:

[AllenLowe]

see above -

[Bright Moments]

Evan, I'm sorry you feel wronged, but I still stand behind Hans' actions, which I believe are consistent with the rules (written or not) of the board. It's a deleted post. It's not the end of the world. Thanks!

i'm over it.

[Big Beat Steve]

Recently another board I post on frequently made a change to the rules governing the FOR SALE section. At first I thought the rules were a bit stringent, but now I see that they've worked extremely well and could be used as a model for here. Basically, the rules state that sellers cannot bump their own threads until at least five days have passed (and five days between bumps, too) and that all those interested in the wares should use the PM system and not post anything within the thread itself. Any sales / edits to the list of things for sale should be done by the original poster to the first post. So basically, if you look at that forum's FOR SALE section, it's just a series of threads with single posts, perhaps one or two "bump" posts for items that haven't sold. All transactions are handled privately. It works really well and lends to a very clean, streamlined forum.

May I respectfully disagree on several counts?

1) Quite to the contrary, I find it rather advantageous that forumists other than the thread starter (seller) state, for example, that they have PM'd the seller about this or that item. If this place here really is as friendly as it is made out to be (and as the rules about not criticising a seller, as above, are apparently intended to underline) then it can only be beneficial for the mutual understanding of forumists to not get unduly in each other's way when they see that an item has already been spoken for by somebody else (and this also avoids them extra hassle if they know an item has been sold or reserved before thy got around to contacting the seller). Otherwise sales might degenerate into a "behind the curtains" rat race of who's been there first, who might offer more than the asking price in order to secure an item he wants badly (and sellers in those cases might in fact back off from the first come, first serve principle or only invite bids for their items - who knows?).

2) Being able to post extra info about items for sale (e.g. by those who own the same item) is something I also like about that place because it often does provide a clearer picture of what is actually up for sale. And as seen here, these comments really aren't trying to detract all that often, anyway - quite to the contrary. And not least of all - what is wrong with other forumists asking questions about an item (or maybe shipping terms or other required info) that the seller answers PUBLICLY so that everybody can benefit from that extra info?

So do think it over, otherwise the end results might really backfire in a big way and lead to results that were not really intended and would do more harm than good! As you surely know, the road to hell is plastered with good intentions!

And besides, generally speaking, what is the point of invoking new rules only in order to CLAMP DOWN on everything instead of changing rules in order to give more leeway? Has this section (or others) been working that poorly, really? "Stifling" might fast become the word, you know ...

[jazzbo]

I'll just say that Big Beat Steve (not surprisingly) makes good points regarding not changing the way that forum is at the moment.

I don't see anything wrong with the way it has worked and even the way that it worked this week. I understand Evan's feelings and also why Hans made the moderation he did. To me it indicates that the setup works as is. Clarifying in the written rules that discussion about "high prices" is not allowed and that publicly displaying PMs is not allowed is really the "fix" I see that should be initiated.

Just my thoughts. I've used the for sale and trade forum to good effect for years, just the way it is.

[Jim Alfredson]

Very valid points. The other forum I mentioned deals with expensive musical equipment, so it's a bit of a different animal. Just food for thought.

[skeith]

A couple of years ago, I tried to sell an Andrew Hill import cd on this board for the price I paid for it.

Immediately some posters began to attack my price, saying it was available on other sites for less.

Now this information might have be useful to me in order to adjust my price, but when I went to check the other sites, not one had it available and the shipping costs for one site made it roughly equal to the price I offered, which the poster who mentioned it had not noticed.

Bottom line, I felt some posters were pissing all over my sale without having their facts straight and it basically killed the sale.

At that time, there were no comments from any moderator on the Board.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

A couple of years ago, I tried to sell an Andrew Hill import cd on this board for the price I paid for it.

Immediately some posters began to attack my price, saying it was available on other sites for less.

Now this information might have be useful to me in order to adjust my price, but when I went to check the other sites, not one had it available and the shipping costs for one site made it roughly equal to the price I offered, which the poster who mentioned it had not noticed.

Bottom line, I felt some posters were pissing all over my sale without having their facts straight and it basically killed the sale.

At that time, there were no comments from any moderator on the Board.

Were there "moderators" back then? I think it was just Jim and his brother. There was certainly no J.A.W. which is the biggest difference now. Hans is doing a good job keeping the board the way Jim wants it.

[skeith]

A couple of years ago, I tried to sell an Andrew Hill import cd on this board for the price I paid for it.

Immediately some posters began to attack my price, saying it was available on other sites for less.

Now this information might have be useful to me in order to adjust my price, but when I went to check the other sites, not one had it available and the shipping costs for one site made it roughly equal to the price I offered, which the poster who mentioned it had not noticed.

Bottom line, I felt some posters were pissing all over my sale without having their facts straight and it basically killed the sale.

At that time, there were no comments from any moderator on the Board.

Were there "moderators" back then? I think it was just Jim and his brother. There was certainly no J.A.W. which is the biggest difference now. Hans is doing a good job keeping the board the way Jim wants it.

Thanks Kevin, I wasn't sure about moderators then. My other point was that while perhaps it is good to have more information (even for a seller) - it does not seem fair if that info is not correct.