for sale/marketplace post keeps getting removed-huh?

[robfilms]

all-

as the original poster on this thread and a longtime member, i am very much a fan of this site and this community.

i want to offer my appreciation to the mods for listening and making adjustments.

in this day of strident tones and harsh language, the fact that we can have conversation, disagreement and eventually, agreement is what really makes us a community.

be well.

rob
smalltalk.productions

[Jason Ramsey]

Thanks, rob.

[David Saraceno]

Thanks Rob.

I will adjust our Guidelines in the next few days.

My laptop is on the fritz.

[Jason Ramsey]

RE: Mods informing members when/why moderation actions were taken, rather than relying on the rules to inform the members:

I wanted to share with you folks a recent occurrence (that happens all too often) that David endured after he attempted to inform a member about why their thread was closed and offered to re-open it for them. Again, I'm not posting this for sympathy. However, I did get the impression during our previous discussion in this thread that some of you weren't really buying why we sometimes opt for no-communication.

A member (with no less than 5 accounts on this site going back several years) had their thread closed by David with the following message posted in the thread:

You cannot have two separate bundles in the same thread.

Please PM to have thread unlocked to make revisions.

Thank you.

What follows are the private messages David received in response to that posting:

04-01-2017 12:28 PM

Jesus man, Im just trying to sell my camera. Can you just leave me alone? What the hell? Nobody cares... there's so much more to life than bothering me and my little ad.

David responded to the member via pm (after they posted a thread 4 or 5 times along the lines of "admins won't leave my thread alone, so pm me if you want this") with:

04-02-2017 05:38 AM

You are free to post your advertisement in the Marketplace again.

However, your post that commented on moderation has been deleted.

We do not permit comments on moderation.

The rules are set forth by the administrator of dvxuser.com and are designed to make use of the Marketplace fair and consistent.

If you do not wish to adhere to our rules, please post at a different web site.

Thank you for your cooperation.

And, here are the follow-up responses from the member in question (none of which David replied to):

04-02-2017 07:05 PM

Go back in your mom's basement and play with your little faggot drones you useless wannabe failure of a filmmaker. Better watch that attitude.......

04-02-2017 07:46 PM

You know you really are one sad little man. You actually have the time to sit around on your old, fat ass poo pooing with people's ads?? I just tried to sell a simple camera and you acted like a little kid who got picked on in school and never let it go, then were given some "power" and now you poo poo with people just for fun or because they dont follow some childish rules??

I s*%t bigger turds than you you useless faggot.

By the way, I'll simply rejoin here under a different name and IP address and sell whatever the poo poo I want to. Too bad you get to hide behind your little screen and aren't out in the real world working on REAL THINGS and dealing with real people instead of a bunch of computer related bulls*%t, forgotten, useless blogs, articles, forums and whatever else it is that poo pooing poo poos like you get your little faggot rocks off to.

BYE BYE cocksucker.

and, just to make it abundantly clear, the user changed their original registration email address to the following:

DavidSaracenoIsAFaggot at fags dot com

This member has had several accounts over multiple years, so they aren't new to the site and have left behind quite a paper trail as it turns out.

I am posting this as an example of what happens (too often) when we engage members over a simple moderation action and the added time and stress that it creates for us. So, I hope you can (even if you don't agree) appreciate the fact that I'm not going to require David to engage folks when he takes simple moderation actions as per the rules set forth in the marketplace.

I know David will be happy to answer any requests for clarification that you have (if you can leave your emotions out of it), but I'm no longer going to require or even encourage him to engage every member whose thread he moderates in the marketplace. At the end of the day, the rules are the rules. If you do not like them, you have two options: 1) Try to open a courteous conversation expressing your concerns and/or suggestions for rule changes. 2) go sell your s*%t somewhere else

I asked David to provide me with a copy of the exchange he had with the member in question. He did *not* ask me to post this (nor would he). I am posting it b/c I decided it was worth it. I do try to be mindful of your concerns and your perspective from your side of the fence. I felt it might also be useful to provide you with one small example of why we are sometimes loathe to engage members via pm with regards to moderation actions, and why we may come across as "short" at times.

Sometimes, longer-standing members may get caught in that crossfire, and that is unfortunate. However, I hope this offers a little insight and will help quell your frustration should you find yourself in a disagreement over the rules/moderation in the future. We don't need you to massage, pity, or walk on eggshells with us... I'm just hoping there can be a little mutual understanding. We can make attempts to be mindful of the impersonal nature of our interactions with you at times, and hope that you can be mindful of why we may come across in that way at times.

Now, this is just a little bit of internet harassment and it comes with the territory, but it wears on you after the umpteenth time. Additionally, David is a volunteer and I don't feel good when he has to deal with this kind of s*%t. Especially, when I've had personal experience with how internet harassment from a disgruntled member can quickly escalate into malicious activity, including stalking, threats on one's residence, etc, etc.

[groveChuck]

I'm thankful you guys tweeked the rules and sorry you have to put up with cr@p like that user wrote. SAD!

[jbregar]

What a jackass (the un-named poster). Crap like that is uncalled for and hopefully relatively rare in the grand scheme of interactions with members of this site.

Try not to let that kind of thing color your relationship with the hundreds (or thousands) of non-asshole members of the forum.

[Braindead@70]

I'm thankful you guys tweeked the rules and sorry you have to put up with cr@p like that user wrote. SAD!

Me too!

[dregenthal]

Waiting a week or some set period before allowing a bump will have no great effect. Whatever the rule is, people following it will end up leap frogging each other and end up about where they started from . . . leaving the order and position about the same as it was to begin with.

I think a better solution would be to permit NO BUMPS and require ALL questions and negotiation to take place via PM.

Then, instead of starting at some ridiculous asking price, members would actually offer their item somewhere within the realm of reason (increasing their odds at actually finding a buyer) and pretty much ace out the type who lists their stuff artificially high just so they can bump at will by making “substantial reductions.”

Probably make it a lot easier on the Mods to administrate too?

[starcentral]

Waiting a week or some set period before allowing a bump will have no great effect. Whatever the rule is, people following it will end up leap frogging each other and end up about where they started from . . . leaving the order and position about the same as it was to begin with.

Nah they won't all be where they started from because not everyone bumps anyways (I have at least 6 right now I haven't bumped), people who do bump do so at different times, some items will sell, etc. This change finally gives a chance to items might otherwise end up on the 20th page or beyond.

Glad to see the changes, nearly all forums have a bump rule.

[dregenthal]

You, of course, are correct. Not everyone is the same . . . behaviors vary, (and might be why said they'd end up "about" where they started).
The value of my solution got lost in my explanation. Just delete the first sentence of what I said and maybe, if so inclined, consider the possible benefit of “No bumps – No conversation.”

Someone will be able to come up with a legitimate reason why my solution is not the best one (because we don’t all think the same either). Anyway . . .

No bumps (IMHO) would:

Keep things in the order they first appeared . . . not a bad thing in and of itself?
Prevent others from leapfrogging over people with multiple “substantial reductions” (thereby eliminating arguments over what constitutes "substantial").

I think it would encourage folks to offer their stuff at numbers closer to reality, probably yielding more sales . . . and, ending up on page 20 a lot less likely (because there won’t be a bunch of worthless back & forth to push offerings farther back).

Searching might yield better results . . . even better when people give some thought to how they title their post.

If offers, questions, and negotiation were limited to PM’s instead of unlimited conversation I just think the whole thing would be a lot more efficient. People would still get to sell their stuff, the rule would be pretty easy to understand, and moderating the section would be less work.

It'd really make me happy if we went back to "no eBay" links like it used to be. Be great if we didn't have to scroll through, "only two more days and it going to eBay" notices (that sometimes sound like threats). We're smart enough to know members put their stuff on eBay without all that.

Anyhow, “my work is done here” . . . I just wanted to add clarity to my suggestion, not instigate a long discussion. So I’m out (of the discussion). Hats off to the mods, and the rest of our community . . . whether we’re in agreement on this question or not. I’ll go with the rules whatever they are. Thanks.