Cycling Adverts sub-forum

Beasty

There has been an increase in activity in the sub-forum, with a lot of new(ish) posters as well as established ones looking to sell (and indeed buy) stuff

Most posters follow the rules, but we are finding the sub-forum’s taking quite a lot of moderator time because a there are a significant number of posters who either don’t read or simply ignore some of the basic rules. To date we have been quite lenient by generally deleting threads and PM’ing the offenders where infringements have been of a more “technical” nature (such as posting stuff advertised elsewhere, posting e-mail addresses, excessive bumping or inviting posters to discuss the item off-thread).

With this in mind we are proposing to apply a formula basis of issuing infractions/bans for offences of this nature. Hence going forward we would look to apply the following:

1st offence – yellow card
2nd offence – red card
3rd offence – 1 month ban from the adverts sub-forum
4th offence – permanent ban from the adverts sub-forum

For the purpose of totting up, offences will drop off a poster’s “record” after 12 months

If your initial ad does not comply with the listing rules, it will be deleted in addition to the poster receiving the relevant card/ban shown above

The whole idea of this is to get posters to read and abide by the forum rules (and cut down the amount of time we have to spend policing it) – if anyone is in any doubt about anything, it’s easy enough to PM one of the mods for clarification

We will reserve the right to apply higher penalties for offences that may be more than breaking the specific sub-forum rules (insulting other posters for example, or trying to spoil someone’s ad with unsupportable comments). Off-thread dealing will continue to be considered a very serious offence, particularly where posters who have obeyed the rules are adversely affected (such as making an offer at asking only to find the item has already been sold to someone else).

We are also proposing introducing a new rule whereby posters should ask a mod first before selling something on behalf of anybody else. Our concern here is it’s possible at present for posters to sell loads of stuff and simply claim they are doing it for someone else. The whole idea of the sub-forum is to allow boardsies to offload their own surplus stuff, recognising any trust gained in the wider forum in both seller and potential purchasers. It takes away the personal element if a poster is simply acting as an intermediary for a 3rd party. We are not proposing to ban this altogether, but would like to be informed of the background to a sale before allowing this (of course, there’s nothing to stop someone signing up to sell their own stuff anyway, unless they are already banned )

We'd also like to tighten up a little to discourage timewasters. When an offer is made we expect you to follow through unless it's subject to inspection (which should only really be relevant for bulky or particularly valuable items - photos should normally suffice for most items). If you ask to be placed second, third or anywhere else in line, if your number comes up for whatever reason again we expect you to honour this, unless you have withdrawn your offer in-thread in the meantime. Anyone not honouring commitments in this way can expect sanctions.

Before confirming such a change in approach, we’d like to open the floor for any comments or other suggestions posters may have. We’ll leave this thread up for a week or so before taking any final decisions.

BTW, we’ve not forgotten the original feedback thread, and will be getting back to cover one or two points raised separately

Vélo

Seems fair enough

petethedrummer

Should each ad have a link to the forum rules? Then the seller and buyer can't feign ignorance.

DirkVoodoo

Beasty, I would also like to add that inspection subject to fit is particularly relevant in cycling, be it a bike, clothing or shoes. It is not necessarily confined to expensive or bulky items. However, I do think that people should still move fast, particularly when replying to PMs.

DirkVoodoo

Vélo wrote: »

Seems fair enough

Perhaps it is sufficient to say that by engaging in the adverts sub-forum as a buyer or a seller, you agree that you have read the rules.

Lemag

Just proposing this again (think I did so already in the Feedback thread). Lock all advert threads and allow for all dealings to be conducted off-thread. Seller can then PM a mod to have the thread deleted/edited once all or some of the items have been sold. Perhps it'd be a bit too radical. I think that it could work though.

AstraMonti

If you are after to keep the "personal" factor in the sales then you can also introduce a post/registration limit in order for a member to have access to the adverts forum. For example if someone has 250 posts and is a member for 3years you know he 's not here for just the sales, in contrary a member with 0 posts and yesterdays registration date could well only be here for the sale. You just need to find a balance, for example, in order for someone to be able to post in the adverts forum, you need at least 6 months and 100 posts, 1 year and more posts and so on. Vbulletin has this ability, so it's just a matter if you want to apply something like this.

Beasty

petethedrummer wrote: »

Should each ad have a link to the forum rules? Then the seller and buyer can't feign ignorance.

We would almost certainly need tweeks to the software (which may be difficult to get through the powers that be) to include any automatic links.

TBH, ignorance is no defence anyway. I know a lot of regulars in the forum who pretty much know the adverts rules off by heart. Those who can't be bothered to look, or feign ignorance, could expect to feel the full force of the proposed "enforcement strategy"

Lusk Doyle

AstraMonti wrote: »

If you are after to keep the "personal" factor in the sales then you can also introduce a post/registration limit in order for a member to have access to the adverts forum. For example if someone has 250 posts and is a member for 3years you know he 's not here for just the sales, in contrary a member with 0 posts and yesterdays registration date could well only be here for the sale. You just need to find a balance, for example, in order for someone to be able to post in the adverts forum, you need at least 6 months and 100 posts, 1 year and more posts and so on. Vbulletin has this ability, so it's just a matter if you want to apply something like this.

Surely that is discrimination at it's finest?

Captain Havoc

Lemag wrote: »

Just proposing this again (think I did so already in the Feedback thread). Lock all advert threads and allow for all dealings to be conducted off-thread. Seller can then PM a mod to have the thread deleted/edited once all or some of the items have been sold. Perhps it'd be a bit too radical. I think that it could work though.

As a mod I would be all for this as it would make our task a lot easier but from a fairness point of view I'm against it. I think the transparency element to the adverts section stop dick-acting around with offers of €50 for full carbon dura ace bikes and also if someone has an eye on an item they can see which way bidding is going, they maybe waiting for a price drop.

AstraMonti wrote: »

If you are after to keep the "personal" factor in the sales then you can also introduce a post/registration limit in order for a member to have access to the adverts forum. For example if someone has 250 posts and been a member for 3years you know he 's not here for just the sales, in contrary a member with 0 posts and yesterdays registration date could well only be here for the sale. You just need to find a balance, for example, in order for someone to be able to post in the adverts forum, you need at least 6 months and 100 posts, 1 year and more posts and so on. Vbulletin has this ability, so it's just a matter if you want to apply something like this.

We discussed this in the past and concluded that it may work against the forum as you would also be blocking a lot of buyers which would work against the sellers.

petethedrummer

Beasty wrote: »

We would almost certainly need tweeks to the software (which may be difficult to get through the powers that be) to include any automatic links.

I don't mean automatically. A person should put it at the bottom of their post. A minor 10 second inconvenience.

Its only a suggestion though.

Beasty

Captain Havoc wrote: »

We discussed this in the past and concluded that it may work against the forum as you would also be blocking a lot of buyers which would work against the sellers.

We've no problem re-opening the "minimum posts" discussion if posters wish to, although as the Cap'n points out we have gone over it before. It would perhaps be helpful to get other posters current views on something like this

AstraMonti

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Surely that is discrimination at it's finest?

How is that?

Captain Havoc wrote: »

We discussed this in the past and concluded that it may work against the forum as you would also be blocking a lot of buyers which would work against the sellers.

No you 're not blocking the buyers. You are only blocking people without the requirements to create a thread. They can still reply to threads created by others, also supported by vbulletin.

DirkVoodoo

Lemag wrote: »

Just proposing this again (think I did so already in the Feedback thread). Lock all advert threads and allow for all dealings to be conducted off-thread. Seller can then PM a mod to have the thread deleted/edited once all or some of the items have been sold. Perhps it'd be a bit too radical. I think that it could work though.

I think this would only exacerbate the current problems. The issue of unfair pricing and offering without commitment to buy would be completely hidden.

For me, one of the strengths of the adverts sub-forum is that everything is on show, there are no deals conducted in darkened alleys and if either a seller asks for some ridiculous price or a buyer fails to follow up on a sale agreement, it is seen by all the members. In that sense, you get an idea of who to deal with and who not to deal with. Adverts have feedback for this, this is our version.

I also can't see how it would make less work for moderators, surely you will just end up with more complaints as any resolutions between sellers and buyers won't be reached in a two-way PM debate?

DirkVoodoo

AstraMonti wrote: »

How is that?



No you 're not blocking the buyers. You are only blocking people without the requirements to create a thread. They can still reply to threads created by others, also supported by vbulletin.

I don;t think that post count should be a barrier to entry, it doesn't make sense. Genuine sellers who don't have a profile shouldn't be forced to make 100 posts or hang around for 6 months. Post count is not a measure of honesty and it shouldn't be an exclusive club either.

What is a measure is performance in the adverts forum, so I think beasty's proposed enforcement will clean it up nicely. Everyone should be allowed to sell, but the people who are abusing it will quickly be weeded out.

AstraMonti

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I don;t think that post count should be a barrier to entry, it doesn't make sense. Genuine sellers who don't have a profile shouldn't be forced to make 100 posts or hang around for 6 months. Post count is not a measure of honesty and it shouldn't be an exclusive club either.

What is a measure is performance in the adverts forum, so I think beasty's proposed enforcement will clean it up nicely. Everyone should be allowed to sell, but the people who are abusing it will quickly be weeded out.

The only reason I am proposing such a solution is based on beasty's words to keep it personal. You are not measuring honesty with it, you are discarding people who their only intention is to join, sell and leave.

DirkVoodoo

AstraMonti wrote: »

The only reason I am proposing such a solution is based on beasty's words to keep it personal. You are not measuring honesty with it, you are discarding people who their only intention is to join, sell and leave.

But there is no rule against doing this. As long as the seller is legitimate. Plus, who knows, plenty of people have become regular members by posting a new bike question, who is to say someone won't become a regular after selling a bike first?

Beasty

AstraMonti wrote: »

The only reason I am proposing such a solution is based on beasty's words to keep it personal. You are not measuring honesty with it, you are discarding people who their only intention is to join, sell and leave.

Just on the "keeping it personal" bit, I believe the original argument supporting something separate from adverts was the "personal" element and the ability to deal within a close-knit community many of who know each other personally

However there has been a significant increase in numbers who use the sub-forum exclusively - they don't contribute anything to the wider forum , and just use boards to offload stuff they no longer want/need. IMO this goes against the spirit of the sub-forum. However minimum post numbers won't necessarily help as it may just encourage people to quietly spam other forums just to get their post count up

However buyers and sellers probably do still feel there is much more trust than somewhere like adverts, as posters taking the mickey will soon be pointed out, and a lot of regular posters continue to use the sub-forum, building on the trust they have built in the wider cycling forum

Ultimately it remains "caveat emptor", but posters can use their knowledge of individual posters and their posting history both in the sub-forum and throughout boards to help judge the people they may be looking to deal with

Lemag

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I think the transparency element to the adverts section stop dick-acting around with offers of €50 for full carbon dura ace bikes and also if someone has an eye on an item they can see which way bidding is going, they maybe waiting for a price drop.

It'd be up to the seller to ignore r'trded offers. If the seller isn't getting the price they want they could PM a mod to have it lowered. This would be fairly suggestive of which way the sale had thus far been going.

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

For me, one of the strengths of the adverts sub-forum is that everything is on show, there are no deals conducted in darkened alleys and if either a seller asks for some ridiculous price or a buyer fails to follow up on a sale agreement, it is seen by all the members.

Ideally, keep it as it is. However, I would be very surprised if there wasn't some off-thread dealing going on. I've received a few PMed offers for ads which I've posted. AFAIK, the scope of the mods doesn't extend to tracking PMs so, unless there are indicators in the thread of off-thread dealing, there's not much they can do to enforce this rule. It puts those who adhere to the rules at an unfair disadvantage. Implementing what I've proposed would put everyone on a level playing field.

Chips Lovell

Lemag wrote: »

I've received a few PMed offers for ads which I've posted.

Why didn't you PM the mods about it?

DirkVoodoo

Lemag wrote: »

It'd be up to the seller to ignore r'trded offers. If the seller isn't getting the price they want they could PM a mod to have it lowered. This would be fairly suggestive of which way the sale had thus far been going.
Ideally, keep it as it is. However, I would be very surprised if there wasn't some off-thread dealing going on. I've received a few PMed offers for ads which I've posted. AFAIK, the scope of the mods doesn't extend to tracking PMs so, unless there are indicators in the thread of off-thread dealing, there's not much they can do to enforce this rule. It puts those who adhere to the rules at an unfair advantage. Implementing what I've proposed would put everyone on a level playing field.

I fail to see how switching everything to an unmoderated blackmarket would fix anything. If know one knows exactly what is going on, you are simply creating an ebay style bidding scheme. Sure, you still have to place an asking price, but it could be artificially high. As offers come in, a seller could play one buyer off another without either side seeing what is actually being bid and no moderators to enforce best-practice policies.

An example: I offer a planet-x for 1500 euro. The thread is locked. I receive an offer from you for 800 euro. I politely refuse, stating that I already have a bid of 1200 euro from a poster that I am considering. I also have an offer from a clubmate for 1200 euro. You really want the bike, it's in good condition and at 1200 euro it's cheaper than buying new. You offer 1200 euro. I accept, you view the bike and pay cash. You would never know whether or not there were any other offers. You may be happy enough with having spent 1200 euro, I'm certainly delighted to get it because I feel the bike was probably worth 1000 at most.

It could work the other way just as well. Who is to stop one poster badmouthing another via PM? Who else is offering to buy? Oh, don't sell to him, he always shows up and changes his mind. I'll bid a little less but I guarantee I'll walk away with it.

Lusk Doyle

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I don;t think that post count should be a barrier to entry, it doesn't make sense. Genuine sellers who don't have a profile shouldn't be forced to make 100 posts or hang around for 6 months. Post count is not a measure of honesty and it shouldn't be an exclusive club either.

What is a measure is performance in the adverts forum, so I think beasty's proposed enforcement will clean it up nicely. Everyone should be allowed to sell, but the people who are abusing it will quickly be weeded out.

That's what I was getting at. Nicely put.

Lemag

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Why didn't you PM the mods about it?

Maybe I should have. There was that voice inside my head saying "Don't be a scab. It's us (regular boards users) against them (boards mods)":(

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I fail to see how switching everything to an unmoderated blackmarket would fix anything. If know one knows exactly what is going on, you are simply creating an ebay style bidding scheme. Sure, you still have to place an asking price, but it could be artificially high. As offers come in, a seller could play one buyer off another without either side seeing what is actually being bid and no moderators to enforce best-practice policies.

An example: I offer a planet-x for 1500 euro. The thread is locked. I receive an offer from you for 800 euro. I politely refuse, stating that I already have a bid of 1200 euro from a poster that I am considering. I also have an offer from a clubmate for 1200 euro. You really want the bike, it's in good condition and at 1200 euro it's cheaper than buying new. You offer 1200 euro. I accept, you view the bike and pay cash. You would never know whether or not there were any other offers. You may be happy enough with having spent 1200 euro, I'm certainly delighted to get it because I feel the bike was probably worth 1000 at most.

It could work the other way just as well. Who is to stop one poster badmouthing another via PM? Who else is offering to buy? Oh, don't sell to him, he always shows up and changes his mind. I'll bid a little less but I guarantee I'll walk away with it.

I could also come up with a similar anecdotal hypothetical scenario to highlight some of the shortcomings in the way the adverts section is currently run. With what I've proposed (the way it's done over in Weight Weenies, btw) it'd be up to the buyer to offer to pay what they'd feel happy with for an Item and it'd be up to the seller to accept whatever they feel happy with also. The seller may very well claim that guy X and girl Y have already offered Z but it'd be up to the buyer to then call their bluff.

The mods could provide a facility for, upon report of such, publishing the names of those users who have badmouthed other users.

This system would also encourage users to use the search facility which wouldn't be a bad thing. Might even have a positive impact on the number of repetitive threads popping up in the main forum.

DirkVoodoo

Lemag wrote: »

With what I've proposed (the way it's done over in Weight Weenies, btw) it'd be up to the buyer to offer to pay what they'd feel happy with for an Item and it'd be up to the seller to accept whatever they feel happy with also.

Is that not how it works already, just in public view?

Lemag

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Is that not how it works already, just in public view?

Yes, in some cases. But there is surely off-thread dealing going on also which is not in public view.

DirkVoodoo

Lemag wrote: »

Yes, in some cases. But there is surely off-thread dealing going on also which is not in public view.

Really? I've sold a fair bit over the forum in the last year and I don't recall being PM'd about a sale once. However, if PM dealing is going on in the minority of cases, I can't see how having everything moved to PM dealing ONLY is any remedy to this.

To me it sounds like trying to solve gun crime by giving everyone a gun.

Plus, I find it hard to enough to manage my PM inbox with just PMs from completed sales coming through and PMs from other, non-sales related issues. I can only see this becoming a complete nightmare for everyone if dozens of PMs are bounced around for every sale, every completed sale and then every sale that falls through. Do I have to PM each person individually if a sale falls through to notify them, or do I ask for my thread to be unlocked, edited and relocked (this, along with the many PMs regarding trangressions in sales, would essentially nullify the captain's argument that there would be less moderator work).

Most of what I see on the subforum is people not being aware of the rules as it might be their first time, or people posting general forum topics there. I don't see too many obvious cases of PM dealing and I have not been involved in it myself. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't happening, but I don't see it as so endemic that it required a complete overhaul. We only need to tweak the rules and enforce them.

Lemag

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

To me it sounds like trying to solve gun crime by giving everyone a gun.

I had a very witty retort to this but I seem to have lost my train of thought

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Plus, I find it hard to enough to manage my PM inbox with just PMs from completed sales coming through and PMs from other, non-sales related issues. I can only see this becoming a complete nightmare for everyone if dozens of PMs are bounced around for every sale, every completed sale and then every sale that falls through. Do I have to PM each person individually if a sale falls through to notify them, or do I ask for my thread to be unlocked, edited and relocked (this, along with the many PMs regarding trangressions in sales, would essentially nullify the captain's argument that there would be less moderator work).

Not all sellers would suffer from the severe popularity with which you seem to be afflicted. It'd be up to the seller to keep track of his in/outbox. The seller could request that the thread be locked after cash/credit have changed hands. No need to have the thread reopened then. Where's the extra mod work?

edit - I'm off to bed

DirkVoodoo

Lemag wrote: »

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

To me it sounds like trying to solve gun crime by giving everyone a gun.

I had a very witty retort to this but I seem to have lost my train of thought

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Plus, I find it hard to enough to manage my PM inbox with just PMs from completed sales coming through and PMs from other, non-sales related issues. I can only see this becoming a complete nightmare for everyone if dozens of PMs are bounced around for every sale, every completed sale and then every sale that falls through. Do I have to PM each person individually if a sale falls through to notify them, or do I ask for my thread to be unlocked, edited and relocked (this, along with the many PMs regarding trangressions in sales, would essentially nullify the captain's argument that there would be less moderator work).

Not all sellers would suffer from the severe popularity with which you seem to be afflicted. It'd be up to the seller to keep track of his in/outbox. The seller could request that the thread be locked after cash/credit have changed hands. No need to have the thread reopened then. Where's the extra mod work?

edit - I'm off to bed

I know, I know, I'm kind of a big deal, my inbox is overflowing with fan mail and scanned images of underwear. I've had to filter out "marry", "me" and "dirk" from subject lines.

Edit - I hope that's not an invitation, please, don't pm me if it was.

Beasty

Just to be clear, I can't speak for the other mods, but I cannot recall any specific occasion when someone PM'd me that they have been approached off-thread

Now yes I'm certain it happens - there's enough in-thread evidence of that. I would encourage anyone to report off-thread approaches to the mods. The whole idea of this discussion is to get a system that is fair, where everyone (well as many as possible!) reads, understands and abides by the rules - that makes our life a lot easier;)

Ultimately we have the sanction of banning persistent offenders from the sub forum (and the main forum if appropriate) and if we discover those who are banned are still approaching posters off-thread we can ask the Admins for a site-wide ban - that would stop them sending and receiving PMs

Lemag

WTF DV! Ignoring my multiple PMs, eh? My bed was very lonely last night. No doubt you were occupied with one of your other YOUNGER b1tches. Humph! At least with a bit of notice I could have sufficiently charged the batteries and made do.

Chips Lovell

Lemag wrote: »

Maybe I should have. There was that voice inside my head saying "Don't be a scab. It's us (regular boards users) against them (boards mods)":(

I think you may be misunderstanding how the forum works. To a large degree it is self-policing. It is impossible for the mods to read everything and in most cases our attention is drawn to something by people reporting stuff. If nobody reported things, the moderation would become very ineffective.

Lemag

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think you may be misunderstanding how the forum works. To a large degree it is self-policing. It is impossible for the mods to read everything and in most cases our attention is drawn to something by people reporting stuff. If nobody reported things, the moderation would become very ineffective.

I get it. After 1300+ posts in this forum I ought to. However, the mods are the authority here and dobbing someone else in just doesn't sit right with me. However, I'll try to conqour this weak misplaced conscience of mine and hopefully become one of the greatest dobbers this forum has ever seen.

Beasty

Final call for comments - we'll be closing this thread this evening

Beasty

We have had no objections to the proposed rule changes which we will implement wef 1 October. The "totting-up" proposal will only include "offences" committed on or after 1 October (although we will not ignore the history of posters who have committed serious offences previously - if you've already had a ban from the sub-forum, don't be surprised if you get one for further offences irrespective of the totting-up process)

In terms of the other issues mentioned by posters:

• Include a link to the rules in every new thread - this would probably be a pain to police (I really don't fancy handing out cards because someone forgets to include such a link), and tbh everyone should read the rules before posting (in any forum) anyway - ignorance of the rules will never be accepted as an excuse for breaking them
• Lemag's proposed alternative basis of dealing. This had no general support. It needs to be borne in mind that we are allowed the sub-forum by concession, and it's rules were required to be based on those applied by adverts.ie. Although we have been able to tweak the rules, such a fundamental change would require the agreement of the "Powers that be", which I suspect would not be forthcoming, and may indeed precipitate a further review of whether we should be allowed the sub-forum at all
• Minimum post requirement - this is not something we could automatically apply without a change to the software, which is unlikely to get support given other priorities of the software development team. There is also the danger that posters will spam other forums to get their post counts up, negating any perceived benefit. Ultimately it's a case of "Buyer Beware" and posters may take into account post counts when considering who they may wish to deal with