Enough is enough with the classifieds (*or* Why you cannot reply to classified ads)

I never said I didn't make the comments. I am saying that the comments I made were being misinterpreted. Hence the distinguishing between point of view and opinion I made. This is a perfect example of two people disagreeing about points of view. In my point of view, what I said wasn't my opinion, just trying to show how some people might feel about the situation. And in your point of view, what I said was my opinion.

Do you see what I'm trying to get at here?
Maybe i should have been more clear and informative of what I was trying to do?
I tend to assume everyone knows what I'm talking about sometimes.

Never once did I say that the moderators (individually or as a whole) didn't want to do their jobs.

Maybe we should take a poll, lol...see if I'm the one that read it that way, or you're the one that said it that way.
Either way, what's said is said....and, when it comes right down to it, it doesn't impact the situation at all. Let's call it water under the bridge.
If you wish to further discuss semantics, we can continue it in private or in another thread (General BS?).

As a moderator myself on another website that is about the same size as this one, we are engaged in some of the same debate for many of the same reasons, and this is one option being considered...

Yes, the time it takes for volunteers to moderate is certainly part of the equation- but the bigger issue is really the "tone" that the whole issue imparts in the affected threads, OPs, thread readers, and to all the members who end up on the receiving end of infractions. It's a rather dysfunctional dynamic that seems to feed into itself. So though I personally would rather on-topic posts be allowed in classified ads, I can certainly appreciate very solid and good reasons to dis-allow them. On a site this big it is unavoidable that there are going to be a hefty number of people who don't know, don't read, and/or simply don't care about rules- not to mention deliberate troublemakers. The decision to disallow replies does NOT just favor the moderation staff- it is an attempt to eliminate forum disruption at the ground level.

Originally Posted by hhmoore

Maybe we should take a poll, lol...see if I'm the one that read it that way, or you're the one that said it that way.
Either way, what's said is said....and, when it comes right down to it, it doesn't impact the situation at all. Let's call it water under the bridge.
If you wish to further discuss semantics, we can continue it in private or in another thread (General BS?).

I agree..what's said is said and that can't be taken back, but i do apologize if I offended anyone. And water under the bridge sounds good to me.

the bigger issue is really the "tone" that the whole issue imparts in the affected threads, OPs, thread readers, and to all the members who end up on the receiving end of infractions. It's a rather dysfunctional dynamic that seems to feed into itself.

DING, DING, DING!!
We have a winner!!
(Especially for the dysfunctional dynamic statement)

No I'n not!, Yes you are! No I'n not!, Yes you are! No I'n not!, Yes you are! No I'n not!, Yes you are!

LOL. Maybe time to close this thread also. Really, Webslaves place. Like it or leave it. Mod or don't mod. Ohh look, the Sun came up!

Originally Posted by JColt

No I'n not!, Yes you are! No I'n not!, Yes you are! No I'n not!, Yes you are! No I'n not!, Yes you are!

LOL. Maybe time to close this thread also. Really, Webslaves place. Like it or leave it. Mod or don't mod. Ohh look, the Sun came up!

Yeah no kidding.

Been here for a few years, not nearly as long as many of you but still feel like I need to give my two cents on this issue. While I respect the site owners prerogative to set rules, I do feel that this one is a bit short sighted. It seems to be contrary to the principles the site runs on, namely free speech and open communication. Other options that might work would be to hire more moderators and/or increase the penalties for abusing posting rights in the classifieds.

We'd been cracking down on things in the classifieds for some time....2 additional moderators were added. The problem with increasing the penalty for those posts is the ill feelings that were already being caused. Many, if not most, people felt they were being treated too harshly if they were given infractions...and we weren't even addressing a lot of the mild stuff (ie the fluff and attaboy posts). Raising the infraction value would mean people getting banned more quickly. If a warning or infraction upset people, imagine what getting banned does.
When steps were taken to address part of the problem, people actively pursued means of bypassing them.
We realize that a lot of people value being able to post in the classifieds; but it certainly isn't necessary for a successful transaction.

Yes, this will significantly reduce post statistics - but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'll estimate that at least half of the posts in the classifieds were fluff - friendly, usually complimentary, posts that did nothing but bump the ads. (There is an infraction for ad bumping abuse; but again, consideration was being given to the intent. The goal was not to just pile on infractions, and end up banning people....THAT is counterproductive.) Then there were the good guy posts...the positive, well intended ones - those could be argued to be breaking two different rules for the classifieds (ad bumping + BOI type posts outside of the BOI); but cracking down too hard on them seemed like a bad idea. Let's say we were getting about 350 posted responses to ads each day...the two types of posts described above easily made up 200 of them. From there, it was a battle between legitimate questions and disruptive or chatty posts.

Originally Posted by 72LT1

Been here for a few years, not nearly as long as many of you but still feel like I need to give my two cents on this issue. While I respect the site owners prerogative to set rules, I do feel that this one is a bit short sighted. It seems to be contrary to the principles the site runs on, namely free speech and open communication. Other options that might work would be to hire more moderators and/or increase the penalties for abusing posting rights in the classifieds.

You appear to be implying that I did not give this a lot of consideration (by accusing me of being "short sighted"), and that I do not know the principles by which I created and developed this website.

So, please, explain to me how much consideration you have put into your own suggestions in relation to those above mentioned principles. Show me your "long sighted" view, please, and detail how your view and suggestions will be better. I think Harald has given a pretty good rundown concerning your suggestions, as he has been involved in providing input while I was pondering how to address this problem.

So, please, show us how you have come to the conclusion that you know I am wrong about this and you have a better plan.