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

[Focal]

But what if someone is holding an auction? Now only paid members have the ability to bid?That doesn't seem fair. Some people can't afford to be a paid member.

I like and dislike the auction idea. The infractions mentioned in this thread really aren't much different then what's going on in the auction thread. When you are doing $1 or even $10 increments, these ads are constantly being bumped when it's a high dollar snake. This is kind of bypassing the whole "no bump" policy, especially since auctions work better with higher visibility. I do like the auctions as long as they don't get bumped each time unless the OP/seller uses the classified control panel.

Non-contributing members can still bid, though. There is an example in the BP FS forum now where the seller is taking PM's. Non-contributors can also hold auctions as long as they update the first post.

Also, you can't really say some people can afford to be a contributor if they are partaking in an auction. If they can afford a snake, then they can afford a contribution and choose not to. Nothing wrong with that, but if I want to contribute and can't afford so, I wouldn't be able to purchase a snake/reptile.

 

[Laura Fopiano]

It's in human nature to not like change, myself being a creature of habbit I tend to resist it. However, when it comes to classified adds I detest the idea of an add turning into a thread! I won't even open them if they have post's in them.

When did contacting the seller about feeding records and the animals history become such a chore? It is my job as a buyer to do my homework and I find a much better connection with a potential business transaction if I actually do the work and open up the communication away from the add.

This forum has every tool available to us. Stop being so lazy people! Use the forums for discussions on a specific animal, check the BOI for references on a seller or buyer. It's not really that hard.

 

[Matt2979]

Personally, I enjoy being able to "chat" in the classifieds...to a point. It's nice to point out discrepancies when someone is flat out misrepresenting their animals, pulling a scam, using stolen pics, to point out that someone is a "Good Guy", etc. I do NOT like when people start griping at a seller about his/her pricing, low-balling, or just being rude in general.

If the latter can't be controlled, I guess we'll have to live with Rich's decision. It's not my favorite idea to see implemented, but it's certainly not the end of the world (or even this site) so I don't understand why anyone is so angry over the change. "Chat" was never the reason the responses were allowed in the first place.

If anyone is just worried about not being able to bump your ad, membership is NOT expensive. Most sites charge as much, or more, to advertise for a month than what this site charges for a full year (which includes a lot more than just the classifieds). It's really not that big of a deal. Even upaid members are allowed to advertise, and you can easily keep your ad near the top without too much effort.

 

[the gecko geek]

Never once did I say that the moderators (individually or as a whole) didn't want to do their jobs.
What I said was that the way the situation was handled makes it APPEAR that way. IMO. Not that you guys don't want to do your jobs. I'm simply looking at it from all angles and COULD see why things would appear that way. Why people could pull that card. I am NOT pulling that card.

Just to clear everything up, and so that we are all on the same page, the last paragraph of my last post is MY opinion and thoughts on the matter. And I will ad that I think the whole moderation team does a superb job. Just so there's no confusion about my thoughts about Rich and the rest of the moderators.

I do pay attention. I know it has been discussed openly in this thread. But I'm saying send a notification to users before you cut the cord so to speak. If people knew what was going to happen before it happened things wouldn't be so hectic and people wouldn't get so bent about it. And people freaking out is not your fault. It's theirs.

And no, I'm not out to argue. I'm out to play both sides of the fence. It's just what I do. It's always best to see it from both perspectives. When I first learned about the decision made, I was mad. The day went on, I thought about it, and came to the conclusion that it really didn't affect me other than the fact that I can't post a reply in a classified ad. It's not like my account was terminated because I'm not a paid member.

I see how it works, I see how it doesn't, and that's about it. Any which way you look at it, and like Rich has pointed out numerous times, no decision made will make everyone happy. It's just something we have to deal with.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Too funny.....

So tell us, how is it their "job" to be handing out warnings and infractions for replies made in a section that isn't meant for discussion? Do you think they are getting paid to do this? Think of it like this big park where there is an area for dogs and an area not meant for dogs. How would you feel if you volunteered everyday to clean up dog poop in this park and found yourself cleaning more of it in the area not meant for dogs? How would you feel when those in the park told you "well that's your job"? Wouldn't it make more sense to fence off the area not meant for dogs? I don't know about you, but most forums I am on do not allow discussion in the classified ads section and those that do seem to have more problems with it than anything.

I know you say you didn't mean to offend anyone, but I guarantee you did.

To expand. It would be like people who would bring their dogs to the park that live out of the area. They don't pay taxes on the use of the park. Don't pay fees to use the park, then tell the people their they aren't doing their jobs providing a free place for their individual needs. People feel so entitled it is ridiculous.

They like to complain about the condition of the park, use its resources, but when it comes right down to it

That doesn't seem fair. Some people can't afford to be a paid member

You want to talk about fair? First and foremost this is a business related site revolving around the community of reptile enthusiasts. People like to use the resources, dictate policy, tell people how they should do their "job" and contribute nothing to the upkeep. How is that for fair?

 

[Dennis Hultman]

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

Yeah, OK.

I honestly think that the mods are just tired of doing their jobs...

 

[hhmoore]

Never once did I say that the moderators (individually or as a whole) didn't want to do their jobs.
What I said was that the way the situation was handled makes it APPEAR that way. IMO. Not that you guys don't want to do your jobs. I'm simply looking at it from all angles and COULD see why things would appear that way. Why people could pull that card. I am NOT pulling that card.

And you are FULL OF IT.
What you said, in its entirety.

I highlighted my main point of concern here. I don't mean any offense, just want to throw my POV out there..

It is Rich's site, so therefore he has the responsibility of taking care of it. Making sure everything is running as it should, people play nicely, and so on. By taking the whole replying to posts away from the biggest part of the users, it seems like the easy way out. Plain and simple, it really does. It makes it look like he just doesnt want to waste his time doing part of his job as head honcho of the website.

Take this situation out of fauna and into the real world...
The president runs the USA. Well if the president decided that it was only necessary for those in the military to buy any and all foods, what would happen???

I honestly think that the mods are just tired of doing their jobs...

I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is just how the situation pans out in my eyes.

This isn't the only way to fix this issue..they could just stick to their old methods and hand out infractions and warnings, but they don't want to because they are tired of doing that.



I think that we are going to see the same ads posted at least twice a day because so many people want their ads to be seen, and the only way to keep it on front page is to delete and repost, or hope that a paid member replies to it.

Just to clear everything up, and so that we are all on the same page, the last paragraph of my last post is MY opinion and thoughts on the matter. And I will ad that I think the whole moderation team does a superb job. Just so there's no confusion about my thoughts about Rich and the rest of the moderators.

Hmmmm - you started that previous post by stating that was YOUR opinion...and you left little confusion about your thoughts.

I do pay attention. I know it has been discussed openly in this thread. But I'm saying send a notification to users before you cut the cord so to speak. If people knew what was going to happen before it happened things wouldn't be so hectic and people wouldn't get so bent about it. And people freaking out is not your fault. It's theirs.

In discussions related to the classifieds - well in advance of the trigger being pulled - it was clearly stated that this would be the fix if the problems continued. That's pretty much advanced warning...the only thing lacking was a specific deadline (lacking because it didn't exist). All a previous notification would have accomplished is more arguing, then more people getting ticked off when the change was made despite their stated opinions.
This wasn't a decision that was up for a vote, but people would have been intent on changing the outcome. Rich has been doing this for a while, seen the way people react to various approaches, and has learned from past mistakes. You clearly don't agree with his approach; but, having been around to see this scenario before, I think he made the right call. But then, you think I should just quit anyway; so my opinion probably means as much to you, as yours does to me right now.

 

[the gecko geek]

Harold. Look at the very first highlight you made. The second sentence just to clarify. POV stands for point of view. Someone's point of view is not their opinion. It's is THE WAY THEY SEE SOMETHING. Someone can see something from MULTIPLE POINTS OF VIEW. And someone's POV is not someone's opinion. Everything you highlighted shows my POV. Not my opinion.

I neither agree or disagree with Rich's decision. I stated before how I felt about it. It doesn't really bother me. He did what he had o do. Like anyone that values something they have created would. And when did I say to quit? All I said was if you can't handle it then quit. I never said, "Hey Harold, you should quit." Don't try and turn it into something its not. That is just childish.

And you are wrong. Your opinion actually does matter to me quite substantially. If it didn't why would I even bother to post in this thread? I would have kept it to myself if I didn't want anyone's opinion. And I will share on my grandparents grave that the above statement is true. So in reality, your opinion is worth more to me than mine is to you. Or at least that's the way it seems.

All i was doing was putting another POV out there to look at. Maybe that was the wrong thing to do. I don't really care about that though. I just want everyone to be on the same page.
Is that understandable?

 

[the gecko geek]

Sorry, sware on my grandparents' grave

 

[hhmoore]

Your point of view cannot be separated from your opinion so easily...by stating it was your point of view, you are declaring it as the way you see things (which might as well be called your opinion) - not how other people might view them; but, even if I bought that excuse, it doesn't change the reading of the other bolded statements.
Anybody that knows me recognizes that I'm poking at you, and disecting your statements, to show the inaccuracies...if I was offended (or worse, angry), I would remove myself until I was sure I wouldn't cross lines. Your comments didn't bother me nearly as much as when you tried to say you didn't make them.

 

[the gecko geek]

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.

 

[hhmoore]

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?).

 

[lauraleellbp]

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.

 

[the gecko geek]

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.

 

[hhmoore]

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)

 

[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!

 

[KelliH]

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.

 

[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.

 

[hhmoore]

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.

 

[WebSlave]

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.