Infraction Appeal and Request for Clarification

[Gadfly22]

The following is part of an email exchange between me and moderator Karda concerning an infraction I received for posting the same knives at reduced prices within a 2-week period. My position -- which I had seen stated as a reasonable interpretation of the re-posting rule that I had not seen contradicted -- is that a knife offered at a reduced price is not the same "item". The price reduction -- so long as the consolidated listing rule is observed -- provides a benefit to buyers (i.e., lower prices) without unduly hogging 1st page space and disadvantaging other sellers. Apparently, some moderators disagree.

My understanding is that the rule does not apply if the price is being lowered, as it has been on each of the knives listed. Is that not the case? Please clarify and if that IS the case, please remove this infraction.

Where does it state this in the rules?
You may lower the prices in the thread you already started. You may not post a new thread with lowered prices.

I

And where does it state that in the rules? It's not a repost of the same knife for the same price, which is what the rules seem to ban.

In any event, either remove the infraction or bladeforum can say goodbye to my money in the future and my attention. And I suggest that someone rewrite the rules to clarify. And apply them consistently. A poster did exactly what I did, noted that HE understood lowering prices and reporting was permitted and no moderator contradicted him. At least not that I saw in that thread, where a statement of the rule publicly would have been appropriate.

Possibly that other poster did not get reported and that is why it was missed. I acted on a report and feel i acted appropriately. It's only a 1 pt expiring infraction. You may have MikeG or a Supermod review this case and if they feel it merits a reversal, i will stand by their decision.

Well, obviously I disagree. For example, the Vesuvius offered at $68 is a significantly different offer from the current offer at $50. I understand the policy of keeping identical or substantially identical offers from being repeated and hogging the front page. But when you (that is, I) significantly change the offer to lower the price, you're doing your readers a disservice by making them dig back in the selling forum. (Especially when the search function -- at least in my experience -- is very limited.)

Example in point: my Lahar was offered over the weekend at $75. A Canadian wanted to buy it. I said no international, but then had second thoughts. His email wasn't operative, so I left a message in that old thread. He didn't see it. So, seeing the new post, he offered to buy for the revised lower price. Good for him. Except I'm taking all this very personally, and I'm not doing any buying, selling or trading until it gets cleared up. So, owing to the BF policy, it turns out bad for him.

And that's the problem with the policy: freeze a seller who wants to substantially lower prices as prominently as possible (i.e., as a new post), and you only hurt buyers.

How do I bump this up to a SuperMod or MikeG? As I said, I take things like this personally and seriously.

And I might be overreacting a bit, but I had a trade (on the Chokwe in fact in the post) held up for 2 weeks waiting for my trade partner to get a knife back from Benchmade. I get no responses to my emails except one that says the returned knife "looks sweet". Then yesterday morning I see it offered for sale. That experience soured me a bit on this place, and then I got this infraction which I consider inappropriate.

If we allow reposting due to price changes, everyone would be changing threads don't you think?
I don't see that happening, do you?

At any rate....i've asked that supermod step in and resolve this issue.

And why would steadily lowering prices to find a saleable number be a bad thing? As I noted before, the key is whether a price reduction is substantial enough to prevent front-page hogging. That criterion plus the "one post per day to consolidate listings" means you're keeping the front page filled with the best deals for buyers but still preventing hogging the prime visual real estate. Isn't that a good thing for all concerned?

In my experience here, there's very little price negotiation around the asking price. If you freeze a knife price for 2 weeks, you're just preventing potential buyers from buying. And also, as I pointed out, the search function is not very flexible. Try searching for info on a Fallkniven U2.

You want a simple statement of a workable rule: "You must wait two (2) weeks (14 days) to relist offers for sale after the first time they have been listed. Don't try to circumvent this, your sale will be deleted, and your account will be locked. However, an offer that reduces the asking price of each knife listed (or a combination of knives) by 15% or more will be deemed a new offer."

By this rule, someone can't list 5 knives and then reduce the price of 1 knife by $0.10 and then relist all. Each knife relisted has to have a substantial price reduction to justify a fresh offer (and I used 15% just as an example -- pick a number).

That is roughly what I thought the operative rule was based on that post I cited and the posting behavior I believe I see on a practical basis pretty often on the selling thread.

If you wish you may take your last summation to service and support for opinions on it.
As that is not what the current rules are, my infraction stands.
I don't make the rules.

You will now have to wait for a supermod to resolve this issue.

Has this matter gotten any attention from a Supermod yet?

I havent seen/heard anything.

Thank you. I don't know how this appeal procedure works.

You can post a thread in service and support or report the thread and ask for clarification.
I can tell you though, if noones reversed it as yet, then they probably feel i acted appropriately.

So then no one will even bother to let me know.

Let me get this straight:

1. You have rules that don't really get policed unless someone squeals to a moderator. You indicated this fact when you told me someone reported my thread.

2. That means the rules aren't enforced even-handedly or consistently. You indicated this fact when you told me no one responded to the thread in which someone asked about how the rules applied to reposting with price reductions (i.e., it was not a rules violation).

3. You, as moderator, adopt an interpretation of the term "item" (as in same "item") in the rules that ignores substantial price reductions that might change the character of an "item" for sale -- even though there in no such indication or suggestion in the rules that your interpretation is correct.

4. I request an appeal or review of that interpretation -- and a complete failure to respond is deemed adequate (i.e., paying subscribers aren't deemed worthy of clarification).

Basically, I would like a response to my official request -- through you -- for clarification of the rule and removal of the infraction.

I'm sending a copy of this last message to you to MikeG also -- though I've received no response to my previous message to him. Is failure to respond standard operating procedure?

Wrong. "no interpretation". I try to moderate as evenly and fairly as i can. I do as i'm taught/told.
I asked for resolution on your behalf, thats all i can do. If you want, you can post a thread in service and support, as i've said (for the 3rd time).

As far as i'm concerned the infraction stands. I cannot reverse it..... If you want resolution you will have to persue it yourself at this point, i'm done arguing.

Well, I certainly understand that you don't understand how rules and their enforcement work. Frankly, I don't think I need to bother pursuing this matter -- though maybe I'll post as you suggest just as a warning to others who may be considering subscribing. I realize $25 per year isn't much -- but it's $25 per year that I won't be paying anymore.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Let me try to clarify the meaning and origin of the 14 day rule.

1. Consolidating all listings posted in the same forum on the same day is one rule, not really relevant to relisting after 14 days.

2. Relisting the same knives or gear for sale can only be done after 14 days. The physical items are "items". Their prices, availability CONUS or foreign, payment options, shipping options, and so on, are not elements of these "items".

3. The 14 day rule replaced the rules on "bumping". These bumping rules became irrelevant when Spark changed the order of threads in the Exchange forums. Previously, threads were ordered by their most recent post, meaning people could get friends to make comments to keep their threads at the top, on the first page.

The new order became chronological by original post. This means threads posted most recently are at the top and older threads cannot move back up. It also means any changes to a thread must be edited in, preferably into the original post to be easy to find.

This eventually relegates threads to the back pages, at a time when some items may be sold anyway. As long as any items from the original thread are still unsold, you must wait for 14 days, but afterwards, you can make a new thread with any unsold items, and it will become a first page item.

 

[Karda]

Thats exactly what i told Gadfly22. You must edit the new prices into the original post, not start a new thread with revised pricing.

 

[RevDevil]

Here is a thought, why not create a link to your sales thread in your sig? This would avoid all the problems described above. So long as the sig is not billboard sized, it should be acceptable.

 

[Mike G]

The only PM I have regarding this is from Karda, apprising me of the situation. Nothing from Gadfly.

As far as I'm concerned, the infraction stands. The repost rule was violated. Karda made it very clear, and Esav affirmed it.

If Spark wishes to hear your case, he'll be in touch.

 

[Maniacal Pete]

That's not an email exchange, it is a Private Message (PM).
Private messages are not intended for airing dirty laundry, hence they are typically kept private
(which, BTW, is why they are called Private Messages).