Rules for GB&U

bluejaunte

bluejaunte

Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
2,035
There is too much character assassination going on in GB&U. :thumbdn:

I'd like to request that if one "doesn't have dog in the fight" or does not have information that is directly relevant to the discussion, one may not post.

Edited to add: Since the repercussions of discourse in a GB&U thread can have the same (or even greater) effect on participants' reputation/business as chatting or interference in "For Sale" threads, I'd amend my request to include moderation/infractions at the same level of scrutiny as in the Exchange.
 
Last edited:
So you are in favor of pile-ons by know-nothings who have zero involvement in the dispute?
 
bluejaunte said:
There is too much character assassination going on in GB&U. :thumbdn:

I'd like to request that if one "doesn't have dog in the fight" or does not have information that is directly relevant to the discussion, one may not post.

Edited to add: Since the repercussions of discourse in a GB&U thread can have the same (or even greater) effect on participants' reputation/business as chatting or interference in "For Sale" threads, I'd amend my request to include moderation/infractions at the same level of scrutiny as in the Exchange.
Click to expand...

I agree, unless someone has had a transaction with company or party and is reporting his experience, why should others be allowed to chime in with unfounded rumors and accusations. Or other information not pertinent to the actual discussion.

Just MHO.
Jim
 
How can we really know if someone has had a transaction with a company or not?

In my opinion, people will rise to support reputable makers, dealers, etc. Just look at recent threads on A G Russell and New Graham. On the other hand, why shouldn't members be allowed to post in support of fellow members who may be getting screwed by makers, dealers, etc. If the person is reputable, that information will certainly come out in the thread. Censorship is hardly the solution.
 
bluejaunte said:
So you are in favor of pile-ons by know-nothings who have zero involvement in the dispute?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. People should weigh in on public disputes if they want to. That is the whole point of the forum. It is not a Private message or email where only the people involved can speak.
 
So we would have a moderator decide who is “piling on” and who had a legitimate transaction with a seller or buyer? What about people who jump in to defend someone when they haven’t had actual dealings with him?

Or if someone orders a knife, doesn’t get it, complains about not getting said knife, then receives a free knife to make up for the first one not arriving in a timely manner and then edits the complaining post, does that make it OK for that person to post what a great guy the seller is just because he got his two knives? I know, that’s a very hypothetical scenario…

Rules for GB&U smack of rampant political correctness. We should probably also watch those posters in Levine's forum who weigh in on knives they've never actually held.
 
This idea makes no sense.

If this is in reference to the latest dust up, the parties involved had tried to contact the maker in question by personal correspondence.
That is bad and ugly and it should be info available to prospective buyers and sellers.

Only after they were forced to go public did he respond to their requests. Read enough of those and the pattern repeats itself an awful lot.

There always seems to be some drift, dysfunction, and humor value thrown in but it works...

don't fix it. :D
 
Mike Robuck said:
So we would have a moderator decide who is “piling on” and who had a legitimate transaction with a seller or buyer? What about people who jump in to defend someone when they haven’t had actual dealings with him?

Or if someone orders a knife, doesn’t get it, complains about not getting said knife, then receives a free knife to make up for the first one not arriving in a timely manner and then edits the complaining post, does that make it OK for that person to post what a great guy the seller is just because he got his two knives? I know, that’s a very hypothetical scenario…

Rules for GB&U smack of rampant political correctness. We should probably also watch those posters in Levine's forum who weigh in on knives they've never actually held.
Click to expand...
Good points,
Perhaps it can not be done fairly and without bias.
Jim
 
Obviously, there is a danger of trolling when the membership at large gets to jump in. And FEEDBACK/GBU has traditionally been moderated more lightly than the other Exchange forums, to encourage ideas, even if they may be stated irritatingly by unpopular members.

But if only the actual disputants were allowed to post, we would not get a feel for how the membership generally felt about the problem, sometimes for and sometimes against the original poster. It is this feedback that pressures the disputants to come to some arrangement and shut off the bad publicity they are getting.

Without the Peanut Gallery, they would just be shouting back and forth at each other, which didn't work offline either or they wouldn't have brought it to Bladeforums.
 
It's always good to go back and review the rules..

Rule 1. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Rule 2. See rule 1.

It seems to be doing the job now as is.

Paul
 
GB&U is fine the way it is for many reasons, several of which have been mentioned in this thread.

We do moderate that forum a bit less because we want to see the discussion, we want to see the facts, and yes, we want to see who is full of it as well.

Several times I have emailed or PM'd certain participants in threads, and have 'clipped on the short leash', so to speak. It works most of the time. Sometimes, we admonish the group in general about their behavior, but most of the time I handle things via email or PM when I think they are out of hand.

Moderation does take place in those threads, gang. You just don't see it in public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top