When did a question become chatting?

[Guyon]

Do we really need to go this hardcore?

I hope not.

Kevin, I'm not sure why the answer would lie in more rules and regulations. That is just going to make the job of the moderators even harder and make the Exchange seem more like a militarized zone.

The only question here was: can members ask legitimate questions without infractions?

Yes, a slew of new rules might limit all conversation, but that kind of zero tolerance attitude is, in my opinion, one of the many things that is wrong with our school systems these days. They've basically passed a law or rule against everything to the point that a student can be expelled for looking crossways in the wrong context.

I, for one, would regret seeing that kind of attitude appear here at BFC over a simple ruling request involving an isolated incident.

 

[glockman99]

The only question here was: can members ask legitimate questions without infractions?

The only "problem" I see with this is the fact that ANY question and/or answer posted in the thread WILL bring that thread "BTT" many times (in some cases) in one day. I think THAT'S the part that needs to be regulated...Otherwise, a "BTT war" could erupt, as folks want THEIR ad on-top of the pile, not hidden-way on "page 4". I still don't see the problem with using email or PM's when possible to ask/answer questions...UNLESS the question/answer is DIRECTLY related to the item listed for sale...And even that can open up a can of worms, as again, it would be a "judgement call" from a moderator.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

The only question here was: can members ask legitimate questions without infractions? [ ... ]

I, for one, would regret seeing that kind of attitude appear here at BFC over a simple ruling request involving an isolated incident.

Of course members can ask legitimate questions without infractions and do so every day.

More Management by Cliche: Don't ask the question if you aren't going to like the answer. Why was this incident blown out of proportion? The moderator made a judgement call. We have a Service & Support forum where the member who got the infraction could ask for reversal if he thought it wasn't valid.

This just wasn't a clearcut test case to force a ruling on.

 

[WalterDavis]

I, for one, would regret seeing that kind of attitude appear here at BFC over a simple ruling request involving an isolated incident.

+1!

Reading through this thread, it really looks like a simple mistake was made, but I don't see any real hard feelings on either side. The Mods here do a dang fine job of keeping everything in line, and I have don't see things like this as the norm, nor do I want to.

Resinguy does have, in my mind, a legitimate query. I think that it was just a mistake, or maybe even that there was another reason why ADD got infracted that everyone's not aware of(?), but wondering if there is going to disciplinary action for asking about a modded knife is warranted, IMO.

I don't think that more rules or harsher enforcement of the rules in necessary, or even would be beneficial. Someone just saw something that they questioned, and asked (in the appropriate venue, even!) what was going on. No need to get all 'up in arms' over it, no matter which side of the camp you're in

Surely on a site like this, that values it's willingness and ability to keep discussions (even unpleasant and distasteful ones) open for the benefit of discourse, it's permissable to question someone's judgement in the open (even a Mod who does a great job in a rough environment:thumbup without repercussions:thumbup:

Hope you all had a great 4th:thumbup:

 

[chuckinohio]

The warning was issued to a member with only 400 some posts, an infraction was issued to a member with 1,700 some posts.

Perhaps it is a case of him being here longer, he should have known.

Chuck

 

[Mike G]

I'm not sure why this has to be such a big deal.

The rule here is very simple; unless you are asking a relevant question regarding the purchase, or trade of the item, take it to PM or email.

Gee, thats a nice handle! is NOT a relevant question pertaining to the sale.

What material is the handle made of? IS a relevant question.

I think that this community is savvy enough to understand how this works.

 

[Ken44]

The rule here is very simple; unless you are asking a relevant question regarding the purchase, or trade of the item, take it to PM or email.
.

This was a Syderco Mule Blank that comes with no sheath or scales.

I can't think of a more relevant question about said knife than "who did the sheath and slabs?" Anyone would ask that if intrested it that knife.

Being nice when you ask a question is also a good thing in my book.

The Mods have a very tough job, esp in the exchange, and I know I couldn't do it. But every one makes a mistake from time to time, and IMO one was made in this case.

I think taking the one point infraction away would be the fair thing to do.

Just my opinion, which I know doesn't really matter. I hope it is OK to voice our opinion about it.

 

[Mike G]

This was a Syderco Mule Blank that comes with no sheath or scales.

I can't think of a more relevant question about said knife than "who did the sheath and slabs?" Anyone would ask that if intrested it that knife.

Being nice when you ask a question is also a good thing in my book.

The Mods have a very tough job, esp in the exchange, and I know I couldn't do it. But every one makes a mistake from time to time, and IMO one was made in this case.

I think taking the one point infraction away would be the fair thing to do.

Just my opinion, which I know doesn't really matter. I hope it is OK to voice our opinion about it.

You can voice your opinion on whatever you like as far as I'm concerned, and I will listen respectfully.

It is up to the seller to accurately describe the item for sale or trade. We could sit here all day and come up with a billion different 'what ifs'. Please read what I typed above; if it is a relevant question pertaining to the sale, then ask. Making a comment such as 'nice handle' or 'I like the grind on the blade', or similar, is not relevant to the sale, and is not allowed.

I really don't see why this is hard to understand.

As for reversing the infraction, that is between the person receiving the infraction, the moderator issuing the infraction, and Spark. None of the rest of us need to be involved in that.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

The warning was issued to a member with only 400 some posts, an infraction was issued to a member with 1,700 some posts.

Perhaps it is a case of him being here longer, he should have known.

Chuck

It is a case of two different moderators noting two different problems in two different forums. Post count has nothing to do with it.

 

[Berkley]

It is a case of two different moderators noting two different problems in two different forums. Post count has nothing to do with it.

Now I'm confused. I thought the 2 posts in question were in the same forum? albeit with two different mods as you say.

 

[Guyon]

I really don't see why this is hard to understand.

Mike, I think what confuses some folks has to do with taking the post as a whole and not just considering one part of the post.

ADD's post contained a relevant question. Can he not couch that question in a few polite comments as long as there is a real question there?

Your answer is no, quite clearly. But some, I suppose, don't see the harm in including a polite aside or two as long as there is a legitimate question in the post.

It's a question of zero tolerance for any kind of side comment versus using judgment to see that a question is present.

Given the response ADD got from Dann, I will watch out not to comment on anything in the future if I want to ask a question. I'll just ask the question.

 

[Mike G]

We've tried our best to be on the same page when moderating, and sometimes that doesn't always go according to plan.

We have also tried to make the rules in the exchange as simple, and lenient as possible. One thing we decided is that it was unnecessary to clutter up for sale or trade threads with irrelevant comments or observations. Notice what I said here; unnecessary comments or observations. I didn't say anything about relevant questions. Think of it like you would going into a retail store. You ask questions to gain information on the item, so you can make an informed purchase decision. Most people don't waste the sales persons time with irrelevant comments like 'boy, sure wish I could afford that', or 'sure is a nice engine on this lawn tractor', or 'I wish the color was pink instead of blue'. Comments like that waste the salespersons time (who may be on commission), and do nothing but irritate the salesperson, and don't help you purchase the item.

I want to be very clear here; notice what I have said. Relevant questions are allowed. irrelevant Comments are NOT allowed.

I hope you all understand the difference, and take the irrelevant comments to PM or email. Follow this, and you will not receive a relevant infraction.

 

[resinguy]

We've tried our best to be on the same page when moderating, and sometimes that doesn't always go according to plan.

We have also tried to make the rules in the exchange as simple, and lenient as possible. One thing we decided is that it was unnecessary to clutter up for sale or trade threads with irrelevant comments or observations. Notice what I said here; unnecessary comments or observations. I didn't say anything about relevant questions. Think of it like you would going into a retail store. You ask questions to gain information on the item, so you can make an informed purchase decision. Most people don't waste the sales persons time with irrelevant comments like 'boy, sure wish I could afford that', or 'sure is a nice engine on this lawn tractor', or 'I wish the color was pink instead of blue'. Comments like that waste the salespersons time (who may be on commission), and do nothing but irritate the salesperson, and don't help you purchase the item.

I want to be very clear here; notice what I have said. Relevant questions are allowed. irrelevant Comments are NOT allowed.

I hope you all understand the difference, and take the irrelevant comments to PM or email. Follow this, and you will not receive a relevant infraction.

Mike, was the question that ADD asked in that sale thread a relevant question or not? If yes, why did he get an infraction? If not, can you explain how it was not relevant? Does adding a polite comment to a question somehow make it not relevant?

 

[MORIMOTOM]

I want to be very clear here; notice what I have said. Relevant questions are allowed. irrelevant Comments are NOT allowed.

I hope you all understand the difference, and take the irrelevant comments to PM or email. Follow this, and you will not receive a relevant infraction.

mike,

i think your responses here have been very clear.

but in this case, the post was both an irrelevant comment and a relevant question in one post, for which he was infracted.

our confusion is the result. but as i said earlier, i also think we overreacted over a 1 point ding.

 

[Guyon]

The answer seems pretty clear.

You cannot make small talk even if you include a relevant question in the same post.

The infraction seems to be for the added small talk. Not for the question.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Not a bad bit of advice. Don't make small talk in a sales thread. Especially, don't lead off with small talk, because THAT'S what probably triggered the infraction, before the mod even read the rest of the post.

 

[Mike G]

Not a bad bit of advice. Don't make small talk in a sales thread. Especially, don't lead off with small talk, because THAT'S what probably triggered the infraction, before the mod even read the rest of the post.

I couldn't have said it any better.

Thank you, Ed.

 

[Mike G]

Mike, was the question that ADD asked in that sale thread a relevant question or not? If yes, why did he get an infraction? If not, can you explain how it was not relevant? Does adding a polite comment to a question somehow make it not relevant?

I'm only guessing here, as I have not talked to Dann about this.

He received the infraction for the first part of his post. If that first part would have been at the end, perhaps the infraction wouldn't have been issued, but merely a warning. I really don't have an answer; you'd need to get Dann to weigh in.

Guys, moderating the forums is not an easy job. We are questioned by the members at every turn, and at times, treated very poorly because we made a judgement call. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. This thread is a perfect example.

The bottom line here is that the moderators are human. We make decisions based on our interpretation of the rules, and try our best to be fair. Most of the time we get it right, and sometimes, we get it wrong. it goes with the territory.

The infraction issued in this case was minor, and it will expire. I think we have beat this long enough, and it is time to move forward.

I sincerely hope that everyone has a clerer picture on what is and isn't allowed in a for sale or trade post. if we all follow the basic rule, then we won't receive an infraction for 'chatter'.

Thank you.

 

[resinguy]

Well, I don't think we were damning anybody. And everyone understand that mods have a largely thankless job. We have had some good discussion here.

When I saw that ADD got that infraction I was surprised, as people ask questions all the time, and I have never seen an infraction given for a question. So I sent Dann a PM asking about it. His reply was that it was chatting because questions cannot be asked in the thread. Well that stunned me, as I had never seen that rule before. That is why I started this thread. IMHO we don't need any rule changes or a ruling by Spark. Last night I did a search on the Exchange; search term "infraction". I read every infraction issued this year for chatting. Not one was for a question. No mod has really explained why including a polite comment along with a legitimate question is somehow wrong. Many of us appreciate politeness and civility here.

Mike, you seem to imply that perhaps a mistake was made in giving the infraction, but it's OK because it will expire. When other people make mistakes here on BFC in their dealing with members, we expect them to man up and publicly admit it, and apologize. In light of all this discussion, has Dann reflected on his action, does he now think he may have made a mistake? He has not explained his rationale for this particluar infraction, but has suggested that all questions should be in private. Is that really the rule or just his opinion?

 

[Mike G]

I'm not going to second guess Dann here.

He made his decision based on his own interpretation of the rule. You need to ask him for clarification.

If you have searched in the exchange, then you have seen how I apply the no chat (no comment) rule, and how I apply that rule consistently.

I cannot comment on the thoughts of the other moderators; please ask them for clarification.

Please read this sticky from the for sale area: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=420376