Farewell and Adieu

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

@ Ironhide--I think you are breaking the rule down incorrectly.

Rule #4: Ad format: Use a proper DESCRIPTIVE Title & Content
If you want to post your ad in multiple relevant forums, which is good, then please title your ad appropriately.

Good example: "Have Eldar and Tau, want to trade for Dark Elves and Empire." This will fit NICELY in the 40K and Fantasy sections!

Bad example: "Have Eldar and Tau." If this shows up in the fantasy section, it will be nuked!
Other BAD examples: "Have stuff.", "H: Lots! W: Lots!"

Rule 4a: You are also responsible for accurately describing all items that you are trading or selling.
That includes version, condition, assembly status, converted or not, painted or not, any missing pieces and any other information you think might be helpful. Failure to do so may result in the other party filing a Backout Trader or Bad Trader report against you.

Rule #4 requires that your ad list an appropriate title for what you are selling, AND list within the body of the ad what you are selling.

Rule #4a requires that you describe what you are selling.

I agree that his pics cover describing the condition/state/version of what he is selling, but they do not constitute a proper listing of what is for sale.

Furthermore, strictly speaking, the pics are not in his ad--they are on another site.

Is it a mod or admins right to take an ad down because it doesn't conform to what they think is the "correct" ad format, even though it falls within the rules? I don't think so.

Of course it is. The rules state a minimum requirement for ad format, and it is the role of the staff to apply the rules, as they interpret them, subject to review by the established authorities.

As to his suspension from the site...

I have no intention of changing the adds. If this is what you must do to inflate your sense of self worth then by all means do so. Also, feel free to, and I quote, " police our members' ads as best we can. " I can almost hear Eric Cartman saying " RESPECT MA AUTHORITAH!" I was under the impression this was a friendly site where people traded gaming supplies and not some sort of police state. So, I leave you and the the rest of the brown shirts to "police" your regime. I will be happily cruising other sites where the admins aren't currently trying to squeeze lumps of coal into diamonds using only the power of their rectums.

I do not understand why that resulted in a suspension. He did not name call or seem belligerent to me. He did seem a little self-righteous, but in context to what he was responding to I think it can be somewhat understandable. After all, in his view the people involved were trying to micro-manage his ad and tell him how it should be written. That would kind of piss me off to, I'm surprised it wasn't worse. I think a little anger is understandable.

Anger is inappropriate when you've been asked to correct an ad so that it conforms with the rules. Absolute refusal to conform to a rule that has been brought to your attention is an obvious reason for penalty.

Further, calling the staff involved Nazis ("brown shirts"), assigning motivation for action to ego/powertripping (" RESPECT MA AUTHORITAH!"), and namecalling the staff involved as tight asses ("squeeze lumps of coal into diamonds using only the power of their rectums") are all clear violations of Rules #1 and 7. What started out as a simple warning/request for ad change escalated on the part of the poster, and I would refer you to the section of the rules re Disciplinary Measures if you think that a suspension is inappropriate.

[MagickalMemories]

<snip>Rule 4a ask that you be descriptive in your ad. Is not a picture a description? Have we not allowed pictures in the past to be a form of description? If memory serves, we have.

I should start by quoting Rule #0:

...the spirit as well as the letter of the law holds sway here...

We always have expected a written description. That rule has intended "descriptive" to mean "written" for as long as I can remember. Granted, it doesn't specify that in the rules, which is why he got a friendly reminder from Jim that he should have a written description. Rather than address it sensibly, as you have above, he decided to turn it into an argument with staff.
We've never allowed ONLY pictures to be the description. We've accepted them as descriptions of condition, etc., in conjunction with a written list, but not as stand-alone descriptions.
Only having a group of pictures, which are hosted on another site, serve as your list would violate Rule #8 (Note the red text), as your whole actual list, or the images that serve as such, are hosted off site:

Rule #8: eBay & other Auction Sites, Stores, and Advertisements.
Any eBay or other off-site advertisements found wandering inappropriately (TBD by BT staff) will be executed with extreme prejudice. Repeat offenders will be banned from the site. This includes people who try to sneak links/banners for their stores or current auctions into their signature files. This stricture applies to Off-site Trade/Want/Sale list hosting, as well as blogs that offer painting services or items for sale, unless you have specific written administrative permission stating otherwise. See rule #15 for what we consider a store.

As to his suspension from the site...

I have no intention of changing the adds. If this is what you must do to inflate your sense of self worth then by all means do so. Also, feel free to, and I quote, " police our members' ads as best we can. " I can almost hear Eric Cartman saying " RESPECT MA AUTHORITAH!" I was under the impression this was a friendly site where people traded gaming supplies and not some sort of police state. So, I leave you and the the rest of the brown shirts to "police" your regime. I will be happily cruising other sites where the admins aren't currently trying to squeeze lumps of coal into diamonds using only the power of their rectums.

I do not understand why that resulted in a suspension. He did not name call or seem belligerent to me. He did seem a little self-righteous, but in context to what he was responding to I think it can be somewhat understandable. After all, in his view the people involved were trying to micro-manage his ad and tell him how it should be written. That would kind of piss me off to, I'm surprised it wasn't worse. I think a little anger is understandable.

Again, this is MY personal opinion.

It's all in the red text:

Rule #7: Be Polite (So important, we said it twice!)
Abusive or inappropriate language towards any other Bartertown user is not acceptable - doubly so when directed at a Staff member who notifies you of a rule violation. We reserve the right to escalate the consequence you've earned if you decide to vent at us. The definition of "abusive or inappropriate language" starts by applying Rule #1. Do note that Bartertown Staff members have the right to determine what qualifies as abusive or inappropriate at their discretion.

I would most certainly describe the following comments as rude (inappropriate) and venting:
If this is what you must do to inflate your sense of self worth then by all means do so.
-I need to remove his ads to inflate my sense of self worth? Can you tell me how that is NOT an insult?
I can almost hear Eric Cartman saying " RESPECT MA AUTHORITAH!"
-Comparing me or us to a petulant, spoiled, abusive, racist, foul mouthed elementary school kid would most certainly fall within my personal boundaries of insulting... regardless of the fact that I can do a damned good impersonation of his voice.
I was under the impression this was ... not some sort of police state.
-Comparing us to a police state for (a) expecting him to follow our rules and (b) following through on the consequenves of not doing so is definitely an insult.
So, I leave you... to "police" your regime.
-Comparing Bartertown to an authoritarian (Nazi) government.
I will be happily cruising other sites where the admins aren't currently trying to squeeze lumps of coal into diamonds using only the power of their rectums.
-Just because he didn't say "tight @ssed" or @nal doesn't deter from his intent.

Any of these could be argued as justification for his suspension. Combined, they could be argued as justification for a ban. I think that, with a 30 day suspension, he got off rather lightly.

Eric

[Ironhide]

@Sorrow:

Rule #4 specifically addresses the title, with "content" as a side item. Needs to be readdressed methinks. That aside he did have content in sentence format that told what he wanted and what he was selling. "Content" does equal "list" format. I believe a sentence saying what he wants and providing links to pictures is a legitimate form of content.

@MagikalMemories:
Since when is photobucket an offsite trade/want/sale site? I guess for now on users can't host pictures from there anymore if that is the case. Since that would be an offsite hosting of said pics.

As for his last PM to MagickalMemories, I guess I just have thicker skin on some things or have developed an immunity to these kinds of things.

EDIT: On a sidenote, if we want ads to be displayed in a certain way I guess we need to make some kind of automated form for ad creation.

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

@Sorrow:

Rule #4 specifically addresses the title, with "content" as a side item. Needs to be readdressed methinks. That aside he did have content in sentence format that told what he wanted and what he was selling. "Content" does equal "list" format. I believe a sentence saying what he wants and providing links to pictures is a legitimate form of content.

I agree that the rule could be enhanced, but it states, clearly, black on white, that Users must "Use a proper DESCRIPTIVE Title & Content". The examples below it apply specifically to the ad title, but the rule applies to both.

I'm selling some limited editions, oop minis, boxed sets and other misc. 40K and WHFB minis.

This would be an acceptable title--barely--but it fails to qualify as proper content. What armies are these models for? How many are there? What prices are desired?

Pictures should absolutely be used to enhance an ad, but a link to "Here is everything I am selling" is not as descriptive as "Here is a link to my Empire stuff" and "Here is a link to my Space Marine stuff".

If the pictures were in the ad, even that would be more palatable, particularly if the poster honestly did not know what they were.

This ad was called out because it is a *edit* ad and contributes nothing to the forum; it is not searchable in any useful way, and it lacks all detail within the ad itself. The pics are, however, quite nice.

Since when is photobucket an offsite trade/want/sale site? I guess for now on users can't host pictures from there anymore if that is the case. Since that would be an offsite hosting of said pics.

No, users cannot post ads only containing offsite pic hosting. They must have content in their ads here.

I don't know why you're arguing this. The ad is a poor one, and the user was rude.

EDIT: On a sidenote, if we want ads to be displayed in a certain way I guess we need to make some kind of automated form for ad creation.

This is simply unnecessary, as the overwhelming majority of users do things right, and, when they don't, they make changes when advised to do so without becoming hostile and refusing to RTFR.

[Ironhide]

It is not clear. The adjective "Descriptive" applies to "Title" and not specifically to "content". If the term "Descriptive" did not apply only to the "Title" then there would not have been specific example concerning titles. As far as content, if no specific army is given then it must mean all armies within 40k and WHFB, and if no price is given then the price must be negotiable or he will consider all offers.

The user was not ONLY using offsite pics, he did have content; just not the content some wish to see.

Anyways if a couple sentences does not equal content, and offsite pictures are not allowed; I guess the following ad also needs to be edited or taken down.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=173489

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

It is not clear. The adjective "Descriptive" applies to "Title" and not specifically to "content".

So your argument here is that because it doesn not say "Descriptive Title and Descriptive Content", descriptive content is not required? That seems silly.

If the term "Descriptive" did not apply only to the "Title" then there would not have been specific example concerning titles.

Fallacy.

As far as content, if no specific army is given then it must mean all armies within 40k and WHFB,

Not supported by his pictures.

The user was not ONLY using offsite pics, he did have content; just not the content some wish to see.

Circular.

Anyways if a couple sentences does not equal content, and offsite pictures are not allowed; I guess the following ad also needs to be edited or taken down.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=173489

Sure looks like there are pics in that ad to me, and they are of the Dark Eldar Army mentioned both in the title and the ad itself, along with the note that the user is "Not super familiar with all the units". There is also a price.

That looks like an ad that fulfills all the basic obligations and is a poster child for what Grudgebearer's ad could have looked like.

[Ironhide]

Wow, single word usage in reply to my arguments. *Golf Clap*

It is not a fallacy, examples are given to emphasize a point and the point was that a title needs to be descriptive of the content going to be provided in the ad.

The content was supported by the linked pics. Did you even go to the site?

I use a sentence to emphasize my point and you say "circular"? Can you not come up with better arguments?

Hmmm.....let's take a look at this ad:viewtopic.php?f=10&t=172271&p=336144#p336144

Seems the user here did not follow the rules, yet instead of being told to fix it, he was instead given help on how to fix it instead. So one user who had an ad that follows the rules (open to interpretation obviously ) was told to fix it, while another wasn't. Seems a tad bit hypocritical here.

[Imaginos]

Hmmm.....let's take a look at this ad:viewtopic.php?f=10&t=172271&p=336144#p336144

Seems the user here did not follow the rules, yet instead of being told to fix it, he was instead given help on how to fix it instead. So one user who had an ad that follows the rules (open to interpretation obviously ) was told to fix it, while another wasn't. Seems a tad bit hypocritical here.

The difference being this user did list his items. He said Citadel C43 and C44 spaceships. Your lack of knowledge on what these are does not mean that he did not identify them. That's like someone posting "current Carnifex, NIB, for sale" and you, with no knowledge of 40K, saying I don't know what that is, so it must be wrong.

Your lack of knowledge does not mean that the description is not there.

[Ironhide]

Let's see if I can explain this in simpler terms.

H: Misc WHFB & 40K W: $ Paypal

Unread postby Grudgebearer » Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:59 pm

I'm selling some limited editions, oop minis, boxed sets and other misc. 40K and WHFB minis. Feel free to make a FAIR offer but keep in mind lowballers will be ignored. NO Trades. Paypal only. Buyer agrees to pay all shipping, handling, and optional insurance fees.

Pics of everything can be seen here: http://s1130.photobucket.com/albums/m535/tonyp69/

RED = Title
Blue = Content

The title is within guidelines and the content is understandable.

Citadel C43/44 Spaceships

Postby sacredword » Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:49 am
l have several old Citadel C43 and C44 Spaceships for sale, pm me for list and prices if interested.

RED = Title
Blue = Content

The title does not say if he wants them, is selling them, or trading them; and does not fall within the guidelines of rule #4. The content also does not list things as has been mentioned as being the form of "good" content. The user eventually listed stuff after an admin and a BT Watch held his hand and gave him advice on how to fix it in the ad.

So tell me how one member gets his hand held for not following the rules, while another who followed the rules gets slapped down?

I really do not understand how someone types up their ad really matters. If the ad is hard to understand or vague then the person won't get any replies most likely, so it only hurts him. If his items are not described accurately in the ad or trade deal then he will be hard pressed to prove a potential trader is wrong in the event the trader breaks the deal on items not being accurately described. He currently has a zero reference score so will most likely have to send first in any prospective deal. The only person who suffers in his ad not being accurately descriptive is himself.

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

Wow, single word usage in reply to my arguments. *Golf Clap*

I hate golf.

I think that the ways in which your arguments fail are obvious to everyone reading this thread (except, perhaps, the OP), but I will elaborate on my admittedly brief responses.

It is not a fallacy, examples are given to emphasize a point and the point was that a title needs to be descriptive of the content going to be provided in the ad.

It is, in fact, a fallacy: argumentum e silentio

The absence of examples explaining the second part of the clause (Content in Rule 4), contrasted with the presence of examples explaining the first part of the clause (Title in Rule 4) does not invalidate Rule 4's requirement that users provide descriptive content.

Your continued assertion that "Descriptive" applies only to "Title" and not to "Content" is, frankly, absurd. What is the function of the word "content" in the clause "Use a proper DESCRIPTIVE Title & Content"? Please provide some sensible explanation for why that word is there. Is it that the user must simply put something in the body of their ad? Anything?

The content was supported by the linked pics. Did you even go to the site?

I did--as indicated by the statement where I say the pics are good. But, the pics are not IN THE AD. I'll repeat that so you get it: The pics are not IN THE AD. There is a link in the ad to the pics. Not one single, specific, individual item is directly referenced IN THE AD.

I use a sentence to emphasize my point and you say "circular"? Can you not come up with better arguments?

Ironhide, I'm stating that you are not making an argument. Your assertion that what is in his ad is the content and his content is what is in the ad is CIRCULAR.

His content is that he has a variety of 40k and Warhammer stuff. And here's a link to pics of his stuff. That's not "content". It's vague and unspecific and unhelpful to anyone viewing his ad. It does not pass the minimum requirements of "content" on Bartertown.

Hmmm.....let's take a look at this ad:viewtopic.php?f=10&t=172271&p=336144#p336144

Seems the user here did not follow the rules, yet instead of being told to fix it, he was instead given help on how to fix it instead. So one user who had an ad that follows the rules (open to interpretation obviously ) was told to fix it, while another wasn't. Seems a tad bit hypocritical here.

Did you miss the PM from Porkuslime to Grudgebearer requesting that he fix his ad? You know, the one that initiated this whole situation? Different staff have different methods of supplying correction, some in PMs, some in threads, some both ways on different days. Furthermore, as Imaginos points out, the user in this link DID provide efficient description of his content--it's just that not everyone here is familiar with it, and thus it was suggested that he provide pictoral references. Which he did, without providing attitude.

You keep grasping for a relevant case, and I'm sure if you scour the threads, you can find one that was missed. But try to avoid making false analogies and dragging in users who've done nothing wrong--you're 0 for 2 so far.

EDIT: You are correct that the ad title you refer to above fails to meet the minimum requirements, lacking "Want" or "Have".

[mysticarcher]

I won't even bother with the actual ads/listings issue, but isn't this:

You agree that “Bartertown.com” have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit.

part of the TOS? There's really no reason at all to insult the mods over something you not only agreed to allow them to do, but entered a legally binding agreement permitting them to do.

To me that's the issue - the petulance and childishness ("fine I'm taking my toys and going home you meanies!") over something as simple as moderator actions that are the staple of almost every forum on the net.

[Ironhide]

I disagree, I am not grasping at straws. You see the rule one way, I see it another. You see "content" in that rule as meaning the body of the trade ad, I see it as talking about the content of the title.

Again, if B-Town is going to require users to follow certain guidelines in posting an ad they need to put up examples or set up some kind of automated form.

[MagickalMemories]

I disagree, I am not grasping at straws. You see the rule one way, I see it another. You see "content" in that rule as meaning the body of the trade ad, I see it as talking about the content of the title.

And if someone, as a USER, says that to a staff member and the staff member informs him that he's wrong, it doesn't matter how he interprets it. It matters that he's now clear on the meaning of the title, since the staff member has cleared up that misconception.

In all honesty, IH, that's all that matters. He did something that multiple staffers said was wrong. More than one of us pointed out his error. Rather than present his p.o.v. in a reasonable manner, he chose to become petty and p!ssy about the situation, make unnecessary and rude implications about the staff, and threaten to take his ball and bat and go home. Your divergent take on the rules is all well and good but, frankly, it doesn't even begin to become part of the equation.

Again, if B-Town is going to require users to follow certain guidelines in posting an ad they need to put up examples or set up some kind of automated form.

No. We simply need a written set of rules and a volunteer staff to help assist and advise members when they're not followed and/or misinterpreted. We have both.

As for this:

Anyways if a couple sentences does not equal content, and offsite pictures are not allowed; I guess the following ad also needs to be edited or taken down.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=173489

I actually agree with you.
Those images are hosted on a different site and are only linked here. It's the same thing. If he removes those images from photobucket, then it alters his ad here in a way that we cannot recreate his original post, as we could if he listed his items individually, then later went back to edit the thread.
As you're the staff member who discovered the issue, please contact the user and request that he supplement his images with a written list as concise as he can create.

Eric

[Ironhide]

@MM: My biggest beef over this is we are setting a precedence on how people's ads should be written, when in the past this hasn't been the case except in extreme circumstances where the user used offensive language or the ad broke rules of what could be traded. Usually when we make a change we propose the change to the masses and let them vote on whether they like the change/practice and then go from there.

[MagickalMemories]

@MM: My biggest beef over this is we are setting a precedence on how people's ads should be written, when in the past this hasn't been the case except in extreme circumstances where the user used offensive language or the ad broke rules of what could be traded. Usually when we make a change we propose the change to the masses and let them vote on whether they like the change/practice and then go from there.

Then, I think, that's where you're making your mistake. We're not setting a precedence now. That precedence has already been set. Offensive language and acceptable trade items are two different rules. This is a third.
Since before you migrated over from the 40K forum, the rule has been that you have to have an actual list in the ad of what's being traded. You cannot host to an offsite list. Just linking to pics of what you has does qualify as an offsite list, even if it's in an atypical fashion.

Forgive me if you know this, IH. I'm spelling it out for anyone who doesn't know:

There hasn't always been such a rule. There used to be very loose limits on how you wrote out your ads. Then, we had a rash of a few differnt BTR's where the accused had listed their ads on separate sites - their personal blogs, etc. In their ad here, they linked to the page. In the trade ads, though, the items were listed as "all of your IG" or "all of your Space Marine vehicles" or the like (don't quote me. Those are generic examples, not specific examples). When the items arrived, the receiver complained because XYZ item was not there. The accused claimed that it was never on the list. Looking at what was listed on their site, either the list was gone or reflected what the accused claimed was supposed to be part of the deal.
How to we rectify that? Clearly, one is wrong or lying, but we don't know who. We have no accurate way of determining.

If that happens with a list hosted here, even if it's later edited, we have a process (however laborious it may be) whereby we can go back and see what was initially posted in the list if we want/need to.

In this instance, all the OP would have to do (and I am NOT claiming he would) is send the wrong stuff (leave some out, etc.), take a NEW pic of what he's sending, delete the old pic and upload the new pic with the same name as the old pic.
Boom! Link still works, and it shows what he claims was there.

I hope that clarifies.

Eric