Mistake: new rule about FS comments

[John NYC]

I believe it is appropriate. I don't think its called the Whats your opinion of what I'm selling category.

For goodness sakes even eBay allows people to give negative feedback, although after a sale but you can still judge the seller by it.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Does anyone want the FS section removed completely?...

Yes. Didn't think it was a good idea when initially instituted. Would love to see it go. The new rule and this thread are but the latest evidence of how it divides the community.

[John NYC]

Yes. Didn't think it was a good idea when initially instituted. Would love to see it go. The new rule and this thread are but the latest evidence of how it divides the community.

I'd rather have it removed than be a forum that is even less reliable for negative feedback than eBay!

[Dakotah Jackson]

It is so nice to see the moderator stand up for this. It will be great to see him make good to anyone who gets screwed by a seller when it turns out others here could have warned the buyer of a really lousy deal.

We know the moderator will make good as his policy sets the tone here and liability will attach to the site with this policy.

Many of us would have loved to have someone let us know of certain sellers ane even way overpriced items in the past. None of us know a lot when we start and having the financial backing of the Large Format Photography
Forum to help make us whole in case of bad deals is comforting. Now buyers can rest easy knowing liability will be there on the part of the forum for deals that they could have easily been informed of before doing the bad deal.

[Jay DeFehr]

The new rule makes a very clear statement: Sellers need protection, buyers do not; it's okay to intervene in a sale on behalf of the seller, but not on behalf of a potential buyer. What could be more clear? Buyers are expected to "be adults" and "do their homework", and sellers are beyond reproach. Simple. If you find this unfairly advantageous to sellers, you're welcome to not participate in either the forum, or the larger community. What more could one want from a community of like-minded enthusiasts? Parity? A voice? Don't be naive!

You might be confused by the title "Moderator", which implies impartiality and, well, moderation. That's misleading. It's far more useful to think of the Moderators as the Core Group -- the innermost clique, endowed with powers not extended to cliques lying further out of center. These non-core cliques have the ears of the Core Group depending on their proximity to the center. This new rule indicates the proximity to the center of the most active and frequent sellers, and/or perhaps it's an indication of the political leaning of the Core Group. Those on the Right tend to identify with sellers, while those on the Left tend to identify with buyers.

We can assume this new rule was made in reaction to complaints by sellers, even though it's fairly obvious that no real problem exists, and complaints by those opposed to the rule have far less weight than the complaints of the sellers. The idea that a sale can be "ruined" by a "negative post" assumes potential buyers are incredibly gullible, and rely solely on posts in the For Sale forum of this community to make their buying decisions. Despite this assumed vulnerability, our Core Group has decided it's the sellers who need special protection. If you can help a seller make a sale, it would be mighty neighborly of you to lend a hand, but if you want to help a buyer make an informed decision, keep your lying trap shut, or risk banishment.

None of this is in the least necessary. We are a small community, with a built-in reputation system. If a seller makes too many bad deals, the community will moderate, provided it's not prevented from doing so, and if a member makes too many unfounded posts in support of, or in opposition to For Sale posts, that member's opinion will become marginalized. This new rule hobbles our perfectly adequate reputation system, so that any post in support of a sale must be seen as a mere advertisement, and any post in opposition is either discouraged from being posted at all by the new policy, or self-censored to toothlessness, or removed by the Core Group.

I've only had a few dealings in the For Sale forum, and every one has been a pleasure, but I will not participate in the forum under this new rule. So, how many potential sales has this new rule "ruined"?

[Lachlan 717]

I cannot tell you just how well I slept last night knowing that you altruistic, do-gooding, mini-Julian-Assanges are out there protecting me from myself.

And here I was thinking that I had a duty to research before buying on a section of the forum that clearly states "Use of this area is strictly at your own risk", and that I need to have accountability for my own actions.

No, really, thanks to all of you.

(Please note the acidic sarcasm here)

[Vaughn]

A tempest in a tea cup!

Did people actually read the post?!

"...posts should refrain from intruding on the thread by making negative comments about the item or the price being requested..."

Must be an election year...

[Frank Petronio]

Well I can only hope the braintrust represented here is called up to regulate the financial industry because surely they understand all of the potential pitfalls and have a shrewd understanding of human nature. Certainly nobody would ever sour another person's sale in the guise of "helping" some poor lost soul, nor would they resort to extracting revenge for some perceived slight made elsewhere. No upstanding fine art photographers would ever operate in their self-interest.... In fact, if this goes well, the community could set the prices and, hopefully, they will never be higher than the buyer's ability to pay.

[Leigh]

For the few with poor social skills, we have rules.

But Ken...

I'm an engineer (electrical). I have absolutely no social skills.

Perhaps you should add an extra set of rules for engineers and those with similar afflictions.

- Leigh

[Jay DeFehr]

Well I can only hope the braintrust represented here is called up to regulate the financial industry because surely they understand all of the potential pitfalls and have a shrewd understanding of human nature. Certainly nobody would ever sour another person's sale in the guise of "helping" some poor lost soul, nor would they resort to extracting revenge for some perceived slight made elsewhere. No upstanding fine art photographers would ever operate in their self-interest.... In fact, if this goes well, the community could set the prices and, hopefully, they will never be higher than the buyer's ability to pay.

And you assume potential buyers are so naive and incapable of independent thought that these ruses would always be taken at face value. Amazon and Ebay seem to be doing okay, despite their willingness to tolerate negative feedback/reviews. You seem satisfied to ignore the fact there is a reputation system in place for dealing with these kinds of issues. What's the downside, exactly, of a "ruined sale"? The seller goes to ebay? Who cares? What is this rule meant to protect if not the profit margin of sellers in the For Sale forum? Why do sellers merit special protection?