Suggestion to split the "Private Firearms Sales" forum

[jmlivingston]

Most newbs post with very little info and questions will come up. Problem is, the btt responses are prohibited in the CG rules.

I think you are misusing the term "btt".

A "btt" or "bump" is a message which is posted with the sole purpose to move an ad to the top of the forum where it can be seen by more people. The "btt" or "bump" rule is used to reduce these posts to a reasonable level. These are the little posts that generally contains nothing more than the text "btt", "bump", or "24 hour bump" and isued to . Hence the referral to it as a "btt" or "bump", because that's exactly what it is - nothing more, nothing less.

Questions and answers which directly relate to the transaction as put forward by the original poster are generally considered "on topic" and shouldn't need to be removed by a moderator. Never have I understood that the rules as posted by Kestryll should eliminate the honest Q&A process frequently seen (and often reported to the moderators) here.

Back to the Top (BTT) is allowed once every 24 hours. This rule also encompasses all the other methods used to surreptitiously bump a thread sooner than allowed. Clever 'sales comments' and addendum's that can easily be added to the original post are just some examples.

I'm not sure how an OP's response to a question or comment can generally be considered surreptitious (clandestine or stealthy) or a "clever sales comment". An "addendum" seems to indicate to me that it be a modification to the original ad whether it be price, product, locale, etc.

I'm conflicted on that. Frequently members subscribe to threads so that they can be notified by email when responses are posted. When a poster edits their original post, this doesn't happen. Especially for answers to questions that are likely of interest to all parties, I'm likely to be somewhat lenient on this.

I think this needs to be the responsibility of the interested party to go back and read the ad again.

I disagree with this. Your essentially advocating that members not use the notification feature of our software when it comes to the Marketplace.

As I understand, the reason for that is to figure out who was the first to contact the seller in case there's a dispute. It seems to be working out pretty well in dealing with disputes and potential disputes, from what I see.

If people would just post that would fix 99% of those problems. Saying "pm sent" and "pm replied" doesn't tell anybody anything but that they sent a PM.....

John

[gunboat]

I agree with the multicatagory proposal -- Could even be two catagories AR's and the rest of us :-) - I also think there should be a time limit -- 7-10 day and the ad is gone -- my ha-penny

[scootergmc]

Your essentially advocating that members not use the notification feature of our software when it comes to the Marketplace.
John

If that's a consequence of what I'm advocating, then you're right.

[jmlivingston]

If that's a consequence of what I'm advocating, then you're right.

I believe that the notification feature provides an immense value to buyers/sellers. Receiving automated responses via email (many members even receive them on their cellphone) allow our members to move in "internet time" and not have to either a) sit on the site hitting F5 every few minutes to refresh the page or b) wait until the end of the day just to find out they missed their opportunity by a few minutes.

John

[scootergmc]

I believe that the notification feature provides an immense value to buyers/sellers. Receiving automated responses via email (many members even receive them on their cellphone) allow our members to move in "internet time" and not have to either a) sit on the site hitting F5 every few minutes to refresh the page or b) wait until the end of the day just to find out they missed their opportunity by a few minutes.

John

Life can't be fair, even if the government wants it to be....

[leelaw]

As I understand, the reason for that is to figure out who was the first to contact the seller in case there's a dispute. It seems to be working out pretty well in dealing with disputes and potential disputes, from what I see.

Those messages prove nothing of the content of the PMs, or the time they are sent. The actual PM timestamps show an accurate timeline, but keeping all the posts in the sale thread is thebest option. We had a dispute just this week where two people claimed first on an item, one via an edited post in the thread (which showed that his offer came in several hours after his post) and one via PM.

The "PM sent" and "PM replied" "thanks guys" and other stuff are the most common forms of BTT violations, and they are handled swiftly and fairly when encountered. There is a ton more moderation going on that what is being seen - the Marketplace is not being lazily enforced.

Of course the problem arises of those who don't notice or seem to care when their threads are edited or deleted, so new approaches are being tested at the moment.

[scootergmc]

Of course the problem arises of those who don't notice or seem to care when their threads are edited or deleted, so new approaches are being tested at the moment.

Bravo.

[sorensen440]

I like it the way it is

[ivanimal]

I like it the way it is

Me too.

[aplinker]

No, ty.

Would mean more postings, more confusion, more to trudge through.

What I really want is a Calguns secretary to keep me up to date on what I care about and continually refresh sales forums so I can always be first.

[6172crew]

The market place section was out of control a few years ago and it went away. From what I remember it wasnt because of BTT violations which seems to be whats reported every few hours.

The owner of CGs doesnt want legit questions answered to be treated the same as BTT. On an average I get 20-40 reports about BTT violations daily, some of these aren't really breaking the rules and until the rules change we have to take the bumping to the top, or answering of legit questions on a case by case basis.

I spent one weekend locking threads and making free machine gun threads but you will still see newer members breaking the rules..just the way it is.

[GTKrockeTT]

as an example...we received a reported post about a BTT violation regarding this thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2107079#post2107079

moderators do NOT consider this to be a BTT violation as the seller is responding or adding clarification to another user's comment.

[scootergmc]

Moderators might not, but the administrator apparently does:


From #5:

Clever 'sales comments' and addendum's that can easily be added to the original post are just some examples.

Maybe a rule change is in order...

[GTKrockeTT]

my stance is in line with JM's.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2103957&postcount=16

obviously, there is room for interpretation, but his response was "on topic," and i don't see the need for him to add it to his original post.

[Kestryll]

Moderators might not, but the administrator apparently does:


From #5:



Maybe a rule change is in order...

No, I do not.

You might want to NOT make assumptions about things you do not have all the info on.
Believe it or not we do discuss this stuff WITHOUT you sometimes....

And on one of those occasions recently this exact topic was discussed, which may just be why GTKrockeTT said we don't consider that a violation...