Rule Change

[Dr. Jon]

We have just changed the rules for posting to allow links to items for sale

Offers to buy or sell, links to active sales

• No form of selling is permitted in any forum, including discussions implying your item may be available for sale. Want ads may be posted only in the restricted "Want to Buy" forum.
• Links or references to active or completed sales or auctions for horological items are allowed. Please make sure the "Be Respectful and Courteous" and "Copyright Compliance" sections of these rules are followed when posting discussions of this nature, otherwise posts may be removed at the moderator's discretion. Sellers, consigners, employees or other representatives may not initiate threads for items that they are actively selling. They may, however, participate in such threads once started.
• Requests for parts for repair of your watch or clock are permitted only in the "Parts Wanted" Forum. All transactions for such materials must be made outside these Forums.
• PM/Conversations are not subject to any restrictions stated in this rule.

This change takes effect immediately.

Note that while we do not look at PM conversations, others may, if they are for the purpose of rigging auction bids. This is illegal and can result in fines for multiples of damage and jail time. We will not be looking at this but others may and these private messages may be the record of such misdeeds.

Also my interpretation of this, which I shall enforce, is that I will remove posts revealing what posters are willing to bid. Value and prices paid are OK as are discounts secial deals or bundles offered on sales sites.

 

[tick talk]

So....you can link and/or discuss past or current horological sales if you are NOT a related party to the item? Please confirm.

 

[Dr. Jon]

Yes that is correct. We can talk about items currently for sale, new, old, and on commercial sites.

You cannot start the thread if is is your item but you can respond once the thread is started.

What I posted as the rule change is the way it came to me.

 

[John Matthews]

Jon as you are aware I am very wary of this rule change and the discussion that may result.

I do feel strongly that it must be applied consistently across all the forums. I noted this from John ...

Also my interpretation of this, which I shall enforce, is that I will remove posts revealing what posters are willing to bid. I will also be very strict about removing references to auction items which are made by people associated with an auction house or by consignors which seem to be more advertisement than a search for knowledge. I will also be very strict about enforcing courtesy and accuracy of criticism of an item. If you have a technical criticism of an item you will need to back it up with evidence unless what you are saying seems to be of common knowledge. Value and prices paid are OK as are discounts secial deals or bundles offered on sales sites.

which seems to me to be a balanced interpretation of the rule change. I particularly like the focus on knowledge as opposed to advertisement, and the importance of providing evidence when critiquing items.

John

 

[John Cote]

....I do feel strongly that it must be applied consistently across all the forums. I noted this from John ...

John,

I think all of the moderators have some trepidation about the change. I also think that most of us have slightly different perspectives. I think moderation will always be a bit different, especially as we get our sea legs with this. In the end though I think we will come to a fair and consistent way to get this done. I think we all realize that it will be very difficult to root out all of the possible advertising/shilling which will potentially go on but I am going to be pretty strict. Also there will be no room on this forum for bashing anything in a rude way even if evidence is presented.

 

[Bernhard J.]

I have a question. When I had bought an item and the vendor had given consent to use vendors photos, I once referred to the vendor with a link to his business website. This was deemed unallowed and deleted because the link led to sales website.

Is this now allowed? Or must I continue to refer to the person permitting photo use by typing name and adress into my post?

Best regards, Bernhard

 

[John Cote]

I have a question. When I had bought an item and the vendor had given consent to use vendors photos, I once referred to the vendor with a link to his business website. This was deemed unallowed and deleted because the link led to sales website.

Is this now allowed? Or must I continue to refer to the person permitting photo use by typing name and adress into my post?

Bernhard,

If an auction is public we want you to post a link. This does not violate any copyright rules. We would rather you did not simply post the photos. As to your question about your past post...the rules have indeed changed.

 

[Dr. Jon]

If the vendor consents, especially if you have an email to that effect, it is legal to use the photos.

This is not a rule change. It has always been the policy.

We were not required to delete links to sales sites, only links to ongoing active sales.

You will see many perfectly fine links to completed sales from on-line sites as well as brick and morter sites that feature items on-line. Now links to active sales on these sites are allowed but not by sellers or the consigner of that item to these sellers.

 

[Dave Coatsworth]

We were not required to delete links to sales sites, only links to ongoing active sales.

This is not completely correct. Prior to this rule change, only links to sellers of parts and tools, who sold in quantity, were allowed. Other sales sites, such as the one Bernhard linked to, were not allowed. Now, any sales site, as long as you are not the owner, may be linked to for discussion.

 

[John Matthews]

I really do think all the discussion on this topic should be in a single thread - please see my suggestion here.

John

 

[Dr. Jon]

We moderate differntly but we do discuss these issues.

 

[John Matthews]

We moderate differntly but we do discuss these issues.

Yes - but the rules need to be applied consistently across the forums and it makes no sense (to me) to have clarification and discussion between members dispersed across multiple forums. Chinese whispers in digital format?

John

 

[Dave Coatsworth]

As with any rule, we strive for consistency. But moderators are human and there may be subtle differences is how the rules are applied from forum to forum. For any issues that fall in a gray area, we usually do discuss them before taking action. But, 99% of the time, the issue is clear-cut and the moderating team is in agreement with the action taken. If you feel that any of our calls are not consistent or not in the spririt of any rule, please bring it to our attention by using the 'report' button and we will re-evaluate.

 

[John Matthews]

Dave - why is having all the discussion in a single place not the best approach?

I am mystified why there is resistance to avoid duplication of space, time and effort, clarification and the potential for inconsistency.

John

 

[leeinv66]

why is having all the discussion in a single place not the best approach?

John, not all members read all the forums. If this change was only discuss in the forums help and notices forum, those that do not read that forum would not see the discussion and may never become aware of the change.

 

[John Matthews]

Lee - see my post #10 above

John

 

[Dave Coatsworth]

John,
I really don't see the need to restrict this discussion to a single forum.

 

[leeinv66]

These forums are essentially a collection of conversations. I still prefer our previous title of 'Message Board' as to me, it best describes what we are. I find Forums to be nondescript, but I was in the minority when that decision was made. We have never had strictly organized content other than to discuss various horological subjects under distinct headings. While moderators will combine similar threads from time to time, we have no rule that prevents any of our users posting multiple threads on the same subject or that subject being discussed in several threads.

 

[John Matthews]

Dave ...

to avoid duplication of space, time and effort, clarification and the potential for inconsistency.

John

 

[Jim Haney]

we have no rule that prevents any of our users posting multiple threads on the same subject or that subject being discussed in several threads.

There is no such rule but common sense rules and over the years, posters use the report block option to alert the Mods that someone is repeating information that has been posted.

You should realize this this as you have have been witness to this for Years..

PS. I also support the Message Board description over the FORUMS. However. current modern descriptions of our Message Boards.

It seem to fit the modern culture of Generic naming of common sense terms, that is, calling things not what they really are.

 

[Tom McIntyre]

PS. I also support the Message Board description over the FORUMS. However. current modern descriptions of our Message Boards.

It seem to fit the modern culture of Generic naming of common sense terms, that is, calling things not what they really are.

A message board is where someone posts a message and goes away.

A forum is a place to gather for discussions related to topics.

Those are not the same.

 

[leeinv66]

No Tom, those are your definitions. A quick Google search will tell you that:



But we are going off topic.

 

[Bryan Eyring]

I would hope that any rational person would realize that this process is not the most efficient.

Hopefully common sense prevails soon and these discussions are merged or linked to a common thread...

 

[John Cote]

I would hope that any rational person would realize that this process is not the most efficient.

Hopefully common sense prevails soon and these discussions are merged or linked to a common thread...

I have to disagree my friend. I don't want to have to go to any more parts of the forum than I already do. If there are discussions of auction items that are American pocket watches I want to see them in that forum...wristwatches in that forum. I know people can reasonably disagree but sometimes the efficient way is not the best way.

 

[John Matthews]

I have to disagree my friend. I don't want to have to go to any more parts of the forum than I already do. If there are discussions of auction items that are American pocket watches I want to see them in that forum...wristwatches in that forum. I know people can reasonably disagree but sometimes the efficient way is not the best way.

John I absolutely disagree with your logic.

Surely, a rule change impinges on all forums to which it applies and it is essential that the rules are applied consistently. Therefore, if only for efficiency, e.g. Dave checking and 'correcting' statements made in multiple forums, the discussion should be in one place - so that everyone only uses the agreed 'meaning/interpretation' to be found in a single place. I use a number of forums regularly and the last thing I want is to have one interpretation of a rule in one forum and a different interpretation in another - that would be for users confusing and frustrating - leading to a very poor user experience.

John

 

[Bryan Eyring]

I was actually referring to the process of discussing this matter, and consolidating it to 1 thread. Not the posts themselves.

But since you brought it up though - it sounds like a great idea to build a forum around these types of posts

 

[Dave Coatsworth]

We stopped discussing the rule change two days ago. Now we are just arguing about whether it's a 'forum' or a 'message board' and whether to consolidate threads. Talk about wasted effort! How about we just go back to discussing watches and clocks?

 

[Jerry Treiman]

I find discussion of this topic and older threads in a multitude of locations -

Forum Help & Notices
2019 - https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/message-board-rules.157221/
Friday - https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/discussion-of-active-sales-and-auctions.191340/
Saturday - https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/rule-c...sion-of-active-sale-and-auction-items.191353/

Other locations
Friday - https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/rule-change.191345/
Saturday - https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/rule-c...sion-of-active-sale-and-auction-items.191352/ (closed to replies)
Saturday - https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/rule-change.191363/ (this thread)
Monday - https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/forum-rules-change.191401/

For all the folks who don't want to look at multiple forums they will miss discussion in the other threads. Don't we have a way to place a shortcut in each of the forums that will take them to one consolidated discussion?

 

[John Cote]

John I absolutely disagree with your logic.

John,

I understand your well reasoned logic. I simply disagree. I think we will simply have to disagree.

 

[Dave Coatsworth]

For all the folks who don't want to look at multiple forums they will miss discussion in the other threads. Don't we have a way to place a shortcut in each of the forums that will take them to one consolidated discussion?

Yes, all of this is technically possible. However, the moderating team has made a decision to leave the discussions as they are today.

 

[Dr. Jon]

As far as I know this is the only discussion on going unless there is some in clock area. It has attrcted posters I don't often see here

If you see this discussion topic elsewhere you can refer them here

 

[zedric]

As far as I know this is the only discussion on going unless there is some in clock area. It has attrcted posters I don't often see here

If you see this discussion topic elsewhere you can refer them here

No one in the clock area knows the rules have changed. There has been no notification

 

[Bryan Eyring]

No one in the clock area knows the rules have changed. There has been no notification

I noted this too. It appears that this rule was not uniformly deployed in all forums.

 

[Dr. Jon]

I was wrong. there is another discussion of this topic in John Cote's Wrist watch forum, many of the same participants

https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/forum-rules-change.191401/#post-1568244

 

[Dave Coatsworth]

It appears that this rule was not uniformly deployed in all forums.

The rule change applies to all forums as it was initially announced in the Forums Help & Notices area.

 

[DeanT]

in an effort to not duplicate the posting of the same information in multiple forums, multiple people have repeated the same comment multiple times....seems logical to me...LOL