why?

[LloydB]

I attempted to open:

https://mb.nawcc.org/showthread.php?t=61418

which I had read previously; This popped up:

LloydB, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page.
Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features
or some other privileged system?

If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Anybody care to explain? None of the above applies.

 

[Tom McIntyre]

The post has been moved to the quarantine ward, while it awaits healing. Generally this means that the thread was reported as a violation and the moderators are considering further action to either repair the post or leave it permanently hidden.

Only moderators and administrators can view posts in the quarantine forum.

 

[Larry Treiman]

Tom, the first time I got a message like the one LloydB was greeted with, I expected a hand to reach out from my monitor screen and whack me over the knuckles with a ruler. It made me feel like a second-class citizen, or a very bad child being scolded by some authoritarian figure.

Now, after reading your explanation, I realize that I must have accidentally tried to wander into the high-security prison ward of a hospital. It certainly puts everything in a different light! ;>)

I certainly hope the post in question made it out of the ICU.

Larry Treiman

 

[LloydB]

Tom, the first time I got a message like the one LloydB was greeted with, I expected a hand to reach out from my monitor screen and whack me over the knuckles with a ruler. It made me feel like a second-class citizen, or a very bad child being scolded by some authoritarian figure.

Now, after reading your explanation, I realize that I must have accidentally tried to wander into the high-security prison ward of a hospital. It certainly puts everything in a different light! ;>)

I certainly hope the post in question made it out of the ICU.

Larry Treiman

;-) Larry, I doubt very much that the 'patient' will ever
again see the light of day.

Perhaps a "rule" was applied where it doesn't apply?
But of course, when the verbiage is just "disappeared"
it's impossible to know why, and no justification is needed.

Maybe one of the moderators could examine the patient,
and provide some insight?

Here's a reference to a FORBES magazine site.

Informative, possibly educational, hardly a sales
venue. Something to ponder?

http://www.forbes.com/2005/06/07/cz_sa_0607hot.html

 

[harold bain]

Guys, the thread had a link to an upcoming auction, which the discussion was going to focus on. Nothing sinister happening, just rules being applied.

 

[Larry Treiman]

Harold, my "tongue-in-cheek" comments (BTW, my cheek still hurts) were not about the reason for the action, but about the rather scolding, authoritarian, and just plain unfriendly tone of the messages. There must be friendlier ways of conveying these messages.

Also, I enjoyed Tom's use of the medical analogies in his response. I'm just surprised he didn't mention performing surgery on the post. A little levity often helps.

Lately I have noticed some defections from this MB to another one that we aren't supposed to mention. I hate to see that happen, and just wonder if a little introspection might be in order here. I guess I would make a lousy "enforcer" or MB cop!

Larry

 

[harold bain]

Moderating can be a difficult job, Larry. In this particular case, two members used "report a post" to say they found it in breach of the rules.
The language used in the messages you mentioned is part of our software package from vbulletin, and I'm not sure if we can change this.
By the way, we are always looking for new moderators, if you would like to give it a try.

 

[LloydB]

Guys, the thread had a link to an upcoming auction, which the discussion was going to focus on. Nothing sinister happening, just rules being applied.

Harold, I disagree, and we've (collectively) had this discussion before,
exactly a year ago.

When I followed the original link (in the thread now removed), it did
NOT lead directly to items for sale NOR directly to items on auction.

There is no RULE (there are no rules) that prohibit mention
of, or INDIRECT links to, auctions. (There IS a prohibition
against referencing any specific item for sale or auction.)

If no distinction is to be made between direct links to an item
(or items) up for auction or sale, and GENERAL information
about the fact that such auctions or sales exist, then one purpose
of these forums (to provide readers with useful information) is
prevented.

I fail to see how my reference to the FORBES site is in any
way different than referencing (indirectly) any other site
that would/could lead (subsequently) to general information
about a future auction.

If the purpose of this restriction (read: censorship) is to
prevent discussion of specific items (which discussion might
influence values and/or result in lawsuits) then I'll simply
add that the solution exists within the software currently
being used for this site. I regularly read a different 'private'
newsgroup that has a separate "Trading Post" forum. Members
can post items with a brief description, or announce sales at other
locations. No responses or discussions are permitted, and
inappropriate posts can easily be reported and removed.

That forum uses exactly the same software as this one.
Information on this available by PM.

A year has passed... has there been no real effort to improve
several matters that we've previously discussed? Can no
rationale be provided for continuing with the status quo, other
than "we're right and you're wrong", AKA "Rule Number One"?

In a previous thread I was personally taken to task about my
possible involvement in the auction I'd mentioned. I'd like to state
categorically, and "for the record" that I have no interest in any
auction process, never had any, and have never sold any item
in that fashion, horological or otherwise. Nor have I met nor do
I know, directly or indirectly, any of the folks who run them. And
further, I have no interest in fostering, here, discussion of items,
specific or otherwise, that are in the process of being auctioned.

But I am *VERY* interested in why prior constraint of very
basic information exchange is tolerated here.

The phrase in your statement: "which the discussion was going to
focus on" is most pertinent. Since I can no longer access the original
thread, I cannot, of course, know whether anyone actually engaged
in such 'inappropriate' discussion. Did such occur?

 

[harold bain]

Lloyd, I recall our previous conversations regarding a rare watch that was about to be auctioned off, that you felt all the members should be made aware of.
As stated before, the reason for the rules regarding discussions around items being auctioned is to prevent our venue from having either a positive or negative effect on the outcome of the auction. This is to make sure we cannot be held liable by either the seller or the buyer if the information provided here turns out not to be factual or accurate.
After the auction ends, we can talk about the item all you want.
In this particular case, the auctioneer wanted our input as to the accuracy of his descriptions of watches that were coming up for auction. The items were only a second click away from the main auction page that was linked to. The thread hadn't yet had replies relating to the items, but that was the purpose of the thread.
Perhaps we should have an "announcement" forum where upcoming sales can be plugged without discussion.

 

[Tom McIntyre]

We might want to split this thread into two discussions. With regard to the language of the error message, I can edit that to be more friendly. The difficulty is that all the possibilities mentioned in the message lead to its display, so just talking about quarantine would not work.

I would be happy to hear suggestions.

I don't feel comfortable in the other discussion since the principals involved are good friends of mine.

I do agree with the general point that we can sometimes be a bit rigid in our interpretation of the rules. Those who do not have the responsibility to enforce them may be more rigid than those who do enforce them because their is no consequence to them for reporting. In reality a report of a post is just a request for a decision, not necessarily a complaint.

 

[LloydB]

[snipped]
In this particular case, the auctioneer wanted our input as to the accuracy of his descriptions of watches that were coming up for auction. The items were only a second click away from the main auction page that was linked to. The thread hadn't yet had replies relating to the items, but that was the purpose of the thread.
Perhaps we should have an "announcement" forum where upcoming sales can be plugged without discussion.

Yessir. That would be an improvement.

I recall the previous discussion a bit differently.

But to the point... You say "The items were only a second click away"
Isn't that enough? Is a third click OK? More? This too was part of the
previous discussion, and the endless iteration becomes absurd, at some
point.

Perhaps an "Announcement" forum would resolve this. Worth a try?

 

[Tom McIntyre]

There may be other options worth discussing but I think that we generally have planning discussions in the members only area.

 

[Scottie-TX]

I wish you well on the redact, JOHN.

you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page.
Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features
or some other privileged system?

If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Try as I may, I couldn't even turn it into a parody.
It's short; succinct; terse; robotic
How do you rewrite this to display warmth, compassion, and deeply felt commiseration?
I'll bet JOHN kin do it tho!

 

[Leslie Webb]

"you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page.
Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features
or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation."



How about this:
Oh my goodness, sweetie, you can't access this little old page. Let me see if I can help you figger out why:
Are you trying to edit somebody else's post? If so, shame on you, you know better than that.
The big-wigs of this here message board have to have some place we can go and decide what to do if ya'll decide to get rowdy. You can't go there.

If you are trying to post a message, those same nasty old bigwigs might have cut you off...or you might just be waiting to get activated. Hold ya horses....we'll get around to it

Thank ya'll for your patience

 

[Scottie-TX]

Shoulda know a Hokie could do it.