quote:

---

Originally posted by WeeWeeCow:

Another thought I have is to show the MOTL price of the card when you click or hover over a card name. Unfortunately, I doubt the servers could handle this, but it is a thought nonetheless!

---

That already happens when you click on a card name. The window that pops up shows you the card, and the price comes up in the white box below it.

Ex. Sacred Mesa

Whoever came up with the idea, it was definitely a stroke of genius.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari

It was brought up simply because it was that particular topic that I believe sparked this discussion in the first place. Therefore, I think it's relevant because many of his assumptions are based on the manner of posts made in that thread. Giggles obviously reacted poorly and the discussion spiraled out of control from there.

I think a line clearly needs to be drawn in this debate. For the most part, I (being me, MY opinion) am not condoning attacks on random n00bs who just don't know better. That would be the people who are new to the boards and clearly just don't know what they're doing. People who don't post prices or don't know how to properly value cards in the first place. Most of the time I go out of my way to steer those individuals in the right direction in as kind a manner as possible.

However, the people I believe this rule is geared towards are the ones who clearly know what they're doing. I'm talking about the dealers, the stores, etc. who come on this site thinking they've found a gold mine of people who are willing to let things go for pennies on the dollar. The sad part is, they WILL find those people if somebody doesn't call them out.

The case cited above came to a head because the person was offering several cards for trade/sale, but also had a credit list. On that credit list was a card he also had for sale that was listed at a much lower level than he was selling the exact same card for. When people pointed this out, the OP got very combative and resorted to making threats. Now, I don't know if I want to share a community with anybody who resorts to that type of behavior after a few people take some light-hearted jabs at them.

Let's face it, no matter what age the majority of posters are on ANY message board, if you feed the trolls you're going to get stomped.

__________________
Get "it" now

quote:

---

Originally posted by cyclonus23:
Hold on one second friend,That name was banned 2 years ago, so I'm going to try and fool people into thinking I just forgot the password to it, and lie to a Mod about the whole affair, thinking he'll be too stupid to put 1 and 1 together, and buy my completely fabricated story about another Mod (which I just conveniently forgot who it was) saying it was okay to just create a new account, despite the fact that all Mods have plenty of tools to fix an existing account and would never tell anyone that.

---

Fixed and pwned.

__________________
Mort was already aware that love made you feel hot and cold and cruel and weak, but he hadn't realized that it could make you stupid.

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:

That already happens when you click on a card name. The window that pops up shows you the card, and the price comes up in the white box below it.

Ex. Sacred Mesa

Whoever came up with the idea, it was definitely a stroke of genius.

---

That would be me... *blush*

Thanks!

quote:

---

Originally posted by iccarus:

It was brought up simply because it was that particular topic that I believe sparked this discussion in the first place. Therefore, I think it's relevant because many of his assumptions are based on the manner of posts made in that thread. Giggles obviously reacted poorly and the discussion spiraled out of control from there.

---

Should there even be a discussion (other than haggling, and even then that can be done better via email) on a sale thread? I think that this is a perfect example of two things: a system that does not work, and a system that does.

The system that does not work: Ridicule. It simply made Giggles angrier and destroyed any chance we may have had to have him revise the point values. Mostly, his selling prices were fine. The only real problem was the price at which he wanted to buy Damnation, which would seem to indicate that he was hedging his bets and assuming that it would drop to Wrath's value relatively soon. All that the ridicule accomplished was to goad him into a situation that ultimately *probably* (although obviousy only BoltBait knows) culminated in his banning. In legal terms, goading like this is entrapment, and MOTL should not be condoning it.

Can I ridicule and harrass people who refuse my offers of a Damnation for a card of similar value (say, Scrubland) to this point? Of course not.

What works: The first poster's (Pikafoo) tipoff, which warns both the seller and the potential buyers (well, sellers) of what's going on--Giggles even seems to have removed Extirpate from his buylist entirely, perhaps (although we cannot know now) as a direct consequence of Pikafoo's post. BoltBait's closing post also worked--it was calm and mature and did not fan the flames, so to speak: the thread was hijacked by regular members (which is wrong), and the original poster was only getting more and more irate. At that point, calm resolution seemed improbable, so the correct response was to close the thread. Now, many of the responses were mature--the problem is that they only compound the problem. By egging the guy on and further derailing his thread. One post to warn both the seller and potential buyers/sellers is all that's needed.

quote:

---

I think a line clearly needs to be drawn in this debate. For the most part, I (being me, MY opinion) am not condoning attacks on random n00bs who just don't know better. That would be the people who are new to the boards and clearly just don't know what they're doing.

---

What says that Giggles (in this case) wasn't just a newb? Clearly he knew that he wanted to gain when buying Damnations, but it could easily have been argued that that was because a number of people expect those to go down in value relatively soon

People who don't post prices or don't know how to properly value cards in the first place. Most of the time I go out of my way to steer those individuals in the right direction in as kind a manner as possible.

quote:

---

However, the people I believe this rule is geared towards are the ones who clearly know what they're doing. I'm talking about the dealers, the stores, etc. who come on this site thinking they've found a gold mine of people who are willing to let things go for pennies on the dollar. The sad part is, they WILL find those people if somebody doesn't call them out.

---

Calling out is one thing, derailing threads, ridiculing, and harrassing are another. Like I said, if you're concerned with protecting MOTLers, all that's needed is a single post to warn people, or an email/PM to those that get taken in--or a mod can close the thread due to blatantly unfair values. Ridicule and harassment are unnecessary, and their promotion should be purged from the rule.

quote:

---

The case cited above came to a head because the person was offering several cards for trade/sale, but also had a credit list. On that credit list was a card he also had for sale that was listed at a much lower level than he was selling the exact same card for. When people pointed this out, the OP got very combative and resorted to making threats. Now, I don't know if I want to share a community with anybody who resorts to that type of behavior after a few people take some light-hearted jabs at them.

---

Remember that it was a single card, not every card: was the response that it got appropriate or necessary? I don't think so. We need to give people a chance to do right, we can't just push them to the brink of no return. In that case, there was a very logical explanation for the discrepancy, and it was only a single discrepancy that was immediately pointed out; the seller wasn't given much of a chance, although to be fair his own fuse was rather short. Most of the extra posts in that thread exist for no reason other than to swell post counts, and that's not right either. Similarly, we don't allow people to post "IB4C" any more, because it serves no purpose save to swell post counts.

Kudos to BoltBait for the price/card picture idea. I should have known.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari

It's been pointed out more times than I can count that we've tried civil and friendly pointing out, and that IT DOESN'T WORK. It's nice to be able to say that theoretically it's just what we should be doing, but when a system proves to not work, there's no sense in continuing it.

I don't see a single post on the thread in question that remotely warranted the ridiculously disgusting crap that he posted that led to his banning. No one got out of line and went nuts on him like he probably deserved, and most of them were in response to his whining and complaining about how he was being mistreated, when he clearly wasn't. At every turn he had the opportunity to clean up his act, delete the post or fan the flames. He chose the latter, and deserved a lot more than he got.

To say that Pikafoo's tipoff works seems to be a gross distortion of the word "works". If it had worked, there wouldn't have been a problem after that point, no?

__________________
Mort was already aware that love made you feel hot and cold and cruel and weak, but he hadn't realized that it could make you stupid.

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
I won't post anymore after this, since we all know that philosophy students will argue to the death and never be capable of admitting if they're wrong.

---

Agreed.

I'm willing to see your point of view on this Goas, but I don't think we're going to reach any common ground here. I just don't agree with you about this rule being such a bad thing for MOTL. Therefore, I'm not going to debate this any further because we'll just continue covering the same ground.

__________________
Get "it" now

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
I won't post anymore after this, since we all know that philosophy students will argue to the death and never be capable of admitting if they're wrong.

---

Heh, thanks, but that shouldn't have a bearing on the discussion. I think that the rule seriously violates our purported goal of being a safe family site, and I think that it needs to be fixed. At the very least, that clause about ganging up on zero-ref members for asking people to send first needs to be erased.

I don't just want to win the argument; I'm very serious about this, I think that it's hypocritical and wrong on our part.

quote:

---

It's been pointed out more times than I can count that we've tried civil and friendly pointing out, and that IT DOESN'T WORK. It's nice to be able to say that theoretically it's just what we should be doing, but when a system proves to not work, there's no sense in continuing it.

---

You say that, but I'm not seeing it. Prove it; you've made the claim, which means that the burden of proof is on you.

quote:

---

I don't see a single post on the thread in question that remotely warranted the ridiculously disgusting crap that he posted that led to his banning.

---

Perhaps not, but it wasn't right that his thread got so derailed either--he only had one card with a controversial value.

quote:

---

No one got out of line and went nuts on him like he probably deserved, and most of them were in response to his whining and complaining about how he was being mistreated, when he clearly wasn't.

---

And I agree, many of the responses were very respectful--but they shouldn't have been made. One person pointing out the problem is enough, ten is just antagonising, especially when you can see that he takes every post so personally. If you have further issues with a member, they should be taken up via PM or email.

quote:

---

At every turn he had the opportunity to clean up his act, delete the post or fan the flames. He chose the latter, and deserved a lot more than he got.

---

Why should he delete the post when it was just a single card? How about everyone else just refrains from posting on his list? I agree that his behaviour was ultimately unacceptable, but that doesn't justify what we did.

quote:

---

To say that Pikafoo's tipoff works seems to be a gross distortion of the word "works". If it had worked, there wouldn't have been a problem after that point, no?

---

As far as I can see, there was no problem with new members getting ripped off.

I'm not claiming that respectful callings-out won't tick people off, because they're bound to (albeit not as much as disrespectful ones/ganging up will or would). What I do claim is that we need to act in an adult manner, and that all that's needed to protect new members is a single post to that effect. We give new members all sorts of tools to protect them, and it's up to them to use them. As regular members, we should not be allowed to take the law into our own hands.

And that's the problem here. If someone is really being unfair, then it's your duty as mods to ask them to clean it up or close their post. A member can and should take the opportunity to warn any potential buyers, and should perhaps even report the thread to you, but that's where it ends for us. We simply should not be allowed to harrass/ridicule other members, not under any pretenses. If we have a problem, we should let a mod deal with it; similarly, if a man commits a crime, the authorities deal with him, not regular citizens.

Again, if you can explain just how harassment/ridicule will help potential buyers more than a respectful post, then you have a case.

Respect works. Just the other day, I won a T/A for an Overgrown Tomb. The guy had 13 posts and one ref, and yet he asked me to send first/simul. I replied saying that while I sympathized with his position (obviously it sucks to send first), I felt that he had too small a stake in MOTL for me to comfortably send first/simul, and I offered the possibility of a third-party trade if he was really worried about his card. He replied insisting that he would really rather a simul, to which I myself again replied that I didn't want to come off as callous, but I had no reason yet to feel confident with a simul-send. I again offered him the possibility of a third party or even of backing out, thanked him for his time and patience, and it seems that we're good now. Respect really goes a long way.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by iccarus:

I'm willing to see your point of view on this Goas, but I don't think we're going to reach any common ground here. I just don't agree with you about this rule being such a bad thing for MOTL. Therefore, I'm not going to debate this any further because we'll just continue covering the same ground.

---

Sure, I don't want to cover the same ground either. But I've offered a number of plausible solutions (revisions) for the rule that maintain its spirit and keep the moral high ground. None of them have been addressed. And while we're busy arguing about that one specific case, the clause that allows us to ridicule zero-ref members remains unaddressed.

Again, I simply advise that we choose our wording more carefully; just nix "ridicule" and remove the zero-ref clause.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari

anyways, regardless whats been said it has everything to do with that specific thread. if it bothers people so much why is it just being brought up now? the rule's been there for awhile. this thread was started simply because of the above example.

im all for the rule, while people can be rude sometimes if it saves someone being taken advantage of im all for it. i fail to see how its damaging to the site(mabye you didnt say that but its implied) if anything id say its helping as im seeing less and less of these moronic posts.
now mabye sometimes people go too far but thats not for me to decide.

as for children, id much rather have my child read through a page of ridicule than be taken advantage of by some dealer wannabe. theres no swearing. i dont know how you feel about this but if your child came home and said "look dad, some nice guy on motl sold me his awesome damnation for only $50" im sure youd be upset and want to rip the guys head off, regardless of how one thinks theyll react.

as for your statement about how other sites dont allow it youre wrong.
trust me on this, while wotc doesnt have the rule infact if you asked im sure youd get the obligatory "we dont approve of this" it happens. ALOT, trust me as i deal with it every day. follow a ebay/spam linking/religious view/flamebait post and youll see. theres some pretty ridiculing stuff before a thread is locked.

__________________
your ubb survivor 10 champion!!
Also the recipient of the invisibility and morality awards.
100% win ratio in ubb mafia
wotc marketplace council member, 3 terms and counting

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronandaggy:
goas, i had a 20 minute reply addressing some of your points but my internet went down and theres no way in hell im typing it up again

---

I hate when that happens.

quote:

---

anyways, regardless whats been said it has everything to do with that specific thread. if it bothers people so much why is it just being brought up now? the rule's been there for awhile. this thread was started simply because of the above example.

---

My own problem is with the rule, not the thread. I didn't even know it existed as a rule until the original poster here made this post. I would hazard a guess that a number of other MOTLers are unaware of it, but it would just be a guess.

quote:

---

im all for the rule, while people can be rude sometimes if it saves someone being taken advantage of im all for it.

---

What I'm trying to say is that the same can be accomplished with a single post or a locking of the thread: why do we need to take it further than that? The extra posts don't help any, and are nothing more than the old "IB4C" posts. Why not bring those back, too?

quote:

---

i fail to see how its damaging to the site(mabye you didnt say that but its implied)

---

No, I'm definitely saying that it's damaging to the site's reputation.

quote:

---

as for children, id much rather have my child read through a page of ridicule than be taken advantage of by some dealer wannabe. theres no swearing. i dont know how you feel about this but if your child came home and said "look dad, some nice guy on motl sold me his awesome damnation for only $50" im sure youd be upset and want to rip the guys head off, regardless of how one thinks theyll react.

---

Good question. I wonder if I'd rather have my kid gipped out of thirty bucks, or if I'd rather he be made a fool of in public. Tough choice; I go with losing the money; he'll at least learn a lesson without having been bullied. In any case, we're confusing the newb's role in these examples. The newb may be a newb, but s/he can read, meaning that all it takes is a single post to point out the inconsistencies in the first post. If the newb still chooses to deal with the original poster without addressing the issue of the inconsistent prices, then that is his own problem and the other guy's lucky day.

Obviously those extra posts won't upset the newb who might have been taken in, unless they make him/her feel intimidated when it comes to posting prices, because they aren't targeting him/her. What I'm contending, however, is that they're unnecessary, and tantamount to IB4C posts. I'm also saying that the way in which the rule has been formulated is less than ideal and gives the wrong impression of MOTL because it says that ridicule is OK in some circumstances. The obvious solution is to change "ridicule" for something else.

What's also not right is the clause that says that you can ridicule/harass a new member just for asking others to send first. Imagine if I went out hunting for these posts and posted "you're stupid you have no refzorz and I have many I am so mighty you are so punyzorzzorzzorz etc.". It wouldn't be pretty.

quote:

---

as for your statement about how other sites dont allow it youre wrong.

---

That wasn't me.

Anyway, the point is simply that we should explicitly state that we don't condone cyber-bullying of this kind. It might happen, and we can't always deal with every case, but we shouldn't be saying that it's OK sometimes. It's never OK.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari

anyways. indeed i was thinking the kid on the receiving end of being "taken advantage of" but heres the thing, just like the sellers always say "dont like the prices, you dont have to buy here" they dont have to sell here either. closing the post doesnt work as there is no specific rule on what prices should be, frankly i could post buy my commons, $10 each. ive seen many a reply where someone stated "your prices are to high" most often the reply is "dont buy from me".
Id hate for this site to become known as the site that lets people get away with scamming others.

i also fail to see how its as bad as you think it is. "your prices are a joke" most of the time they are. there are no threats, no cursing, often its just "youre an idiot". i hear that everyday from agnes.
the nice approach has been tried, it leads to hostility(dont tell me how to run my buisness, etc). sure being nice gets you somplace(id like to think im one of the nicer people around here) but sometimes telling the truth gets alot farther, and lets face it, half of these people are truly idiots .

difference of opinion i guess.
you think the site will get a bad reputation full of cyber bullying and the like.

I like to think we'll get the reputation of:
MOTL, the site that doesnt take any BS.

__________________
your ubb survivor 10 champion!!
Also the recipient of the invisibility and morality awards.
100% win ratio in ubb mafia
wotc marketplace council member, 3 terms and counting

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronandaggy:
closing the post doesnt work as there is no specific rule on what prices should be, frankly i could post buy my commons, $10 each.

---

Therein lies the problem: we have no set standard in the rules, meaning that it's left up to individuals to determine what is worth ridiculing/using to up your post count. It could be a two-dollar margin or fifty. And if it isn't right to close the thread, how on earth is it more right to ridicule and/or harass the seller?

Again, I'm not saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to warn others that the prices are unfair; what I'm saying is that there's no need for more than one such post, and there's no reason why it cannot be respectful.

We should be giving everyone the same amoutn of respect, treating everyone on the same level. We shouldn't be instituting some sort of hierarchy by creating situations in which it's OK not to treat people with respect.

I guess it is a difference of opinion, but nobody has yet given a valid reason not to revise the rule as has been proposed. I realize that it probably does seem like I'm just trying to win an argument (probably because of how many posts I'm devoting to the issue), but I assure you that that's not the case: I feel very strongly that the rule runs counter to the spirit in which MOTL was created, and needs to be revised. Perhaps it's best if I stay fairly quiet until more people share their opinions; I've said what I feel needs to be said a number of times, and so the onus is no longer on me.

But at the very least, let's take out that zero ref clause.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari

Allowing a single post telling the person to nicely tell them that they're way off is useless. It will have no effect at all. All that ever gets is the scammer whining about being picked on and telling them to mind their own business, and they keep on trying to pull a fast one.

I absolutely don't see why the zero-ref rule should go. Any moron asking for people with 100+ refs to send first when they don't have any deserves a lot more than a simple ridiculing. Arrogance doesn't even begin to describe such a clueless individual.

__________________
Mort was already aware that love made you feel hot and cold and cruel and weak, but he hadn't realized that it could make you stupid.

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
You still haven't addressed the point that being nice has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to not work.

---

I have addressed it, but I have not proven it wrong because you have yet to provide any sort of evidence proving it right. You brought it up as a fact that it did not work, so therefore the burden of proof is on you.

quote:

---

Allowing a single post telling the person to nicely tell them that they're way off is useless. It will have no effect at all. All that ever gets is the scammer whining about being picked on and telling them to mind their own business, and they keep on trying to pull a fast one.

---

1.) It warns other potential buyers that the guy is trying to pull a fast one.

2.) If one post makes the scammer whine about being picked on, what do you think a dozen do? If you are that passionate about protecting new traders, then close the post or ban the offender. Those methods are far more effective than bullying.

quote:

---

I absolutely don't see why the zero-ref rule should go. Any moron asking for people with 100+ refs to send first when they don't have any deserves a lot more than a simple ridiculing. Arrogance doesn't even begin to describe such a clueless individual.

---

When you're new to online trading and just 13, you say stupid things. Ridiculing a new member turns him away, it doesn't teach him to trust people and change his ways. Conceit and pomposity do not begin to describe the individuals who would gang up and bully a new member who is simply afraid of being scammed. Not to mention that this CLEARLY does NOT create a safe family environment.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari

http://classic.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/063015.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by StrmDrake:
Kinda strange that his post found that attention and others...

http://classic.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/063015.html

Are left alone.

---

Well, that's pretty nutty for him to do that. Well, while we're at it avendor got a licking and he kept on ticking. I don't believe people are doing as much "business" with him as he could because of his rediculous prices.

http://classic.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/062992.html

Like seriously, an Akroma for $5 to buy or $2 for him to buy off of you? What a deal! There's most like that on his list.

The only thing I can suggest since reasoning here would be like beating a dead horse, is to include in the Forum Rules that if there is a card listed as a have and as a want that the value of it when being sold or traded in would have to be the same amount. That way it would cut down on the b.s. MOTL is not a dealer's table and MOTL doesn't take the cut of the profits from dealers. If that be the case where people who are "stores" and "dealers" want to try that, then they should give a cut of the profits to MOTL to keep it running. So, unless the lists in the T/A are adjusted to make it a fair running for all, they should adjust their prices accordingly or get their threads continually edited with a line stating to make their acceptable cards as trade ins or buylist to be the same as the cards they are selling or looking to trade out. If not, their thread gets edited where they lose the list they typed up and the thread gets locked. That would be the next logical solution.

__________________
GøÐÐ맧
MOTL Queen 2006

D≡P≡CH≡ MOD≡

370HSSV-0773H

now, the nice approach has been taken, mabye nice isnt the right word but certainly nobody has been "nasty/very mean" and yet it continues. now i think even you can agree that thread is a joke, damnation 16, buy price 7.
imho that thread needs some ridiculing.

i dont know how youd like anyone to prove the rule works. up until lately ive been seeing far less and less of these posts. perhaps you could prove that it doesnt work as im stumped on how to do the opposite.

i help run the wotc trading forum and ive yet to get anything close to complaint(let alone comment) on this rule and many of the people over there are on motl.

the 1 post idea is a great theory but ive yet to see it work. if anything it bumps a thread. now if you have 15 posts on a thread, people are inclined to see what all the fuss is about.

quote:

---

We should be giving everyone the same amoutn of respect, treating everyone on the same level. We shouldn't be instituting some sort of hierarchy by creating situations in which it's OK not to treat people with respect.

---

now mabye im just too oldschool but where i come from respect is earned, not given. if i walked around where im from demanding it id be in the hospital. why should i treat someone with respect when that person is trying to take me for an idiot.

__________________
your ubb survivor 10 champion!!
Also the recipient of the invisibility and morality awards.
100% win ratio in ubb mafia
wotc marketplace council member, 3 terms and counting

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronandaggy:
Ah ha! see the response there goas? "its your choice"

---

Of course that's the response, and I'd expect no less. What you're failing to see is that that response applies whether there's just one post or fifty; just because you have fifty posts harassing the guy doesn't mean that his response is going to be any different. And again, all you need to warn people is to point out the inconsistency. Everyone here can read.

Besides, what's the difference between this kind of posting and IB4C posts? We don't allow IB4C posts, and yet we allow these...

quote:

---

i dont know how youd like anyone to prove the rule works.

---

If you can't prove that it works, how can you honestly pretend to prove that my suggestion doesn't work?

quote:

---

up until lately ive been seeing far less and less of these posts.

---

You've taken logic before, IIRC, and you know that's not a valid argument: just because you don't see it happening does not mean that it doesn't happen. I've never seen a murder, for example, and yet hundreds if not thousands occur each and every day.

quote:

---

i help run the wotc trading forum and ive yet to get anything close to complaint(let alone comment) on this rule and many of the people over there are on motl.

---

I'm complaining here and now. I've been on MOTL longer than most other members, and I wasn't aware of the rule until a few days ago; I don't doubt that that's the case for many others. All that means is that I would have complained years ago had I been aware of it.

quote:

---

the 1 post idea is a great theory but ive yet to see it work. if anything it bumps a thread. now if you have 15 posts on a thread, people are inclined to see what all the fuss is about.

---

I'm sorry, that doesn't quite make sense; bumping a thread is bad because more people see it, but posting a lot is good because more people see it?

1.) 15 posts bump a thread more than one.
2.) The more posts there are on a list, the less inclined I am (and I assume that it's more than just me) to read through them because the automatic assumption is that they are offers, and that the guy has reasonable prices/hot stuff/whatever.

quote:

---

now mabye im just too oldschool but where i come from respect is earned, not given. if i walked around where im from demanding it id be in the hospital. why should i treat someone with respect when that person is trying to take me for an idiot.

---

Where you come from, the law treats everyone as equals, meaning that it gives everyone the same amount of respect to begin with (no matter how little that may be).

If someone insults your mother in the street, you don't take the law into your own hands and teach him respect by beating him up. If you do, you get in trouble.

Sure, there's a difference between practice and theory--I'm well aware of that. But remember that law is just theory, and if we are to act in different manners according to different situations, then the principles by and through which we act need to be above reproach. It is my belief that, at present, they are NOT above reproach, and need to be changed.

Even if you all want to keep the gang-bullying thing, there's still a very simple solution that leaves us both happy: change the wording. Here's another version of the wording that leaves room for the bullying that you're all so fond of, and yet is far more palatable to the eye because it does not condone it:

3. Never up someone else's post by posting anything other than valid offers. This means that posting homework assignments, concert plans, or anything else that isn't an offer is against the forum posting rules. Please e-mail, PM, or IM those messages.

There is, however, one exception to this rule: if a poster is making unreasonable demands (ex. s/he is selling cards at one price and buying them at a significantly different price, the prices differ vastly from those in MOTL's Price Guide, s/he is demanding that people with dozens or hundreds more refs send first, etc.), you may post to point out the unreasonable nature of these demands.

This wording does not condone bullying, although it says nothing about a post limit (meaning that you can up your count as much as you like, as before) and it does away with entirely with the language of ridicule and disrespect, and it also has the advantage of setting firm guidelines (such as the reference to the price guide and the detailing of situation [which is currently in the rule]).

So, what would be wrong with a change like that? The rule remains above reproach, and yet leaves room for you to run people off, as wrong as I think that is.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari

It's been stated ad-nauseum, and you continue to ignore the fact that being nice doesn't work. You've been pointed to examples of this point-blank, and still continue to insist that you're right.

If you've been a memeber for years and never realized this rule until now, yet it's been invoked many times, I must assume you don't follow the TA and Sales thread nearly as closely as you're trying to make it sound like you do, so why are you insisting that you know more about this than those of us who have browsed the boards regularly for years?

Your suggested rephrasing takes all of the bite out of the rule, and renders it ineffective, much like your beloved and useless idea of being nice while pointing out the idiocy of someone's post.

Anyway, this is getting nowhere very fast, so I'm not going to let you suck me into this anymore.

__________________
Mort was already aware that love made you feel hot and cold and cruel and weak, but he hadn't realized that it could make you stupid.

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:

Where you come from, the law treats everyone as equals, meaning that it gives everyone the same amount of respect to begin with (no matter how little that may be).

If someone insults your mother in the street, you don't take the law into your own hands and teach him respect by beating him up. If you do, you get in trouble.

Sure, there's a difference between practice and theory--I'm well aware of that. But remember that law is just theory, and if we are to act in different manners according to different situations, then the principles by and through which we act need to be above reproach. It is my belief that, at present, they are NOT above reproach, and need to be changed.

---

You seem fairly intelligent, so I will assume that the above is you bending something to try and prove your point. I hope nobody over the age of twelve is naive enough to think that the law treats everyone as equals, or that there is no form of unpunished "street justice" in society.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
Goas, you must realize that we can't show examples of it working, because when it works, there cease to be examples.

---

Then don't you think that if what I'm advocating works, the same is also true, and so all both sides are left with are the cases where it didn't work?

quote:

---

The offending threads are deleted because the person has to hide their stupidity, thus can't be pointed to. I have a hard time believing your logical mind didn't already realize this.

---

Isn't that a good thing? The thread no longer exists to rip people off. Sure, the person can repost it--that's always a possibility, however, even if you close the thread/"run him off".

quote:

---

It's been stated ad-nauseum, and you continue to ignore the fact that being nice doesn't work.

---

Sure, you've stated it ad nauseum, but you've yet to show me an example of it failing. You also have yet to explain to me the difference between the type of posting that you advocate and IB4C posts, and you also have yet to explain how harassment benefits potential buyers.

quote:

---

If you've been a memeber for years and never realized this rule until now, yet it's been invoked many times, I must assume you don't follow the TA and Sales thread nearly as closely as you're trying to make it sound like you do, so why are you insisting that you know more about this than those of us who have browsed the boards regularly for years?

---

1.) I am not insisting that I know more. I am stating the fact that I see a problem with the formulation of the rules, and you guys are blindsiding me without bringing any evidence to bear. I've given an example of politeness working, and I've tried to explain why I think the current means of dealing with the problem conflicts with the site's stated mission. I keep on asking to see examples of cases that clearly show that my ways suxorz, and instead I get the old line that "we tried before but it didn't work". That's like saying that the only way to deal with terrorists is to kill them.

The fact is that there is no rule here to prevent dealers from operating here, and so they have just as much a right to try as anyone else. If they are being particularly unfair, there are simple, effective, and adult ways of dealing with it, and I don't think that we're condoning adult behaviour: instead, we're creating a space where we can feed our egos by pwning other members relentlessly.

As it stands, the rule doesn't even make reference to a standard by which to judge, and so we're left with the question of how much is too much.

2.) I check the T/A forum a few times a week. I don't tend to read the replies in a thread when there are more than one, and if I see discrepancies in prices that I do not like, I hit the back button. It's as simple as that.

quote:

---

Your suggested rephrasing takes all of the bite out of the rule, and renders it ineffective, much like your beloved and useless idea of being nice while pointing out the idiocy of someone's post.

---

How does it take out the bite and make it ineffective?

I get the distinct impression that I'm not being taken seriously because of my university major. Put that aside for a moment, because it has no bearing here. If I were arguing for the sake of argument alone, I would not be trying to come up with possible solutions and compromises, all of which you dismiss out of hand without considering (or at least without explaining why). Sure, I argue for argument's sake sometimes--witness the Mafia threads. There are also times when it's serious because I believe in something very strongly, and this is one such case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CPTBOBIX:
I hope nobody over the age of twelve is naive enough to think that the law treats everyone as equals, or that there is no form of unpunished "street justice" in society.

---

1.) The law states that it treats all who are brought before it as equals, and thus its principles are above reproach, even if sometimes its practice contradicts this (and if it does, that's why we have Supreme Courts--so that we can challenge decisions that violate the principles). Right now, I don't think that MOTL's principles in this case are at all above reproach.

2.) We do not condone "street justice". It happens, sure, but if someone gets caught doing it, s/he gets in trouble for it.

quote:

---

I will invoke Vulcan Logic and say that "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, the one."

---

Don't forget that the few also need to be protected from the many, in case the one tries to bully the other. Witness what happened with Hitler, Rwanda, Congo, etc. Might does not make right.

Besides, at what point do you draw a line? If something (say, the eradication of all Y) is good for 343 people (let's call them X) and bad for 342 people (X), are the Y people thereby justified in slaughtering the X people? Certainly not. Ethics cannot be absolute in practice, but they must be absolute in principle.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari

the law thing is just crazy. this is a private site, it can make up its own rules, theyre not breaking any laws.
the murder comment, come on. thats policing the entire world. this is a website, i can keep track of every thread in the ta/sales forum if i really wanted to.

__________________
your ubb survivor 10 champion!!
Also the recipient of the invisibility and morality awards.
100% win ratio in ubb mafia
wotc marketplace council member, 3 terms and counting

We've shown you directly links to cases where your strategy has failed. Why do you ignore this and say we haven't shown you examples of it failing or that we can't prove it. If you choose to ignore or overlook it so you can try and build a case for something that's not true, that's not our problem.

Yes, it's a good thing that the thread no longer exists. Thank you for finally agreeing with me and proving my point.

__________________
Mort was already aware that love made you feel hot and cold and cruel and weak, but he hadn't realized that it could make you stupid.

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
Okay, I'm officially baffled by your inability to comprehend what we're saying.

---

Ditto. I don't think you're even trying to see what I'm saying; I'm providing all sorts of other options, none of which are being addressed except to say that they're stupid without qualification. If I were just trying to argue for no reason, I wouldn't bother trying to bring anything positive to the table.

quote:

---

We've shown you directly links to cases where your strategy has failed. Why do you ignore this and say we haven't shown you examples of it failing or that we can't prove it.

---

Just a minute here. I don't want to sound rude or combative, but you have NOT done that at all. iccarus pointed me in the direction of the thread that angered the person who posted this suggestion, StrmDrake pointed to a list that NOBODY took issue with, and Val pointed to this thread, which has not received a single post in the days since its creation, and which generated three hits pointing out its inconsistencies--oh, and for the record, it was upped the same day it was created, which is a rules violation.

I have put forward a number of possible alternatives:

*make a single post and let people decide for themselves whether or not to deal with this person
*lock threads with unreasonable pricing
*re-word the rules to be more friendly
*ban dealers/this kind of behaviour altogether (which I don't think is right either)
etc.

None of the linked threads do anything to prove those ideas to be bad. Indeed, Val's comes closest, and even then it doesn't really. It's probably safe to say that it shows that pointing out inconsistencies works, but it by no means shows that harassment/ridicule (i.e. putting people down) works any better than polite, respectful posting.

As for me, I brought forth an example from my PMs to show that politeness can work. I can post it verbatim if you wish. We can even experiment and see how people take it if I insult them because they have no refs but don't want to send first, if you'd like.

quote:

---

If you choose to ignore or overlook it so you can try and build a case for something that's not true, that's not our problem.

---

I can't ignore what's not there. Bring me evidence that my suggestions have been tried, tested, and failed, and I'll look at it.

quote:

---

Yes, it's a good thing that the thread no longer exists. Thank you for finally agreeing with me and proving my point.

---

There's nothing to disagree on: taking advantage of people is bad. I just think that the current method is not right, and that there's a better way to achieve the same (say, locking threads with ridiculous/inconsistent pricing). Locking a thread works a lot better than upping it fifteen times or so, don't you think?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronandaggy:

its just, youre asking for alot of proof about how the rule works when youre providing none of the contrary.

---

I only ask for proof because it's been repeatedly stated that my methods have all been tried, tested, and failed. If that's the case, there must be evidence somewhere.

quote:

---

how about you prove it doesnt work, some threads to back it up?

---

I don't doubt that it works; I just don't think it's right to condone that sort of thing on a family site, especially when other options exist which seem just as effective, and against which no valid argument or proof has yet been brought. Hell, what's the problem with locking a thread like that? I don't understand why the bullying is better.

quote:

---

im not trying to be rude but the rule has been there for awhile and regardless of how many people know about it(i know you didnt) it hasnt had a complaint so far.

---

I know, and it baffles me; and the absence of further complaints is certainly a strike against me. Nonetheless, three members (one now banned) have expressed an opinion against this rule in this thread. And this is, after all, the place to suggest changes--which is what we're/I'm doing. I've offered a number of possible alternatives, and more must exist. It's just unfortunate that you guys aren't willing to acknowledge that the rule goes against MOTL stated mission to be a safe, friendly, family site, because then it would be a lot easier to get you to look at the suggestions. =/

quote:

---

the law thing is just crazy. this is a private site, it can make up its own rules, theyre not breaking any laws.

---

It was just meant to be an analogy from real life as to how a legal system (i.e. a system of rules) works, and I think that we should emulate it as much as possible.

quote:

---

the murder comment, come on. thats policing the entire world.

---

The example of street justice was brought up as a counterexample, and so I addressed it. Obviously there's a vast difference between murder and shady trading practices.

I guess, if you guys want to see less of me posting, everything can be summed up like this: I believe that the rule goes against what MOTL stands for and thus needs to be revised. If you agree, look at my suggestions or provide some of your own. If you don't agree, then the discussion ends there for the both of us. I've said what I need to; most of this is just reiteration.

So: this rule goes against the spirit of MOTL's creation. Yay or nay?

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari