# When in doubt, close the thread



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

enough said, after all, we live in a democracy


----------



## J_Fo (Dec 24, 2017)

dfk41 said:


> enough said, after all, we live in a democracy


What's all this then?


----------



## Rhys (Dec 21, 2014)

I exercised my democratic right to close a thread, which can be the only one in question unless some one else has closed one?

A forum member decided he was in his rights to contact a seller and negotiate a sale by pm instead of on the forum. I simply posted the forum rule on selling which states that all negotiations are to be made on the forum. To avoid any arguments on the matter I closed and moved the thread since sale had by then been agreed so no need for any further discussion.

If there is a problem with this, then take it up with @Glenn.


----------



## ashcroc (Oct 28, 2016)

It still surprises me a bit when people transfer the perceived freedoms they enjoy in life to a privately owned website. At best it's a feudal society with the mods/admin acting in accordance with the owners wishes (wich in the case of CFUK is glenn).

I've seen a few fora which have tried for democracy but on the whole they tend to get taken over by trolls under the guise of 'freedom of speech'. Personally I prefer CFUK being run the way it is.


----------



## J_Fo (Dec 24, 2017)

Rhys said:


> I exorcised my democratic right to close a thread, which can be the only one in question unless some one else has closed one?
> 
> A forum member decided he was in his rights to contact a seller and negotiate a sale by pm instead of on the forum. I simply posted the forum rule on selling which states that all negotiations are to be made on the forum. To avoid any arguments on the matter I closed and moved the thread since sale had by then been agreed so no need for any further discussion.
> 
> If there is a problem with this, then take it up with @Glenn.


Aah thanks for enlightening me


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

Rhys said:


> I *exorcised* my democratic right to close a thread, which can be the only one in question unless some one else has closed one?


I don't think you ex*o*rcised anything - you may have ex*e*rcised it.

....even more pedantically I don't believe the right you exercised is a democratic right....

I don't dispute that it was within your rights or pass judgement on the right or wrong of the right just the democratic nature of it....


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

absolute stuff and nonsense.....I can understand the need for all monetary offers to be made on the thread, but can see no justification whatsoever for this much bleated line, 'keep all transactions and negotiations transparent and on the thread'. You cannot negotiate in public, but you can make an offer. Are we saying, just because a handful of you nodders agree with whatever is fronted as a forum rule, it cannot be discussed or challenged for stupidity, which of course is an opinion rather than a fact. if nothing was ever talked about or discussed, we would still be hanging people


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Rhys said:


> I exercised my democratic right to close a thread, which can be the only one in question unless some one else has closed one?
> 
> A forum member decided he was in his rights to contact a seller and negotiate a sale by pm instead of on the forum. I simply posted the forum rule on selling which states that all negotiations are to be made on the forum. To avoid any arguments on the matter I closed and moved the thread since sale had by then been agreed so no need for any further discussion.
> 
> If there is a problem with this, then take it up with @Glenn.


Double standards that have been demonstrated several times for others, since I received my sales forum ban for doing exactly the same thing....in case you missed the point, I said double standards


----------



## ashcroc (Oct 28, 2016)

dfk41 said:


> absolute stuff and nonsense.....I can understand the need for all monetary offers to be made on the thread, but can see no justification whatsoever for this much bleated line, 'keep all transactions and negotiations transparent and on the thread'. You cannot negotiate in public, but you can make an offer. Are we saying, just because a handful of you nodders agree with whatever is fronted as a forum rule, it cannot be discussed or challenged for stupidity, which of course is an opinion rather than a fact. if nothing was ever talked about or discussed, we would still be hanging people


You can discus it until you are blue in the face but it matters not a jot unless @Glenn agrees with you.


----------



## Jon (Dec 3, 2010)

If anyone has a problem with the rules a private message to Glenn probably makes the most sense...

(As mods we have no power to make or change rules - our role is purely to enforce rules that already exist.)


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

ashcroc said:


> You can discus it until you are blue in the face but it matters not a jot unless @Glenn agrees with you.


I am not discussing it actually.......merely making the point that as usual, rather than see open discussion on something that they will say has been covered before, and it has not, threads are closed and things go away


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Jon said:


> If anyone has a problem with the rules a private message to Glenn probably makes the most sense...
> 
> (As mods we have no power to make or change rules - our role is purely to enforce rules that already exist.)


No it does not make sense at all.....unless there is a mood for change amongst the masses, bot all will be done


----------



## Rhys (Dec 21, 2014)

Drewster said:


> I don't think you ex*o*rcised anything - you may have ex*e*rcised it.
> 
> ....even more pedantically I don't believe the right you exercised is a democratic right....
> 
> I don't dispute that it was within your rights or pass judgement on the right or wrong of the right just the democratic nature of it....


A pedantic reply might be to say I corrected my mistake 2 minutes before you posted this.














I blame auto-correct..


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Rhys said:


> A pedantic reply might be to say I corrected my mistake 2 minutes before you posted this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the original post makes more sense......


----------



## ashcroc (Oct 28, 2016)

dfk41 said:


> I think the original post makes more sense......


Me too. Moderators should always exorcise their democratic rights in order to utilise the more powerful rights they have been given.


----------



## filthynines (May 2, 2016)

I think it's brilliant that Brexit was actually invoked. The new Godwin's law?

The rules are as set by the forum owner. If you don't like them, you don't participate. One justification for the rule (despite no justification being needed) would be that it saves a situation where Buyer A says via PM "I'll give you £1,000 for your widget that you've advertised for £1,100", but Buyer B offers £900 on an otherwise completely empty thread and believes that his offer is the highest. Buyer B then misses out through want of knowledge.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

filthynines said:


> I think it's brilliant that Brexit was actually invoked. The new Godwin's law?
> 
> The rules are as set by the forum owner. If you don't like them, you don't participate. One justification for the rule (despite no justification being needed) would be that it saves a situation where Buyer A says via PM "I'll give you £1,000 for your widget that you've advertised for £1,100", but Buyer B offers £900 on an otherwise completely empty thread and believes that his offer is the highest. Buyer B then misses out through want of knowledge.


I have said I see no problem with offers or financial discussion taking place on the thread, but do not see why if it is not money related it needs to be transparent


----------



## ashcroc (Oct 28, 2016)

filthynines said:


> I think it's brilliant that Brexit was actually invoked. The new Godwin's law?
> 
> The rules are as set by the forum owner. If you don't like them, you don't participate. One justification for the rule (despite no justification being needed) would be that it saves a situation where Buyer A says via PM "I'll give you £1,000 for your widget that you've advertised for £1,100", but Buyer B offers £900 on an otherwise completely empty thread and believes that his offer is the highest. Buyer B then misses out through want of knowledge.


From reading how the rule is written, I wouldn't be that surprised to find out that exactly that had happened prompting it's introduction.


----------



## salty (Mar 7, 2017)

Have to say that to me the rule makes perfect sense and ensures there's a level playing field when offering something for sale and making an offer. It makes the chronology of offers clear and transparent and removes the possibility that a seller decides to choose a later offer rather than the first that was made at the asking price. I don't see a problem with that or the advantage of a system where bids are made in PMs and not in the thread.

Or am I missing something?


----------



## ashcroc (Oct 28, 2016)

dfk41 said:


> I have said I see no problem with offers or financial discussion taking place on the thread, but do not see why if it is not money related it needs to be transparent


What part of negotiating could possibly not be money related?


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Put it another way, the seller advertises a grinder and from the picture, buyer A notices something which makes him believe the seller does not realise what he has. So, does buyer A have to post on the thread, 'hey seller, from the photo I think thats a version b which is worth far more than the version A the you think it is. If you can confirm that, then I might put an offer in......or would the sensible person not alert anyone else to this fact and send him a pm? that can hurt no one and why should it be classed a a rule break?


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

salty said:


> Have to say that to me the rule makes perfect sense and ensures there's a level playing field when offering something for sale and making an offer. It makes the chronology of offers clear and transparent and removes the possibility that a seller decides to choose a later offer rather than the first that was made at the asking price. I don't see a problem with that or the advantage of a system where bids are made in PMs and not in the thread.
> 
> Or am I missing something?


Once again, there is absolute sense in monetary offers etc being transparent......that is not my point. People say, whats your postcode......send me a pm and immediately the police force, whether authorised moderators or just wannabe moderators trot out that useful line, keep all negotiations transparent and on the thread......it is not a negotiation, it is a question


----------



## salty (Mar 7, 2017)

But why wouldn't it make more sense for the question to be in the thread - presumably that would be helpful to other potential bidders as well?


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

salty said:


> But why wouldn't it make more sense for the question to be in the thread - presumably that would be helpful to other potential bidders as well?


The OP (or the potential buyer) might not want to broadcast their address/post code to the world....


----------



## ashcroc (Oct 28, 2016)

dfk41 said:


> Put it another way, the seller advertises a grinder and from the picture, buyer A notices something which makes him believe the seller does not realise what he has. So, does buyer A have to post on the thread, 'hey seller, from the photo I think thats a version b which is worth far more than the version A the you think it is. If you can confirm that, then I might put an offer in......or would the sensible person not alert anyone else to this fact and send him a pm? that can hurt no one and why should it be classed a a rule break?


Surely if it's worth far more buyer A would be offering asking once their suspicions have been confirmed & not trying to undercut what would obviously already be a good deal.


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

NB I don't have any particular issue one way or the other with the "rules" but I do agree with dfk that "sometimes" they get enforced and "sometimes" they don't....

Which is (I think) dfks point - inconsistency.....


----------



## salty (Mar 7, 2017)

Drewster said:


> The OP (or the potential buyer) might not want to broadcast their address/post code to the world....


Really? Or rough geographic location?

I guess this point is about context then - in which case I assume a note in the thread about transparency and security blah blah blah would cover it wouldn't it?


----------



## salty (Mar 7, 2017)

Drewster said:


> NB I don't have any particular issue one way or the other with the "rules" but I do agree with dfk that "sometimes" they get enforced and "sometimes" they don't....
> 
> Which is (I think) dfks point - inconsistency.....


Definitely agree there should be a consistent approach.


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

salty said:


> Really? Or rough geographic location?
> 
> I guess this point is about context then - in which case I assume a note in the thread about transparency and security blah blah blah would cover it wouldn't it?


Personally I am happy for my location to be out there (hence profile entry)

Not everyone is....

I was just answering your specific question



salty said:


> But why wouldn't it make more sense for the question to be in the thread - presumably that would be helpful to other potential bidders as well?


it almost certainly would be beneficial to all/every potential buyer.... but if one or the other didn't want to publicise that info....


----------



## ashcroc (Oct 28, 2016)

Drewster said:


> NB I don't have any particular issue one way or the other with the "rules" but I do agree with dfk that "sometimes" they get enforced and "sometimes" they don't....
> 
> Which is (I think) dfks point - inconsistency.....


Ah now that's a valid point which I'd quite honestly missed from dfk's complaint. Unfortunately I read it as him complaining that the rule existed at all & possibly asking for a democratic vote to remove it.

Are we talking about the same moderator seeming to be inconsistant or 2 (or more) moderators acting with a different level of strictness when rules are infringed? As far as I'm aware, all the moderators are unpaid & voluntarily giving up their free time to help run the site. It's not surprising some infringements get missed but anyone can flag a post/thread to their attention if they believe it needs looking into.


----------



## ashcroc (Oct 28, 2016)

dfk41 said:


> Once again, there is absolute sense in monetary offers etc being transparent......that is not my point. People say, whats your postcode......send me a pm and immediately the police force, whether authorised moderators or just wannabe moderators trot out that useful line, keep all negotiations transparent and on the thread......it is not a negotiation, it is a question


Fully agree with you but I don't recall seeing that happen. Could you provide a reference please?


----------



## MildredM (Feb 13, 2017)

If everyone who posted/participated in the For Sale thread *read* the terms, digested them and understood if they were going to post then that's how it is done here and if they don't agree then they can use a different method, then there would be no need for anyone to enforce/close/do anything









*this is not a dig at anyone, I hardly ever even look what's for sale nowadays so have little idea about various breeches of rules*


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

ashcroc said:


> Fully agree with you but I don't recall seeing that happen. Could you provide a reference please?


one example

fg230 - forum rules say all negotiations are to be done on the forum in an open and transparent way. Once a deal has been struck and commitment to buy made then you can go to PM.

The forum mods can't mediate if you step outside these rules. They are there for your protection. I hope you understand

https://coffeeforums.co.uk/showthread.php?15175-SOLD-Casadio-Dafne-S1-HX-Coffee-machine-amp-Casadio-Enea-Grinder/page2&highlight=negotiations+transparent

post 14


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

ashcroc said:


> Ah now that's a valid point which I'd quite honestly missed from dfk's complaint. Unfortunately I read it as him complaining that the rule existed at all & possibly asking for a democratic vote to remove it.
> 
> Are we talking about the same moderator seeming to be inconsistant or 2 (or more) moderators acting with a different level of strictness when rules are infringed? As far as I'm aware, all the moderators are unpaid & voluntarily giving up their free time to help run the site. It's not surprising some infringements get missed but anyone can flag a post/thread to their attention if they believe it needs looking into.


One regular "issue" is I think people misunderstanding dfk's posts and thinking that he is moaning/complaining/being a pain in the *rse........

Just in order to keep this light (and "funny") - I am not for a moment suggesting that he doesn't or isn't.....

Nor do I really think he wants or needs me to defend him ;-)

I have no issue with any of the moderators - I think they generally do a decent job and I appreciate it/their time etc etc.

I don't have specific examples of inconsistency to point you too... and I really don't have enough of an issue with it to find any... but over the course of time I have seen several..

I have on at least one occasion "reported" a (very clear and obvious) infringement in a "for sale" thread where no mods had "done anything".....

The infringement was a thing being offered at a fixed price with "no offers" clearly stated..... then the next post (by the seller) basically said something along the lines of... "For transparency item sold to XXX for YYY" (YYY was below the fixed/no offers price").....

Clearly XXX and the seller must have "negotiated" offline/via PM..........

After reporting the rules were publicly re-iterated - but by then obviously the seller and buyer had done the deed......


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

https://coffeeforums.co.uk/showthread.php?14109-Pullman-Barista-Australian-Oak-Tamper-58mm&highlight=negotiations+transparent

same chap it seems


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

MildredM said:


> If everyone who posted/participated in the For Sale thread *read* the terms, digested them and understood if they were going to post then that's how it is done here and if they don't agree then they can use a different method, then there would be no need for anyone to enforce/close/do anything


Ain't that the truth!!


----------



## ashcroc (Oct 28, 2016)

dfk41 said:


> one example
> 
> fg230 - forum rules say all negotiations are to be done on the forum in an open and transparent way. Once a deal has been struck and commitment to buy made then you can go to PM.
> 
> ...


Ok, a thread from 2014 talking about the cost & willingness of posting overseas concluding in a successful sale after negotiating final price.

Looks money related to me so would need to be on the open forum to follow the rules.

Not 100% sure you found the perfect example there to back up your arguement....


----------



## ashcroc (Oct 28, 2016)

dfk41 said:


> https://coffeeforums.co.uk/showthread.php?14109-Pullman-Barista-Australian-Oak-Tamper-58mm&highlight=negotiations+transparent
> 
> same chap it seems


Again considering his next post after being warned about the rules is an offer (which I notice was accepted over your offer of £5 less including postage), it doesn't back up your argument.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

ashcroc said:


> Again considering his next post after being warned about the rules is an offer (which I notice was accepted over your offer of £5 less including postage), it doesn't back up your argument.


You asked for an example......you did not specify anything in particular.......you are going to have to try a little harder to get me to bite.....I do not take things personally and you are welcome to your viewpoint, as I am to mine. i feel there is nothing more constructive I can add to this thread, but by all means....you carry on


----------



## Jon (Dec 3, 2010)

Drewster said:


> NB I don't have any particular issue one way or the other with the "rules" but I do agree with dfk that "sometimes" they get enforced and "sometimes" they don't....
> 
> Which is (I think) dfks point - inconsistency.....


I think inconsistency probably comes about, when it does, because of time issues/limited exposure to the forum...

Personally I dip into the forum on average for a few minutes a day. If I (for example) miss something, it's most likely a by product of having young children and running a business rather than deliberate discrimination.

If anyone thinks any moderator is behaving in an unfair way drop them or Glenn a PM. I would definitely like to know if I do something that seems unfair!


----------



## jlarkin (Apr 26, 2015)

Jon said:


> Personally I dip into the forum on average for a few minutes a day.


It's just a shame that your few minutes keep getting wasted on this crap and not on learning what's the best tasting bean around at the moment or something like that.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Jon said:


> I think inconsistency probably comes about, when it does, because of time issues/limited exposure to the forum...
> 
> Personally I dip into the forum on average for a few minutes a day. If I (for example) miss something, it's most likely a by product of having young children and running a business rather than deliberate discrimination.
> 
> If anyone thinks any moderator is behaving in an unfair way drop them or Glenn a PM. I would definitely like to know if I do something that seems unfair!


Don't worry.......I will tell you...LOL


----------



## Jon (Dec 3, 2010)

dfk41 said:


> Don't worry.......I will tell you...LOL


Thanks!


----------

