The bump rule is in a thread entitled "Marketplace rules and guidelines" and the content of this thread is nothing more then a list of rules that reasonably would only apply to only marketplace threads.
I dont think my argument that it might be different than what you think is unreasonable.
-snip-
The "no begging" rule is also somewhat of a "common sense" rule, while all of the marketplace specific rules are not.
The "no begging" rule is also somewhat of a "common sense" rule, while all of the marketplace specific rules are not.
IMHO not allowing a bump every 30 minutes is also common sense. What do you think would happen if people in Beginners and Help started to bump (be that with "updates" or not) threads every few minutes?
I would say most importantly, it appears that one moderator (who happens to be new and less experienced) is interpreting a rule in a different way then how other moderators are interpreting the same rule. A report should be handled the same way regardless of which moderator handles such reports (assuming they do not ignore the report), as it would not be fair to the person making such post if their post was deleted for no reason other then the fact that Cyrus handled a particular report while another person whose circumstances are identical does not have their post deleted for no reason other then the fact that grue handled the report.
Yet there is a rule that allows mods to interpret a rule slightly different than other mods. Some threads I report get moved to the section I report them to, once in there they get moved to a different section because the mod handling the first section has a different opinion about it than the mod that moved the thread in said section in the first place. This is not uncommon and its normal that rules are understood slightly differently.
I am not the person who argued that the post in the OP was deleted for arbitrary reasons, and I do not think that, I think that it was deleted because a moderator interpreted a rule incorrectly. With that being said, I do not believe that moderators should cite the rule that moderators can use their own interpretation of a rule when backing up a decision. After a (very quick) search for this rule, I was not able to find where a moderator actually stated that this is a rule, however I was able to find this quote by -ck:
So it seems that the ability of a moderator to interpret the rules is a way to automatically close any loopholes in the rules, and not a way to give moderators unlimited discretion in their moderation. I believe that moderators should cite rules, precedent and facts when backing up decisions, and not "rule 23"
No "official" set of rules was ever published, because if rules are set in stone, then people will come up with clever ways to bypass them, and then complain when a moderator takes action.
This is so true it's scary. I think it's important to point out that it's even more important to stick to the "spirit" of the rule rather than to the letter of the rule. There will always be a roundabout way to interpret rules that make it such that you're sticking strictly to the letter of the rule, even if you're clearly crossing the boundary. To that end, the rules should also stipulate that someone trying to get around the rules by sticking to them on a literal level while clearly infringing on what the rule was intended to prevent, is also not allowed.So it seems that the ability of a moderator to interpret the rules is a way to automatically close any loopholes in the rules, and not a way to give moderators unlimited discretion in their moderation. I believe that moderators should cite rules, precedent and facts when backing up decisions, and not "rule 23"
Yet the spirit of the rule applies in all sections not only in the marketplace section, hence my argument. AFAIK the above quotes are the reason the "nothing is set in stone" rule was added.
How is it incorrect to apply a given rule across the board when the problem said rule was meant to face occures across the board? Heavily bumping a thread - as the OP does, same as the other person btw - is a problem in every section. It is an incentive to make several posts in order to have your thread on the first page. It simulates activity (number of posts/pages/recent updates) in order to lure people into a thread pushing other threads down.
Now to make sure this is understood correctly. I dont think I know more about the rules here than you or anyone else. It is just that I agree with Lauda's way to handle this and share my views on things. I would be perfectly fine to limit the rule to the marketplace section, but I assure you it would lead to the above problems and I dont think it is in the spirit of the board to encourage this behaviour.
PS: thanks for researching the quotes btw
