Quote from: shorena on October 10, 2015, 07:46:58 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on October 10, 2015, 07:30:14 AM

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.

I am not sure I am understanding what you are saying here. This might be a translation issue.

Quote from: shorena on October 10, 2015, 07:46:58 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on October 10, 2015, 07:30:14 AM

-snip-
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?

If a newbie is making a "bump" post every 30 minutes then they would be making a useless/low value post repetitively which is not allowed. On the other hand, if a newbie were to post an update with relevant, new information then such update would be useful to someone who is helping them with such problems, even if updates are given every 30 minutes.....for example, I could read a thread asking for help with a newbie saying they are receiving a specific error message, I leave such thread open in a new tab, then spend some time conducting business, then 45 minutes later can start research on the above error message....then I can check my watch list to see if there are any updates to that thread (I am not going to refresh that thread and review an entire 10 page thread prior to starting my research), and if the newbie has an update saying that they were able to clear the original error message, but are not receiving a 2nd error message, then I would probably want to attempt to research how to resolve the 2nd error message, and no longer care about the 1st one. If a 30 minute update is provided then I will know which error message to research, and if a 30 minute update is not used then I will spend time researching an incorrect error message, and would most likely give up on trying to help the newbie because I had just wasted time in finding an answer for them that they already had.

Quote from: shorena on October 10, 2015, 07:46:58 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on October 10, 2015, 07:30:14 AM

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 don't think this is a slightly different interpretation of the same rule, I think the difference is substantial and clear. I don't think the difference in interpretation is because of a small nuance, I think it is a broad based difference in how a particular rule is interpreted.

I think it is pretty rare for a thread to get moved more then one time, and in the instances when this does happen, I report the thread an additional time and it gets moved appropriately, which leads me to believe that it was probably the OP of the thread to moved it back and not a moderator.

Quote from: shorena on October 10, 2015, 07:46:58 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on October 10, 2015, 07:30:14 AM

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:

Quote from: -ck on August 01, 2014, 09:56:29 AM

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on July 31, 2014, 10:50:48 PM

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.

My argument is that it is only a marketplace rule and that the rule does not apply in places outside of marketplace.

I don't think the spirit of the rule applies to other sections (see below). I think something that would be against the spirit of the bumping rule would be to have your alts ask questions in your own sales thread, or make otherwise useless posts in your sales threads, as these posts would effectively be a bump, however would technically not be classified as being an update nor a bump.

I would say that a "bump" post outside of the marketplace (that is not an update, as in it does not contain any additional information) should probably be deleted as it would be a "low value" post. I would also say that it is pretty rare that a thread gets addressed/replied to by a moderator after being "bumped" (as in "bump" and not a post that includes additional information) in meta.

Quote from: shorena on October 10, 2015, 07:46:58 AM

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.

In marketplace threads, you can adjust the price of what you are trading by fractions of a penny, or artificially adjusting the available inventory (or amounts you are willing to buy) and you could call it an "update" which would allow you to bump your thread to the top of a section, giving you a financial advance over others. In a non-marketplace thread, you are not able to manipulate an update anywhere near as easily, and there is not the financial advantage.

Quote from: shorena on October 10, 2015, 07:46:58 AM

PS: thanks for researching the quotes btw Cheesy

I think you are making an incorrect use of that smiley. I usually use that smiley when I am laughing at someone.