Do Not Understand

[mick pinner]

the recent ad for some accessories in Buy/Sell has been deleted.
why? not so long along ago another member was advertising accessories for a friend over a fair period of time and to my knowledge that was ok so why the change in policy? do we now just say the bits are our own and not admit they belong to someone else?

[davidpretorius]

??? me too??

anyway, what i was going to ask was of you young mick is this vixen setup a eq mount? a good eq mount?

[janoskiss]

:shrug: Were you advertising it Mick? Or looking to buy?

[mick pinner]

Dave as l understand the ad it is a 6" reflector (Vixen) on an EQ mount, about the same capacity as an EQ5
Neither Steve, just questioning the change in policy seems to be a bit of it going on lately.

[Starkler]

It has not been deleted, it has been moved to the hidden moderators forum pending a decision. This thread can be re-instated if that is the decision arrived at.



If you wish to do that I guess nobody will ever know, but at least you the member are taking responsibility for the conduct of the sale and your reputation should problems arise.

IIS has a rule for the buy/sell forum that new members must pass the 30day/5 posts milestones to earn the right to sell in this forum. They have demonstrated if by only a token way that they chosen to become part of the IIS community.
If non-members who have contributed nothing to IIS can sell by proxy,especially when the member posting is taking no responsibilty for the sale, why are we making anyone "earn the right" to advertise here?

This matter is currently under consideration with moderators/admin and the thread will stay "hidden" until a decision is reached.

IIS policy is in many cases evolving as the site grows, and new issues present themselves. Much discussion has been taking place lately about how best to handle certain circumstances.

[mick pinner]

thank you Geoff l therefore take it that the previous items in the Buy/Sell were not subject to this rule.

[DRCORTEX]

Why not just throw it on EBay, and simply place a post on IIS.

Once it is there, well, IIS is doing nothing.

Buyer beware - hell, I can vouch for that. And, if it is such a fantastic deal - then you well not get burnt, as you would know its' actual worth ( or perhaps your like me ). The worse thing is to sell something on here that turns out to be not quite what it was supposed to, or what you thought it was.

ciao

Lance

[janoskiss]

Rule, shmule! Everyone running this place is a volunteer and it's reasonable to expect that every so often they will miss posts that get around the rules. And if they decide that a general rule is not appropriate in a specific instance then there is nothing wrong with that per se unless someone gets burnt in the process. So far no-one's been burnt, and Mike and all the mods are doing their best to look after the members, as far as I can see.

[mick pinner]

l agree Steve the mods do a great job, in the past someone was selling goods on someone elses behalf with the full knowledge of Mike and the moderators over a fair length of time and this was tolerated, l was only interested in why the policy has changed or maybe the policy did not apply at that time.

[Starkler]

Thankyou Steve :)

The very issue that the post in question broached has been under discussion this week and I expect policy to be formed on this very soon.

[xstream]

Just keep in mind guys, we're trying to do the best we can for the WHOLE community and we will make the occaisional mistakes. As Geoff stated we're still evolving and have a long way to go, but hopefully we all will make this the best astronomy forum on the net with some patience.

[Starkler]

Mikes judgement is that as the owner of the scope is a deceased estate, the owner obviously cant be asked to sign up to IIS and the ad should be permitted.

Please dont go taking any precedents out of this, as until proper guidlines are formulated we are working on a case-by-case basis.

[mick pinner]

now that's common sense.

[Stu]

It's pretty hard to sell your own stuff if you're dead. As long as there's phone numbers and email addresses and you make contact with the agent first it is just as normal I think.

Difficult issue. But I think that what some of us would like to avoid is one rule for one person and another rule for a moderators friend. I think the demarkation should be:

1. If someone with higher than 5 posts, can sell on behalf of a friend, if both parties phone numbers are included.
2. Agents on behalf of deceased estates can sell with no posts but must include an phone number and business address.
3. Shops or ebusiness' can not sell.

That's it.
Man it's hot today.

[janoskiss]

The ex-owner of the goods may be deceased but there must be someone who is going to receive the proceeds of the sale. They should be the one(s) responsible for the items for sale.

[Starkler]

The main question in my mind is whether non-members and non-contributors to IIS should benefit by free access to the biggest Aussie astro audience around.
Is it fair to ask such non members to make a 'donation' to IIS based on the price of goods for sale? Does this raise any ramifications as a business for IIS?

[stinky]

For goodness sake - it can only increasethe popularity of the forum - do you have a problem with that?

[janoskiss]

If the site wanted to be popular, it would cease to be an astronomy forum and would embrace one of the sure ways of generating max traffic and $.

The way I see it it should be: Responsible sellers only. None of this "I'm only selling for friend, I know nothing, I wash my hands". But then again if it was stated as clearly as that, then as a buyer I'd know what to expect so it wouldn't be a problem for me. Maybe two forums: trusted sellers and dodgy everyone else. :p I'm glad I'm not the one running this place. Enjoy visiting though. Constantly. :thumbsup:

[Stu]

Maybe we are confusing buyer security with "market segment access"/profit.

Depends on the future site direction I guess. It's not a public discussion then.

[stinky]

Please don't wrap me in YOUR cotton wool. I WANT to be able to make a decision. Give me your disclaimers - mean time I will get on wth my life, my decisions. Make my own mistakes - and be responsable for them. Thanks!

[janoskiss]

Yeah, disclaimers are good! They support a kind of institutionalised form of anarchy, which would be perfect for an open forum like this. :D

[stinky]

So you reckon an astronomy site should not be popular!

If this site IS not popular - does not REMAIN popular it will die and fizzle from lack of input.

[mick pinner]

l take your mind back to the post Mike provided to Malcolm Miller and his observatory closing sale, can't have it both ways, l don't care who started this site live by the rules you implement, or is it a case of do as l say not what l do?

[Starkler]

I should have added the disclaimer that the opinion expressed my mine only and not necessarily IIS policy, that hasnt been decided and formalised as yet.

[mick pinner]

l only took it as your point of view Geoff not site policy, l just thought that this showed the double standards that are sometimes practiced (in my opinion).

[janoskiss]

Just you wait Mick, just you wait! Soon the site will be big enough to support triple and quadruple standards! :P

[janoskiss]

You're not popular, but I don't see you dying and fizzling yet. :confuse3:

Edit: Let me explain:... Amateur astronomy is not exactly the most popular pastime, actually it's one of the least... so if this site wanted to become popular it would steer clear of astronomy altogether... need i say more?

[stinky]

"So say all of us....hurrah!" - Got your brown shirt on?

[stinky]

This site could (and you too - me too) try and engage people at all levels - it might make astronomy MORE popular. A worthy goal am sure.

[rumples riot]

I find this whole policy of Do what I say not what I do very disturbing. Now while I undertand that my point of view is meaningless in the eyes of the administration. After all I fell out of favour (I don't mind BTW) with the powers that be. I do feel that having this policy is giving the wrong impression. While I can understand that a deceased person cannot post. The executor of the estate can become a member here and follow the same rules. Make five postings and wait the requisite time. The point being people will grumble if you make a rule and advertise it and then just abuse it yourself. I currently employ 12 guys and if I turned up late for work, the men would think it was ok to do the same. I have to lead by example. I think the same applies here.

[ving]

why, parents do it all the time to thier kids :P

"when i was young i used to <blah blah blah>.... but theres no way youre doing it, its too dangerous" ;)


btw, i have no real problem with the current situation/.