Being reasonable about the amount of threads and bumps in the marketplace section

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

I'm not sure, but I believe there isn't currently any restriction about how many threads can be created and how often they can be bumped in the "marketplace" section, which is GREAT! But it should be to US (everybody) to stay reasonable and not abuse that freedom and possibility.

I feel (only my own opinion) maybe we could create ONE thread with several names when we have many to sell we want to talk about.
And not create one thread for each name, which takes a lot of space in the list and when we go in "what's new".
You can still publish as many details you want inside your post.

( @CupidName.com : Sorry dude, but I'm thinking about you. I get you may want all the info to appear directly in the titles, but it does fill "what's new" for everybody every time you bump all your threads. Make one great title people will want to click and put all the info inside your thread. Don't you think? )

 

[amplify]

There will be one hard rule being the golden rule of treating others as you would like to be treated and a very well-known forum-inherited golden rule of staying on topic. Other "softer" rules (more like guidelines) will be at the top of the page, affixed to the prefix of a topic, i.e., "[news] This is a news thread. Please discuss or add anything relevant to the original topic." which weighs heavily on the forum golden rule of "stay on topic".

Automation will take care of most other rules to where we don't need them in print, especially not like they're written as laws or confusing Terms of Service, that come on, you and I both know we don't fully read and click "Accept" to install software.

Aside from treating others kindly and staying on topic, what else do you think DNForum should implement that is not already on the horizon?

Thanks!

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

forum golden rule of "stay on topic".

To be fair, he created a totally new thread in the correct section. Maybe you didn't totally notice this.
IMHO, as "fair" the view can be, it's pretty much NP view (No need to ask ourselves why!): Crazy rules in all directions, with silly people "enforcing" them (more or less well). Personally, I don't like this and would prefer to not have this here.

So, I quite agree with what you say, @amplify

 

[DapperJohn]

To be fair, he created a totally new thread in the correct section. Maybe you didn't totally notice this.
IMHO, as "fair" the view can be, it's pretty much NP view (No need to ask ourselves why!): Crazy rules in all directions, with silly people "enforcing" them (more or less well). Personally, I don't like this and would prefer to not have this here.

So, I quite agree with what you say, @amplify

He actually (correctly) split the thread.

I already know how a no rules/lax rules forums turn out. I'll leave you guys to it, good luck.

 

[amplify]

I already know how a no rules/lax rules forums turn out. I'll leave you guys to it, good luck.

I know how they turn out as well. That's why we're running a hybrid system.

Very few rules, but enforcement of common sense with the aid of automation for the other issues brought up.

Hopefully, you'll stick around to see how it turns out. If not, enjoy conformity and groupthink elsewhere!

He actually (correctly) split the thread.

Thank you.

I was following the second unwritten rule (well, written on every forum, but memorized by any forum user).

I don't think humans need so much structure to thrive. Do you?

I know you can't handle comparisons or analogies, such as the Ivercentin one thrown at you earlier, but this forum will be very much more "libertarian" in the sense that we don't see the need to govern with so many rules that can eventually shape and form you to our personal and bias liking.

I feel as if the community can speak for itself with tools to still come. That being said, we're not going to lose focus or our grasp over full control, as seen with Wikipedia and why the co-founder left. While we will have community ownership and believe that it will be used for good 99 out of 100 times, we will still have the final say on that one outlier because there will always be 1 that wants to push the boundaries. Though, we're still not going to let that 1 control the rest.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

He actually (correctly) split the thread.

I already know how a no rules/lax rules forums turn out. I'll leave you guys to it, good luck.

Oh, it was a split. My bad. Now, everything does make sense.

Yeah, I fully understand it doesn't work well for a control freak like you. I like @amplify view, even if I'm pretty sure there will be a few hiccups and the occasional misbehaving users, but that's not a good reason to put harsh rules on EVERYBODY. That's a wide problem these days, IMHO. The few who want to control everybody and everything and want to impose silly things on all, rendering the life of many miserable for no good reasons.

 

[DapperJohn]

I know how they turn out as well. That's why we're running a hybrid system.

Very few rules, but enforcement of common sense with the aid of automation for the other issues brought up.

Hopefully, you'll stick around to see how it turns out. If not, enjoy conformity and groupthink elsewhere!

Thank you.

I was following the second unwritten rule (well, written on every forum, but memorized by any forum user).

I don't think humans need so much structure to thrive. Do you?

I know you can't handle comparisons or analogies, such as the Ivercentin one thrown at you earlier, but this forum will be very much more "libertarian" in the sense that we don't see the need to govern with so many rules that can eventually shape and form you to our personal and bias liking.

I feel as if the community can speak for itself with tools to still come. That being said, we're not going to lose focus or our grasp over full control, as seen with Wikipedia and why the co-founder left. While we will have community ownership and believe that it will be used for good 99 out of 100 times, we will still have the final say on that one outlier because there will always be 1 that wants to push the boundaries. Though, we're still not going to let that 1 control the rest.

Everybody knows this forum exists. How come it's not active? You're not getting that part. I don't think the people that run this place understand community. You want to automate stuff and think that'll work. Let it go on autopilot, people police themselves.

"I don't think humans need so much structure to thrive. Do you?"

Have you ever watched a 60's commune documentary? They don't turn out well. Go back to the inch/take a mile.

 

[DapperJohn]

Oh, it was a split. My bad. Now, everything does make sense.

Yeah, I fully understand it doesn't work well for a control freak like you. I like @amplify view, even if I'm pretty sure there will be a few hiccups and the occasional misbehaving users, but that's not a good reason to put harsh rules on EVERYBODY. That's a wide problem these days, IMHO. The few who want to control everybody and everything and want to impose silly things on all, rendering the life of many miserable for no good reasons.

haha, my goodness. Rules aren't control freak. Which forum is active? The one with rules. It's like kids, they appreciate rules, without them = crazy.

You guys will learn. You'll start threads talking about what's going wrong, why aren't more people posting. This is nothing new. It won't end up a mainstream domain forum. It'll be more an Epik employee/fan/GabJr. type of forum. And you guys might be fine with that, that's your business. It just won't be active. It's like you can't get out of your own way to be successful.

 

[amplify]

Everybody knows this forum exists. How come it's not active? You're not getting that part.

It's not active for a reason. I suppose people should know what that reason is now as you are bringing it up and they may not know.

Long ago, Adam Dicker was the owner of this forum. He allegedly used his position here to scam members. As the situation unfolded, members bailed to NamePros, which became the #1 spot as this place crumbled.

Since then, it's gone through a couple of ownership changes.

Now that it's in Epik's hands, there are people behind it that can care and nurture it once again, as admittingly, Adam Dicker did.

We will not fail.

 

[amplify]

I looked in the forum where the guy lit it up with 30 posts in a row

I didn't have the same experience that you did, or didn't see it the way that everyone else was frustrated about as I was on a desktop. While mobile, I can see how much of an issue this is while trying to access new posts.

I've merged this with a similar suggestion where I said that it'll be handled in 7 days. However, I can see that there is poor mobile experience if this continues for several more days. If they are bumped once more in the same manner, all of them will be locked. They will then have to identify which ones that they want open and to either manually choose to unlock their allotted amount or to repost their sales threads while staying in those confines.

The discussion about how many sales threads someone should have is still open for debate. The general consensus is that 3 should be enough though. We can surely start with 3 and revisit this number again in the future, unless someone else has a better suggestion for now.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

The discussion about how many sales threads someone should have is still open for debate. The general consensus is that 3 should be enough though. We can surely start with 3 and revisit this number again in the future, unless someone else has a better suggestion for now.

Personally, I don't see open threads really as an issue. If there have to be a limit, it would probably be on how many bumps you can do per period, all threads considered, not just PER thread. If it was for example 3 bumps per day for all threads of an user, the current situation would be addressed automatically. The user can maybe have more active threads existing (I would prefer to, on a personal level).

 

[DapperJohn]

The general consensus is that 3 should be enough though. We can surely start with 3 and revisit this number again in the future, unless someone else has a better suggestion for now.

But who cares about 3, since the guy just literally dropped another 29. And you let him do it. Why? Right now, it's a free for all.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

But who cares about 3, since the guy just literally dropped another 29. And you let him do it. Why? Right now, it's a free for all.

What is your point? There is a known situation right now (=today) and some thinking about how to solve it for tomorrow. It is a little disconcerting the guy didn't restrain himself after seeing this thread (I even mentioned him to be sure he would see it), but he's indeed free to do it "right now". He chooses to continue as much as he can. Yeah, not a great behavior, IMHO. Now, there will be rules ruining some available freedom for everybody because one guy didn't know to be reasonable. That's very unfortunate.

What do you propose should be done? Kick him out for not being reasonable and keep the freedom as it is? (I'm asking more on a theoretical way, to think about it. I don't have ANY power here in any case).

Or "punish" him because YOU don"t like what he's doing even if it was possible to do and within the current "rules"? If you were in charge, I mean (still theoretical). Because this seems to me exactly your kind of thinking, this "punish" people and decide what you like or not, despite being OK at that moment. I don"t like it. At all. In fact, I hate it, and it is what disgust me about some things done by some people, tbh.

 

[DapperJohn]

What is your point? There is a known situation right now (=today) and some thinking about how to solve it for tomorrow. It is a little disconcerting the guy didn't restrain himself after seeing this thread (I even mentioned him to be sure he would see it), but he's indeed free to do it "right now". He chooses to continue as much as he can. Yeah, not a great behavior, IMHO. Now, there will be rules ruining some available freedom for everybody because one guy didn't know to be reasonable. That's very unfortunate.

What do you propose should be done? Kick him out for not being reasonable and keep the freedom as it is? (I'm asking more on a theoretical way, to think about it. I don't have ANY power here in any case).

Or "punish" him because YOU don"t like what he's doing even if it was possible to do and within the current "rules"? If you were in charge, I mean (still theoretical). Because this seems to me exactly your kind of thinking, this "punish" people and decide what you like or not, despite being OK at that moment. I don"t like it. At all. In fact, I hate it, and it is what disgust me about some things done by some people, tbh.

What is your point? To have a general consensus of 3 and then do absolutely nothing when somebody does 29? lol, be real. What's to talk about. You either have rules or you don't.

If you do, enforce them.

If you don't, then let it be a free for all. This forum will be drowning in junk. Is that what you want?

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

What is your point? To have a general consensus of 3 and then do absolutely nothing when somebody does 29? lol, be real. What's to talk about. You either have rules or you don't.

If you do, enforce them.

If you don't, then let it be a free for all. This forum will be drowning in junk. Is that what you want?

I'm sorry, you start to sound a little nuts, here. But I admit I see this kind of thinking regularly, these days. There is no "general consensus". Few have even raised an opinion about it. Please don't confuse what YOU want and think with "everybody", "general consensus", etc. (which you clearly appear to do, it seems to me).

Until now, there was no rule limiting it. It is about eventually implementing one for the future (an automatic way, not a "rule you have to respect on your own", way). But you are making me repeat myself. You didn't read, or consider what I wrote in my previous message.

"You either have rules or you don't": And things evolve over time. It's all about what is in place at that particular moment. You don't even seem to able to grasp that concept, according to what you're circling on.

 

[DapperJohn]

I'm sorry, but you start to sound a little nuts, here. But I admit I see this kind of thinking regularly, these days. There is no "general consensus". Few have even raised an opinion about it. Please don't confuse what YOU want and THINK with "everybody", "general consensus", etc. (which you clearly appear to do, it seems to me).

Until now, there was no rule limiting it. It is about eventually implementing one for the future (an automatic way, not a "rule you have to respect on your own", way). But you are making me repeat myself. You didn't read, or consider what I wrote in my previous message.

"You either have rules or you don't": And things evolve over time. It's all about what is in place at that particular moment. You don't even seem to able to grasp that concept, according to what you're circling on.

And you're calling me nuts. Try to pay attention...........

THERE ARE ALREADY EXISTING RULES

I'm going to make it bold and the largest text size available:

"You may post domain names and websites for auction here, please read the rules in this forum before posting. Limit: 2 threads for Platinum members and 4 threads for Diamond members per 12 hours."

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

I'm going to make it bold and the largest text size available:

This seems to be about post CREATION. What is seen here is the bumping of existing threads. And there has also maybe been some relaxing of the rules about the marketplace section at one point.

Well, I agree it doesn't seem to be in the "spirit" of what you quoted. But that's also the problem of "rules". They have to be clear and well defined. And then some people may try to circumvent them while still respecting them. This is the problems with "rules-world".

But, something is going to be done about the matter. It's actually being done. So, all I said above still stands. You seem to me to be one this "punish" that guy bad trip (based on no actual existing rule. You could argue the spirit of the rule, but it becomes quickly a slippery slope).

 

[DapperJohn]

This seems to be about post CREATION. What is seen here is the bumping of existing threads. And there has also maybe been some relaxing of the rules about the marketplace section at one point.

Well, I agree it doesn't seem to be in the "spirit" of what you quoted. But that's also the problem of "rules". They have to be clear and well defined. And then some people may try to circumvent them while still respecting them. This is the problems with "rules-world".

But, something is going to be done about the matter. It's actually being done. So, all I said above still stands. You seem to me to be one this "punish" that guy bad trip (based on no actual existing rule. You could argue the spirit of the rule, but it becomes quickly a slippery slope).

Geez. It's not that complicated. There are already existing rules in those sections that are not being enforced. There is no slope, the rules are clear.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

Geez. It's not that complicated. There are already existing rules in those sections that are not being enforced. There is no slope, the rules are clear.

To be clear: Your whole and only agenda here, is to try to make this forum as shitty as NP.

 

[DapperJohn]

To be clear: Your whole and only agenda here, is to try to make this forum as shitty as NP.

To be clear, it seems you may be butt hurt because I'm guessing NP handled you for violating some rules and you want to see DNF not go back to it's former glory, but you want a free for all to trash the place. You come off as some child.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

And you do care so much about DNF that you would want to impose things which would make it more like NP?
There is a whole vaxx parallel here. And what I do think is totally nuts.

I don't see any use of having 2 places do the same exact stuff (which I despise, on top of things). Different is good. More open and more freedom is good. You stay free to go to the place which suits you best, don"t you? Why do you want so hard to ruin it for people NOT wanting what you want (and have available!) ? (Rhetorical questions)