Omg... This Fake 315 Really Tops The List...

This is the same as running a meeting and keeping it 'on topic'. It takes a lot of skill (and time) to keep things moving in the right direction and not wandering too far off topic. But frankly some of the best ideas and out-of-the-box thinking that I have seen came from growth that was not strictly part of the original topic. Surely we all have examples of treads which we learned something new in a post that was not strictly on-topic.

But this may not preclude increased movement of posts, (or self policing of same) and if so then the issue becomes a matter of time/resources. Of course a better defined sense of exactly what is and isn't strictly 'on-topic' would need to be supplied.

In my opinion there are basically two types of posters; folks who see things for exactly what they are and folks who instead see the 'connections' between things. Both are legitimate perspectives but my point is that this difference often is the cause of misunderstanding of 'on-topic'. I see this thread as a great example of this. The original post was about a specific listing and its possible short-comings. So does that mean that to stay strictly 'on-topic' any additional posts should only be about that listing? Is making a post about the frequency of any #315 to be a fake still 'on-topic?' How about a post about this seller? Or a post about ebay not providing better oversight? IMO, these are all related and acceptable. If I were to err, I would err on the side of less censorship and less movement of threads.

It seems to me that bit of tolerance is better than stricter 'on-topic' rules. It is too easy to simply skip over those posts which I feel aren't critical to the discussion or are not of value to me.
Don

Thanks Bill. And I'm trying to propose something for us to consider in deciding how we will respond to a post. It is a principle that is easy to recognize and apply, and it is based on the way the themes in the All Forums listing are distributed.

When a topic or its discussion is focused on Classic US stamps themselves then that discussion is unambiguously "on topic." When it takes up matters of how such stamps are bought or sold, it has aspects that are on topic and some which are not. When a topic focuses attention on the behavior of a collector or a seller or a venue, then it is not on topic for this forum.

Those are three points on a spectrum. In that range, would posting an announcement about the approach of World Stamp Show-NY 2016 be "on-topic" for this forum? It's a useful topic, but its not about Classic US stamps, so it is off topic for this forum. But I doubt that on a single post anyone is going to get bent out of shape over it. But if that topic kept coming up in new threads day after day, people would be within their rights to complain if they were so inclined. That's how I think that "rules" like this need to be applied. Liberty with respectful restraint. Policeman? Not if we can police ourselves.

Some people like things to be predictable, others revel in the unexpected. Some prefer stability, others get their kicks by dancing on the edge of acceptability and pushing at the limits. And even with that our moods and limits vary. Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don't. The trick is not to trample all over each other while trying to be ourselves.

I'm sure I'm not the only one appreciating the irony that a post intended to keep a thread on track has instead completely derailed it...

Any further comments about irony are off-topic and should be moved to another thread.

I think iron-y would keep it on the rails rather than off the rails.

(Nobody said nuttin' about puns, just iron-y.)

srailkb

I hope that this forum always maintains its informal "charm" and remains a casual place to discuss stamps without the involvement of nannies monitoring our every reply.

As shown above, what one might consider as going off-topic will be viewed as connected to the topic by someone else.

The only thing you can really control on a forum is your own behavior. This post will sink, new members will come along, we have a large number of members for whom English is not their first language, etc.

essayk I have benefited greatly from your contributions here but please realize that you really cannot control what others post.

That is a great post Jenny!

I have to admit that REALLY hurts to hear you say that, because I don't see my comments as an attempt to control others. I called for a common understanding. I threw out a proposal, and repeatedly said that it needs to be up to US. It was meant as an appeal to reason.


Okay, my ideas aren't worthy of discussion. Lampooning, yes, but actual consideration, no.

So, you tell ME what distinguishes topics in this forum from those in the forum intended for "On Line Stamp Auction Discussions"

Here are the first ten current topics/threads in that forum area:

Reporting Questionable ebay Lots?
ebay Bidder
Listing Position On ebay?
Phony Item Locations
ebay's Spring Seller Update or Gotta shake things up!
ebay Key Word Spamming
Perfect example of problems I experience with ebay sellers
Auction Houses: The Good Guys Thread
Hot Topic Just passing along a warning & curious what your opinion is?
Question about returns and money back guarantee on ebay


Any patterns there?

Essayk, each of us has our own opinion of what may be off topic, as well as varying degrees of appreciation for off topic comments. Your appeal to reason seems nothing more than asking us all to conform to your opinion by no longer posting what you see as off topic, and so useless, posts.

This next bit is tongue in cheek, since you brought up reason.

"I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it."

Well I chuckle at the irony too, but the reason topics are to stay focused is they are long-lived and serve a purpose of research and knowledge, which I think can get hindered when digressions are abound, or the responses are misplaced in the wrong forum.

I use search quite often on SCF, and have been known to update knowledge threads to topics that are three years old or more that I am able to constructively build upon. When threads are used by future researchers, and even those in the present reading the top 100 or most recently updated threads, it is somewhat of a disservice to others' time having to read through digressions unrelated to the core topic, or are misplaced altogether. It actually drains energy to some extent.

Much of this thread on Scott 304 vs. 315 is now better-placed someplace else. Perhaps an editor will deal with fixing it, or a community pillar will move the thread. Certainly a future researcher or contributor on 304 and 315 would appreciate it.

Essayk, please don't be offended as no offense was intended. I was merely trying to point out that due to our various differences, a common understanding will never be possible.

I think that discussing ebay is relevant to this thread because that is the source of the stamp. I have no problem with you thinking otherwise and you can certainly express this any way you like, but I believe you are proposing to limit everyone else's comments to what you (and possibly a few others) consider germane to the discussion.

No matter how it's phrased, it is an attempt to control our posts.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with discussing ebay because that is where it came from.

Lets ride bikes!

You are not the only one.

Now where did I put those scans of my Bonga Bonga land semi-postals.......

Actually, your intuition ("seems") is leading you astray in assessing what I think. Asking you to discuss something toward a common end is not me asking you to "conform" to anything. BTW I would not make the assertion that misplaced = useless.

Jenny, you made the claim that I am personally trying to control what people post. I don't feel that calling for a collectinve set of agreed limits is the same as me trying to personally control anything. But in view of the following I am willing to yield on the entire matter, with no hard feelings.


I have been reminded, off list, that a strategy for self policing according to a common standard is not likely to be successful. Some of you here have said the same. His suggestion was that the list owner/moderator needs to move off-topic discussions a few times in order for people to get the point. That assumes reporting of some kind, but he feels that it is a better approach. He also suggested that reporting "incorrect thread postings" right away is key to helping us get clear about what's expected.

In view of the outcry my suggestions have caused I have to admit that he's probably more right about that than what my thinking has been.

Fair enough? I was wrong to suggest that we collectively define a standard.
And I want to publically apologize to anyone who felt dominated or intimidated by my suggestions, comments or remarks. My opinions are my own. You have yours and are welcome to them. We are both free to express them, of course.