>The examples about it being all right to talk about perfumes you want to try and then add a sentence or two of "does anybody have any of these" at the end/it being all right to post a huge long post of reviews (example of the type of thing I'm talking about) and include a sentence or two about "willing to swap/gift anything labeled as 'hell no'" or whatever is because otherwise I will be in the position of having to delete posts/warn people/ask them to edit their posts for an offhanded mention of trading or gifting at the tail end of a post that would otherwise be on-topic.
I can see your point here. It's only natural for those things to flow from discussion, and I'd hate for the rules to be unenforceable. :) And I do agree, I think you're clear that you don't want the lists that other comms have, which are deliberately for setting up trades and sales. That's clear.
Reading through again (I'm tired, sorry, brain might not be working 100%), maybe my impression was partially born from what looked like backtracking after the first paragraph of the profile. For instance, at the beginning it says "is for discussion of perfume and for writing about perfume, not a selling/trading/swapping community. If we allowed selling and trading, we would inevitably have to deal with [etc]". That wording to me sounds like the comm does NOT allow selling and trading, which I took to mean something like what I described (once they decide that someone has something someone else wants, they move off-site completely to complete the transaction.) Also, this wording suggests that in not allowing selling and trading, that the comm is trying to reduce drama (which is fine and good).
But then below there are examples of how the comm DOES allow trading and other exchanges: "Incidental swapping and gifting is all right as long as it comes about naturally as part of a wider discussion..." "if you are making a gift, and receiving nothing in return, you can ask the recipient to reimburse your shipping costs. You must both agree to reimbursement of shipping costs before you ship..."
I guess I have two suggestions to manage the change there (from "we don't allow trading" to "you can set up swapping and trading in these circumstances") - defining "trading" and what actions about trading the comm does and doesn't allow (otherwise, folks might interpret "trading" as "discussion of trading" or "offering trading" or "exchanging addresses for trading" or something else.)
- perhaps changing the wording of the first paragraph, or qualifying that the comm does allow DISCUSSION OF trading, but all transactions should be taken off-site as soon as folks agree there is a transaction in the offing. So, I guess it would just be moving some of the clarifications higher up in the rules.
Also, setting rules for asking gift recipients for shipping seems like it clouds the water again between whether the comm is actively involved in setting such things up or not. If folks are to take such things off-site as soon as they know there's a movement of goods going on, then why not wash the comm's hands of it and let them set up the shipping situation on their own? Or is it intended that they can set up THOSE transactions on the comm? It seems like those can be just as dramaful as any others....
no subject
I can see your point here. It's only natural for those things to flow from discussion, and I'd hate for the rules to be unenforceable. :) And I do agree, I think you're clear that you don't want the lists that other comms have, which are deliberately for setting up trades and sales. That's clear.
Reading through again (I'm tired, sorry, brain might not be working 100%), maybe my impression was partially born from what looked like backtracking after the first paragraph of the profile. For instance, at the beginning it says "is for discussion of perfume and for writing about perfume, not a selling/trading/swapping community. If we allowed selling and trading, we would inevitably have to deal with [etc]". That wording to me sounds like the comm does NOT allow selling and trading, which I took to mean something like what I described (once they decide that someone has something someone else wants, they move off-site completely to complete the transaction.) Also, this wording suggests that in not allowing selling and trading, that the comm is trying to reduce drama (which is fine and good).
But then below there are examples of how the comm DOES allow trading and other exchanges:
"Incidental swapping and gifting is all right as long as it comes about naturally as part of a wider discussion..."
"if you are making a gift, and receiving nothing in return, you can ask the recipient to reimburse your shipping costs. You must both agree to reimbursement of shipping costs before you ship..."
I guess I have two suggestions to manage the change there (from "we don't allow trading" to "you can set up swapping and trading in these circumstances")
- defining "trading" and what actions about trading the comm does and doesn't allow (otherwise, folks might interpret "trading" as "discussion of trading" or "offering trading" or "exchanging addresses for trading" or something else.)
- perhaps changing the wording of the first paragraph, or qualifying that the comm does allow DISCUSSION OF trading, but all transactions should be taken off-site as soon as folks agree there is a transaction in the offing. So, I guess it would just be moving some of the clarifications higher up in the rules.
Also, setting rules for asking gift recipients for shipping seems like it clouds the water again between whether the comm is actively involved in setting such things up or not. If folks are to take such things off-site as soon as they know there's a movement of goods going on, then why not wash the comm's hands of it and let them set up the shipping situation on their own? Or is it intended that they can set up THOSE transactions on the comm? It seems like those can be just as dramaful as any others....
Again, sorry if I'm not making sense!