RE: Selling Items on VL

I agree with this. - and I don't think we need to change anything, things
are going pretty much fine. Seeing information about CPO and multi-game
production runs and discounts is absolutely fine by me because I feel the
purpose of this list is to keep these games preserved. <presidential
music now comes in to enhance speech>....

Seriously - the major problem is, and always has been the initial
finger-pointing from people that aren't the moderators. That's how these
threads get started. I think that there should definitely be rule against
*this* in particular. If there is a problem that needs to be addressed,
I'd recommend privately sending an email to Joe and leave it at that.
Bringing stuff to the open *ALWAYS* causes problems.

Now back to vector discussions......

Matt

_____________________________________________________________________

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Ozdemir, Steven S, GOVMK wrote:

> G'day folks,
>
> Adding commerce related topics to any discussion starts the group down a
> slippery slope. I remember a time (almost a decade ago) when RGV/RGVA/RGVAC
> and the rest of the newsgroups actively discouraged any type of "business"
> from advertising.
>
> I support Joe's current policy regarding commerce on the vector list.
>
> Steve Ozdemir
> sozdemir@att.com
>
> ps - Perhaps a new "Vector FS" list could be made instead of adding FS to
> the existing vector list. I, for one, won't subscribe to any new FS list,
> but others may be willing to slog through the noise to find the occasional
> "rare item at a reasonable price".
>
> Also, I'm curious if a new FS list would flourish...supposedly RGVAM was
> suppose to serve this need? <ducking for cover now>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: FBowen@checkfree.com [mailto:FBowen@checkfree.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 10:54 AM
> To: vectorlist@lists.cc.utexas.edu
> Subject: RE: Selling Items on VL
>
>
>
> I'm not trying to keep this thread going (REALLY!) but it will come up
> again (and again and again and again). Why? Because the FS criteria is
> SUBJECTIVE!
>
> I too hardly ever read RGVAC anymore (except for the Clay & Mark Spaeth
> threads. They are really funny) because one must do a lot of work to find
> the useful information. But I would also like the possibility to share and
> get good deals on ANYTHING that could conceivably be related to vector
> videogames (parts, equipment, service, records, posters, etc). A lot of
> times I don't know that these things exist, so how can I look for them?
>
> I propose we take the previous idea of only allowing them on one day a
> month and add the requirement that the subject start with one string:
> "COMMERCE:" This would apply for anything to be sold, bought, traded,
> beaten up, blended, given away, transmogrified, etc. This would resolve
> the issue with the subjective criteria and different people's
> interpretations. Then people could set up filters on the string and/or
> delete all messages from the specified day if they choose.
>
> HOWEVER, I would prefer to keep the list in it's current state than see it
> turn into another RGVAC, if those are the only two choices.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> jwelser@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu@lists.cc.utexas.edu on 12/01/99 08:41:13 PM
>
> Please respond to vectorlist@lists.cc.utexas.edu
>
> Sent by: owner-vectorlist@lists.cc.utexas.edu
>
>
> To: vectorlist@lists.cc.utexas.edu
> cc:
>
> Subject: RE: Selling Items on VL
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, first anme last name wrote:
>
> > I understand the consensus that this list could go haywire if FS posts
> are
> > allowed, but I for one kind of miss them. Can't we have some sort of
> > compromise on this issue? Like maybe 1 day a month when we can list items
> > for sale? Otherwise, they just all go to eBay and minimise one of the
> > benefits of being on this list. Comments?
> >
>
> I think Clay's intentions were good, but I think that his
> post was still not appropriate for the list......but not by much. The
> problem is, and has always been, that there is no real "quantitative"
> way to define what is and what isn't appropriate for the list. Let's
> leave it at this: If you are thinking of advertising something on this
> list, and there is any doubt in your mind as to whether or not it is
> appropriate, DON'T post it, because it's probably not appropriate.
>
>
Received on Thu Dec 2 10:33:28 1999