Why the removal of a post on a FS thread about Omega F2.4 MHZ?

Rasputin · Sun. 8:26am

Regarding @cristos71 post: https://omegaforums.net/threads/ome...gaquartz-aventurine-dial.189600/#post-2564994

My question asking where can this movement be serviced was removed. Why does such a question which is very specific to that unique movement necessitate its removal and starting a new post?

Dan S · Sun. 8:58am

Read the rules for the sales forum.

Rasputin · Sun. 9:06am

Dan S
Read the rules for the sales forum.

Please explain how that question violated the rules.

Dan S · Sun. 11:38am

Honestly, I think it's obvious and can hardly believe that you're whining about it and attempting to defend yourself.

Threads in the private sales forum are for sales, including legitimate limited discussion of the actual watch being sold. The threads are obviously NOT for other unrelated discussions, which are a distraction and also bump the listing to the top.

If you have a general question about a watch or movement, start your own thread in the appropriate forum, or send a PM.

Rasputin · Sun. 12:17pm

@ Dan S, You obviously aren’t aware of how difficult it is to service that particular watch with its unique movement. As a buyer, I would certainly want to know this before spending thousands on a watch with unknown service history which may otherwise turn into a brick or money pit sooner or later. To assume all prospective buyers would know to ask about servicing this particular watch is presumptuous and certainly not in keeping with a FS post being transparent.

Dan S · Sun. 1:04pm

Thanks for taking on the job of the watch police for the forum. ::facepalm1::

If that's what you were doing, you're lucky that they just removed your post, you could easily have been banned for trying to sabotage a sales listing like that.

Rasputin · Sun. 2:41pm

So transparency = sabotage? That ad hominem approach may work for your students but for the adults in the room it should be a candid and sincere question. The actual watch being sold has an unknown service history. If posing such a question about a FS listing makes me a whiny saboteur worthy of banning then I think the bar for what's unacceptable is set too low. Leave it to say, I would not request removal of such a question on one of my FS post and would welcome a discourse lest it appear as a lack of transparency.

JimInOz · Sun. 5:50pm

You asked a question which would prompt other members to reply in a well meaning effort to answer your question.
This would possibly saturate the sales thread with non-sales related posts.

If you have any questions about servicing this model, a thread in the Vintage Omega forum would suffice.

Dan S · Sun. 6:46pm

Rasputin
So transparency = sabotage? That ad hominem approach may work for your students but for the adults in the room it should be a candid and sincere question. The actual watch being sold has an unknown service history. If posing such a question about a FS listing makes me a whiny saboteur worthy of banning then I think the bar for what's unacceptable is set too low. Leave it to say, I would not request removal of such a question on one of my FS post and would welcome a discourse lest it appear as a lack of transparency.

Your motive was totally clear, and obviously the moderators agreed that your post was inappropriate. If you can't see how your post was completely out-of-line, I don't know how to explain it to you.

A seller is required to follow the rules of the sales listing, and those requirements are deliberately minimal. If a buyer wants more information, they can ask. It's not your job to decide on a case-by-case basis that a particular seller is required to provide more, to make you happy and satisfy your personal opinion about what comprises "transparency."

If you don't like the rules, maybe you should contact the admin and suggest an expansion of what is required. Maybe you would like every seller to be required to indicate the service history? Oh, but that's not enough for you, because it might be hard to get a particular watch repaired. So maybe you would like every seller to provide a list of watchmakers who are available to service the watch. Or maybe that information should only be required when @Rasputin says it's required. I'm sure that will go over well.

Rasputin · Sun. 8:32pm

@Dan S:
What makes your opinion of my "motive" the gold standard, professor, let alone decide I deserve to be banned? Don't distort my intentions to vilify me and portray yourself the champion of the FS posts. No mod reached out to me to indicate that I violated a FS post. The question was simply deleted and it may have been upon request of the seller. Merely asking who is now available to service that watch now that STS no longer does, does not imply I'm trying to sabotage the post. It becomes a dramatic "sabotage" if I knew the answer is "it's not serviceable" which I didn't believe to be the case. I thought best to ask it on that thread where the answer can be helpful for anyone interested in purchasing it rather than create a separate thread where the answer would've been lost in minutia. As said, if it were my FS post I would've welcomed any questions as it would likely help sell my watch because it will optimize the amount of information available to prospective buyers.

GuiltyGear · Sun. 8:57pm

This has gotten a bit heated. Jumping in to provide my perspective without being influenced by what was said.

A FS is basically an ad. Most people who run an ad, me included, don't like making it a discussion. It takes the attention away from the listing. A FS, imho, should be some information and photos of the watch. Anything else is redundant.

In your case, it would have been completely fine if you opened a new thread. You could have linked the watch in question purely as an example of the reference if you felt like it. Or better yet, an internet photo so it doesn't look like you're targeting.

I do agree that a reason on why the post was deleted is not too much to ask. I'm sure you would have gotten that if you asked the moderators privately.

ErichKeane · Sun. 9:48pm

I didn't see the original post but..., my 2c.

IMO, there is a vast difference between "This watch being listed is a redial/has problems/people should beware about this actual individual watch for X reasons" and "owning this model of watch sucks because XyZ".

The former is a good warning about someone mis-representing/hiding problems with their individual watches, and I think is one of the things that MAKES our classifieds here so trustworthy. And I hope we still do it. The latter is well within "you should research the bare minimum about the model that you are buying", and just ends up unnecessarily distracting from the sales post.

While I suspect @Rasputin was TRYING to do something within the intentions of the former, it seemingly fell harshly into the latter.

dsio · Sun. 10:01pm

It’s been a standard approach for over a decade here that if you want to post something like that you do it in a separate thread, rather than having people argue on a FS listing.

Vintage Quartz movements have been difficult to maintain for a while and that one even more so but it doesn’t alter how we operate, and the only people interested in a good condition stardust know what it is they’re buying at this point.

JimInOz · Sun. 10:31pm

ErichKeane
I didn't see the original post but..., my 2c.

IMO, there is a vast difference between "This watch being listed is a redial/has problems/people should beware about this actual individual watch for X reasons" and "owning this model of watch sucks because XyZ".

The former is a good warning about someone mis-representing/hiding problems with their individual watches, and I think is one of the things that MAKES our classifieds here so trustworthy. And I hope we still do it. The latter is well within "you should research the bare minimum about the model that you are buying", and just ends up unnecessarily distracting from the sales post.

While I suspect @Rasputin was TRYING to do something within the intentions of the former, it seemingly fell harshly into the latter.

I disagree.
If you spot a FS thread that you suspect is dodgy, or blatantly ignores issues or other non-disclosures, hit the report button so that the moderation team can assess and respond.

In the second instance, owning XYZ may not be your cup of tea for various reasons but others may be looking for an example.
If it actually is a nightmare to own, an informative thread in the relevant forum would be helpful for anyone considering an XYZ and would also provide a means for XYZ lovers to respond with their experience/views.

Rasputin · Mon. 12:31am

Appreciate the thoughtful feedback from @JimInOz, @dsio, and @ErichKeane. If that was the feedback I originally received then this matter would have been resolved quickly since I'm not out to sabotage anyone's sale. To summarize, all technical questions about a FS post should be posed in a separate thread or by directly messaging the seller.

CalgaryJim · Mon. 12:31am

Rasputin
@ Dan S, You obviously aren’t aware of how difficult it is to service that particular watch with its unique movement. As a buyer, I would certainly want to know this before spending thousands on a watch with unknown service history which may otherwise turn into a brick or money pit sooner or later. To assume all prospective buyers would know to ask about servicing this particular watch is presumptuous and certainly not in keeping with a FS post being transparent.

If a potential buyer has questions about the serviceability of a watch, that's on them to research, no different than understanding or learning to understand any other aspect of buying any watch. Doing so on the sales post is not where to do that. Same here as any other online watch forum I know of.

cristos71 · Mon. 5:00am

Rasputin
Appreciate the thoughtful feedback from @JimInOz, @dsio, and @ErichKeane. If that was the feedback I originally received then this matter would have been resolved quickly since I'm not out to sabotage anyone's sale. To summarize, all technical questions about a FS post should be posed in a separate thread or by directly messaging the seller.

I've refrained from replying here until now as I was curious to hear other members thoughts on the OP's complaint.

But now that @Rasputin is saying that after the input of a few members he now gets it and had he had that feedback earlier things would have been resolved quickly as he isn't out to sabotage anyone's sale then I feel I'm left with no alternative than to add my own comment.

The OP has seemingly chosen to forget that I had twice communicated with him via a couple of courteous private messages explaining to him all these points and he had refused to remove his post. This was before I had to ask the mod's to step in.

I had explained that his question was neither warranted nor appreciated in my sales post, and that if he wanted to raise issue with specific servicing requirements then he was welcome to do that in his own thread on the subject. I even provided him with a clear answer to his question. I asked him to remove his post and start a new thread if he so desired.

I was however not going to answer his enquiry publicly on my sales post as a sales post is not the place for wider discussion. I wouldn't do that to others and I was certainly not going to do that to myself.

After receiving my PM and the answer to his question he refused to remove it and continued on as though both he and I had some kind of duty of care for future servicing needs of my potential buyers. Also going on about me being in the EU and the difficulties with US tariffs and the suchlike...

I again tried reasoning with him in another message, asking him not to police my sales post and to start his own thread if he liked on the subject.

Unfortunately I still haven't received an answer to my message so in the meantime I asked the mod's for assistance.

I won't show the private messages for now as that would be very rude of me. But that the OP claims to have not realised that posting questions of this nature in a sales post is not the done thing is selling the information that I gave him short. I communicated this with him twice, quite clearly via PM.

Peemacgee · Mon. 5:58am

I really do think that this whole conversation is entirely unnecessary and rather bad form.

@cristos71 is very well known and highly respected member of the forum and it’s not as though @Rasputin is new member.

At the very least, as a courtesy, the question should have been sent via private message.

But I think the question was superfluous in the first place - as anyone interested in this type of watch knows the issues regarding the mechanicals (sic) - they have been discussed ad infinitum on the forum - and anyone willing to drop almost 4 grand on a vintage watch really should do their research ( or reach out to the seller privately for more info)

No one can really know what was in the OP’s mind when posting the original question in the sales thread but to follow it up in a dedicated thread is, as I said at the outset, very poor form.

Rasputin · Mon. 9:31pm

To be clear, @cristos71 PM'd shortly after I posted the question on his FS thread asking me to remove it stating he didn't think it was suitable but did not clarify why this violated the rules. This was followed by another msg a few minutes later providing a repair shop in Germany. Less than an hour later, I provided my rationale why I thought the question was pertinent to the post but at no point did I indicate refusal to oblige his request. I did not see his follow up msg because I was offline for 2 hours, having fallen fast asleep in the wee hours of the morning state side. Upon my return I noticed my question was deleted by a mod per @cristos71 's request as apparently he couldn't wait any longer for me to react. At this point I found no reason to respond directly to him and started this thread. Instead of receiving a calm rational explanation I was welcomed with condescension and hostility by @Dan S. Only later were the responses more useful and clarifying for me.

I personally am happy to field any questions on my FS post but it seems I'm in the overwhelming minority. Regardless, I plan on not asking any questions on FS posts to err on the side of caution.

wagudc · Mon. 10:55pm

I like the policy of keeping a sales post clean. I personally think that there should be a rule against posting photos in a FS thread by anyone other than the seller. For example, in the particular thread discussed here another member has posted a picture of their watch of the same model. I see no reason to cloud another person's FS thread and potentially introduce a possible misunderstanding about the watch actually being sold. Of course any buyer should be aware enough to know what pictures are of the watch being sold and which are watches belonging to other members, but why make it complicated. Perhaps I am alone in this pet peeve.