Inoculator reinforces he’s a top member, winders yells at cloud

Just catching up on this. Inoculator is a G and if there was a perceived error, that dude will make it right 100% of the time. Dude was trying to split the difference on his losses for being super OCD about making his f'ing LCD screens match on his 2 $6k dacs and trying to be a bro by taking a SBAF deal instead of an offer for considerably more on USAM.

Anyway, dude is legit and I will happily buy and sell with him because in my experience he's always easy as hell to deal with and has always been super nice and fair.

 

Disliked because you didn't stop to notice that this is sorted already. Old news.

Shush.



Suggesting close the thread, so no-one can chip in "But... But..." which doesn't even have amusement value

 

What I find most odd about this whole thing is that apparently numerous members were tattling via PM to a mod instead of just directly reaching out to the member or posting a clarifying question in the FS thread. I’m sympathetic to @zerodeefex feeling a need to address in order to stop the PMs, but we can ask each other questions in a kind way without bothering mods to do so.

Last I checked, there’s nothing in the FS rules about “assists” from the forums either. If there is such an informal rule then it should be added to the rules so members understand what is expected. Otherwise people may rightly worry about the forum price police continuing to make erroneous assumptions.

You can dump on @winders all you want, but he’s right.

• DAC A was purchased for $X.
• DAC B was purchased for $Y.
• DAC B was retained.
• DAC A was sold for less than $X. No flipping occurred. No forum FS rules were broken. No rule exists re: “assists”.
• The buyer of DAC A was comfortable with the price.
• That’s it.

If I have the facts wrong, please correct me. I’m coming at this from the perspective of a lawyer. We can’t punish people for complying with the written FS rules, and I can’t personally think of a compelling way to draft the “assist” rule in a way that makes any sense.

Example rule: If you own a piece of gear and someone on the forum posts a link in the deals thread or used deals thread or makes a new FS thread about that same gear or a substantially similar piece of gear and you buy such additional gear, you are prohibited from selling the original item you owned before such link/thread was posted for more money than you paid for the same / substantially similar item purchased from such posted link/thread.

Problems:

• You can’t enforce this reliably.
• What constitutes the same or substantially similar? Same production run? Same USB card? Same chassis color? What if I get a screaming deal on a black Yggdrasil and finally sell my mismatched silver chassis Yggdrasil for less than I paid? Will the price police come for me too?
• What if someone does the exact same thing but the link for the same / substantially similar gear didn’t come from SBAF?

Not trying to stir the pot more, but thinking ahead to the next time and what we want to happen there. Or maybe this happens so infrequently we don’t care. But if that’s the case, this thread wouldn’t exist right?