patrick_y[PuristSPro Moderator]
28404
Hopefully this clears things up. Although I trust your judgment. As per rules...
Sep 03, 2021,00:04 AM
All of our rules are about one thing... What would be good for the community AT SCALE and to prevent abuse. Keep in mind, it needs to be able to pass scrutiny while being scaled up. Our Terms of Conduct prevent discussion on watches that are for sale. Because this would be easily abused by someone who owns a watch, has it being sold at auction, and then tells everyone to go look at that lot without mentioning he's the owner of that lot - this would be abuse of the platform. Another example of abuse on this platform, say I'm a moderator who also happens to be a significant investor in a watch brand or a retailer, and I state wonderful things about that brand or retailer, using my influence and notoriety as a moderator, that would be abuse as well. Here on WatchProSite all of our moderators promise never to do such a thing - we hold ourselves to a high journalistic standard. We also agree not to take major favors nor accept major gifts from brands. Anything that would lead to a conflict of interest has to be declared to the managing director. And don't assume other news outlets nor watch forums necessarily have the same standard. Some consumer news agencies literally get in bed with...
Lastly, if an auction house has made a mistake and you're trying to make a public service announcement, then this would be considered acceptable, as you're not trying to drive business to promote something, but merely warning someone of a major misrepresentation. However, the mistake should be SIGNIFICANT and be a major mistake. I understand significance is a matter of opinion and can vary from one person to another, but it has to be a gross misrepresentation. For an auction house to misquote the serial number by a couple digits isn't significant. For an auction house to incorrectly state the 1940s was still "art deco era" isn't significant. For a reputable auction house to show something that is likely a case of willful fraud or extreme negligence, that's worth mentioning.