I apologize for the delay in my response.
Between finally having nice weather and spending time outside, we got a new puppy and training and walking him 6+ times/day have cut into my computer time. (Actually, that's a really good thing!) Plus, I wanted to make sure I prepared a post that accurately reflected what I wanted to say.
I want to clarify that my intention wasn't to accuse Swanky of lying but in rereading my post, I can see how it was interpreted that way. In hindsight, I certainly could have worded my post in a less accusatory way because it was simply my frustration talking and it came out in a way that wasn't as tactful as it might have been.
Seeing what I considered to be seemingly innocuous posts removed for chatting was frustrating, partly because those types of posts are made on a fairly regular basis and partly because there are so few active participants on the Dooney subforum that removing their posts might cause them to walk away from TPF, thereby leaving even fewer people there.
But honestly, it so surprised me that someone (especially a regular contributor) on a subforum with so few participants would report. (Now I wonder why they reported! But that's another topic for another day.) There have been other similar somewhat OT posts on the thread and they were never removed in the past so this time, it stood out.
I do agree with others who have agreed that the AT threads are running more smoothly than in the past. In fact, there were some posts that I'd HAD reported on Dooney where semi-authentications were being done by someone whose determinations of authenticity (or not) were flawed, incomplete or based on inaccurate information. And in those cases, the posts were removed very promptly.
Since each AT runs differently and authenticators have different views on what they want to authenticate, whether items have to have viewable links or if they can be
personal purchases, whether they want to help sellers either accused of selling a fake or those wanting to verify items before listing, I wonder whether it might be practical to allow the authenticators to write post #1 stating their "rules."
That way, those who don't mind minimal chat, seller discussions, previous history, etc. can
let it be known from the getgo how they feel about it.
While I understand the need for rules and consistency across the board, a little flexibility is nice too if it works for those members who post there.
Again, I apologize for the implication of a lie. It's not the first time I've expressed something that didn't come out as I'd hoped.
I'll also state (at this time) that I (personally) certainly don't mind chat when it relates to the subject at hand.
If at some point another authenticator comes along who doesn't like it, the subject can certainly be reevaluated.
And in cases where mods aren't "into" the brand, I need to keep in mind that they aren't mind readers.
