27
28

[Question] Is this subreddit actually /r/mechanicalwatches? (self.Watches)

cookingboy が 投稿

I've been hanging around on this sub-reddit for a while now. I originally was under the impression this place is for watch lovers to share and discuss all things related to watch..

However recently I noticed that submissions concerning quartz watches, fashion brands, Apple Watch, etc all have a very high rate of downvote. There are people who say things like the Apple Watch does not belong to this subreddit.

Why? Sure we don't want to turn this sub into Apple Watch app troubleshooting, but what about discussions regarding a smart watch's WATCH aspect (build, quality, material, finish, aesthetics)? Do smart watches not count as watches then? Then what about G-Shocks? Is it because G-Shock doesn't have a full computer inside? Where do we draw the line?

And then there are postings regarding fashion brands and quartz watches. I've personally gotten downvoted and MADE FUN OF for recommending a Swatch for going to the beach, I mean, really? Is an automatic diver's watch the only acceptable timepiece for going to the beaches now?

Do people think this sub-reddit should be changed into /r/mechanicalwatches? If so maybe someone can start one. I personally own a wide collection of time pieces from Tudor to Tissot to Swatch to a pre-ordered Apple Watch. I love them all for different reasons, I really don't think people should be excluding others when it's already a relatively niche hobby to begin with.

Should we ask Mods to officially clarify their stance on this issue? For example all brands that don't make mechanical watches will be banned from being mentioned?

What prompted me writing this post was another submission about a guy buying his wife a Coach watch as a gift. It's a good looking piece and it's being used to expression his emotions to his wife. Yet the 50% downvote rate is just embarrassing.

EDIT: Even this post is getting downvoted to hell, and I'm not even ADVOCATING for any agenda, other than potentially asking the mods to clarifying the official policy so people don't submit a post about something they love and gets downvoted to hell for no obvious reasons.

But seems like even a discussion is taboo here. I really don't want this sub, which I learnt a lot from, to turn into something as circlejerky as /r/malefashionadvice

EDIT 2: This is amazing, my comments about how I think we should try to respect Reddiquette is getting downvoted to hell itself. And the reply to me about how Reddiquette only applies to bigger subs is being upvoted.

EDIT 3: I'm sorry for offending some people by starting this discussion. There are now people who are going through my comments history and downvoting everything. I expect behaviors like that from certain people on /r/politics, not this subreddit :( I've learned a lot about timepieces from many great redditors on this sub, but I guess I should have kept my mouth shut after all.

全 87 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順q&a

[–]PangHuLi 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You seem to be picking two very recent examples and making vast statements about the sub as a whole from it. The majority of "I bought this recent Fossil Watch" threads are generally well received, albeit mostly unenthusiastically. If they talk about future purchases, I've seen a lot of polite nudges towards more traditional watch companies rather than another Fashion Brand watch.

And then there are postings regarding fashion brands and quartz watches. I've personally gotten downvoted and MADE FUN OF for recommending a Swatch for going to the beach, I mean, really?

I'd suggest you not take things on the internet so personally, but it's possible some users may have gone over the top. Would you mind linking to the thread?

Overall, my opinion is people shouldn't look for validation from strangers online regarding viewpoints and purchases without expecting possible disagreement and expression of said disagreement.

[–]cookingboy[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are absolutely right. I am not trying to take things personally, I just want to get a clarification. Personally I think it's ok for people to have different opinions, I just wish we can all have a civilized discussion without downvoting whoever we don't agree with.

[–]mr_chan 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (23子コメント)

The hottest post right now is a Timex, so it's actually kind of tricky.

I feel that a quartz watch will be politely or positively received if the poster explains clearly why he or she enjoys it, or has sentimental or historical value. Quality mechanical watches will be more evaluated on their own merits.

[–]JoCoLaRedux 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or if it's simply a well made quartz watch produced by by a reputable company. Timex, Casio, Citizen eco drives - they all get upvoted here.

[–]cookingboy[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (21子コメント)

Then what about posts like this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/3421q5/coach_sos_birthday_is_coming_up_soon_she_likes/

Is it because fashion brands are not ok?

[–]FantaFruitTwist 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then what about posts like this:

It is just not a very interesting post, that's all!

[–]Ag9215 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Should we all go spam it with upvotes?

The upvote downvote system isn't about being kind or rude. It's about ensuring that the most interesting and relevant posts are the most visible ones in the subreddit. Perhaps people didn't think that post was particularly interesting? Surely people have preferences, and voting along those preferences ensures that the content they like most is the content that is most visible?

I seriously don't see the problem with this.

[–]fb95dd7063 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (6子コメント)

. It's about ensuring that the most interesting and relevant posts are the most visible ones in the subreddit.

Because seeing the 10,000th Seiko 5 is interesting? :-\

[–]_w_mo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Trust me there are plenty of us that agree with you, but even more that love everything Seiko. Because they're such a big name and have a storied history and place in horological culture, you're going to see large representation on this sub.

Personally if I never saw another Seiko in my life it'd be too soon.

[–]Ag9215 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I never said I upvote those posts. But at least they are relevant to the subreddit.

[–]mrhelios 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

why is the coach one not relevant?

I can understand boring but why not relevant?

[–]_w_mo 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think he misspoke honestly. Sure it's relevant, but the composition of the sub doesn't find a women's Coach watch at all interesting so they leave it or downvote it.

My personal system is upvote or leave it. I rarely downvote when I feel that people are spreading misinformation or creating shit posts, but that's like 1/1000.

[–]Ag9215 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I never said it isn't. The posts I am referring to as not relevant are those about smartwatches.

[–]mrhelios 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

gotcha, agreed for the most part

[–]verrukt 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Vote. If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.

I agree with the reddiquette guidelines which seem to suggest that downvoting is meant to bury unrelated content. Sure you could try to argue that you don't believe Apple's smart watch (for example) contributes to the subreddit but that argument would fall short when considering this is a subreddit dedicated to watches in general.

In my opinion, the appropriate reaction to a post that you disagree with would be to simply ignore it.

[–]Ag9215 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

No, it wouldn't fall short, because the apple watch is not a watch.

[–]anthonymckay 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why is it not a watch? Please explain makes something a watch/not a watch?

[–]Ag9215 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not a watch in the same way that your iphone is not a pocketwatch.

[–]verrukt 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Um, what?

Watch: a small timepiece worn typically on a strap on one's wrist.

Timepiece: an instrument, such as a clock or watch, for measuring time.

It is by definition considered a watch. If you want to go further with definitions,

Smartwatch: a smartwatch is a computerized wristwatch with functionality that is enhanced beyond timekeeping.

[–]cookingboy[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's actually not true. The "official" reddittique is NOT downvote things you don't find interesting, it's simply NOT upvoting them.

You can completely ignore posts you don't find interesting, but it is not your job to think of yourself as a content moderator when at this time, there is no clear guidelines.

[–]Ag9215 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Official reddiquitte it may be, but probably like 3% of users of this site actually vote according to reddiquette.

Anyways, as much as I don't like fashion watches, I at least see them as relevant to this sub, so I don't downvote them. But I'm not going to go upvote them either because I feel bad for OP.

Smartwatches on the otherhand... I view as irrelevant, and downvote them accordingly.

[–]SirGuyGrand 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

To be honest, I don't spend much time here trawling through posts, only the interesting ones that make my front page, so from a purely selfish point of view I'm kind of glad by feed isn't clogged with brand recommendations/'what should I get' posts.

[–]e8989 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I'll attempt to tackle your questions in two parts:

  1. When the Apple Watch was announced, it seemed to illuminate just how subjective the definition of a "watch" is to most people, especially watch aficionados like the ones on /r/watches. From my perspective, the reason why an Apple Watch should not be considered a watch is that it is not an item with the basic intent of telling time; rather, it is an item that can do many things, including telling time. Although it comes in a shape that is easily discernible to the layperson as a "watch", the functionality of it does not lend itself to the definition.

  2. With regards to quartz vs. mechanical movement watches, I find myself reading time and again that quartz movements are just not "interesting". Regardless of how I feel about the level of truth in that statement, I think the main issue is that people from this community intrinsically value mechanical movements over quartz ones. In any subreddit, there will be obnoxious users that assert their narrow-minded views, and in ours, those happen to be the elitist users who most likely believe quartz watches are "common" and are not "horologically interesting". Again, I will refrain from making any observations as to the accuracy of these statements, but the bias towards quartz is definitely there. If I can make a suggestion, I will say this: do not be dissuaded by those who downvote your opinion. If you think a watch is interesting or worthy of discussion, continue to post them and you will find that people will respond. The nature of reddit is that some posts will be seen by a minority while others will be seen by more people. If you happen to submit something that is viewed initially by these biased users, it will automatically be mired in downvotes and negative comments.

I think I have a lot more to say on this subject but I need more time to clarify my thoughts. Fortunately, these kinds of posts are what made me stop being a lurker and become more active. Thank you!

[–]e8989 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

One more thing about fashion brands: I think there are quite a few reasons why people both in real life and on internet watch communities have such a hard time with these watches. This sort of goes back to the subjective idea of what watches are "interesting" or not, but I think the main problems people have with these watches are that:

  1. "You can get so much more watch for x dollars, and all you are paying for is the branding." To a certain extent, this argument is semi-valid in that a movement can be used on a watch that is x dollars or x + 10,000 dollars. In that scenario, the actual working basis of both those watches is the same, so you are seemingly paying 10,000 more dollars for fit/finish/intangibles. What people seem to forget is that sometimes, when a person tries on a watch in real life, it moves them and calls to them in a way that makes it impossible for them to live any further without having this watch in their life, regardless of cost or "interest level" of movement, etc. There is a visceral, human element to watches that SHOULD be the basis for any horological enthusiast, yet anonymous forum users can blast someone's acquisition from their chair without understanding that feeling.

  2. Sort of a corollary to the first point, but most people in general do not have the money to buy said fashion brand watches. Period. When I see someone really affluent go out and buy something extravagant-yet-suboptimal, even I have the same urge to chastise them in my head. However, the main thing to note here is that it really is not any of my business how they spend their money, and it is really not my place to judge one thing as "suboptimal" to another, especially with items as subjective as watches. It truly is just my jealousy of another person's affluence coming out as anger and spite, when I should have no reason to feel this way. You can never underestimate the pettiness of humans, even (gasp) those that are as "fair-minded" and "levelheaded" as reddit users.

[–]Ag9215 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

At the same time, it's part of the watch collecting experience, isn't it?

If the various internet communities didn't criticize my choice of an Armani quartz fashion watch at my first piece, my tastes would never have evolved to where they are now. I am actually quite glad for the fact that the internet communities weren't so worried about being "rude" that they didn't tell me their true opinion.

[–]e8989 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Haha, very true. However, at the end of the day it is your money, is it not? You should do whatever you want with it, and a bunch of spiteful comments from reddit and other forums shouldn't stop you from getting a watch that actually makes you feel something other watches do not. For what it's worth, I am also glad you did not buy that Armani watch, but if it made you super happy, then who am I to say otherwise?

[–]Ag9215 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well I did buy it, but it was four years ago ;) My tastes have changed since then. I never really saw the comments I received as spiteful - more as helping me to realize there is better value and far more interesting pieces to be had.

[–]JezzaN1 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

my first watch (not including 40 dollar ones i had as a little kid or whatever) was an armani one. it actually still looks nice for what it is, and i wear that for my beater when i don't feel the need for a dress or mechanical dive watch. to be honest that armani watch is what helped me find my way into the online watch community and expand my tastes.. so i'm glad i got it!

[–]cookingboy[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Thanks for the even tempered reply.

I personally think good movements are fascinating, but I also love designs/materials of a watch since I wear them as fashion statement as well. That's why I bought a Tudor with a boring ETA movement but it looks so god damn cool. I also love Swatches for this exact reason. The CEO of Patek wears a Swatch when he goes skiing, can you imagining him making a recommendation here on this subreddit and get made fun of?

But that's not what I'm complaining, if vast majority of people here really enjoy mechanical watches only, then why not make the rules explicit? We already ban replica discussions/posts, why not add fashion brands/smart watches to the list?

[–]e8989 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You chose some very interesting examples here. Firstly, Tudor is a widely respected brand in these parts; I personally wouldn't consider them to be a "fashion brand". Second, the Swatch you recommended will most likely get a bunch of downvotes because it is not a particularly interesting watch apart from its esthetics. The problem with this is that you can recommend a multitude of uninteresting watches with interesting esthetics, so this sort of recommendation is seen as unhelpful. Finally, that Coach watch (to me) seems pretty ho-hum, so others most likely found it dull as well, and not really worthy of discussion, hence the downvotes. If you look at all these examples on a case-by-case basis, you can sort of discern the decision-making process a /r/watches user goes through when up-or-downvoting.

[–]cookingboy[S] -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

My Tudor Heritage Chrono Blue is not particularly interesting apart from its aesthetics. It uses a freaking run of the mill ETA 2892 movement with add-on DD chronograph movement, is it more expensive than a quartz movement? Yes. Is it interesting? Not even Don Draper can come up with anything interesting to say about it.

The Swatch recommendation I made was because the OP asked for a watch that's "casual, fun, rugged, cheap and he's going to wear it at the beach". I mean, none of those description screams Submariners to me.

[–]T552 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

It seems kind of silly to place such strict guidelines on here. I understand that you have had a bad experience on here, and that is really unfortunate, but it seems extreme to create all these rules because of it. I have a few quartz watches and whenever I post them they are generally well received but nothing spectacular. Some people might not like quartzes, but I understand that. I see a forum like this as quite a special place. It seems to be getting rarer and rarer that I can have really great conversations with people about mechanical watches in real life so something online like this is a great place to enjoy my hobby. I think there is an understanding here that this is a place where people who like watches will discuss them, and I think that people who like watches enough to do that almost always prefer mechanical watches. Quartz watches definitely don't deserve hate, but I think they are treated fine here. You seem to be using an example of a post that went badly to generalise about the entire sub, but I don't think that is the right thing to do.

As for apple watches, there is a /r/applewatch so people can discuss them there if they want to. The apple watch seems to be more of a gadget that is strapped to your wrist than an actual watch, and because of that I think it is more suited to a technology based subreddit.

[–]cookingboy[S] -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The thing is /r/applewatch crowd doesn't know much about watches. I think discussions about the build quality, fit/finish, band choices and materials, etc would greatly benefit from a sub like this.

If Ben from Hodinkee can write a long piece about the Apple Watch, then I'm sure there are some areas where it overlaps with traditional watches.

[–]T552 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I see where you are coming from, but that seems more like a technology based discussion than a watch discussion. The way they are made and the physical side of apple watches seems more like a phone than a watch, but maybe thats just my personal opinion.

And while I understand what you mean about the Hodinkee article, I don't think that just because he wrote an article, we should have to like discussing the subject.

Edit: Formatting

[–]what-do-I-do 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Uh, OP, the top post for today is a Timex btw.

[–]Sassywhat 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

However recently I noticed that submissions concerning quartz watches, fashion brands, Apple Watch, etc all have a very high rate of downvote. There are people who say things like the Apple Watch does not belong to this subreddit.

I'd agree with you on how "fashion" and smart watches fair on this sub, but quartz watches from "reputable watch companies" get plenty of upvotes, and comparable upvote/downvote percentage to mechanical watches. Hell, currently the top post in this sub is a quartz watch.

[–]bombardior 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

i don't see what the big deal is, either way.

first of all, this is a sub for enthusiasts. let's face it, watches arn't essential everyday items anymore. people wear them for very specific reasons now and most people on this sub are way more knowledgeable about watches than the general public. it isn't this sub's goal to try and cater specifically to anyone and everyone. if there are obvious 'better' things out there, why would we want to get something worse? (subjective, but to the enthusiasts of this sub, everyone seems to agree that mechanical is at least more interesting than quartz).

secondly, people have opinions. they like certain watches and dislike others. if they don't want to talk/see certain watches on here, then it's completely within their right to dismiss such posts. it seems like you are trying to force people to discuss things they have no interest in discussing. do you want everyone to go congratulate every new invicta owner the same way an omega/rolex?

thirdly, if you want to comment/discuss that coach watch, you can feel free to do so. drop by and tell OP you think it's nice. i personally didn't like it, so i just refrained from commenting.

and finally, i think it is sort of the same as posting a super heavily riced out car on /r/cars and expecting equal treatment/discussion/upvotes as a brand new porsche 911.... it just isn't going to happen. in every hobby, there are "good" and "bad" to the people of that hobby. a non-enthusiast won't understand. you might think that brand new kia spectra is amazing, but do you think /r/cars will upvote it to the front page every time it's posted?

maybe this sub is a big on the snobby side, but so what? it really shouldn't matter to you either way because you shouldn't care for other people's opinions as long as you are happy.

[–]braggadoc 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Even if you wear it on your wrist, it's still just a little screen with an app showing you the time. From a watch perspective, that is pretty uninteresting.

[–]verrukt -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

it's still just a little screen

That's such an ignorant comment to make. It's like saying mechanical watches are "just a watch face" or "just a few pieces of metal linked together."

I get that you're bias doesn't allow you to recognize everything that went into making smart watches but to act like they are less amazing than a mechanical watch is just flat out wrong.

[–]teamhoun 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What he's saying is that a smart watch isn't interesting to people who are into watches because it works in am entirely different way than traditional watches.

[–]verrukt 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Generally the only type of watch that works in an interesting way is the mechanical watch. Outside of that, people are looking for aesthetics so why should a smart watch be excluded? The idea that because some of you are only interested in a certain type of post then the rest of us can't enjoy it doesn't make sense to me.

A smart watch is still a watch and there are a lot of discussions to be had about this relatively new technology - so why plug your ears and down vote people who want to talk about it? Just seems childish.

[–]koochie 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I do not see a smartwatch as a watch. It is a gadget worn on the wrist. Just like a smartphone isn't a pocket watch it is a gadget kept in the pocket. Both smartphones and smartwatches tell time but I would not consider either of them a wrist watch or pocket watch. As for quartz and fashion brands I normally upvote them if I like the way they look. Same as I do for mechanical watches. I agree with you about the Coach watch it was a nice sentimental gift and all the down votes are embarrassing.

Edit: nothing against smartwatches just by my definition it is not a watch.

[–]anthonymckay 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

So what makes something a watch?

[–]koochie 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It would probably be easier to draw the line between a smartwatch and a normal watch as OP describes in his post. I would say once something has computer like specs ie: computer chip, lcd screens, ability to access the Internet, Bluetooth etc it is a smart gadget. As I said I have nothing against smartwatches, they are very useful and I might buy one to exercise with I just don't think it's a watch.

Sorry if the mobile formatting is a bit off.

[–]JezzaN1 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

i see what you are getting at, i wouldn't consider a smartwatch a 'traditional' watch per se but i can see the other perspective too. whilst i would never buy one, and don't particularly like the idea of them in general, i can see the motivation behind wanting them to be accepted in this subreddit too. whether people are interested in discussing / upvoting it or not is another question..

[–]Ag9215 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

My 2 cents:

Quartz and digital watches such as G-shocks are fine (even though I wouldn't wear one, I can appreciate them), but I don't consider smartwatches to be relevant to this subreddit. I downvote smartwatch related posts on sight. It belongs in a gadget sub, not here.

For me, the line is drawn when your "watch" needs to be plugged in nightly, and/or is a blank screen on your wrist 90% of the time.

[–]3dB -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (10子コメント)

The attitude of the people on this subreddit in regards to downvoting astounds me. There isn't a single other subreddit I frequent where things are downvoted for such arbitrary reasons.

From Reddit's official reddiquette guide:

[Please don't] Downvote an otherwise acceptable post because you don't personally like it. Think before you downvote and take a moment to ensure you're downvoting someone because they are not contributing to the community dialogue or discussion. If you simply take a moment to stop, think and examine your reasons for downvoting, rather than doing so out of an emotional reaction, you will ensure that your downvotes are given for good reasons.

Is the name of this subreddit /r/watches? Yep! Is a post about a watch? Yes! Should you downvote it because you don't like it? According to the reddiquete, no!

If you don't like a post, don't vote it up or down. If nobody likes it the post will sink to the bottom pretty quickly. By downvoting a post just because you personally don't like it you may be sinking it out of the view of people who may actually be interested and want to see it. If a post is completely off-topic and against the rules, go right ahead and downvote it!

[–]Ag9215 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

By downvoting a post just because you personally don't like it you may be sinking it out of the view of people who may actually be interested and want to see it.

That may be true in an extremely busy subreddit, but not so much here. Then again, I don't downvote content unless I view it as irrelevant to the sub, personally.

If a post is completely off-topic...

Exactly why I downvote smart watches on sight. They belong on a gadget subreddit.

[–]3dB -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (7子コメント)

We could probably spend all day splitting hairs as to what qualifies as a watch. Webster's says it's "a device that shows what time it is and that you wear on your wrist or carry in a pocket" so that's what I go with.

If the subreddit mods didn't want smartwatches here they would state so in the rules. They have not, so you are acting because you've decided that YOU don't want them here based on your own personal definition. Again, a personal decision.

[–]SpinDoctor777 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

does the apple watch have an independent quartz timekeeping inside or is it exclusive reception based timekeeping?

I think a fundamental aspect of a watch is to keep time independently. Radio controlled and GPS are all quartz inside so they will work perfectly fine without a signal.

[–]Sassywhat 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It might use a MEMS oscillator instead of a quartz to save power since the RTC will sync with the phone often anyways, but same idea.

[–]3dB 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can't speak for the Apple Watch but I have a Moto 360 that functions fine independently of a phone. It gets time syncs from the phone but if the connection to the phone disappears it is completely able to continue keeping time on its own.

[–]adt6247 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its a computer. Microprocessors have internal clock pulses that regulate the switching between stable states of their logic gates.

Also, relying exclusively on, say, GPS for time would nuke the batteries by keeping the radios bowered up. Its just not an efficient use of resources, especially since it needs an internal clock anyway.

[–]Ag9215 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

so you are acting because you've decided that YOU don't want them here based on your own personal definition

Well, more or less yes. I am acting because I have decided that I view them as irrelevant to the sub. I am fairly open about that fact.

By the way, by Websters definition, I could call my iphone a watch. I assume you wouldn't be okay if people started posting smartphones and labeled them as "pocket watches".

[–]3dB 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

By the way, by Websters definition, I could call my iphone a watch. I assume you wouldn't be okay if people started posting smartphones and labeled them as "pocket watches".

You have a good point here. Like I said, we could probably spend all day debating as to what constitutes a watch. Really I think the mods have the final say as to what is or isn't allowed but it seems that we've sort of been left to self-govern the smartwatch issue. I won't say I agree with your practice but it seems to some degree you're certainly within your rights to do it.

[–]Ag9215 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Indeed.