@dollar’s understanding of contract formation in the now closed thread is correct: https://www.silverstackers.com/foru...zz-in-the-silverstackers-lexicon.97352/page-7 The contrary claims about what buzz means in the above thread are incoherent. I don’t have the time to explain the confusion between · legal perceptual norms · ethical valuation norms · forum-specific perceptual, behavioural & denotational norms other than to point out that forum norms are subservient to contract perceptual norms and wider community valuation norms. The buzz by the buyer in the selling post is the offer not the acceptance – even if the seller says, “I am offering X” . This is a laymen’s “offer” called in law “invitation to treat” (invitation to make an offer). This is not a matter of opinion or subject to whims. If we were to treat these laymen “offers” as legal offers, which is impossible anyhow, it would expose sellers to dire straight. As every private message and buzz “acceptance” of these “offers” would bind the seller to a contract to deliver! Contract formation occurs with acceptance, in this case by the seller. So, unless and until the seller accepts, unconditionally the offer, a contract is not formed. The seller can accept by saying “done deal”, “all yours mate”, “send payment to xxx” or any other expression that would imply acceptance. The buzz most certainly is not the universally recognised acceptance that binds the seller to a contract. a buzz in the selling thread is shorthand for a communication act: I offer to purchase the goods in question on the terms and conditions that you outlined in your invitation to treat The consequence of a buzz is to create an entity - an offer on the table for the seller A buzz can certainly place qualifications or specifications on the offer such as: Buzz - 2 bars [I offer to buy two bars from your set on the terms and conditions …..] Buzz - expires 9 am Monday morning [this makes explicit to the seller the temporal window of opportunity to take up the offer and abrogates any community default expiry standard] Buzz - seller post-first [abrogates forum default of buyer pays-first] Buzz - f2f Sydney CBD option Buzz back up or Buzz - all bars [even when a previous buzz offered to purchase 2 of the bars is fine - It is up to the seller to choose between offers on the table as long as he has not already accepted the 2-bar purchase offer. Moreover if he turns around and tells the all-bars offeror – the remaining one bar is yours mate that is not an acceptance – that is a counter offer which the buyer can decline because that involves a change in the terms of his offer - all bars.] What is unethical in a buzz is Buzz with an additional $20 over the first buzz Does the Silver Stacker community have a norm, or can it adopt a norm to hold the offeror to his offer indefinitely and strip him of the capacity to withdraw his offer? The answers are a simple no and impossible . We have no such norm – the belief in such a norm in the heads of some individuals is not evidence of a norm adoption by the community. In any case it is not legally or socially feasible or morally acceptable to adopt such a norm. The rare use of unbuzz evidences that most sellers tend to their invitation-to-treat threads and take up offers promptly. The rare use of unbuzz is not evidence of community disparagement. A seller should also be aware that if he/she makes any changes to any terms in his acceptance, then it is deemed a counteroffer and will, like the unbuzz, extinguish the buyer’s offer, for example “all yours mate but make payment by bitcoin instead of bank transfer”. Now the ball is in the court of the buyer and the buyer can decline, accept, or wait until the seller’s counteroffer is withdrawn or expires. A seller may well feel that an unbuzz is unwelcome, but why does he not promptly turn the offer into a contract with a simple “all yours”. If a seller makes a counteroffer, he will learn what it is like to hold onto his goods until he gets a reply. The offeror is under no legal, moral or silver stacker convention to give a reason for why he has withdrawn his offer. That is his prerogative – just like the acceptance of any offer is the prerogative of the seller. This is how a free and fair market works. An unbuzz in a selling thread is shorthand for a communication act: I withdraw my offer [it extinguishes the offer and directs the seller to consider another offer] There is nothing illegal, immoral or unacceptable with an unbuzz if it occurs before a contract is formed – after that we are in contract reneging territory and that is another story. The silver stacker forum community does have some forum-specific behavioural norms to maintain community standards specifically: · buyers and sellers should post honest feedback for those they transact with. · reneging on a contract is a serious violation of community norms (see @ztricky’s conversation with @ozcopper & myself in 2017) · the seller should consider accepting offers in chronological order · a new member should expect to post-first but only to established members · buyers should not make gazumping offers · seller should not accept gazumping offers The main issue I have with @dollar’s excellent contribution is the allusion that the contracting ontology is a by-product of a Rudd-specific Geneva convention agreement. What we are dealing with here is far more basic and universal - a conversation protocol for contract formation tested over 1400 years of human history, incorporated in the English legal system more than 800 years ago and universally recognized. What is missing in Silver Stacker convention is clarity on a default expiry period for offers. What is to stop acceptance of an offer made three years earlier? I hope that this contribution has clarified the semantics of buzz and unbuzz for all - inventing words does not change the underlying reality.