Here's my take on the issue and why I voted yes in the poll.
Copyright, patent, or trade mark is a property right belonging to the owner of such intellectual property. The protection of that right is the sole prerogative of the owner and assigns. Infringement of intellectual property rights gives the intellectual property owner, and nobody else, the right of recourse for said infringement. Third parties can only complain of misrepresentation but not infringement of intellectual property rights. Third parties have no business protecting or enforcing the business interests of other persons. After all, it is only the intellectual property owner and the faker that have the sole definitive authority to declare a particular item as a fake or not. All the rest are still just opinions of so-called experts.
Brand names are fetishes of the elite and the proud. The only difference between a well-made replica and its original is the price. One might add that that is the price of the "assurance" of quality. But that is only an altruistic feeling. In this situation, a perfectly good playing guitar would suddenly become bad when you open it and discover that it is not of the name brand you expected it to be. On the other hand, would you complain if you bought a no brand guitar that played average and when you looked inside it, you find out that it's a original vintage and suddenly, every note coming from it became sweet?
With that said, what if the thread simply says: "for sale electric guitar @Pxxk. sorry for the crappy pics," what do you do? Who will say that the item is genuine or not? Will the price be used as basis to determine if the item is fake? If its disproportionately cheap, is it fair to immediately conclude that it is a fake? Since inquiries and comments are not allowed in the ads (why?), nobody will know the transaction history of the item and buyers will not be forewarned of things that previous offers have found out or asked about the item. Why not just allow sellers to be honest about their commodities and say a spade a spade? Why not delete posts to bump the ad and keep the comments and inquiries intact, which may give a hint about the true nature of the item? If a seller is reluctant to answer a question, wouldn't that indicate some form of concealment, which buyers should take note of.
The key issue here is whether or not there is fraud or deceit in the offer to sell. If there is sufficient disclosure regarding the actual nature of the item, I think the offer should be left alone. If there is misdeclaration, misdescription or non-disclosure of a substantial and material aspect of the item, including hidden defects, then it should not be allowed to be posted because this is already tantamount to a crime involving fraud or deceit. However, the sad part is that you will never know there is fraud or deceit until you see the item or until you have examined it closely. By that time it may be already too late.
Be that as it may, as an alternative, perhaps it may be a good idea to setup a sub-forum for replicas (a.k.a. "fakes") for guitars, effects, and parts to distinguish them and not offend the sensibilities of the brand name conscious. This way, project guitar makers will continue to have a source of materials for their ideas, which is a legitimate demand for such "illegitimate" things. It easier to take risks with replicas and the great majority of us are not financially endowed, if not financially challeged.
On another aspect, also check indirect offers to sell using the signature of the poster. If the offer to sell a fake or pirated copy is hosted in or linked to another website, it should not be disturbed but if the offer is made in the signature in this forum and the item is posted/hosted in another site, it should not be allowed. A better alternative is to ban ad linking altogether, in the main ad or in the signatures.
Good faith is not the sole domain of buyers. There is also such a thing as a seller in good faith. What do you do with sellers who honestly believe their commodity is genuine, who are also victims? In the final analysis, "caveat emptor" is the age old rule that should guide us.
Thank you for time in reading my opinion.