-
New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
I was thinking of the Ted Stoddard posts when I wrote my reaction to the new FS rule that discourages negative comments. A day or so later Asher posted in all of Ted's posts a very negative comment suggesting that Ted should not be trusted. All of those posts were deleted.
Now we have a buyer who is very upset with the item he received from Ted--apparently very much not as described:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...CK-400-Shipped
Do we still think the policy is a good one? It is really "buyer beware" on this board?
--Darin
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Making unflattering comments about a seller is rude (even if it's true, apparently), and bilking a buyer is just commerce, or so the rules suggest.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
"...bilking a buyer is just commerce..."
Amazing how the collective morals have declined.
It certainly appears that the current policy would leave the forum cadre open to being charged with "accessory to fraud".
The FS section is "use at your own risk".
But when the administration starts censoring the content, they are no longer innocent bystanders, but participants.
- Leigh
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
I understand your point in general (i'm not sure I agree with it)-except in this case Asher's blanket posts in the FS section were deleted a day after the sale was already made. Prior to Asher's blanket postings in the FS section he had also already been told to solve it privately-which he blatantly ignored.
This is not an easy question. On the other side we have had wholesale condemnation of honest sellers here (pages and pages with public accusations of criminality) over what turned out to be simple misunderstandings. We simply cannot get into trying to figure out who is right and who is wrong in these situations. Our only interest really is civility and when that is violated we act.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Keep bitching, guys, and the mods, out of necessity, will shut down the for-sale forum. You may not care, but I and a bunch of others use that forum frequently and depend on it for stuff just not available any other way. I hope you like ebay, because that's all there will be if we make doing it here miserable enough.
This ALWAYS happens when people are allowed to appoint the forum members as a jury, or take it upon themselves to protect the rest of the world from whomever they are aggrieved about. Little good EVER comes of it. I've been watching this stuff on forums and newsgroups since the mid-90's. In every single case where I have actual knowledge (and not just what gets written on the forum), gross distortions occurred, often by well-meaning people who thought they were right and justified to tell the story their way only.
"Accessory to fraud". Oh fer cryin' out loud. How did you get to be so old, Leigh, getting your blood pressure wound up the way you do? Now, did you like that comment? Supposing I told everyone that you bilked me out of, say, a hundred bucks. Are you sure your verbal skills are good enough to prevent any of that mud from sticking to you? Are you sure mine are bad enough not to be able to make it stick, even if I'm lying outright? Are you sure the things you've said to me haven't provided the slightest motivation for me to do so, were I not such a nice guy? The point is, you just can't know what is really happening out there in meat space.
Jay, we don't know what's true. We have no investigative powers or motivation. We tend to believe whomever writes their story in the most plausible and sympathetic way, especially if the other party, not desiring a golden shower, just stays out of the fray. Sorry, there is little room for fairness in that scenario.
The for-sale forum very clearly states that people are on their own, and assume all their own risk of buying or selling stuff to people they happen to meet on this forum. Usually, things go very well. Sometimes they don't. Yes, I've been screwed on occasion, too. It's the corollary to getting good deals most of the time, and I build it into the price I'm willing to pay for stuff. Vendettas don't discredit a seller--they discredit the whole idea of commerce on this forum. For some, that's a desirable outcome, I suppose. Not for me.
Rick "noting that Asher's thread was not deleted, but it should have been" Denney
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Yes, Rick, you're a nice guy.
And kind... We just don't know what kind. :D
I agree with you that the FS section is a valuable resource. I've purchased many items through it.
I certainly don't want to see it go away. I just wish the mods would be a bit less biased.
- Leigh
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Rick,
I have no problem with Use At Your Own Risk, buying or selling. My problem is with policy that favors one side of the transaction at the expense of the other. Supporting a seller is fine -- free endorsements, or reciprocal -- but supporting a buyer is taboo. Moderators shouldn't take sides in these transactions.
We don't know what's true, with that I agree 100%, but we do know who is being hushed, and who is not. That is not fair.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Kudos to Rick for calling it as it is.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
Keep bitching, guys, and the mods, out of necessity, will shut down the for-sale forum. You may not care, but I and a bunch of others use that forum frequently and depend on it for stuff just not available any other way. I hope you like ebay, because that's all there will be if we make doing it here miserable enough.
Fine. Shut it down. It is worse than eBay here if there is no way to look up historical negative feedback on a seller.
Let readers sort it out if a seller is being unjustly harassed by abusive negative comments -- I have faith they can.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jay DeFehr
Rick,
I have no problem with Use At Your Own Risk, buying or selling. My problem is with policy that favors one side of the transaction at the expense of the other. Supporting a seller is fine -- free endorsements, or reciprocal -- but supporting a buyer is taboo. Moderators shouldn't take sides in these transactions.
We don't know what's true, with that I agree 100%, but we do know who is being hushed, and who is not. That is not fair.
Supporting a buyer is always acceptable, when the buyer is offering to buy something. "Jay's a great guy--always pays quickly" in response to your Wanted-To-Buy post would never get deleted nor should it. But if a seller posted saying, "That no-good SOB Jay DeFehr took delivery of something I sold him and never sent me a dime!" I'd be saying the same thing. In fact, it is fair--neither buyers nor sellers should be allowed to appoint the forum as a jury to arbitrate their disputes, or use the threat of public embarrassment on the forum to force an outcome favorable to themselves.
Edit: It only seems unfair because for-sale posts outnumber wanted-to-buy posts by a large margin.
Again, Asher's thread was allowed to run for a while--and longer than I would have let it run were I a moderator. He had his say over and over.
But this rule isn't about that. It's about litigating other disputes and engaging in arguments about prices in For-Sale threads.
Rick "who does not trust a jury with no investigative powers" Denney
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John NYC
Fine. Shut it down. It is worse than eBay here if there is no way to look up historical negative feedback on a seller.
Let readers sort it out if a seller is being unjustly harassed by abusive negative comments -- I have faith they can.
Based on my experience, and I have been a moderator of another forum for a long time and have help investigate a number of issues on various forums and newsgroups, your faith is misplaced. I cannot think of a single case in my experience where the correct outcome actually occurred. In all cases, the outcome was distorted. My investigations into those cases were only possible because I knew the parties outside the forum and was in a position to ascertain the truth. That did not happen inside the forum, and when I reported what I found, many just didn't believe me. In every case, the outcome favored the person who could make themselves look more sympathetic. I learned the hard way that there is just no way to make it work. There are already mechanisms in place to arbitrate disputes, if they are worth arguing about.
Rick "good enough with words to know when not to trust them" Denney
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
Based on my experience, and I have been a moderator of another forum for a long time and have help investigate a number of issues on various forums and newsgroups, your faith is misplaced. I cannot think of a single case in my experience where the correct outcome actually occurred. In all cases, the outcome was distorted. My investigations into those cases were only possible because I knew the parties outside the forum and was in a position to ascertain the truth. That did not happen inside the forum, and when I reported what I found, many just didn't believe me. In every case, the outcome favored the person who could make themselves look more sympathetic.
Rick "good enough with words to know when not to trust them" Denney
The whole "Joe is a good seller" can also just as easily be a load of bull. I have bought some stuff here from endorsed "good sellers" that is not at all as described.
Either allow all comments or no comments would be my vote. And if the latter, put in a rating system for post sale thumbs up or down.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Another forum I actively buy/sell at has a feedback system built into the site. It shows up under your username only when you are browsing the classifieds and is like ebay with a (number) in parenthesis of feedbacks. You can click and read positive/negative reviews. Might be worth checking into and I can send the site address to any moderator who would like to investigate their system.
Also, if you have any worries about a person, just pay with Paypal with a credit card and then you have all the recourse in the world as a buyer. If I know someone or have seen them selling frequently I'll pay with a "gift" but I know I have no recourse if things go south. You do what you can.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
Supporting a buyer is always acceptable, when the buyer is offering to buy something. "Jay's a great guy--always pays quickly" in response to your Wanted-To-Buy post would never get deleted nor should it. But if a seller posted saying, "That no-good SOB Jay DeFehr took delivery of something I sold him and never sent me a dime!" I'd be saying the same thing. In fact, it is fair--neither buyers nor sellers should be allowed to appoint the forum as a jury to arbitrate their disputes, or use the threat of public embarrassment on the forum to force an outcome favorable to themselves.
Edit: It only seems unfair because for-sale posts outnumber wanted-to-buy posts by a large margin.
Again, Asher's thread was allowed to run for a while--and longer than I would have let it run were I a moderator. He had his say over and over.
But this rule isn't about that. It's about litigating other disputes and engaging in arguments about prices in For-Sale threads.
Rick "who does not trust a jury with no investigative powers" Denney
You make a good point, Rick. I was too focused on buyer vs seller, but that's not the real issue, as you've rightly pointed out. But if the thread was a WTB thread, and it was allowed to post, "The potential buyer is a great and reliable guy, and no one should think twice about doing business with him", but it was not allowed to post, "I sent this guy X and never received payment, you should think twice about doing business with him", it's still wrong, and for the same reasons -- one party to the potential transaction is being extended special protection not extended to the other potential parties. It seems either an any comments or a no comments policy would be more fair and sensible than the current one.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
Keep bitching, guys, and the mods, out of necessity, will shut down the for-sale forum. You may not care, but I and a bunch of others use that forum frequently and depend on it for stuff just not available any other way. I hope you like ebay, because that's all there will be if we make doing it here miserable enough.
This ALWAYS happens when people are allowed to appoint the forum members as a jury, or take it upon themselves to protect the rest of the world from whomever they are aggrieved about. Little good EVER comes of it. I've been watching this stuff on forums and newsgroups since the mid-90's. In every single case where I have actual knowledge (and not just what gets written on the forum), gross distortions occurred, often by well-meaning people who thought they were right and justified to tell the story their way only.
"Accessory to fraud". Oh fer cryin' out loud. How did you get to be so old, Leigh, getting your blood pressure wound up the way you do? Now, did you like that comment? Supposing I told everyone that you bilked me out of, say, a hundred bucks. Are you sure your verbal skills are good enough to prevent any of that mud from sticking to you? Are you sure mine are bad enough not to be able to make it stick, even if I'm lying outright? Are you sure the things you've said to me haven't provided the slightest motivation for me to do so, were I not such a nice guy? The point is, you just can't know what is really happening out there in meat space.
Jay, we don't know what's true. We have no investigative powers or motivation. We tend to believe whomever writes their story in the most plausible and sympathetic way, especially if the other party, not desiring a golden shower, just stays out of the fray. Sorry, there is little room for fairness in that scenario.
The for-sale forum very clearly states that people are on their own, and assume all their own risk of buying or selling stuff to people they happen to meet on this forum. Usually, things go very well. Sometimes they don't. Yes, I've been screwed on occasion, too. It's the corollary to getting good deals most of the time, and I build it into the price I'm willing to pay for stuff. Vendettas don't discredit a seller--they discredit the whole idea of commerce on this forum. For some, that's a desirable outcome, I suppose. Not for me.
Rick "noting that Asher's thread was not deleted, but it should have been" Denney
Very well put Rick. I could not agree with you more.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
Keep bitching, guys, and the mods, out of necessity, will shut down the for-sale forum. You may not care, but I and a bunch of others use that forum frequently and depend on it for stuff just not available any other way. I hope you like ebay, because that's all there will be if we make doing it here miserable enough.
+1
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John NYC
Fine. Shut it down. It is worse than eBay here if there is no way to look up historical negative feedback on a seller.
-10!
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Louis Pacilla
Very well put Rick. I could not agree with you more.
While I agree almost totally as well I'd just add that despite the disclaimers the Moderators do need to keep an eye on the odd rogue trader.
I know for a fact that occasionally information is passed between certain forums (which have a membership overlap) and that miscreant sellers have been asked to stop listing items for sale.
While moderators can't and probably shouldn't get involved in one off disputes it is important to notify them of problems. As it happens when I had a problem 2 others also came forward (one was a Moderator elsewhere) and information was shared, moderators helped get the finances resolved, but more importantly there was no public naming and shaming on the two forums in question and the person no longer sells on either forum.
Ian
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
Another forum I actively buy/sell at has a feedback system built into the site. It shows up under your username only when you are browsing the classifieds and is like ebay with a (number) in parenthesis of feedbacks. You can click and read positive/negative reviews. Might be worth checking into and I can send the site address to any moderator who would like to investigate their system.
Also, if you have any worries about a person, just pay with Paypal with a credit card and then you have all the recourse in the world as a buyer. If I know someone or have seen them selling frequently I'll pay with a "gift" but I know I have no recourse if things go south. You do what you can.
A formal feed-back system would be great or a "requirement" for seller and buyer to put a final comment on a For Sale/For Buy thread.
- These comments would help for transaction between forum members that have been active. I have sold/bought here of course and on APUG and I was fortunate to have most of my buyers writing very good comments after receiving the goods so that I can direct a buyer to the threads if needed. Other than that I would generally check the thread started/posts of a member, if good photos and technical comments have been posted I will sell/buy without worries :-).
- For the Buyers with 0 posts then no feed-back or strategy will protect the seller from a PayPal or credit card fraudulent claim other than using the gift option.
For the record I just purchased an item from Ted Stoddard and made the payment as a gift on the basis of many successfull sales he has made on the forum.
Right after my payment was made, there was a warning and negative post on that thread. In fairness, if I had read that comment before, I would likely have asked Ted about this before making the payment and might have reverted to a normal PayPal payment instead.
While Ted took a little bit more time than other sellers to ship the item he did send me a tracking number and I expect the item to be as described. In other words I personaly have no reason to distrust him.
If that is the case I would certainly write a positive comment about the transaction - if not then I am sure that Ted and I can work something out to solve it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IanG
While I agree almost totally as well I'd just add that despite the disclaimers the Moderators do need to keep an eye on the odd rogue trader.
I know for a fact that occasionally information is passed between certain forums (which have a membership overlap) and that miscreant sellers have been asked to stop listing items for sale.
While moderators can't and probably shouldn't get involved in one off disputes it is important to notify them of problems. As it happens when I had a problem 2 others also came forward (one was a Moderator elsewhere) and information was shared, moderators helped get the finances resolved, but more importantly there was no public naming and shaming on the two forums in question and the person no longer sells on either forum.
Ian
While I do not want to put undue burden on the Moderators I agree with Ian and I think that if a vendor/buyer is reported to the moderators by several forum members then a warning from them should be in order. One person complaining over 10 transactions is one thing but thre or four sounds a little bit different....
Cheers,
Luc
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Personally I have purchased from many people with 0 posts on the site (new members) and I was fortunate as a seller when I first started here to have many buyers for a bunch of medium-format gear I was selling to trust me. I know many folks have a grievance with Paypal for one reason or another but for the most part it is a good enough way to protect both parties. There are always exceptions and people will surely tell all these anecdotal stories but for the most part it's fine. I think out of probably over 500 transactions I've had 2 issues (curiously both times as a buyer, despite the claim that Paypal always screws the sellers).
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
Personally I have purchased from many people with 0 posts on the site (new members) and I was fortunate as a seller when I first started here to have many buyers for a bunch of medium-format gear I was selling to trust me. I know many folks have a grievance with Paypal for one reason or another but for the most part it is a good enough way to protect both parties. There are always exceptions and people will surely tell all these anecdotal stories but for the most part it's fine. I think out of probably over 500 transactions I've had 2 issues (curiously both times as a buyer, despite the claim that Paypal always screws the sellers).
I personnaly had a not so ggod experience as a Seller with PayPal/eBay but granted it was one out of many. Since then I tend to disagree like many as you are pointing out :-) but that is why we have a Democracy so that we can agree to somewhat disagree sometime.
I would rather use the forum as a reference mechanism for selling decision.
Cheers,
Luc
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John NYC
The whole "Joe is a good seller" can also just as easily be a load of bull. I have bought some stuff here from endorsed "good sellers" that is not at all as described.
Either allow all comments or no comments would be my vote. And if the latter, put in a rating system for post sale thumbs up or down.
+1, but not because of any bad experience - all of my limited buying + selling here has been good experiences. All or nothing is just plain fair.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
I just went to GetDPI and saw that Ark8012 was trying to scam-sell some Leica and left a nice negative feedback that was satisfying! But then Cindy Flood threatened to ban me so I have to weigh my next assault carefully to achieve maximum negativity.
But I'm coming around to advocating negative posts, it's a lot of fun and entertaining! Anything to cause drama and liven things up ;-p
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Petronio
I just went to GetDPI and saw that Ark8012 was trying to scam-sell some Leica and left a nice negative feedback that was satisfying! But then Cindy Flood threatened to ban me so I have to weigh my next assault carefully to achieve maximum negativity.
But I'm coming around to advocating negative posts, it's a lot of fun and entertaining! Anything to cause drama and liven things up ;-p
You need to become a moderator. Then you can edit others' posts, start flamewars, and ban the culprits. Drama galore.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
I would never use the Gift option when using Paypal if you're buying gear as you would be SOL if the deal went south. Pay the percentage, which is pretty well the same as gifting. Of course, sellers should just factor in the Paypal cut into their price to begin with so it's plain and simple.
Imo, in general, decent sellers shouldn't even be asking buyers to mark payment as Gift. But that's just me.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
I didn't know "Gift" payments were such a hot-button issue 'round these parts till a thread about it in the Lounge. When I first sold a bunch of gear about half the people payed me as a gift (without me asking). So I just assumed that was standard or something here. If I ask for that it's usually because someone asked for a price break. I have offered the same to other sellers. I know Paypal takes a 3% cut so that is usually part of the costs involved at the listed price, not at a low-ball offer, so it's kind of a meet-in-the-middle deal (Lower the price 10% but pay as gift eliminates fees).
I don't really know why people balk at a gift payment but there are plenty of sellers who require check or money order. That's essentially the same thing (you have no recourse). Some people say it's the "ethics" of it but I think they just want a method of getting their money back in the event of a problem.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Nope, from the odd time I used it, the fees are passed onto the buyer who chooses the gift option. This presumes they're not paying from a PP balance. People think they're getting around the fees but it's the seller who doesn't pay (again, depends on where the money is coming from in your account). While one may get a price break from the seller for using Gift, it isn't worth it imo unless you're dealing with seller you have great experiences with. One should go to the Paypal site and look it over to be clear on how Gift works and what it costs if at all.
Basically pay with Paypal Gift and you're rolling the dice afaic.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fred L
Basically pay with Paypal Gift and you're rolling the dice afaic.
Yes but as a seller - get paid with normal payPal and you are rolling the dice with fraudulent claim, different item returned or buyer remorse....Regretfully there is no happy medium which is where the feedback in the forum becomes critical.
Cheers,
Luc
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
yup. as long as it's on point.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Petronio
But I'm coming around to advocating negative posts, it's a lot of fun and entertaining! Anything to cause drama and liven things up ;-p
Frank, I'm sort of with you, but you left out protecting the innocent.
I just posted a very negative reply to a for sale listing on APUG.
The seller went beyond the limits of normal puffery ("One of Nikkor’s sharpest lense."). An example of the lens in question was tested by Modern Photography, Bjorn Roslett has published an evaluation, and I've had two (the first was stolen, the second was a replacement bought with the insurance money). We all agree. Ok and useful lens, closer to the bottom than to the top of the Nikkor barrel.
I sent the guy a nice (honest! polite, soft spoken, ...) PM suggesting he tone the language down and explaining why. He replied to the effect that he liked his and that bad ones make it through QC. One, yes, four no, so I posted the references with best resolution and contrast from MP on APUG.
Screw 'im.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
+100 on Rick's post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
Keep bitching, guys, and the mods, out of necessity, will shut down the for-sale forum. You may not care, but I and a bunch of others use that forum frequently and depend on it for stuff just not available any other way. I hope you like ebay, because that's all there will be if we make doing it here miserable enough.
This ALWAYS happens when people are allowed to appoint the forum members as a jury, or take it upon themselves to protect the rest of the world from whomever they are aggrieved about. Little good EVER comes of it. I've been watching this stuff on forums and newsgroups since the mid-90's. In every single case where I have actual knowledge (and not just what gets written on the forum), gross distortions occurred, often by well-meaning people who thought they were right and justified to tell the story their way only.
"Accessory to fraud". Oh fer cryin' out loud. How did you get to be so old, Leigh, getting your blood pressure wound up the way you do? Now, did you like that comment? Supposing I told everyone that you bilked me out of, say, a hundred bucks. Are you sure your verbal skills are good enough to prevent any of that mud from sticking to you? Are you sure mine are bad enough not to be able to make it stick, even if I'm lying outright? Are you sure the things you've said to me haven't provided the slightest motivation for me to do so, were I not such a nice guy? The point is, you just can't know what is really happening out there in meat space.
Jay, we don't know what's true. We have no investigative powers or motivation. We tend to believe whomever writes their story in the most plausible and sympathetic way, especially if the other party, not desiring a golden shower, just stays out of the fray. Sorry, there is little room for fairness in that scenario.
The for-sale forum very clearly states that people are on their own, and assume all their own risk of buying or selling stuff to people they happen to meet on this forum. Usually, things go very well. Sometimes they don't. Yes, I've been screwed on occasion, too. It's the corollary to getting good deals most of the time, and I build it into the price I'm willing to pay for stuff. Vendettas don't discredit a seller--they discredit the whole idea of commerce on this forum. For some, that's a desirable outcome, I suppose. Not for me.
Rick "noting that Asher's thread was not deleted, but it should have been" Denney
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
And the "victim" in this case walked right into an offer by the seller to scam Paypal out of their fee. That should set off an alarm to a potential buyer when the seller is up-front telling you he wants to do something wrong. I don't like the fees much either but that's the deal you accept when you sign up to use the service. Do the deal as a gift when it is not and you might lose your money. Just don't expect everyone to be sympathetic to your self inflicted injury.
I don't know what the problem is, but lately there seems to be a lot noise about the way the forum is run. I sense a high level of entitlement among the complainers that reminds me of spoiled and ungrateful teenagers. Some nice people gave us a nice place to talk about Large Format photography, but now for a loud few people that's not good enough. Its really time to stop. If this place isn't working out for you, maybe its time to start your own forum.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
I'm coming around to agreeing that not allowing anything other than the Original Poster on a For Sale thread, along with prominent "At Your Own Risk" warnings and a 30-day waiting period to discourage spambots is the way to go.
I didn't think it mattered but seeing that I am in the minority of the clearheaded people who think negative posts are a bad idea, I'd be willing to give up all those nice friendly and helpful positive encouraging informative posts for the greater good of keeping all you whiney bastards happy.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Petronio
I didn't think it mattered but seeing that I am in the minority of the clearheaded people who think negative posts are a bad idea, I'd be willing to give up all those nice friendly and helpful positive encouraging informative posts for the greater good of keeping all you whiney bastards happy.
+100
Rick "who can always count on Frank" Denney
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Petronio
I'm coming around to agreeing that not allowing anything other than the Original Poster on a For Sale thread, along with prominent "At Your Own Risk" warnings and a 30-day waiting period to discourage spambots is the way to go.
But that's a difference without much distinction. The sale of an item is still treated as "special" by the board and is excluded from the normal give and take that characterizes every other aspect of the community. What is so special about the buy and sell forum? What makes what goes on there deserving of such protection from those bad people with their mean comments?
Do the sellers feel that if something "gets in the way of their sale" they aren't getting their money's worth for their classified ad? Do they feel that since they have posted an item they "own" that thread--in that case do I "own" this thread?
It's funny to hear you and Rick talk about whiners when it seem that you are the ones advocating kid's gloves for sellers. Don't you trust people to think for themselves? :)
--Darin
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Just a quick (ha!) note to explain myself. One of the key aspects of the LLF is a real sense of community. All of the other photo forums that I have visited are essentially worthless.
I think the right model for a forum like LFF is a sort of party, in a big room. People mill about in small groups, people drift from group to group. Everyone is here to talk about photography but that can be defined broadly and there are exceptions.
Over in one corner we have group talking about Linhofs. Frank has some sort of rusty version and everyone is commenting on it.
In another group Kirk is showing some of his recent work from the desert. Most people say nice things but one guy is more critical. The critical guy seems to be sincere and so the group debates his points. He ends up seeing Kirk's work in a better light at the end and other people in the conversation learn a thing or two about Kirk's working methods and how he views his own work.
The general principle at this party is that there is no one really in charge and that people will behave themselves. There are hosts however, who occasionally step in if things get out of hand. If someone gets out of control the hosts will ask them to behave. If they persist the hosts may ask them to leave for a few days. If it turns into a chronic problem the hosts can ban them from the party.
The hosts are here for the conversation, too, and they volunteer for their thankless task.
There is also a busy area of the party where people bring in stuff to sell. This is an area that attracts regulars and people new to the party. In fact, some people are here primarily for this group and don't mingle much otherwise.
In all the other groups the basic rule is you can say what you want as long as you behave yourself. There's an exception for religion and politics topics--conceptually welcome but hard experience has shown that these topics are destructive to the party istelf. There are plenty of other parties to talk religion and politics so, reluctantly, this rule is imposed and obeyed. There is also a rule that in one group people have to be a little gentle when critiquing photos. This is a group that attracts new photographers so it is healthy to nurture them a little.
Some people say the buy and sell group needs special rules of its own. For example, there are some who think that if someone is selling something in that group and you think they price is too high, or it isn't as nice as the seller says the item is, or that something else isn't quite right, you just need to shut your mouth. You can watch mutely as the seller sells it to one of the other party goers, maybe even a new one, but you aren't allowed to say what you think here. If you really have to say something, go to a different part of the room, out of hearing, or whisper your words to another party goer.
Others think that the more information the better--this group should be treated essentially the same as all the other groups. In the case of unfair negative comments these people think that the right response is more information (the correct kind). In this view it is believed that people can make their own judgements about things and don't need to be "protected" as a seller or as a buyer. The more the buy/sell forum acts like a free market--which, by definition, includes the free flow of information--then the more things will pretty much work themselves out.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fred L
Nope, from the odd time I used it, the fees are passed onto the buyer
The buyer only pays the fees if they pay with a credit card. If it's from your bank account you don't have any fees. It is understandable as the credit card company charges a fee to Paypal. I have payed as a gift numerous times, always from a balance or my bank account, and never paid a dime extra. They tell you that right there when you do it so I have no idea why people keep propagating that myth that the buyer pays the fees in the gift option. It's simply not true.
MYTH BUSTED
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Unbusted... sorry
If PayPal thinks that you are paying too many transactions with the Gift option, they have the right and will impose the fee upon the sender. It's up to PayPal, some people trigger it easier than others but they must have some formula based on amounts, frequency, reputation.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
I would love to see some specifics on that. I have done literally hundreds of transactions as gift as both buyer and seller. If anyone was to trip it I'd think I would!
*Besides, wouldn't that be illegal or something? It'd have to be in their TOS and seems highly suspicious, more so than normal even!
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
I have payed as a gift numerous times, always from a balance or my bank account, and never paid a dime extra. They tell you that right there when you do it so I have no idea why people keep propagating that myth that the buyer pays the fees in the gift option. It's simply not true.MYTH BUSTED
Hello Bryan,
You are only partially right in the sense that when we Canadian make a payment as a gift we are charged a fee regardless. It is also impossible for us to take out US funds from PayPal to a bank account in USD. PayPal forces you to take the funds in CAD using their exchange rate.
I am not so sure why a few people get all upset about the idea of paymnet as a gift - getting all evangelical on us. It is not robbing Paypal of their fees as we still pay a fee for transferring the money which is quite normal. We are simply paying a lower fee as we are requesting a less extansive service from Paypal. Really the gift option is about giving some protection to the seller against unknown buyer. I fail to see the immorality of having a reputable seller getting some protection when dealing with an unknown 0 posts buyer.
Cheers,
Luc
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Good point Luc, I didn't think about cross-currency payments. Duly noted.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
I would love to see some specifics on that. I have done literally hundreds of transactions as gift as both buyer and seller. If anyone was to trip it I'd think I would!
*Besides, wouldn't that be illegal or something? It'd have to be in their TOS and seems highly suspicious, more so than normal even!
PayPal User Agreement
4. Receiving Money.
4.1 Receiving Personal Payments. If you are selling goods or services, you may not ask the buyer to send you a Personal Payment for the purchase. If you do so, PayPal may remove your ability to accept Personal Payments.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Okay, but does it say they will start charging you a fee? That's the part that I'm curious about.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
Okay, but does it say they will start charging you a fee? That's the part that I'm curious about.
No, or at least not in the User Agreement.
EDIT: However, removing the ability to use gift amounts to the same thing - if you're only allowed to receive non-gift, you will necessarily be paying the fee.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
But Frank was saying the buyer, upon selecting "gift," would be charged an extra 3%, which would be a fee added (not taken away). In your example you are talking about a seller, not a buyer. I'm just legitimately curious if/how they are doing that.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
We are getting way off topic here... but PayPal runs an enormously complex financial system that a lot of people (as evidenced in another thread about PayPal) here simply don't appreciate. Just like with stealing music on the Internet, some people think it is OK to not pay for something that is the life blood of those who produce the service/product just because it is easy. It is wrong, and I won't do business with people who are unethical. If you are buying something from someone, it is not a gift. If they give it to you, it is a gift. If you don't want to pay the PayPal fees, then don't use PayPal! Simple, AND ethical.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
That is what has happened to me Corran. I think PayPal can tell (sometimes) when you're paying for something as opposed to just giving people money. It also distinguishes and charges whether it is checked as a gift or a payment owed.
I know this is critically important to you so let me check top be sure. I just gifted you $1000. Let me know if it comes through or if they take a cut. I paid in Rubles from my friend Vladimir Putin's account.
In any event, if we've been paying for purchases using the Gift option, we are breaking their rules. Not that I care that much, but I'll own up to it.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Why not block any comments on the sale threads?
Only the seller can give additional information, pictures, price release etc.
Limited bumps, maybe in the first week every day and then once weekly.
After the sale is completed the buyer should have access to give a feedback,
if the buyer wants to be private he can give feedback to moderator or other known and respected person, the moderator or person remarks eg. : "buyer gives positive feedback, quality of item is OK, fast shipping".
When problems occur the buyer and seller should try to settle this with themselves without public comments.
They should try to be friendly and fair and objective,
when someone said rude words there's ALWAYS the possibility
to make an excuse and keep on and sort it out.
If that doesn't work there should be a kind of ombudsman who cam mediate.
But only when the buyer and seller have made really enough efforts themselves.
Not run to the ombudsman after the first email whining: "this crook called me a dumb".
This is not a kindergarten ;)
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
i think there should be some way of letting people know if a seller is a fraud, or lacks integrity, if people on this forum have been burnt, then as a group, the tribal logic is to stick together.
i am however not interested in psyco-dramas caused by misunderstandings that cause people to yell at one another.
i am interested in avoiding problems.
maybe the moderators can come up with a solution where by a seller can simply be barred from selling, if he is deemed a scoundrel.
i mean they ban people for talking in the wrong way:)
my two cents plus paypal fees.
-
Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
But Frank was saying the buyer, upon selecting "gift," would be charged an extra 3%, which would be a fee added (not taken away). In your example you are talking about a seller, not a buyer. I'm just legitimately curious if/how they are doing that.
You're right, my bad. What I posted obviously doesn't answer that.