Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 117

Thread: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Montara, California
    Posts
    1,430

    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

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    2,920

    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.

  3. #3
    8x10, 4x5, ..., Tessina Leigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    4,000

    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
    If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.

  4. #4
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    8,119

    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.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    "Vocation to Solitude -- To deliver oneself up, to hand oneself over, entrust oneself completely to the silence of a wide landscape of woods and hills, or sea, or desert; to sit still while the sun comes up over the land and fills its silences with light." Thomas Merton

    KIRK GITTINGS
    WEBSITE

    LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    4,321

    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

  6. #6
    8x10, 4x5, ..., Tessina Leigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    4,000

    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.

    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
    If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    2,920

    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.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,344

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Kudos to Rick for calling it as it is.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,170

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by rdenney View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    4,321

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr View Post
    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

Similar Threads

  1. Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
    By Heroique in forum On Photography
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 4-Nov-2009, 11:06
  2. What's in the box? Another Efke victim...
    By muskedear in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2-May-2007, 15:10
  3. The one third into the scene rule
    By Leonard Evens in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-Jul-2006, 06:52
  4. Another victim - AGFA in Chapter 11
    By Juergen Sattler in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29-May-2005, 03:11

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •