Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 117

Thread: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

  1. #71
    Luc Benac lbenac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Burnaby BC Canada
    Posts
    643

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings View Post
    I have to say that I oftentimes wonder why I bother with this forum with the crap we have to take from people like you. And I have never wondered more than now why I bother.
    To help all of us having a nice place to mingle about LF and occasionaly sell between each other equipment so that we can mingle some more about our new lense or our old camera?

    Cheers,

    Luc
    Field # ShenHao XPO45 - Monorail # Sinar F2
    6x6 # Minolta 1965 Autocord, 6x9 # Kodak 1946 Medalist II



    http://www.lucbenacphoto.com/

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    346

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    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.
    Hmmm, might be a good idea?

    You always have an option, if you see a fishy offering/buy by a seller you've had a bad experience with, to send a pm to the buyer with a heads up warning. A word of mouth thing.

    But I would miss being able to bump the thread, if I want to keep it on top and easy to find while I make up my mind. Also being able ask public questions and that stake holder post - "pm sent".

    Besides, it would be a bitch to set up and police, probably.

    I think it might be time to step back, whistle Dixie and let things roll.... after all, the recent bruhua are NOT that prevalent as a % of transactions.

    If you wanted to tightening things up a bit, maybe you could require full profile disclosure by sellers, that is fully documented where you live, email and phone number.

    And it seems to me.... just to comment on said bruhua......IF a seller get's a negative post, wouldn't it be best for the seller to proactively post "I am addressing this issue directly, by pm and phone to the buyer. I want my buyers to be confident they'll get my best attention, if there are any problems and issues with the stuff I sell" --- or some such.... Rather than NOT responding to negative post at all. That would diffuse the issue. In public at least.

    There are a lot of options to resolve these issues. Transparency being the best. NOT communicating being the worst.

    I'd say keep it all open, like it was, let it all hang out, and let people duke it out.

    Bad actors will be revealed the fastest that way. Both sellers and buyers.

    /gth

  3. #73
    multi format
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    2,848

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Leigh View Post
    Shouldn't that apply equally to sellers?

    Someone who posts an item for sale is open to whatever comments anyone wishes to post about same.

    Protecting sellers but not buyers is simply not right.

    - Leigh
    hi leigh,

    sorry to not really answer your question but ...
    i don't think negativity really solves anything.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    4,222

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i don't think negativity really solves anything.
    I agree that negativity for its own sake benefits nobody. I certainly do not condone nor advocate such posts.

    But we must distinguish between negativity and honesty. That's a tough call in many situations.

    IMO conveying accurate factual information, even if it appears negative, benefits everyone.

    - Leigh

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    820

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Kirk... I wasn't going to post again tonight because I'm not communicating well at the moment. I didn't intend to accuse. I was trying to make a point. I failed at it and I'm sorry. It was a devil's advocate type of thing.

    FWIW..

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    346

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Leigh View Post
    I agree that negativity for its own sake benefits nobody. I certainly do not condone nor advocate such posts.

    But we must distinguish between negativity and honesty. That's a tough call in many situations.

    IMO conveying accurate factual information, even if it appears negative, benefits everyone.- Leigh
    And certainly not a call that moderators can make. So let it all hang out and when a thread jumps of track, BOOM, the thread it closed. No questions asked, no reasons given - take it somewhere else boys. Moderator Justice!

    Generally I find the moderators here amazingly patient and liberal...... basically you can carry on as long as you don't insult or threaten others. Anything else of course would require endless parsing worth Solomon. When the moderators get tired of the horse pucky, door should close. By and large that works. Better than most "rules".

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    4,222

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Moderation is a thankless job. Minimizing its demands on one's time is a factor in making policy decisions.

    I'm a moderator on an unrelated forum, with an activity level very similar to LFPF. I spend way too much time moderating.

    - Leigh

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    674

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by John NYC View Post
    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.
    I have to laugh at a discussion that has "ethics" and "paypal" in the same paragraph. Paypal are terrible. I use them because there isn't any alternative but that's the only reason and I have absolutely no issue with shafting them of a few dollars here and there particularly as they've done the same to me over the years.

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,169

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by welly View Post
    I have to laugh at a discussion that has "ethics" and "paypal" in the same paragraph. Paypal are terrible. I use them because there isn't any alternative but that's the only reason and I have absolutely no issue with shafting them of a few dollars here and there particularly as they've done the same to me over the years.
    I find it very strange that (even assuming you are right that they have "shafted" you) that you think two wrongs make a right, and would then also argue ethics with me.

  10. #80

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,296

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    If you want more ethical behavior, requiring everyone to use their full legal name and location would help a lot. It would kill a lot of trolls too.

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
  •