Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 117

Thread: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

  1. #91

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Maybe I'm just a confused old goat but I don't understand the difference between heated drama between the FS Forum and any other. Maybe the number of occurrences?

    IMHO, provided the poster first tries to handle a disagreement off line and then is careful, precise and honest (in their opinion) with his/her verbiage (I'm guilty of that failure, BTW) then they should be allowed to post in open forum. That is, IMHO, the only fair and right thing to do. Otherwise, the few sellers inclined to take advantage will become emboldened and worsen their shenanigans.

  2. #92
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,614

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble View Post
    Maybe I'm just a confused old goat but I don't understand the difference between heated drama between the FS Forum and any other. Maybe the number of occurrences?
    Probably not. More like the consequences. A heated argument about, say, whether digital photography is photography at all, or what constitutes Art, or any of the usual topics that cause the fur to fly, have few consequences, even when shiploads of umbrage are taken. Not much in those threads undermines future friendships or the camaraderie of the forum. And very little outcome hinges on those discussions, so there's no motivation to take a position in the hopes of forcing a particularly outcome through force of public embarrassment.

    With buying and selling transactions, statements that impugn reputations have consequences for all involved parties, no matter whether they participate in the argument or not, and in my experience no matter who is right or wrong in real life. Simple misunderstandings get remembered as dishonesty, lack of communication gets remembered as thievery, and mutual pissing gets remembered as being disagreeable. Those outcomes are usually disproportionate, and often they turn out to be grossly unfair.

    People talk about fairness a lot in these discussions, but my experience is that fairness is the first victim in an online conflict between a buyer and a seller.

    The Moderators have never, in my recollection, prevented people from using the Lounge or other appropriate forum to try to track down an unresponsive seller or buyer (and buyers are every bit as likely to be unresponsive). I don't much like those threads, but they have been allowed enough so that nobody can complain that a repeated bad actor has no way of being exposed. That is not the same thing as lodging a complaint about a different transaction in one of the parties' other FS or WTB offerings, or trying to protect the innocent from spending more than the commenter (whose money is not at stake, either as buyer or seller) thinks is appropriate.

    Rick "noting the difference between drama and real life" Denney

  3. #93

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    As usual, Rick, you make very valid points. Yes, of course, it's the consequences that are different.

    Maybe a good compromise is to place a heading at the top of every ad suggesting that all those wishing to participate in the FS Forum always check the lounge for feedback. Can that easily be done?

  4. #94
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,614

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble View Post
    As usual, Rick, you make very valid points. Yes, of course, it's the consequences that are different.

    Maybe a good compromise is to place a heading at the top of every ad suggesting that all those wishing to participate in the FS Forum always check the lounge for feedback. Can that easily be done?
    I can't see that it is necessary. If people just come to the forum to buy and sell, they miss out on the natural protections provided by the community nature of the forum. As far as I'm concerned, they should treat it as though they are buying from Craig's List or from a newspaper want-ad. That doesn't seem too burdensome to me.

    Rick "thinking the world has enough warning labels" Denney

  5. #95
    dperez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Santa Ana, CA USA
    Posts
    592

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    I've been both a seller and buyer on this forum and had success in both instances. As a seller, the buyer and I agreed to split the Papal fees. No problems at all.

    With regards to a rating system for transactions, I think we would run into problems there too. I mean what someone might consider bad service, another might be perfectly content with. For example, if a seller takes three days to send a package, I would not even worry about it, it's not a huge issue to me, and I wouldn’t even bring it up. To others that could be a serious problem. So we can expect as buyers and sellers to get hit with negative feedback for the most minor hiccups, real or perceived, and then there will be flame wars over the feedback ratings.

    I think R Denney is right on, the mods don't have the time or the resources to invest themselves in policing the FS section. It has to remain as a "Use at Your Own Risk."

    -DP

  6. #96
    loujon
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Western, PA.
    Posts
    1,645

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    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.
    Amen That Brother!

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,176

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Louis Pacilla View Post
    Amen That Brother!
    Actually, a lot of people on my personal blocked list use their real names, so that is irrelevant to me. And using a real name for a screen name is a red herring as far as sales goes, where I am concerned. If anyone buys anything from me, they get excellent communication and service, they end up knowing my full name and address. Perhaps that is why I have never been slammed on this forum during a sale and don't worry about accumulating negative comments.

    The only REAL reason I can think of why people don't want negative comments allowed is they are afraid of getting slammed for their bad descriptions, poor communication, etc. Sure people can wrongly accuse each other, but if you have lots of emails during the transaction, and you are going above and beyond to provide good service on a sale you make, you will have the backup where the complainer won't.

    Think about what happened with two very big luminaries who use their real names. They got slammed for not communicating. Staying in touch throughout the process is key.

  8. #98

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Rondo, Missouri
    Posts
    2,125

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by John NYC View Post
    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.
    I agree with this sentiment 100%. If a seller is perfectly willing to break one set of rules to tip the teeter-totter in his direction, then how am I to assume that he isn't willing to commit other breaches of ethical protocol? Such as not deliver, deliver shoddy goods or other shady behavior. Fortunately, I have never experienced that on this forum. I've experienced it a few times elsewhere, but it's taught to to examine very closely how the seller treats "the rules". If a sellers idea is that rules are for people other than him, then I assume his merchandise is for people other than me. I don't respond to listings that say "Paypal as a Gift Only" or "Add 3% for Paypal" no matter how badly I want the item. When asked to do that, I refuse. I counter by offering to mail a bank check. Admittedly, early on in the game I didn't pay as much attention. I used to do it when requested, but a few Ebay encounters taught me some valuable lessons. The exceptions I make are my own. I add a few sheckles to the fee to help offset paypal fees if I know and trust the seller. That, however, isn't cheating the system. It is only depleting my wallet a little.
    Michael W. Graves
    Michael's Pub

    If it ain't broke....don't fix it!

  9. #99

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Graves View Post
    I agree with this sentiment 100%. If a seller is perfectly willing to break one set of rules to tip the teeter-totter in his direction, then how am I to assume that he isn't willing to commit other breaches of ethical protocol? Such as not deliver, deliver shoddy goods or other shady behavior. Fortunately, I have never experienced that on this forum. I've experienced it a few times elsewhere, but it's taught to to examine very closely how the seller treats "the rules". If a sellers idea is that rules are for people other than him, then I assume his merchandise is for people other than me. I don't respond to listings that say "Paypal as a Gift Only" or "Add 3% for Paypal" no matter how badly I want the item. When asked to do that, I refuse. I counter by offering to mail a bank check. Admittedly, early on in the game I didn't pay as much attention. I used to do it when requested, but a few Ebay encounters taught me some valuable lessons. The exceptions I make are my own. I add a few sheckles to the fee to help offset paypal fees if I know and trust the seller. That, however, isn't cheating the system. It is only depleting my wallet a little.
    I agree. PayPal DOES suck... I KNOW. But cheating and thievery is just that. Why make it a daily habit?

    I always wonder why two lovers, who are both cheating on their currently legal husband/wife and leave them to be together, trust each other to be faithful to one another in the future. It makes me laugh and cry at the same time.

  10. #100
    photobymike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tampa Florida
    Posts
    700

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    This is a perplexing problem as i can see the logic of both sides. A big help would be if the buyer could do some do-diligence in researching the seller. It would go a long way to increase buyer confidence. Maybe if there was disclosure on participation with Ebay and or with a company. Or maybe a way to keep tab on successful sales here on LF. Maybe a moderator just for the Sale section to research the sellers... Maybe these problems could be handled in a private way if this sale moderator had info on the seller like phone number addresses. Maybe this moderator could handle problems between sellers and buyers..... how about strict rules on how an forsale add could be worded. Enforcing paypal payments, money orders, or personal checks only (some people dont like paypal) Making a payment this way ties the payment to the product or service. Making payment as a gift payment thru paypal for the purchase of goods or services is not a good idea, it puts the buyer at risk... If the moderators of the Forsale section would demand that certain rules apply on how the ADD was worded... ... if a seller uses paypal, they can accept checks and credit cards from buyers.... then they handle the problems if the sale was done to there strict rules. Maybe the LF could charge say 1 percent of the total sales to cover the expense of do-diligence in research of the sellers. Maybe a use paypal rule only for sellers, credit cards echecks...ect... Maybe Paypal only option would be a good option as it give a way to check the sellers reputation.

    This is just some of my thoughts some good some bad....I dont know.... i do not have any experience with these problems. I have sold here and bought also... all experiences have been great...

    I have been thinking about this all day... because you see i watched the seller in question unravel ... even talked to him..... and pretty much there was no way could tell anyone.....other than with my Ebay feedback. Maybe there is no answer... i would hate to see the sale section go away.

Similar Threads

  1. Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
    By Heroique in forum On Photography
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 4-Nov-2009, 12:06
  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
  •