Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 117

Thread: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

  1. #11
    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 John NYC View Post
    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

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,176

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by rdenney View Post
    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.

  3. #13
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North GA Mountains
    Posts
    8,924

    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.
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram | Portfolio
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    3,020

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by rdenney View Post
    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.

  5. #15
    loujon
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Western, PA.
    Posts
    1,644

    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.

    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.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,952

    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.
    +1

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,952

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by John NYC View Post
    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!

  8. #18
    IanG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Aegean (Turkey & UK)
    Posts
    4,122

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Louis Pacilla View Post
    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

  9. #19
    Luc Benac lbenac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Burnaby BC Canada
    Posts
    898

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Corran View Post
    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 View Post
    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
    Field # ShenHao XPO45 - Monorail # Sinar P, F2
    [CENTER]6x6 # Minolta 1965 Autocord, 6x9 # Kodak 1946 Medalist II

  10. #20
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North GA Mountains
    Posts
    8,924

    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).
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram | Portfolio
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

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
  •