Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 117

Thread: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

  1. #31

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    +100 on Rick's post.

    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

  2. #32

    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.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,477

    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.

  4. #34
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    4,489

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    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

  5. #35

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Montara, California
    Posts
    1,565

    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.
    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
    Darin Boville

    See my photographs

  6. #36

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Montara, California
    Posts
    1,565

    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.
    Darin Boville

    See my photographs

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    GA, USA
    Posts
    2,490

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred L View Post
    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
    Bryan
    My blog about shooting film in south GA:
    valdostafilm.blogspot.com

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,477

    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.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    GA, USA
    Posts
    2,490

    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!
    Bryan
    My blog about shooting film in south GA:
    valdostafilm.blogspot.com

  10. #40
    Luc Benac lbenac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Burnaby BC Canada
    Posts
    835

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

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



    http://www.lucbenacphoto.com/

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
  •