FS/WTB Transaction Problems

[Ralph Barker]

We have made a couple of changes in an attempt to address issues with unsatisfactory transactions stemming from the For Sale sub-forum.

1. Unsatisfactory transactions from threads in the the "For Sale/Wanted" sub-forum may be reported using ONE post that states the following: "Unresolved issue with _______ on this sale." It must be reported in, and only in, the specific thread in which the item was offered, and must not provide further details.

2. A new Buyer-Seller Advisories sub-forum has been added in the Community section:

Buyer/Seller Advisories--Any reports about the outcomes of transactions with providers of products and services to large-format photographers must be made in the "Buyer/Seller Advisories" sub-forum. The purpose of this sub-forum is to provide a service to large-format photographers who need to know whom to trust in a small market. All posts in other forums complaining about specific transactions will be moved to this forum, and repeated mispostings by a person may result in moderator action. Threads in the Buyer/Seller Advisories forum must be:
-Factual
-Unemotional
-Related only to what actually happened.

Comments about the character or honesty of the person described will be deleted without notice, and repeated negative personal comments will result in moderator actions. Remember, personal attacks and abuse to other site users is not allowed on this forum. Demands for action are also not appropriate anywhere on the Large Format Photography Forum, and will be removed. The LFPF does not provide any mechanism for seeking resolution of an unsatisfactory transaction--resolution must be pursued outside the forum. This sub-forum is for simple reports of outcomes of transactions here and elsewhere. If the transaction occurred elsewhere, then it must involve transactions of products or services relevant to the large-format community.

This should provide a means of sharing issues regarding transactions here, or elsewhere, in a factual manner. Moderators will still not get involved in attempting to resolve those issues, and use of the FS/WTB sub-forum remains an at your own risk proposition for both buyers and sellers.

[IanG]

While I think the sentiments are right I'm not sure it's easy to make it work & enforce.

I don't advocate naming and shaming, a few of us (all members here and on APUG) had issues with a poster/seller and all agreed it was ineptitude rather than dishonestya nd help from moderators got the matters resolved quickly and simply.

The number of bad transactions is very much lower than Ebay.

Ian

[Brian C. Miller]

Just one request:

Could the forums in the Community section be displayed in a different order?

The current explanation/disclaimer text is now HUGE, and buries the forums beneath them.

[Kirk Gittings]

Maybe we could just add a ton more verbiage to the forums below to even things out :).

[Heroique]

Threads in the Buyer/Seller Advisories forum must be:
-Factual
-Unemotional
-Related only to what actually happened.

I can already see “fact” vs. “perception of fact” leading to a whole lot of trouble here.

[Kirk Gittings]

There is no fact without a perception of it. Is there useful wording that is not open to interpretation? Please offer us alternatives.

[Henry Ambrose]

Thanks for doing this and generally for moderating the forum.
I can a see a whole bucket of worms opening up for you but good on you for doing it.

I can see "Joe sold me a broken widget but told me it was like new" threads popping up and maybe that is a good way for this to be policed. My only fear is that the whole buy/sell thing becomes a huge burden to the moderators and gets killed off.

A simple reminder to all might be: "we're all big boys and girls and responsible for our own deals" and leave it at that.

Anyway, thanks again.

[rdenney]

Fact is, we've had a whole bucket of worms already. We've not been consistent in how we approach things, and this inconsistency has put us in uncomfortable positions.

Remember, users of the for-sale forum do so at their own risk. This isn't just buyers who take the risk, it's also sellers. Sellers are no more able to hide from that risk than are buyers, but our policies have made it possible for them to do so.

We believe that it is a service to large-format photographers to allow discussion of problems.

I'm also concerned that the silver-tonqued in any dispute will come out on top. But remember that all other forum guidelines apply. Personal attacks, insulting language, demands for action, or threats will not be tolerated. So, if one has a complaint to air, stick to what happened, and onlly what happened. Don't draw conclusions about the character or honest of the subject of the complain. Remove all statements that border on those things that are not allowed.

And remember that the forum, it's readers, and the moderators have no role in determining the trutch of a statement. The other party may respond if he chooses to, following the same guidelines.

If it can't be controlled, then we'll try something else, but that will likely lead to removing the for-sale forum altogether.

Rick "who has been in the middle of too many disputes" Denney

[Heroique]

I think the instructions are ideal and well meaning. The potential problem – if I correctly understand how the sub-forum will work – is that any photographer’s accounting of the “facts” of an unhappy transaction will, no matter how sincere, be open to interpretation – especially by the other party. And if the other party is a member here too, well, that can naturally lead to plenty of publicized misgivings. “Here are the facts,” by one person, then in response: “HERE are the facts,” by the second person, back and forth, back and forth. At least they’ll be in one place, but only an angel would predict it will be a place to document “what actually happened.”

[Lachlan 717]

To be honest, I think that the vast majority of this new section will be taken up with positive feedback, just as the majority of feedback on eBay is positive.

Perhaps the Thread title should be made to start with "Positive - Seller's Name/Title", "Negative - Seller's Name/Title" or "Neutral - Seller's Name/Title" (much as the For Sale section requires FS , WTB or WTT)?

[Ken Lee]

Visibility is a good thing.

The small number of members about whom many complaints are leveled - and those who complain too often or harshly - will probably find it hard to buy or sell.

Meanwhile, the other 99.99 % of forum members will proceed as usual.

[rdenney]

I think the instructions are ideal and well meaning. The potential problem – if I correctly understand how the sub-forum will work – is that any photographer’s accounting of the “facts” of an unhappy transaction will, no matter how sincere, be open to interpretation – especially by the other party. And if the other party is a member here too, well, that can naturally lead to plenty of publicized misgivings. “Here are the facts,” by one person, then in response: “HERE are the facts,” by the second person, back and forth, back and forth. At least they’ll be in one place, but only an angel would predict it will be a place to document “what actually happened.”

If it goes circular, we'll lock it.

If it gets personal, we'll delete those posts.

If it asks for action, we'll delete it.

If it draws conclusions about a person's character (which is, of course, not a fact), then we'll delete it.

Of course, as with all such issues, we'll depend on forum members to report posts that violate guidelines--we don't read everything. But the hope is that we'll be able to carry out policy in response to such complaints without the deep misgiving that we are taking part in adding wrong to the wronged party.

I doubt one post about a transaction that went awry, with simple claims by both parties, will damage anyone's reputation, if both positions are remotely well-reasoned. If not, then I refer you to Ken's post above.

Rick "selling on this forum is a privilege not a right" Denney

[jb7]

I can already see “fact” vs. “perception of fact” leading to a whole lot of trouble here.

I completely agree. Already we have non-involved parties joining this chat room, amplifying hearsay, and you would have to question their motives. If the threads were confined to those with direct experience of transactions, then they would have more value, but already it seems like this section is going to be nothing more than a headache for the moderators, should they choose to police it according to their regulations.

I think this section could be a useful resource, but it could also be a useful saloon for those who see themselves as deputies for a lynch mob.

There are many different interactions on these forums, hardly any of them involving financial transactions, but its easy to imagine that this section would be particularly damaging to somebody's reputation, should someone decide to aim an attack, or a retaliation.

In my opinion, the status quo was doing fine without this dedicated section. But then, I don't have many axes to grind. If I had, a post in the style of 'a letter to 'x' ' might have been more to the point, rather than this more wholesale approach.

I wonder who is going to make the first post which is actually libelous, or actionable?

[Bill Burk]

I know it's a difficult business, and hope never to need to use the Report Post mechanism for anything but to report silly spam.

Alternative: Person with the issue uses Report Post mechanism to tell Moderators that there is an issue. Moderators may then post the neutral " ______ reports issue with _______ on this sale." After followup from other party, same thing. Moderators may then post " _______ provides status of issue with _____ ." and ultimately, hopefully " _______ reports issue resolved with _____ ."

[rdenney]

At least one of those chatty diversions was squarely led by me. Mea Culpa. I've just cleaned a thread of a diversion I caused.

Perceptions and facts are sometimes hard to separate. But perceptions without any facts are easy to see, and that's just what I posted--I've never transacted anything with the person being discussed in that thread. I'll be more diligent with myself, and encourage others to do likewise.

To some extent, back and forth between those who are reporting positive actual experiences vs. those reporting actual negative experiences provides needed balance. But the the experiences must be real, either way.

Rick "oops" Denney

[sanking]

In my opinion, the status quo was doing fine without this dedicated section. But then, I don't have many axes to grind. If I had, a post in the style of 'a letter to 'x' ' might have been more to the point, rather than this more wholesale approach.




That is my opinion as well, and I don't have any axes to grind either. Just try to call them the way I see them. It seems to me that the idea of the Buyer-Seller Advisory could have been accomplished with much less waste of forum resources by just putting a "sticky" at the begging of the Buy/Sale threads describing what type of complaints would be acceptable, and then just delete offending posts. What we now have is a run-away train with folks jumping over themselves to praise certain people with whom they have had good transactions, blah, blah, blah. That was not the intent of the moderators, was it?

I appreciate that the moderators want to remedy what they perceive as a bad situation, but in this case the solution is worse than the problem, IMO, which validates the old saying, "the enemy of good is better."


Sandy

[rdenney]

Sandy,

Give things a chance to settle down. It's new; everyone is still trying to figure it out. Once the pent-up demand is satisfied, it will slow down.

As with any service, nobody is forced to use it. We are working on excluding it from the routine searches, so you won't even have to see it unless you look.

If it spins out of control, we'll try something else.

Rick "patience" Denney

[gth]

Fact is, we've had a whole bucket of worms already. We've not been consistent in how we approach things, and this inconsistency has put us in uncomfortable positions.

Remember, users of the for-sale forum do so at their own risk. This isn't just buyers who take the risk, it's also sellers. Sellers are no more able to hide from that risk than are buyers, but our policies have made it possible for them to do so.

We believe that it is a service to large-format photographers to allow discussion of problems.

I'm also concerned that the silver-tonqued in any dispute will come out on top. But remember that all other forum guidelines apply. Personal attacks, insulting language, demands for action, or threats will not be tolerated. So, if one has a complaint to air, stick to what happened, and onlly what happened. Don't draw conclusions about the character or honest of the subject of the complain. Remove all statements that border on those things that are not allowed.

And remember that the forum, it's readers, and the moderators have no role in determining the trutch of a statement. The other party may respond if he chooses to, following the same guidelines.

If it can't be controlled, then we'll try something else, but that will likely lead to removing the for-sale forum altogether.

Rick "who has been in the middle of too many disputes" Denney

Rick,

I know I am probably very naive about this whole set of issues. I guess I don't see the mayhem because you guys are diligent in removing it.

But why not just let these arguements about sales problems burn themselves out?

I mean unless the parties are threatening to kill each other, who cares?

IT"S AT THEIR OWN RISK!!!

That means nobody else will pick up the pieces. Why be concerned about fairness??? IN an YOUR OWN RISK situation there is no fairness. ONly trusted individuals, and by and large that works. Arguable, in the end that is the ONLY thing that works.

Or is it that these problem transactions generate huge amount messages and email to moderators personally?

Is it possible to simple IGNORE BS from the buy/sales area?

Who really cares what they say about each other in there?

I guess I am simply very naive about the whole thing..... but what would happen if you just ignored the buy/sell area?

/gth

[rdenney]

We had a combination of policies that made it impossible to ignore.

But the issue wasn't always initiated in the for-sale forum. We had been inconsistent about complaint threads in the regular forum. By moving them to the community section (which required making a place to move them to) we limit the access by external searches, as I understand it. And it frees those other forums of those extended complaint threads.

Rick "who can't ignore legitimate requests from regular participants" Denney