Bad Trader Section (1 Viewer)

[Toy Soldier Brigade]

Can I suggest a bad trader section be started. All of the one sixth boards I am a member of have one. If you are buying or trading an item simply check for references before you make a deal. Eliminates most problems. In reference to the earlier closed thread about the problem deal. No one would be violating any laws by posting the offenders name and or user id's.

 

[lancer]

That thread wasn't closed. It was moved to the E-bay watch heading under Buying and Selling section. -- lancer

 

[Peter Reuss]

Actually, it was moved and then locked. I think everything that needed to be said had already been said.

We have a reason for not allowing a 'bad trader' section. Often, in the midst of a transaction, people feel 'wronged' for one reason or another. In their anger, they would then go post, "Hey everyone, don't trade with this guy!" Well, as often happens, the problem then gets worked out...both traders end up happy, but the 'Don't Trade' part remains for all to see. A good trader can quickly be given a bad name, even if a retraction comes later. In the end, it can amount to slander.

We at Treefrog have no interest in sending out detectives to unravel which side is right and which is wrong in disputes...especially disputes from transactions which have nothing to do with the Forum.

 

[theBaron]

Actually, it was moved and then locked. I think everything that needed to be said had already been said.

We have a reason for not allowing a 'bad trader' section. Often, in the midst of a transaction, people feel 'wronged' for one reason or another. In their anger, they would then go post, "Hey everyone, don't trade with this guy!" Well, as often happens, the problem then gets worked out...both traders end up happy, but the 'Don't Trade' part remains for all to see. A good trader can quickly be given a bad name, even if a retraction comes later. In the end, it can amount to slander.

We at Treefrog have no interest in sending out detectives to unravel which side is right and which is wrong in disputes...especially disputes from transactions which have nothing to do with the Forum.

Thanks, Peter, I think that was wise. I saw that other thread, and followed the comments, and I have to say, I'm one of the members of the forum who does not know who the person was that the poster meant. I wondered how it might look to someone new to the forum, or browsing, if they saw a thread like that. That's not meant to be a comment on the merits of the dispute between the buyer and seller, as I said, I don't know who the seller is, and I'm also not really acquainted with the buyer. But an online forum isn't really a venue for settling disputes like that.

Prost!
Brad

 

[marco55]

I would like to add that even though this was a bad deal every deal I have had has been totally above board and honest.To the newcomers 99.9999 %of the people on this forum are good people.
Mark

 

[Spitfrnd]

Actually, it was moved and then locked. I think everything that needed to be said had already been said.

We have a reason for not allowing a 'bad trader' section. Often, in the midst of a transaction, people feel 'wronged' for one reason or another. In their anger, they would then go post, "Hey everyone, don't trade with this guy!" Well, as often happens, the problem then gets worked out...both traders end up happy, but the 'Don't Trade' part remains for all to see. A good trader can quickly be given a bad name, even if a retraction comes later. In the end, it can amount to slander.

We at Treefrog have no interest in sending out detectives to unravel which side is right and which is wrong in disputes...especially disputes from transactions which have nothing to do with the Forum.

Well every time this comes up, the same result occurs with the same justification. It is your forum so you can do what you like but I must say those reasons do not justify the result to me. Other sites allow statements on the results of transactions and if later they need be corrected, that can easily be done by mutual consent.

I also don't see the libel concern (slander is spoken). If a person simply relates the facts of his transaction, there is no basis for a libel claim unless the facts are knowingly false and it is not the obligation of a forum host to sort that out.

As to reputation, facts should speak for themselves and anyone that judges the reputation of another from one side of the facts is really not worth worrying too much about.

 

[tdubel]

Actually, and apparently, our board would only have one member in this section repeatedly. I feel like if we would stop beating around the proverbial bush and go public, then this particular flea on society would disappear into the shadows. I am sure I am not alone in this opinion, just the most vocal.

Tom

 

[Rob]

Well every time this comes up, the same result occurs with the same justification. It is your forum so you can do what you like but I must say those reasons do not justify the result to me. Other sites allow statements on the results of transactions and if later they need be corrected, that can easily be done by mutual consent.

I also don't see the libel concern (slander is spoken). If a person simply relates the facts of his transaction, there is no basis for a libel claim unless the facts are knowingly false and it is not the obligation of a forum host to sort that out.

As to reputation, facts should speak for themselves and anyone that judges the reputation of another from one side of the facts is really not worth worrying too much about.

Actually, and apparently, our board would only have one member in this section repeatedly. I feel like if we would stop beating around the proverbial bush and go public, then this particular flea on society would disappear into the shadows. I am sure I am not alone in this opinion, just the most vocal.

Tom

These are both good posts.Its such a shame some forum members are getting treated like this.There must be an answer somewhere,we can't allow this to go on

Rob

 

[toyking]

yes i am new to the forum but have been collecting for a long time and paying attention to most posts.all my tranactions with other forum members have been awesome and honest, i was simply stating the facts of being taken for a fool. sorry if i exposed somebody but from the 200 responses i recieved this is a common occurance with this seller. if you want to allow this member to prey on this community of fellow collectors and all who love toy soldiers who am i to say and by the way i am sure everybody has a ebay purchase or two on this forum so this does go beyond the forum nest.the seller was given ample time to make good and if you were taken for the cash you would be singing a different tune.thanks john

 

[uksubs]

Actually, and apparently, our board would only have one member in this section repeatedly. I feel like if we would stop beating around the proverbial bush and go public, then this particular flea on society would disappear into the shadows. I am sure I am not alone in this opinion, just the most vocal.

Tom

I have to agree + the member should be banned from selling from the forum

 

[Njja]

Well every time this comes up, the same result occurs with the same justification. It is your forum so you can do what you like but I must say those reasons do not justify the result to me. Other sites allow statements on the results of transactions and if later they need be corrected, that can easily be done by mutual consent.

I also don't see the libel concern (slander is spoken). If a person simply relates the facts of his transaction, there is no basis for a libel claim unless the facts are knowingly false and it is not the obligation of a forum host to sort that out.

As to reputation, facts should speak for themselves and anyone that judges the reputation of another from one side of the facts is really not worth worrying too much about.

........................................................................................................

What? We just don't want to get involved.......again. Till the next time.

 

[Njja]

Actually, and apparently, our board would only have one member in this section repeatedly. I feel like if we would stop beating around the proverbial bush and go public, then this particular flea on society would disappear into the shadows. I am sure I am not alone in this opinion, just the most vocal.

Tom

...................................................................................................

What? Problem? Where?

 

[Warrior]

...................................................................................................

What? Problem? Where?

Glad to see you've got a new signature and got rid of the old one, so thanks for that..........

 

[wayne556517]

Well you Americans love your baseball have a 3 strike system and the your GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONE................

 

[toyking]

no disrespect but i just read on my thread that has been locked that both parties have agreed to resolve issue that is not true i understand shannon is trying to keep peace so this will be my last post on this issue and my hands are washed with the seller moving on.

 

[Toy Soldier Brigade]

Maybe those negotiations should be broadcast on C-SPAN

 

[Peter Reuss]

I just posted a clarification on the other thread: we were under the impression that the two parties involved had talked and were in the process of finding a solution.

 

[Njja]

Glad to see you've got a new signature and got rid of the old one, so thanks for that..........

...................................................................................................

Georgie..........don't go away mad...........just Go Away.

 

[Peter Reuss]

In general, we stand by our policy of not allowing people to name names on individual transations (for the reasons we've stated). One bad transaction does not necessarily make someone a bad trader....there may be more to the story.

However, in the case of people who have repeated 'unfortunate' trades, we do agree that they should not be allowed to sell items in our classified section. That has been done in this case.

Please send any mod a PM if you experience a 'bad' transaction through our forum so we can be aware of any issues.

We have no control over trades that happen on other sites, and those sites have their own vehicles for feedback and conflict resolution.

 

[Njja]

In general, we stand by our policy of not allowing people to name names on individual transations (for the reasons we've stated). One bad transaction does not necessarily make someone a bad trader....there may be more to the story.

However, in the case of people who have repeated 'unfortunate' trades, we do agree that they should not be allowed to sell items in our classified section. That has been done in this case.

Please send any mod a PM if you experience a 'bad' transaction through our forum so we can be aware of any issues.

We have no control over trades that happen on other sites, and those sites have their own vehicles for feedback and conflict resolution.

................................................................................................


Excellent! Certainly a reasonable solution to a most difficult situation!