kronin323
Font of Useless Knowledge
BTW, to be clear, I am NOT defending bad sellers - I'd like to see them all hung by their toenails over hot coals.
I'm just trying to add some perspective.
I'm just trying to add some perspective.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
In my case I'm pretty sure that exchange access for the seller in my situation was cut-off and I'll leave feedback (which can be edited later) for the benefit of others. I think that cutting off exchange access effectively removes the potential for future rip-offs while giving the offending party an opportunity to live up to his/her end and then petition O Boss for reinstatement.If these things happen, at what point do mods step in and remove access to the forum completely for those conducting shady deals?
There's a reason you get three strikes in baseball, one of which is to compensate for the human element of umpiring. One deal might be a subjective one with a seller thinking an item is a 9.0/10 item and the buyer thinks it's 7.0/10 and feels ripped off. Like a pitcher wants the black of the plate called and the batter wants that a ball. Is a difference of opinion of condition with the buyer calling "Rip-off!" a reason to ban a seller?I agree but I think it should be one strike. Why give them an opportunity to rip off more people?
In my case I'm pretty sure that exchange access for the seller in my situation was cut-off and I'll leave feedback (which can be edited later) for the benefit of others. I think that cutting off exchange access effectively removes the potential for future rip-offs while giving the offending party an opportunity to live up to his/her end and then petition O Boss for reinstatement.
There's a reason you get three strikes in baseball, one of which is to compensate for the human element of umpiring. One deal might be a subjective one with a seller thinking an item is a 9.0/10 item and the buyer thinks it's 7.0/10 and feels ripped off. Like a pitcher wants the black of the plate called and the batter wants that a ball. Is a difference of opinion of condition with the buyer calling "Rip-off!" a reason to ban a seller?
Now in the deals involving TechGuru and myself with the seller joining the site, buying a premium membership (presumably to gain instant access to exchanges) and having the only posts two sale threads that he failed to perform on I think that's an easy (balk) call. Especially with mods being able to see seller's commitments and no performance ie: "I received the funds and I'll ship tomorrow" and then no tracking seen in PM's.
For someone that has done plenty of satisfactory deals and some not so satisfactory I like three strikes. You're going to have the potential for a difference of opinion on one transaction but when the body of work shows a tendency to overstate a condition then 3 strikes is my opinion.
Not being able to produce a tracking number after acknowledging receipt of funds should get your exchange access removed until satisfactory resolution is reached with historical feedback left for the benefit of others. Then a determination made whether to allow exchange access. .
I was going to post something virtually identical to this, but you beat me to it and said it very well. If exchange access has been removed in the situation you reference, then my suggestion would seem to be in line with what mods have and could do, and in my opinion should do in regards to two other more veteran members with multiple ongoing issues.In my case I'm pretty sure that exchange access for the seller in my situation was cut-off and I'll leave feedback (which can be edited later) for the benefit of others. I think that cutting off exchange access effectively removes the potential for future rip-offs while giving the offending party an opportunity to live up to his/her end and then petition O Boss for reinstatement.
There's a reason you get three strikes in baseball, one of which is to compensate for the human element of umpiring. One deal might be a subjective one with a seller thinking an item is a 9.0/10 item and the buyer thinks it's 7.0/10 and feels ripped off. Like a pitcher wants the black of the plate called and the batter wants that a ball. Is a difference of opinion of condition with the buyer calling "Rip-off!" a reason to ban a seller?
Now in the deals involving TechGuru and myself with the seller joining the site, buying a premium membership (presumably to gain instant access to exchanges) and having the only posts two sale threads that he failed to perform on I think that's an easy (balk) call. Especially with mods being able to see seller's commitments and no performance ie: "I received the funds and I'll ship tomorrow" and then no tracking seen in PM's.
For someone that has done plenty of satisfactory deals and some not so satisfactory I like three strikes. You're going to have the potential for a difference of opinion on one transaction but when the body of work shows a tendency to overstate a condition then 3 strikes is my opinion.
Not being able to produce a tracking number after acknowledging receipt of funds should get your exchange access removed until satisfactory resolution is reached with historical feedback left for the benefit of others. Then a determination made whether to allow exchange access.
FWIW the seller in our cases has been on OF virtually every day and he was last on at 10:45 today.