• Take 30 seconds to register your free account to access deals, post topics, and view exclusive content!

    Register Today

    Join the largest Oakley Forum on the web!

Restricting/removing Access For Members Who Rip Off Numerous Other Members

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
If these things happen, at what point do mods step in and remove access to the forum completely for those conducting shady deals?
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.
I agree but I think it should be one strike. Why give them an opportunity to rip off more people?
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.
 
Last edited:
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. .

You mean the mods can see our PMs? :eek:

Dang, I need to stop randomly PMing people pics of my privates...:twitch:

(haha j/k, I knew mods could see our PMs, and my junk pic PMs aren't random...:whistle:)
 
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.
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.
 
Just to address this and put an end to it before it becomes even more out of hand.

First off, it is against forum rules to talk discuss/call out other members in the open forum. Several posts were deleted in this thread for doing just that. I understand people are just trying to "help the community", or that you feel we are "protecting terrible people", but this is why we have the feedback system. For everyone who believes they should be able to make a thread flaming another member "for the sake of helping others"; eventually that thread will get buried and not help anyone, as opposed to feedback which will always show up on their profile. If you have an issue with a member, leave negative feedback and contact a moderator to try to resolve it. This is not the wild west, and we are not running around the forum accusing/calling out members at every opportunity. Disputes should be settled via PM.

I cannot say how many times, I have seen members call out the buyer/seller in a deal as a scammer, only to find out that they were away from the computer for several days due to legitimate reasons. I am not saying this is always the case, but I will say it applies to approx. 99% of them.

Next up. This forum is not responsible for any deals performed on it. The moderators get involved to try to straighten out miscommunications and take appropriate actions when necessary. But at the end of the day, it is your deal, and your money, which is why we urge members to NOT USE PAYPAL F&F. Do you know what the 1 thing every bad deal has in common? PAYPAL F&F! It is a measly 3% fee, which is next to nothing, pay it and have peace of mind. Do not expect the forum to bend over backwards and ban every person slightly involved in a deal because you simply didn't want to pay an extra $10. I apologize for the tone of this statement, but I cannot stress this point enough.

Banning Members:

I cannot say how many times, I have been messaged by someone yelling at me to ban another member because he is a scammer, anti-christ or whatever. First off, there are 2 sides to every story and I can assure you we will inquire about both. Secondly, the reason we take our time when it comes to banning(especially when pertaining to a deal gone sour), is to hopefully see a positive outcome. If the member is banned from the site, what are the chances you think you will see your money/glasses again? Slim to none. Our usual protocol is to take away a members exchange rights, if they do not cooperate in trying to resolve an issue, then escalate it further.

Yes our moderation team is currently aware of 2 members who are causing some issues and the mods are taking appropriate action. If you have any comments, concerns etc. about this or anything else please feel free to PM me.

Now, with all of this said, can we please get back to Oakleys. That is what this community is all about right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Back
Top