J35T3R.us wrote:Personally I feel this thread should wiped clean of all these <not smart> replies and left to clean state
MagickalMemories wrote:For what it's worth, however, that word is highly insulting, blisteringly offensive and causes no small amount of anger in those of us who have a friend or family member who is mentally challenged.
Your reply was your OPINION. I or others may find it insulting you'd assume I(or anyone) would find this word insulting WHEN USED PROPERLY reguardless if I(or they) do or don't have a "disabled" relative... That would be making their decision for them. Now, if I offended YOU, then, sorry. But I do feel that making the choice for everyone by saying they'd all be offended is quite wrong. But again, for the third time, I will state that I did not intend on insulting anyone if they found offense to my word choice(again, I edited my post to reflect this). Same goes for the word: "gay." If my brother's gay, and someone says: "That car is gay." I don't find that offending because I've accepted the evolution of the English language and it's slangs. Although, I was not using the "slang-term" of the word "<not smart>" here. Same still goes. I did just compare apples to oranges since one was being used offensively, and MY WORD was being used to describe something, but you get my drift I hope.
Dictionary.com wrote:<not smart> - To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.
<not smart> - A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.
I'm going to have to retort to this... I will not take that comment back because NO HARM was intended. The word <not smart> when using it offensively or in a rash manor would be "messed up." While indeed this thread is getting "messed up" quite quickly, I did not use it in that manor. I used it simply as it was intended by myself to mean we are impeding the process of this thread. I will however admit to most(in this mordern age) a lot of megativity is associated with that word and that I apologize if I offended anyone using my relitively vast knowledge of synonyms (not counting of course my years of internet-learned typonese, most of which people of the internet should be able to read through anyways). I will remove that word from my previous post as soon as I am done writing this reply and I will refriegn from using such words that may be wrongly interpreted in the future. Anyways, onto the meat and potatoes.
J35T3R.us wrote:All in all:
1) & 2) Thread is needed, but under two conditions:
I disagree on these 2.
We don't need to micromanage. The last thing we need is a "rude people" thread, a "slow shipping" thread, a "lowballers" thread. None of those affect -or potentially affect- the safety and security of traders on this site.
That's what this forum and the Bad Traders forum are for.
They're not about complaining. they're about warning others of dishonest, behavior and the warning signs that often lead to it.
You just said: We don't need multiple threads... Yet you say people in this thread will use it to "warn others of dishonest behavior" yet you don't think we need a place to "warn of OTHER dishonest behavior than JUST backing out?"
I'm pretty sure that warning like:
"This person told me these paint jobs were nicely painted to a table-top standard, and when I recieved them, they weren't that good."
The above example would demostrate that one person's "paint standards" are off compared to another's. Someone says the paintjob is a 4 out of 10, another says it is a 6 out of 10... They are not a bad trader, Table-top paintjob = anywhere from 3-7 out of 10... But someone would at least expect a 6 out of 10 or so. The above person should not be IN TROUBLE< they should just be known that their paint-job grading standard is prolly higher than other people's. Perhaps this will allow people to demand pictures or consult with others to figure out just what standard the figures in the next trades are.
...would be a great warning. ---> I'd ask to see pictures before trading with the guy in question.
I'm pretty sure that warning like:
"This person has sent me 2 offers in the past 2 weeks. One was on my warmachine lot, one one on my mage knight lot. The warmachine retails for $80 and I had it for sale for $50. He offered $30 shipped. I counter-offered saying it was already low for $50, but I would go $45 for him. He then counter-offered with e-bay prices not-including shipping and said $35 shipped... He's a lowballer. Also would mention the lowball offer on the MageKnight, but you get my drift."
The above example shows a lowballer, which would be brought into attention to not waste your time looking at this person's "WANT LIST" since you won't be getting anything but lowballs from them. DO NOT SAY THIS is not directly ON PAR with what we are talking about... Becaquse seriously guys, we aren't talking about people backing out of transactions... We're talking about people RUINING THE TRADING EXPERIENCE OF THESE BOARDS... Why limit our accusations to simply backouts??? When that is most likely only 20% of claims? (made up number, don't hold me to it).
...would be a great warning. I'm pretty sure I would avoid or at least EXPECT lowball offers from the person in question and not both clicking on his: "WANT TO BUY WARHAMMER FANTASY" thread.
I'm pretty sure a warning like:
"This guy named <asdfasdf> backed out of this trade, here is the proof, don't waste your time with this guy. I've seen his name in this thread before..."
Another example that belongs in the GIANT thread of "WARNINGS" not JUST "Backouts..."
...would be a great warning. ---> I'd love to know if someone has backed out once or twice, maybe three times since the've beena member here.
ANY of those above replies in a "watch out for this guy" thread would be acceptable... I'm trying to get across that backouts are not the sole-reason some of our angry members are angry... There needs to be more threads, or ONE BIG thread that resembles the "Bad Traders" forum, but not as serious, that all of our complaints can fall under.
"Bat Trader" = DO NOT TRADE WITH HIM.... NO ONE TRADE WITH HIM... IN FACT HE'S PROLLY GONNA GET BANNED IF HE'S IN THIS THREAD...
"Warning Thread" = THIS WAS MY EXPERIENCE WITH THIS PERSON AND WHY I WILL NOT BOTHER WITH HIM AGAIN ------- even though you may still deal with him.
I think your #3 is dead on (though I'm not certain about disciplinary action).
Then what happens when someone says: "This guy backed out," and presents his evidence. This gets some attention and someone in a current trade with the guy in question decides to cancel his trade with him. The guy in question sees this topic and replies. The guy in question says: "We agreed to back out." Then presents his evidence as defense. Meantime the guy that was gonna trade with the guy in quest makes another deal with someone else with the stuff that the guy in question wanted... People agree that they mutually backed out based on the info in the thread. Where does that leave us? A guy who called wolf, a guy with a tarnished name, and a guy that LOST A TRADE because someone accused him of something and another trader saw his accusation and did the RIGHT THING, the SAFE THING and backed out of a current deal with the guy in question, even though the guy in question was COMPLETELY INNOCENT. So what can we do to compensate for his loss? What can we do to make sure people aren't whistle blowing and wolf-crying... You see where I am going with this. Without rule there will be chaos. There needs to be rules... And if you say "The rules are listed here:" and give me the "Bad Trader" rules... THAT DOES NOT HELP... If the offense falls under the "bad trader" rules, teh person is a B A D T R A D E R
and does NOT belong here, they belong in teh BAD TRADER forum...
As for 4... LOL ALL threads lead to arguments.
Again, why there needs to be rules.
Guy A) "This guy backed out of this deal we had."
Guy B) "Ummmm, no... You backed out."
Guy A) "Lol, here's my proof."
Guy B) "Lol, so? Here's mine."
Guy A) "Flame Flame" <-----Optional (of course it won't get that far, but you know no-one likes to be called a liar, and that's when tempers flare).
Guy B) "Flame Flame Back" <------Optional (retaliatory strikes inreguards to the initial flame is bound to happen).
Observer A) "Wtf is going on here???"
Observer B) "LOL @ This thread."
Observer C) "Hey, you guys watch that Bulls vs Celtics game last night?"
Admin A) "Banned, Banned, Banned, and.... Banned..."
YAY for lame-fest... Without order, there shall be chaos...
It's threads like this, which is staying cordial and respectful, that help us iron out differences, as well as helping the Admin & Mods to decide on site policies & procedures.
/agree completely... aka: making rules for this forum...