Increased number of back outs

[Lochlannon]

I have been on here for a number of years and I have never really had this happen before and within the last month or so it has gotten bad. A person makes a deal says I will get it out to you or pay you on this date. That date rolls around, theyon't pay.. you send a polite reminder or a few polite reminders and finally they say X has broken, this has happened or even they bought this and no longer need what you are selling/trading. Now I don't know about you but when I make a deal I make a freaking deal and will go through fire to make it complete and keep my word. However, these individuals that are backing out don't seem to understand that you have possibly forgone other deals in favor of what you worked out with them. The response is going to be don't hold anything until you see their money/items but I am a firm beliver that at some point someone has to trust and stick with their word. Is there any sort of posting about what fianlizes a deal and then what constitutes a back out? I wanted to give some sort of negative feedback, but without any hard and firm rules on the matter I didn't feel justified. Of course there may be rules and I am just unaware. At first it didn't bother me, but now its just getting more common and a touch more frustrating.

[ancientsociety]

Sorry to hear that.

This issue has come up before and it's been agreed that you can leave neg refs if someone backs out of a deal for a stupid reason (i.e. anything other than severe injury or financial hardship, etc.).

[Alkatchoff]

I'm not sure I agree with leaving negative feedback to people who pull out of a deal. It is frustrating, but it doesn't make the person a bad trader, and certainly not in the same regards as a scammer.

The only time where'd I'd consider this appropriate is if you shipped first or already spent some money on the deal. Otherwise, there really wasn't a quantifiable loss other than time/opportunities.

[peacemystic]

This should help

viewtopic.php?t=51853

Cheers
Peace

[MagickalMemories]

I find it very interesting.
You're obviously upset... and with good reason... upset enough to post this:

I have been on here for a number of years and I have never really had this happen before and within the last month or so it has gotten bad. A person makes a deal says I will get it out to you or pay you on this date. That date rolls around, theyon't pay..
<SNIP>
...I am a firm beliver that at some point someone has to trust and stick with their word. Is there any sort of posting about what fianlizes a deal and then what constitutes a back out? I wanted to give some sort of negative feedback, but without any hard and firm rules on the matter I didn't feel justified. Of course there may be rules and I am just unaware. At first it didn't bother me, but now its just getting more common and a touch more frustrating.

You know what. You're right. One hundred percent. No "ifs, ands or buts" about it.

What strikes me as odd is your response to the suggestion that you could leave a negative ref.:

I'm not sure I agree with leaving negative feedback to people who pull out of a deal. It is frustrating, but it doesn't make the person a bad trader, and certainly not in the same regards as a scammer.

The only time where'd I'd consider this appropriate is if you shipped first or already spent some money on the deal. Otherwise, there really wasn't a quantifiable loss other than time/opportunities.

Now, I'm not coming down on you. Not by far.
I just find it interesting that you don't see it as justifiable to leave a neg ref. I think your position is admirable, that you have more patience for it. Myself, I'd leave the ref.

Two things of interest:
viewtopic.php?t=45472

In the above link, you'll find this:

A Bartertown 'Trade' occurs when both parties have agreed to a transaction, be it a purchase (ie buyer-seller) or exhange of items and/or services, and have agreed to the terms of said transaction.
For example. Morlock and I agree to trade his Warmachine Cryx for my Warhammer Fantasy Chaos. We negotiate what we're trading specifically, we negotiate shipping terms, and we negotiate a time-frame for said shipping. Once we agree - and this can be as simple as "you're cool with that?" or as complex as sending a separate email that states the exact terms of everything agreed to along with a request to reply-with-agreement - the Trade is on.
If something unexpected happens, like a family emergency or unexpected deployment, it is the responsibility of the person in question to let the other party know what's happened within a reasonable time frame.

So, while you weren't out anything more than time, you've definitely had a "trade" by Bartertown definitions. You are within your rights here to leave one.

May I ask for more info about your trade partners? Their # of ref's, amount of time on the site, etc? I'm curious because, I can see being more lenient to someone who hasn't been here long. I'd send them a PM with the above info in it for informative purposes (while letting them know I was NOT going to leave a negative, so it didn't seem like ITL intimidation). For a more experienced trader, though... I'd leave one if it wasn't someone who I "knew" well. If it was that person, I'd inquire further as to the reasons... but that doesn't mean I wouldn't leave it.

Anyone I "knew" and decided not to leave a negative for WOULD get jokingly chided that it fell within limits of a neg ref and I really had to weigh my decision whether or not to leave a negative for them, but that they just squeaked by (or something similar)... but that is just because I enjoy playfully harassing people who I know can take it.


I wish I could offer some advice on how to avoid those traders. Unfortunately, you just never know when it'll pop up.


Eric

[Lochlannon]

Good advice one and all... maybe I should say when they agree and we set dates we have officially entered into a deal with all the feedback that accompanies that...to remove all doubt.

[CypherIsGod]

Would it be ITL intimidation if you sent the other party a reply saying something like this?

"While I understand that you no longer want to go through with the trade, we did enter what the Bartertown rules deem a trade. I would like to give you the opportunity to fulfill the agreed upon trade. If you cannot fulfill your end of the trade, I will be leaving negative feedback regarding our trade agreement that was broken."

This is kind of like forcing them to do the trade, or you will pop them with negative feedback. But since it is well within your rights to leave negative feedback at this point, because a trade was actually broken, isn't this nicer than popping a negative feedback onto them without a warning?

When this comes up I would like to know that a statement like the one above would not be getting ME into trouble because it could be seen as intimidation. I would love to hear an official answer from Linrandir, but feel free to voice opinions until then.

[MagickalMemories]

Would it be ITL intimidation if you sent the other party a reply saying something like this?

"While I understand that you no longer want to go through with the trade, we did enter what the Bartertown rules deem a trade. I would like to give you the opportunity to fulfill the agreed upon trade. If you cannot fulfill your end of the trade, I will be leaving negative feedback regarding our trade agreement that was broken."

This is kind of like forcing them to do the trade, or you will pop them with negative feedback. But since it is well within your rights to leave negative feedback at this point, because a trade was actually broken, isn't this nicer than popping a negative feedback onto them without a warning?

When this comes up I would like to know that a statement like the one above would not be getting ME into trouble because it could be seen as intimidation. I would love to hear an official answer from Linrandir, but feel free to voice opinions until then.

Well, heaven knows I seem to always have an opinion...and, since you asked...

My OPINION is that you are bordering quite close to ITL intimidation there. While you were NON threatening in "tone," you were very direct in your presentation. The more you "beat around the bush," the better off you would be - annoying, though it is.

Your quote is fairly good. Let me offer a few small changes:

"While I understand that you no longer want to go through with the trade, we did enter what Bartertown rules deem an actual trade. I would like to give you the opportunity to fulfill the agreed upon trade or let me know why you chose to back out after agreeing to it. I know that some situations are more serious than others and can easily be overlooked.

If you choose not to fulfill your end of the trade and have no viable reason for it, I will look into and possibly pursue reference options regarding the broken trade agreement."

It's a bit longer, but less threatening and more formal, which tends to take emotion out of the equation.

That's my take on it, for what it's worth.


Eric

[BCI]

Would it be ITL intimidation if you sent the other party a reply saying something like this?

"While I understand that you no longer want to go through with the trade, we did enter what the Bartertown rules deem a trade. I would like to give you the opportunity to fulfill the agreed upon trade. If you cannot fulfill your end of the trade, I will be leaving negative feedback regarding our trade agreement that was broken."

"While I understand that you no longer want to go through with the trade, we did enter what Bartertown rules deem an actual trade. I would like to give you the opportunity to fulfill the agreed upon trade or let me know why you chose to back out after agreeing to it. I know that some situations are more serious than others and can easily be overlooked.

If you choose not to fulfill your end of the trade and have no viable reason for it, I will look into and possibly pursue reference options regarding the broken trade agreement."

Neither example is appropriate.

In both instances the deal-breaker is offered a chance to comply, where failing to do so results in threat of (MagickalMemories) or definite (CypherIsGod) ITL-penalization, which is within reason similar enough to the examples given under rule #10: "ITL intimidation" to have it classified as such ( viewtopic.php?t=69 ).

If we assume NOTHING has been sent from either end and they send you a "Dear John... trade's off, kk thx cya" with no details, Bartertown rules allow for you to immediately leave a negative reference and post a BTR, after which point you are no longer responsible.

The limit to "beating around the bush" is asking "Why?"

If you decide to ask "Why?", or you are told upfront what the issue is, at your discretion you can post a BTR/reference. At this point you're obligated to defend your position. And if you aren't sure what to do/believe, ask a moderator or administrator for assistance.

An example of a "they broke the deal" feedback would be:
"According to Bartertown rules ( viewtopic.php?t=71 ), which I must comply with, I am to leave this negative reference: This was our agreement: ***agreement info***, they broke it for ***given reason***. A link to the BTR report can be found here: ***BTR REPORT LINK***"

The agreement info and given reason should be copy/paste jobs with no editing, and if there are links (due to the conversation occuring on a thread), put them in as well.

Keep in mind, this scenario only applies to situations where no-goods-have-been-exchanged-at-all including money. After goods are exchanged the system takes on new levels of complexity, which is another topic altogether.

[CypherIsGod]

I agree with you BCI. It certainly does sound like ITL intimidation in my example, and slightly less so in MM's example. I just feel bad that the best way to resolve that one is to just surprise the guy with a bad feedback posting. I know I would much rather have a chance to make amends if I did not realize that backing out of the trade before anything was sent was considered a broken deal. (I know it is, but I can see someone thinking nothing was sent, so no harm was done)

I would assume even if I just sent a PM with the rule that states what a trade is, would be intimidation too then. That would still be a subtle "threat" telling him that I can post a bad trader reference because of his actions.

It just seems like any way of notifying them that they have made a mistake, and giving them a way to fix it first will just get me into trouble. So, they have to realize their mistake after the negative mark is left on his permanent record, so to speak.... Which a lot of times is too late. If I see a negative feedback record in someone's feedback I will really think twice about trading with them even if they have had good trades since then. It would, at the very least, make me ask for him to ship first in any deal. It just kind of sucks that this scenario is in someone's future if they back out of a deal, not realizing they are doing something wrong.

[brettness37]

It just kind of sucks that this scenario is in someone's future if they back out of a deal, not realizing they are doing something wrong.

I think it comes down to the rules being at the top of the forum, fairly clear cut, and bolded. If people are here they are expected to know the rules and abide by them.


It certainly is harsh but ultimately we're a self regulating community. If I broke a rule I'd expect to face the consequences, some of those being having to ship first if I still wanted to trade with others.

[MEDEVL]

Maybe I'm getting too old for Bartertown or something because more and more some of the situations that come up and the policies we have to address them just seem utterly ridiculous to me.
If somebody backs out on a "deal" after it has been agreed to then you have every right to leave a BTR. By contacting them one last time and offering them the chance to live up to their end of the already agreed upon deal before you leave the BTR you are doing them a favor. If by the letter of the law that is ITL intimidation then we need to change some letters in the law. That's just common sense. If they'd kept their word you wouldn't even have to "threaten" them with a BTR but they didn't. We seem to be on this kick lately where we all over-avalyze everything and common sense just goes out the window!!!!!

[MagickalMemories]

Maybe I'm getting too old for Bartertown or something because more and more some of the situations that come up and the policies we have to address them just seem utterly ridiculous to me.
If somebody backs out on a "deal" after it has been agreed to then you have every right to leave a BTR. By contacting them one last time and offering them the chance to live up to their end of the already agreed upon deal before you leave the BTR you are doing them a favor. If by the letter of the law that is ITL intimidation then we need to change some letters in the law. That's just common sense. If they'd kept their word you wouldn't even have to "threaten" them with a BTR but they didn't. We seem to be on this kick lately where we all over-avalyze everything and common sense just goes out the window!!!!!

You're exactly right, Med.
Warnings and/or reminders are NOT threats.

"If you don't X, then I'll Y" is a threat.
Advising someone of the policies and asking them to provide the reason they backed out so that you can make a more informed decision is NOT ITL intimidation... it's giving them the courtesy of explaining why they did it, rather than assuming the worst and nailing them.

Keep in mind, however, that some people on the boards are more interested in being contrary than they are in actually helping. That info should be kept close to heart whenever you ask for and/or are given advice.


Eric

[peacemystic]

Maybe I'm getting too old for Bartertown or something because more and more some of the situations that come up and the policies we have to address them just seem utterly ridiculous to me.
If somebody backs out on a "deal" after it has been agreed to then you have every right to leave a BTR. By contacting them one last time and offering them the chance to live up to their end of the already agreed upon deal before you leave the BTR you are doing them a favor. If by the letter of the law that is ITL intimidation then we need to change some letters in the law. That's just common sense. If they'd kept their word you wouldn't even have to "threaten" them with a BTR but they didn't. We seem to be on this kick lately where we all over-avalyze everything and common sense just goes out the window!!!!!

Ditto
Your cutting someone who has shown that there word means nothing a break.....its not a threat,its a fact...you screwed another trader,and that other trader has been kind enough to give you a second chance...

Cheers
Peace

[Linrandir]

And now, a word (or more) from the friendly neighborhood admin at an ungodly hour (daughter is teething, and no comments on using alcohol as a analgesic please).

Reminding someone of their obligation under Bartertown rules is NOT repeat NOT the same thing as ITL intimidation. Obviously, I need to clarify the rules somewhat.
ITL intimidation is something like "If you don't give me those extra 5 SM I want I'm gonna sack you with a negative" or...hmm..."If you leave me a negative for our transaction I'm gonna do the same thing."

A lot of it is in the tone. I like BCI's boilerplate about "under Bartertown rules" and so forth. If you come off sounding like a jackass, the chances are that it'll be seen as ITL intimidation, aka a threat. If you're reasonable and say something like "Please note that we did have an agreement under Bartertown rules, and even though we haven't exchanged anything I am within my rights to leave you a negative reference if you cancel the deal;" that to me is a fair and equitable notice.

Remember, think twice before typing, then once more before you hit "send."