Bartertown.com

I feel bad about this so figured I would post a bad thing about myself. I had a deal in the works with two fellas for cash sales. But life came up and as I told them I went from ZERO debt in my life to suddenly owning real estate and getting engaged.

So make this my public apology to Kelanen and don mondo. Both were terrific to deal with, so please go to them!

Not the typical sort of post for the D&B area..

but.. very honorable to see, none the less.

Backed out of a $200 sale, but at least was honest and came clean about it, after it was obvious.

He's an honest guy, and good to work with - I would still trade with him, albeit with a little caution. Real Life just got in the way...

kelanen wrote:Backed out of a $200 sale, but at least was honest and came clean about it, after it was obvious.

He's an honest guy, and good to work with - I would still trade with him, albeit with a little caution. Real Life just got in the way...

SO you gave him a neg ref, bringing down to a -8. So he's had 1 deal and 1 he had to back out with, and now you make him look bad...

Neg refs work both ways, not only of the receiver, but on the poster..If your gonna leave a neg ref for that.. people might be apprehensive to deal with you. If you're gonna leave a neg over a backout..how are you gonna react to anyone else?

Well the negative was justified. I did state the mitigating factors in his defense, both here and in the feedback. If that makes someone apprehensive to deal with me, then to be honest that's someone I would probably rather not be dealing with. YMMV.

Yeah, you are right. But even in your wording of the ref, you say that you would probably deal with him again, with caution. I know the Reference System no longer has a description of what the different ratings mean, but at one time it did state "that you would never trade/deal with the individual again".

I think the Negative was a little harsh, and in my opinion (and only mine I understand), a Neutral would have been more appropriate. I understand how frustrating it is to have someone back out on you, however I think giving a negative whenever you wrote that you would possibly deal with him again is kind of backstepping.

To each their own I guess, but it is a slippery slope. YMMV too.

kelanen wrote:Well the negative was justified. I did state the mitigating factors in his defense, both here and in the feedback. If that makes someone apprehensive to deal with me, then to be honest that's someone I would probably rather not be dealing with. YMMV.

kelanen wrote:He's an honest guy, and good to work with - I would still trade with him, albeit with a little caution. Real Life just got in the way...

These two statements don't match.

Either you would or would not deal with him again.
If not, then a negative it is. If so, then it's a neutral or nothing, at worst.

So, which is it?

Eric

I'm sorry I disagree completely. Feedback is a scoring system, based on the quality of your experience with someone, which is then a recommendation or a warning to others based on it.

If there is something I wanted enough, I would deal with someone with -1000 feedback - I would just make sure they sent first, and would give myself no outstanding liability, and have no high hopes of them completing. Equally someone with high feedback can still screw up, we all do from time to time.

My experience here was negative, it took a few weeks and a fair bit of work coming to nothing, and I turned down other opportunities for some of this on the basis of that. That is why it's a negative. Whether or not I think there were mitigating ciircumstances or I would deal with him again, doesn't come into it - the experience was negative.

The problem here is that a neutral in Bartertown's system gives a positive reference of 1, rather than zero or a negative. If we had the option of giving a -2 or a -5 or something then I would have gone for that, but we don't have an option. Hence it's the only negative option we have.

As the other involved party, no hard feelings on my part. Real life jumps up sometimes. We're cool, Walls.

I think that by the letter, Kelanen is able to leave a negative reference.

Do I think it warranted a negative? No, not really. It was never a completed trade, so how can it be rated? Nothing was stolen, shipped, or left the hands of either party. All that was lost was time. A BTR could most certainly be filled out for it though. His references are pretty much shot now. He cannot make a new account per the rules, so he has to try and dig out of this hole even though he did not steal anything or ship a box of broken junk.

Best of luck to all involved.

kelanen wrote:I'm sorry I disagree completely. Feedback is a scoring system, based on the quality of your experience with someone, which is then a recommendation or a warning to others based on it.

Uh....no. The feedback system, from my personal understanding, is a rating system for deals that were made, and where goods/monies were exchanged or the realistic expectation of such (i.e. guys have traded mailing addresses and stated they are mailing stuff/sending payment).

The fact that many of these rating descriptions include lines like "was easy to deal with" or "quick and simple, with good communication", doesn't change the fact that BACKOUTS have no relevancy to the trader messages whatsoever.

You didn't like the fact that he backed out? Post a Backout report on this forum (Deadbeats and Backouts).

kelanen wrote:If there is something I wanted enough, I would deal with someone with -1000 feedback - I would just make sure they sent first, and would give myself no outstanding liability, and have no high hopes of them completing. Equally someone with high feedback can still screw up, we all do from time to time.

This line right here invalidates your entire approach to the feedback system right here. So - what you are saying is that you'd strike a deal with Adolf HItler, or Justin Wu, IF you could get safeguards that you were happy with (COD delivery, he ships first, etc).

Sorry, but that's a pile of rubbish - you make a deal with a bad trader, KNOWING he's a bad trader, then you get whatever befalls you. But giving someone a bad reference because they had to back out of a sale? Totally not kosher in my book - you had no business give him a ref in this situation.

kelanen wrote:My experience here was negative, it took a few weeks and a fair bit of work coming to nothing, and I turned down other opportunities for some of this on the basis of that. That is why it's a negative. Whether or not I think there were mitigating ciircumstances or I would deal with him again, doesn't come into it - the experience was negative.

Actually - the fact that YOU CLAIM it took you a few weeks and a fair bit of work, is the part that doesn't come into it. After all, you may have stated these things to him as a negotiating ploy to help get a higher price for your goods, when in fact, everything was lying neat as you please in your play room. Exaggeration of this kind happens all the time.

Some crazy Tommy John comes into my store, wanders around for close to 1/2 hour, then walks out buying nothing. Do I have the right to be annoyed? Sure. Do I have the right to run out into the street and yell bad names at him? Not if I want to continue running a business, I don't. By posting that negative ref, but saying "But, just so you know, I'd be happy to deal with you again in the future!", you come off....badly, in my book.

kelanen wrote:The problem here is that a neutral in Bartertown's system gives a positive reference of 1, rather than zero or a negative. If we had the option of giving a -2 or a -5 or something then I would have gone for that, but we don't have an option. Hence it's the only negative option we have.

Or you could have just posted a report in the Backout/Deadbeats forum, and NOT posted a reference at all. But you seem to prefer giving people -10 refs for "putting you out of some time." But still wanting to make clear "He's a good guy, even though I dinged him! Really!"

Yeesh - I don't think you have to worry about having too many people wanting to deal with you in the future, that's for sure.

Frankly, If you are going to give him a bad reference you should be posting all of your PMs as supporting evidence.
Otherwise, you are giving him a negative with no backup for your position.

I have to agree with some of the other posters as well, that a negative in this case is way OTT.
It is not like he didn't ding himself. The negative seems punitive in this instance.

Best of luck to you.

Asif Chaudhry wrote:

kelanen wrote: I'm sorry I disagree completely. Feedback is a scoring system, based on the quality of your experience with someone, which is then a recommendation or a warning to others based on it.

Uh....no. The feedback system, from my personal understanding, is a rating system for deals that were made, and where goods/monies were exchanged or the realistic expectation of such (i.e. guys have traded mailing addresses and stated they are mailing stuff/sending payment).

The fact that many of these rating descriptions include lines like "was easy to deal with" or "quick and simple, with good communication", doesn't change the fact that BACKOUTS have no relevancy to the trader messages whatsoever.

You didn't like the fact that he backed out? Post a Backout report on this forum (Deadbeats and Backouts).

That is untrue.
Per the rules of this forum viewtopic.php?f=45&t=62717:

viewtopic.php?t=45472

Why yes, they are the same as for the Bad Trader Forum. FOLLOW THEM.

Follow that link, and you get 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.

No addresses even need to have been exchanged.

- 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.

The backout QUALIFIES for a negative reference.
Rarely ever would I LEAVE a negative ref for a backout, granted... but it's WELL withing Bartertown rules and protocol for one to have been left.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

Asif Chaudhry wrote: Uh....no. The feedback system, from my personal understanding, is a rating system for deals that were made, and where goods/monies were exchanged or the realistic expectation of such (i.e. guys have traded mailing addresses and stated they are mailing stuff/sending payment).

The fact that many of these rating descriptions include lines like "was easy to deal with" or "quick and simple, with good communication", doesn't change the fact that BACKOUTS have no relevancy to the trader messages whatsoever.

You didn't like the fact that he backed out? Post a Backout report on this forum (Deadbeats and Backouts).

That is untrue.
Per the rules of this forum viewtopic.php?f=45&t=62717:

Follow that link, and you get 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.

No addresses even need to have been exchanged.

- 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.

The backout QUALIFIES for a negative reference.
Rarely ever would I LEAVE a negative ref for a backout, granted... but it's WELL withing Bartertown rules and protocol for one to have been left.

Eric

I suppose by the TECHNICAL definition, you are correct Eric. But as you and I BOTH agree, leaving a negative for a backout is something that YOU would (rarely) ever do, and which I would NEVER do. It is (in my book) simply inappropriate.

And quite frankly, without Kelanen posting a complete PM history, where he shows that a deal was struck AND Walls took an "unreasonable" amount of time to let him know about his changed financial status (per the following, which is the last sentence of your "is it cool?" paragraph):

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.

: then you can't say for sure that the Negative was fair or warranted.

If Walls left Kelanen hanging for a prolonged period of time, after a deal was agreed, and then welched on paying, then Kelanen has a legit beef (by TECHNICAL definition) to post his negative report.

This completely side steps the issue of Kelanen posting a negative, THEN saying "Well, he's a great guy, and I'd trade with him again!" Which, as you pointed out in a previous post (and I agree with) is the complete and TOTAL antithesis of a Negative feedback response - you can't have both, irregardless of Kelanen's statements to the contrary.

So, MY question - What is a "reasonable" amount of time of having to backout due to a legitimate emergency or change in financial status? That is never defined, Lin leaves it as "an exercise for the readers."

Keep in mind that - in this instance- this discussion is moot, as the OP is reporting on himself and believes he earned it.

I suppose by the TECHNICAL definition, you are correct Eric. But as you and I BOTH agree, leaving a negative for a backout is something that YOU would (rarely) ever do, and which I would NEVER do. It is (in my book) simply inappropriate.

Saying you would never do it is, actually, doind the rest of the members here a disservice.
I will use the always popular "TraderX" for my example. My apologies to anyone whose User ID might resemble this.

In recent months, there are 3 "backouts" and one BTR posted on TraderX.
The BTR is legit, and states that the "victim" "shipped" first, because TraderX insisted that "buying" was different than "Trading," and that sales had to pay in advance... and he only accepted Money Orders.
BTR was posted by a relatively new trader (>10 ref score).
TraderX swears he paid, keeps posting in the thread, stays in contact via PM and email, etc.
No ref was left yet, because TraderX is trying to work it out.


The 3 backouts are, pretty much, the same story.
TraderX tried to get all 3 of the OP's to pay in advance, with the same reasons.
The OP's, all with high ref counts, refused.
TraderX backed down and agreed to ship first. The items didn't arrive after 2(ish) weeks, but he's staying in contact. Confused as to why they didn't arrive. He says he's new, so didn't know about DC#'s.
He keeps dropping hints about being short on cash, especially after springing for shipping in advance.
He continues to stay in touch.

You strike a deal with him. As with the 3 other backouts, you refuse to pay in advance. He agrees to ship first. Same problems as above. You (hypothetically speaking) don't visit the BTR or backout boards, so you didn't see the 4 posts mentioned above.
When he tells you about the financial difficulty, you are sympathetic. You engage in conversation with him.
He asks you if you wouldn't mind paying *just* the shipping charges. He can wait on the rest.
You refuse & stick to your guns. After a week or 2 more, you discover the 4 above posts...

His behavior is TEXTBOOK scammer. IMO, it's your duty to warn the site about this guy and his tactics. Thus, a negative reference is earned here.

That is why "never" leaving neg's for a backout is a bad idea.

And quite frankly, without Kelanen posting a complete PM history, where he shows that a deal was struck AND Walls took an "unreasonable" amount of time to let him know about his changed financial status (per the following, which is the last sentence of your "is it cool?" paragraph):

Posting the PM history is not a requirement for leaving a negative reference. Never was.
The BTR forum is by choice and not a requirement. It should be reserved for those with questionable trading practices. most specifically, HONESTY problems (if you KWIM).

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.

: then you can't say for sure that the Negative was fair or warranted.

Why not? It's all objective. Might be that it was, even with this in mind.
It would depend on the circumstances.

So, MY question - What is a "reasonable" amount of time of having to backout due to a legitimate emergency or change in financial status? That is never defined, Lin leaves it as "an exercise for the readers."

Everything is a gray area. Whit might be acceptable to one trader may not be acceptable to another.
It is up to the trade partners to work that out. If there is a problem with it, that's why we have staff.

If someone posts a BTR or backout that the reported individual disagrees with, all he has to do is contact ANY staff meember. We'll discuss it and make a decision on whether we -officially- think it's acceptable.

Hope that clarifies.


Eric