Common Courteousy PLEASE!!!!!

ancientsociety · Post by **ancientsociety** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:15 pm

Can my "Journeyman Trader" be changed to "Bartertown Curmudgeon"? I'm starting to sound so argumentative!

Now, get off my lawn!

( 108 ) · Post by **Linrandir** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:14 pm

Not argumentative, but raising some good points (it sounds like the discussion MB and I had a while back about the same thing).

What we're trying to do is address the so-called "deadbeat" issue. This is partially addressed in the guidelines for the bad trader forum but a lot of people are missing it.

I mean, we're not ebay. We're not requiring a legally binding agreement, etc blah blah blah. But there have been a lot of instances brought to my attention where sellers have held back goods from better offers, etc. because they made a deal with someone else who later screwed them over.

That brings up the question, what can be done to give sellers and first-receivers some protection? Can there even be anything done? I mean, sure, we can advise people to set time limits but that doesn't account for the various mail services and customs organizations who take-their-time with shipping things.

It's really a case of limiting the "collateral damage" and I am always open to other ideas. Well, at least as long as they're well thought out and logical. The Pants' solution to everything is to ban everyone and send him their minis. Or cattle prods, or fire. Or even flaming cattle prods.

ancientsociety · Post by **ancientsociety** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Lin: How many "instances" are we talking about? Personally, I've never seen this as an issue and (if I've read your response right) if we're talking about people who don't fulfil their end of the trade (after receiving stuff) then this is already covered by the regular bad trader rules (as it should be).

From your reply, I think this is an issue that should be relegated to the discretion of the admins. By opening the feedback to (mostly) unregulated feedback, this rule can easily be abused. Personally I could give a ____ whether or not a trader has bad refs because he refused to trade with someone. Why? Because then I (as a future trader) have to sift thru the hearsay and back-and-forth of previous transactions and because I can understand (and sympathize) with a tradee protecting their interests and going with a better deal. We all do it as consumers.

carmachu · Post by **carmachu** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:21 am

peacemystic wrote: Now something like a family member in hospital or whatever is a whole different story

Cheers
Peace

And who says that wont be the current excuse? Isnt that what bad traders use as an excuse already. I KNOW I've heard the "my mother, ister, brother father, wife is in the hospital" excuse before in the bad trader area...

I liek and dislike this new rule, but it is way too subjective.

fibonacci · Post by **fibonacci** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:30 am

I am with AncientSociety.

I really think this is a bad move. As frustrating as having someone flake out can be, under the original rules, there could be no argument about whether or not negative feedback was justified. If something traded hands, it can be shown, and there can be no debate.

This rule is begging to be abused.

Forsaken Poptart · Post by **Forsaken Poptart** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:08 am

It's a little upsetting that this has to be a rule. Stuff like responding to a trade you've decided to back out of is just common decency. It makes me a bit sad. Cutting communication is just bad manners.

Personally, if someone randomly drops communication with me, I'll note down their handle and not even begin negotiations with them again, unless there's a very good reason not to. I don't think that it makes them a bad person or anything, nor will I give them a bad reccomendation or anything, but I'll not be having a trade with anyone who can't maintain a good line of communication- even if it's just to say "Hey- I didn't forget about ya!"

*shrug* what can ya do?

( 832 ) · Post by **MagickalMemories** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:20 am

AFS, you seem to be missing the point.
The rule Lin's initiating is not about them droppin contact. it's about AFTER the contact... it's about AFTER the agreement.
Equate a trade to a contract. In a sense, it IS a verbal one.
If I go into a contract with you, then break my side of the deal, THAT is bad.
It doesn't matter WHEN I break it, it matters THAT I broke it.

Lin: How many "instances" are we talking about? Personally, I've never seen this as an issue and (if I've read your response right) if we're talking about people who don't fulfil their end of the trade (after receiving stuff) then this is already covered by the regular bad trader rules (as it should be).

All due respect... even though your rating is high, if your join date is correct, you haven't been on Btown for even a year yet. NO disrespect implied there, Amigo!

I've been around for... shoot... 4 or 5?
This is a HUGE problem here. If there was a forums for people to post on every time that someone agreed to a deal, then never followed through, it would be overrun. Plus, that CAN be a predecessor to scams.
They do this a few times to get the lay of the land and see what tactics work. Eventually, they enact their "evil scheme."
After about 2 weeks, they send an email asking where their stuff is... after all, they sent their money order (minis, etc). Slowly, they pester & pester you until you send their stuff, hoping that yours arrives soon... not wanting to make waves/get a neg. ref.
You end up scammed because they never sent your items.
That has happened. I recall reading about it.

Eric

ancientsociety · Post by **ancientsociety** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:30 am

@Magickal: I don;t think my join date should be of any consequence if I raise valid questions regarding a ruling. After all, we're ALL members of this site and the only way it will function well is if we act like a community and let everyone have an equal standing in the discourse.

I take no disrespect from it but your rep[ly seem to be using a lot of speculation. Could it be a start of a scam? Sure, ANYTHING can be the start of a scam - there are new ones born everyday. However, just because someone decides, "eh, I got a better deal" or "my gut tells me something isn;t right" and the trader calls it off (AGAIN) with no goods being exchanged or no one at a loss, what is the harm? As I've mentioned, if you loss goods/money/etc. this is ALREADY covered by bad trader rules. but if you are only out time for the deal, then where is the harm?

Anyways, I've raised several fundamental questions to the logic behind (and the conditions of) this ruling and I haven't rec'd any answers to them. So, admins, I think there are several unanswered questions that deserve answers before this rule take full effect, namely:

-How does this rule "protect" the interest of traders when no goods/money/etc. have been exchanged?
-What language constitutes a done "deal"?
-Does the agreement of a "deal" constitute a binding agreement between the parties?
-In addition, What is the statute of limitations/timetable for receipt?
-If so, what are the extenuating circumstances to be able to break said deal?
-Also, what is the EXACT repurcussion for not pursuing said deal (neutral OR bad ref, or both, or neither...)?
-Lastly, what is the appeal process for any repurcussions?
-How do we prevent abuse of this system?
-If we open feedback to include such subjective and arbitrary feelings as frustration/lost time/impatience/etc., where does that end?
-What if Trader A receives the item and sends it back and calls off the deal right away (perhaps because he got a better deal, could not afford it, didn't like the condition, etc.)?

-

( 108 ) · Post by **Linrandir** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:51 pm

Good questions. I'll reply shortly.

Yay for rational discussion!

( 108 ) · Post by **Linrandir** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:23 pm

Going point for point here...

-How does this rule "protect" the interest of traders when no goods/money/etc. have been exchanged?

It's a protection of time spent. Also, it keeps sellers from passing up other, possibly better deals while waiting on a deadbeat. And it keeps deadbeat buyers from being able to avoid repercussions.

-What language constitutes a done "deal"?

That varies depending on the conversation. I can suggest language, but I'm not going to restrict it to a few certain sentences. That makes it too easy to weasel out.

-Does the agreement of a "deal" constitute a binding agreement between the parties?

It's a written agreement between parties to exchange goods, cash or services. For the purposes of Bartertown, yes. It constitutes a binding agreement here.

-In addition, What is the statute of limitations/timetable for receipt?

That depends on what the parties agree to. For example, Alsiaie and I are currently conducting a sale. He's given me the ways he can pay and the timetable. I've replied with the most acceptable option, and we're both cool with the fact that it might take a week or two. Now, if it's six weeks later and I haven't heard a word from him, then yeah, there's going to be an issue.

-If so, what are the extenuating circumstances to be able to break said deal?

It varies depending on circumstance. Obviously, life events happen and people have to deal with them. If Trader A chooses not to believe Trader B's reasons and post a neutral or bad ref, Trader B may always appeal that feedback given the standard appeal procedure located in the bartertown rules.
*I know this could mean a lot more work for me and the mod staff, but at the same time I'm not going to have any sort of dickery tolerated here. IE if someone arranges a trade and has to back out because their wife/child/family member has some medical emergency and they take the time to post a hospital bill or scanned bracelet or something to appeal a bad ref, I'm going to give them the benefit of that doubt. ONCE.

-Also, what is the EXACT repurcussion for not pursuing said deal (neutral OR bad ref, or both, or neither...)?

That is at the discretion of the party left hanging. I would recommend a neutral ref in most cases, unless we're talking several hundred dollars worth (say anything over $200). Then it's a bad reference, because really, that's not cool.

-Lastly, what is the appeal process for any repurcussions?

Standard Bartertown appeal procedure as given under the rules. Reproduced below for convenience:

Process of Appeal
Very simple. Email me and present your case. Be advised that correct logic, evidence (as per a Bad Trader Report) and clear thinking will get you farther than playing rules lawyer, arguing semantics, threats, personal attacks, or appealing to my sentimental nature. I will investigate the situation and render a final judgment. I reserve the right to modify consequences as I deem appropriate.

Do Not make me ask for you to provide evidence. If you appeal something without evidence you are wasting everyone's time.
Do Not send multiple emails, Private Messages, or other communications beyond the first unless you have something substantive to add. A "reminder," however well intentioned, is not substantive.

Once you've been contacted by me to confirm receipt of your appeal, the wheels will turn until a decision has been reached. You will be notified when the decision has been reached. Appeals will either be granted or denied; I reserve the right to render judgment and issue consequences based on criteria of my choosing.

-How do we prevent abuse of this system?

That will be done on a case by case basis but I did build a crackdown mechanism into the appeal process. If someone tries to yank us around and we catch them, and we will eventually catch them, they're going to be made a public example of.

-If we open feedback to include such subjective and arbitrary feelings as frustration/lost time/impatience/etc., where does that end?

Again, that's where the appeals process and the negotiation process come into play. My decision is final and if someone on either side of the dispute doesn't like it, they can leave. I can't protect people against themselves (nor do I want to), so if someone doesn't save emails or whatever that's their problem and not mine. And in this case, mine = Bartertown.

-What if Trader A receives the item and sends it back and calls off the deal right away (perhaps because he got a better deal, could not afford it, didn't like the condition, etc.)?

Addressing those points one after another:
1. Better deal: Broke the original trade. Sorry, but them's the breaks. On the other hand, there's nothing that kept Trader A from saying "I reserve the right to break this deal if I get a better one before I ship my stuff" during negotiation. The caveat to that, of course, is that few people will trade with someone who makes that kind of statement. Those that do will just have to take that chance. Trader A, of course, is still obligated to return at his expense the models in the deal he's backing out of as soon as possible. In this case Trader B can't leave a negative feedback if he knew Trader A was reserving that right to break the deal. A neutral feedback would be acceptable given the guidelines, but I would pay careful attention to the wording of the feedback and have it edited if it degenerated into insults or idiocy (if there was a complaint).
2. Couldn't afford it: This one I'm confused on.
3. The condition should be discussed beforehand. Both parties need to disclose the condition of the items they're offering. If the item is in worse condition than was disclosed, then Trader B is the one in hot water because they lied. Or there was damage in shipping, which is a total grey area and why Insurance is a good idea. OTOH, Trader A doesn't get to be pissy about something he didn't ask for either (in this case the lack of insurance).

Does that answer your questions?

ancientsociety · Post by **ancientsociety** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:22 pm

I won't go into further point-by-point discourse as it seems like I'm beating a dead horse and I'm not sure anyone here really cares to hear it or its outcome. Personally, my feeling is one of extreme dissatisfaction with where this ruling (and future ones, if this is any example) will take the Bartertown community. This ruling seems to be the beginning of an arbitrary and subjective feedback system based on immaterial things like lost time and frustration.

By piling rule upon rule under the banner of "security" and "protection", we reach a point of diminishing returns with fair play, patience, and honesty. It stifles the discourse and haggling between persons (which is, at its heart, the spirit of bartering) by replacing it with vague terminology about binding agreements. In a sense, it turns Bartertown into an Ebay clone. You win the auction, you MUST followthru. End of story.

All I can say, is that this makes me VERY uncomfortable with pursuing future transactions here. I felt secure with the cut-and-dry guidelines between bad trades and that my refs would not suffer because of it. I cannot be so sure that the good refs and reputation I've strived to achieve thus far will not be ruined by an immature member of this site dragging my good name thru the mud because they "lost" some personal time or are frustrated because they couldn't get what they want. As I've mentioned before, it only takes ONE bad ref to ruin ANY trader, new or old. I, for one, won't take that risk.

peacemystic · Post by **peacemystic** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:51 pm

ancientsociety wrote: All I can say, is that this makes me VERY uncomfortable with pursuing future transactions here. I felt secure with the cut-and-dry guidelines between bad trades and that my refs would not suffer because of it. I cannot be so sure that the good refs and reputation I've strived to achieve thus far will not be ruined by an immature member of this site dragging my good name thru the mud because they "lost" some personal time or are frustrated because they couldn't get what they want. As I've mentioned before, it only takes ONE bad ref to ruin ANY trader, new or old. I, for one, won't take that risk.

I really don't see what the big fuss is over,it simply means "keep your word" and if you can't keep your word, then do you have any right to a good trader reputation?
A Good trader,keeps his word,a bad trader doesn't...keep your word and you don't have a problem.

Cheers
Peace

jesters89 · Post by **jesters89** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:30 am

Hey folks,
I know I don't comment much outside of the actual trading forums, but this topic caught my interest.

I'm a bit torn about this new interpretation of the negative feedback rule. Some of you might recall a short while back I posted a thread about bartertown becoming "eerie" as of late. What I was referring to is the climate on btown shifting to one where words carried little value. I had approximately five trades end abruptly after a deal was struck. However, despite my frustration, I never considered it an option to leave negative feedback. In fact, I didnt think I had the right to leave feedback at all as no transaction had taken place. It was my understanding that the feedback system was in place to leave feedback on individuals with which one had traded.

I digress.

So, given that I've been left high and dry a few times, I see the benifit of the new system. Nevertheless, I feel more compelled to side with ancientsociety on this. Frankly, I cant recall a time where I've needed to back out, so I'm not trying to protect my own hide. Still, it seems to me that the feedback system ought to be reserved for post-trade comments. If no trade transpires, noone is hurt. Ancientsociety states rightly so that all it takes is one negative feedback to ruin a solid trader's rating.

I now feel the need to add a clause in my signature stating that, "by entering into a bartering process with me, you agree that no feedback will be exchanged until at least one party has shipped product."
Would that be fair per the rules? Moreover, it seems to me people will have varying opinions about when a trade is agreed on. Is it after addresses have been exchanged? After one pary says "that sounds good," after both parties say, "that sounds good"-- when?

I consider myself a highly concientous trader so I don't imagine I'll run into any problems with the new rule. My concern is regarding the climate of btown. Frankly, I'd rather have an "eerie" bartertown where low feedback people start trades, but dont follow through rather than a "minefield" bartertown where lots of negative feedback malicious traders deck you for -10 points when you cross them and you werent even sure you were making a trade yet.

(Its late, apologies for typos or non-sensical statements... despite my suggestion that I am a considerate individual, I'm not proofreading this novella I've left for you all.)

peacemystic · Post by **peacemystic** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:53 pm

Ok
Firstly let me say,i don't agree with the idea that,as long as no goods were transfered no harm is done,if i've made a deal....which could be as easy as both parties saying "we have a deal"
Then i wait a week pass up other offers(maybe better offers) waiting for the package to come in,only to find out the other party has backed out on the deal...Then i have taken a loss, lost time, lost potential deals with other traders.
And it does say something about a trader who backs out on a deal for no good reason....to me it says "this persons word means nothing" and that is something other traders have a right to know about.

Maybe i'm missing something but as long as you keep your word you should'nt have anymore of a problem with negative feedback than you already do...
You appeal the negative like you would any other and show your proof that no deal was made,or the party leaving the neg shows proof a deal was made......
Anyway i thought the idea was to leave neutral feedback,not negative feedback unless the deal was worth a large amount.

Cheers
Peace

Brother Ranz · Post by **Brother Ranz** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:00 pm

In order top have a backout be something on which you can leave a neutral or bad ref, you should either have a database or have a very specific phrase required in pms. When we get ot the point where we are "amking the deal" as opposed to negotiating, have a phrase like "Do we have a Bartertwon Agreement" or something like that to be a key to which the injured party can point later when leaving feedback. Anything else is void for vagueness. I have been in deals that faded out or otherwise terminated and either my partner or myself felt a little annoyed by the cancellation. Having something VERY solid in the rules with a very specific key phrase would likely make us all pay more attention to our pms and what we say or interpret.

Bartertown.com

Common Courteousy PLEASE!!!!!

don't see a problem

Neg feedback