Is there a way to prevent a member from turning off their feedback once negative feedback has been received, so that they lose the option as soon as this happens?
I hear what you're saying Bloomst - I think The Big Pelican has a way of figuring out when people set up shill (duplicate, replacement etc) accounts, and in such a case, I would advocate an immediate ban on any replacement account the person wants to try and establish.
I think one issue with the "public name and shame" approach is the presumption of innocence, which we would all hope to enjoy the benefit of. While it's true that not everyone in the world has the integrity of most of members on this forum, it is also, and has ever been, a part of doing one's own due diligence to privately ask the other members who you do trust if you're in doubt about dealing with another member. I think it's a sad fact of life that if you expect the same high standard of ethics that you display all the time, then unfortunately at some stage you're going to be disappointed. It's a pleasure to have so many other members on here that have shown that they are, in fact, trustworthy. And hem9 is one of those for sure. If there are cases of outright theft, then letting your forum mates know privately may be even more effective...... But like rbaggio, this is merely my opinion.
Whats the point of feedback if its only positive. I think ive only seen about 5 or so neg feedback ratings surely there would be more than that? [imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/2471_popcorn-eater--e1349809240913.jpg][/imgz]
What defines -ve behaviour and what determins excessive time. We all have our ideas about this, but unless the pelican makes a ruling it would be up to individuals to agree, or not. On a separate note, even if u got ripped off by a outright scumbag , u could still be sued for defamation { sick and twisted, I agree, but just because it's true doesn't mean u can say it}.- just wanted to put that our there .
I would hope that yr right, but I've frequently heard of people who could prove something getting sued.
I am currently finishing a law degree as a hobby so I am sure that is the case in common law and the defamation act 2006 section 25 Defence of justification: if the defendant can prove that the defamatory matter was "substantially" true.
What about a flagging option ? Trades would still be shown for what they are but the aggrieved party to the deal has the option of flagging a particular deal/sale/member until things are sorted out. It would alert mods(along with a message) and/or others but would also allow for things/particulars to remain private until a situation is sorted out one way or another and then a + or - could be given after a certain period of time if things are not sorted. EG: Say X agreed to X sale and did not pay/post etc you could post a yellow flag instead of a + or - on feedback on them until sorted or then just a green or black flag if they chose not to display feedback after a certain time period. In such a case if there are unavoidable problems encountered by either side of the deal it would allow for a cool off period before a feedback is given. It could also be a signal for those who choose not to display feedback, I don't display but have plenty of deals behind my belt, green for ok deals?. Black for no good/unexplained negative(judged by a mod), yellow for a warning/problem at the time. Yellow needn't denote a problem of either side but just that there is a disagreement ongoing and if members have an unblemished record on display then others would/should have no problem with ongoing sales with them. It would also negate the reluctance for many people here to place a negative feedback if there is some sort of time out to sort the problem. Placing a negative feedback if it is justified should be seen a service to the community as a whole IMO not something that needs a thread to be discussed by all, raise a flag get it sorted and then call the other member out. Flag go's away If/Once problem is sorted by both sides with no record. Raise a flag, give it a week or two for the other member to respond or make it right, get it sorted, leave a feedback or flag or don't, no need for innuendo but the rest of the community do deserve to know who we can trust and the withdrawal of feedback status is a loophole for some people it seems and also is a drawback for those of us who do not display, and a cover for those who withdraw the option when there is a problem. Given the upstanding nature of most here it should not be too much work for the mod's and might in fact deal with a few problems as well. Edited for clarity(I hope)
At this stage I am prepared to go with a "Trade awaiting resolution" flag. As this will be publicly visible should someone view a post by a member flagged as such, any other "naming and shaming" in a discussion thread is downright discouraged. I'm the bunny liable for everything people post on here.
^^^ Might be all it needs GP. Just enough info to alert those with their eyes peeled, but nothing revealed that might attract rabid lawyers*. * Rabid lawyers please note no offense was intended and any rabid lawyers used in this post were not hurt or mistreated in any way.
I did consider that both parties to a trade under dispute could be labelled while it is being resolved.
That should be the way shouldn't it? Two sides to every story; innocent until proven guilty and all that.
That was the thought behind it. Some stories have three or four sides though and only one is different, or not told at all.
Please don't misunderstand the intent of this post - I completely respect Ben's position on this, and have no desire to "rebel" against what must be a very difficult decision and position to be in. I would like to offer a couple of thoughts on this matter, however (and I post these in the spirit of my previous comments on this topic). I feel that the flagging of both accounts in a transaction where one party is disputing the outcome (and presumably that disputing party is then labelled as well as the counter party to the transaction) would give them a tarnished reputation - folks tend to remember negativity more than positivity, and seeing someone's name on here with a "disputed transaction" flag will stick in people's minds more readily than any post/protest/statement saying that they are the innocent party. Considering this, are there plans for a section of the forum where perhaps disputed transactions could be recorded (perhaps only by an admin/moderator), so that readers may find out at least who is the accused, and who is the accuser so as to minimise the diminished reputation I feel that may arise from one's account being labelled as "in dispute"? Alternatively, could there be two separate labels, distinguishing the accuser from the accused? I feel that using a single "flag" in this manner will have one of two potential outcomes in readers minds - it will either tarnish the reputation of innocent victims, or, considering the dual use in a disputed transaction, will lead some to ignore the flag, based on the simple mathematical reality that it will be "wrong" 50% of the time. Whilst I have not put a great deal of thought into this aspect, I wonder whether it might curtail trading activity here, when one considers the potential risk of being accused/labelled? Overall, I feel that labelling a partie(s) to a transaction prior to an investigated outcome could potentially be fraught with danger - I do feel, though, that once investigated and proven, the worng doer should be named, shamed and removed (but that goes back to my previous post on the topic).
That is fine by me, anything to get the effect of warning members that there is a pending issue with a specific member is good enough for me.
Change the option to not display feedback to not display positive feed back. Negative feedback could be removed if the problem is resolved.
In a somewhat related hypothetical situation, what's stopping someone from performing a few small but positive trades before ripping someone off on a big trade, leaving the forum and registering again under a new name and repeating the scam? I assume IP addresses can be be tracked to see if they register using the same computer, but I can change my IP address in 5 minutes and I'm computerly retarded.
given you know what an ip address is your not retarded. about 20% - 25% of australians still dont have a computer or internet http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/192B7AFC26FF3538CA25796600152BDF?opendocument
