-1s in the transaction forum you get banned from PMs and Classifieds

[Fenway]

Or maybe just flat out banned.

I'm getting tired of reading about people getting jacked in the classifieds. I'm thinking about setting it up so that if you get a -1 and don't provide a good answer as to what happened you get banned from the classifieds and you can no longer send Private Messages.

Thoughts?

[JcJ]

I think that would be letting the scumbags off easy.. imho..

[indyjoe]

I see the negative marking as a warning. However, I might like to try to buy something from someone that made a bad choice and learned from it. However, with multiple or a seriously unexplained -1 might be enough.

[Don]

Sounds like a fair deal to me.

[VUPDblue]

Originally Posted by Fenway

Or maybe just flat out banned.

I'm getting tired of reading about people getting jacked in the classifieds. I'm thinking about setting it up so that if you get a -1 and don't provide a good answer as to what happened you get banned from the classifieds and you can no longer send Private Messages.

Thoughts?

I think a banning of any sort based solely on a single -1 is a bit harsh. There are 2 sides to every story, and I think that banning should be based on the merit of the situation as a whole. Heck, I might be inclined to leave someone a -1 just because I thought he was ugly. He shouldn't be banned for that. The problem with babysitting a clasifieds forum is just that, it needs a babysitter.

[esrice]

You don't see many -1s on the forum, but when you do they're normally not good.

lovemywoods and I have both been burned on here. That doesn't mean we don't continue to work with others on here-- we just avoid the -1 folks.

Maybe pulling their PMs would work. Then onto banning.

[abnk]

Here are my thoughts:

1. Both sides tell their side of the story.
2. A jury composed of moderators will rule whether the violation is deserving of a -1.
3. Fenway issues the punishment according to the severity of the violation. Flagrant violations mean complete ban of the IP address. Less harmful violations mean ban from PMs and classifieds.

[lovemywoods]

Fenway,

Here is a dilemma...If you impose a hard and fast rule, then little judgment is needed, but the details of a case are lost and the outcome could be unfair (ex. 'zero tolerance policies in schools'). On the other hand, if a complicated process of presenting both sides of a situation is instituted, then you are placed in the judge's seat. Do you have the time and desire to get into endless 'he said..he said...blah...blah...blah' types of arguments.

I appreciate all that you do to make this forum possible and I realize that I participate in it by your good will.

I suggest you or your appointed moderator be given broad leeway to monitor situations and if there are repeated violations or a single incident of particular severity, then you pull PM rights or Classifieds access or site access. It would be up to you.

lovemywoods

[Bill of Rights]

Originally Posted by lovemywoods

Fenway,

Here is a dilemma...If you impose a hard and fast rule, then little judgment is needed, but the details of a case are lost and the outcome could be unfair (ex. 'zero tolerance policies in schools'). On the other hand, if a complicated process of presenting both sides of a situation is instituted, then you are placed in the judge's seat. Do you have the time and desire to get into endless 'he said..he said...blah...blah...blah' types of arguments.

I appreciate all that you do to make this forum possible and I realize that I participate in it by your good will.

I suggest you or your appointed moderator be given broad leeway to monitor situations and if there are repeated violations or a single incident of particular severity, then you pull PM rights or Classifieds access or site access. It would be up to you.

lovemywoods

Ditto. I don't do much in the classifieds (mostly read, actually).
I'd think that the color system for names could be used also-after a fair jury (mods, with Fenway as judge; alternately mods with Lars as judge, Fenway as an appeal) reviews both sides' stories, a name can be marked in bright red for a negative "sales rep" or bright green for a positive "sales rep". Let the buyer be forewarned and make their own decision. If a person gets some predetermined number of negative sales rep, perhaps THEN ban them from Classifieds, but honestly, I think the market can pretty much "police" itself. I know that if I saw someone's name in bright red, I'd definitely go into any transaction with my eyes wide open if I pursued it at all.

The bottom line is that it's not Fenway's or Lars' or any mod's responsibility to ensure no one gets burned.

Blessings,
B

[Soundslikejosh]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

Ditto. I don't do much in the classifieds (mostly read, actually).
I'd think that the color system for names could be used also-after a fair jury (mods, with Fenway as judge; alternately mods with Lars as judge, Fenway as an appeal) reviews both sides' stories, a name can be marked in bright red for a negative "sales rep" or bright green for a positive "sales rep". Let the buyer be forewarned and make their own decision. If a person gets some predetermined number of negative sales rep, perhaps THEN ban them from Classifieds, but honestly, I think the market can pretty much "police" itself. I know that if I saw someone's name in bright red, I'd definitely go into any transaction with my eyes wide open if I pursued it at all.

The bottom line is that it's not Fenway's or Lars' or any mod's responsibility to ensure no one gets burned.

Blessings,
B

I understand that Fenway wants to limit the number of people who get burned in the classifieds, but as some of the threads have shown, its not alway clear what a burn is. Some disagreements aren't that clear cut, and what pisses off one would-be-buyer, might seem fair to a handful of future sellers. Just . As has been said, those who read the classifieds know who the jokers are, and wouldn't do business with them. As always, buyer beware. If you are willing to buy from someone who you do not know and have never met in person, you better be doing a search to look for their posts and previous transactions.

I appreciate Fenway's desire to keep the boards clean, but I must agree with Bill of Rights that the thing can/will/should police itself. Fenway, Lars, etc have plenty to do as it is.