donnybrook
|
posted on October 5, 2000 12:59:12 PM new
I believe that if a solid case could be argued to Ebay, demonstrating another users recklessness in leaving retaliatory negative feedback, that user should be banned PERMANENTLY!
Retaliatory negatives are the NUMBER 1 reason the feedback system is not foolproof. If users are afraid of retaliation, they DO NOT leave deserved negs. This compromises the integrity of the whole system!
There are users who, time and time again, demonstrate total arrogance and contempt for fellow users and often tarnish otherwise clean feedback playing stupid little attitude games.
Some (who shall go nameless) are prominant on this very message board.
A permanent ban would be too kind.
[ edited by donnybrook on Oct 5, 2000 01:01 PM ]
|
mballai
|
posted on October 5, 2000 01:06:05 PM new
I wish you well, but even though eBay says it is wrong to do so, it hasn't stopped people from doing so. However it is hardly an issue as no one takes a retaliatory neg seriously.
|
Borillar
|
posted on October 5, 2000 01:26:35 PM new
I always suggest that when you leave negative feedback you just stick straight to the facts.
You might say: "Sent E-Mails, No Contact. Item Not Paid For."
instead of: "DEADBEAT! BEWARE! FRAUD! DEADBEAT! LIAR!"
I have left plenty of negative feedbacks and notta one of them has ever replied in kind.
|
lotsafuzz
|
posted on October 5, 2000 03:10:05 PM new
Sounds like someone got hit with a retaliatory today. 
|
donnybrook
|
posted on October 5, 2000 03:22:16 PM new
No, I was just infuriated after reading the wimpering post of another poster who was NARU'd, portraying himself as the victim---while he actually (if you do a little research) is quite the villain.
[ edited by donnybrook on Oct 5, 2000 03:23 PM ]
|
networker67
|
posted on October 5, 2000 03:52:27 PM new
While we are banning let's add:
1. Sellers with excessive Handling Fees.
2. Sellers who charge the credit card fees back to the customer.
3. Sellers who don't leave feedback but cheerfully accept it.
Sorry you got warned by the moderators for bending the rules. No reason to start a new thread to finish what you got warned for. They re-opened the thread and left you a warning for your conduct. So by your position should you be permanently banned from auction watch? or does such policies only apply to who you disapprove of.
|
donnybrook
|
posted on October 5, 2000 03:57:04 PM new
If I was hurting innocent victims, YES, I should be banned. That, however, is clearly NOT the case.
Retaliatory neggers (especially the ones who are deadbeats to boot) are a blight on Ebay and should be bannished. PERIOD.
|
lilsis
|
posted on October 5, 2000 04:04:28 PM new
I only leave negs after exhausting all avenues. I do understand getting caught up in the excitment of bidding and maybe bidding on to much, but it has been my experience that showing kindness, compassion, understanding, and respect will get you alot farther then jumping to threats and a neg immed. I have almost 400 FB and have left a few well deserved negs, but not one retaliated. I think if you go the extra mile it will be rewarded.
|
dman3
|
posted on October 5, 2000 04:12:05 PM new
HUH !!!!
Corect me if im wrong but all feed back good or bad is retalitory even postive feed back retalation for good service.
What they are going to do if they get enough complaints on this soon is charge a fee for each feed back buyers and sellers leave .
this is the ebay answer all charge EM 
WWW.dman-n-company.com
|
donnybrook
|
posted on October 5, 2000 04:24:44 PM new
Read the above post a few times, THEN you'll understand why it's so difficult to solve these problems.
Have logic much?
|
sweil
|
posted on October 5, 2000 04:28:06 PM new
Maybe if ebay could create a 48 hour cooling off period before making all feedback final or something like that it would help. Emailing the person who has just received negative feedback to inform them that it has been registered but can be changed if both parties mutually agree to it within a specified time frame might help more issues to be resolved.
|
donnybrook
|
posted on October 5, 2000 04:55:07 PM new
On the surface that sounds like a good idea, BUT unfortunately users would stoop to threatening each other to remove the neg (because the user will know they can)...or else!
ALSO, how many more opportunities to make empty promises are deadbeats going to be given? Since a neg should be the absolute LAST resort, it doesn't make sense to have it instead be just another collection tool (threat).
|
kellyb1
|
posted on October 5, 2000 11:22:17 PM new
donnybrook,
You might want to review the Community Guidelines -
"Read the above post a few times, THEN you'll understand why it's so difficult to solve these problems.
Have logic much?"
This is clearly an attack on the person who posted above you, and rather demeaning at that. This goes against AW's rules on posting.
Kelly
|
donnybrook
|
posted on October 6, 2000 07:51:40 AM new
Geeeeez.
Is Kelly a little moderator-wannabe or what!
It's bad enough you stick your nose into everybody elses business, but now you're dictating behavior?
Get a life.
[ edited by donnybrook on Oct 6, 2000 07:53 AM ]
|
LindaAW
|
posted on October 6, 2000 11:01:03 AM new
donnybrook,
Your comments to Kelly are a direct insult and violate the AW Community Guidelines. I am issuing you a formal warning and remind you that you are one post away from suspension.
Please familiarize yourself with the CG's before you post again.
Linda
Moderator
|
donnybrook
|
posted on October 6, 2000 11:06:52 AM new
Linda:
I would hope that you would also take the time to tell "kellyb" (in a tactful way, of course) to mind her own business.
If you are going to overmoderate, please be consistant.
[ edited by donnybrook on Oct 6, 2000 11:07 AM ]
|
LindaAW
|
posted on October 6, 2000 11:18:37 AM new
donnybrook,
If you have moderation comments or questions please start a thread in the Moderator's Corner. It is a violation of the CG's to discuss moderation in the thread where it takes place.
Linda
Moderator
|
