Negative Tradeback Ratings, Tire Kickers, Flakers, and YOU!

Debrief · January 26th, 2012, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunny_McSmith

Admins should edit-out the "FLAKERS WILL RECEIVE NEGATIVE FEEDBACK" part on some ppl's ads

I dont know about you, but when I read that, I usually take my money and go somewhere else....

+1 to that. Anyone who posts FLAKERS WILL RECEIVE NEGATIVE FEEDBACK is not worth my time or attention dealing with.

Leaving a negative trade rating for flaking is misrepresenting the person receiving the feedback. Something as serious as scamming or failing to deliver, are equal to the one same negative trade rating point as flaking. I'd much rather deal with a flaker than a scammer, negative trade rating should be for serious, crime-worthy infractions only.

Tex · January 26th, 2012, 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Styrak

Nothing has really changed, it's been like this for quite a while.

It's a 180 deg change. Like I said I was told when I suggested this that sellers could leave feedback for what ever reason even if no trade/deal ever happened or was agreed on.

ILLusion · January 26th, 2012, 18:47

I'm still basing this off an old precedence set by HonestJohn back when he'd owned the forum and first enacted the rating system. If something's changed since then, I'm not aware of it. But at the time, HoJo said that unless a TRADE actually took place, then there was nothing to rate. It made sense to me.

venture · January 26th, 2012, 18:51

I certainly will not go against the wishes of the admins of this site, but I do have a bit of a different opinion regarding this issue.

Here is an example:

A person is selling an item. Another member contacts him by PM and asks several questions. Eventually a price is agreed upon and the buyer says he will purchase the item for the agreed upon price. Now the buyer flakes.

Illusion's position is that there never was a transaction, so there can be no feedback on a transaction that does not exist. I see his point that hundreds or even thousands of times this happens with online buyers. My point is that a deal has taken place. The buyer committed to buy, but did not follow through with his responsibilities. To me,this warrants negative feedback.

An example where negative feedback is not appropriate is for lowballers. If I am selling an item for $100 and someone offers me $15, then I can ignore it or even tell the offerer "no". This is not a reason to apply negative feedback.

Tex · January 26th, 2012, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILLusion

I'm still basing this off an old precedence set by HonestJohn back when he'd owned the forum and first enacted the rating system. If something's changed since then, I'm not aware of it. But at the time, HoJo said that unless a TRADE actually took place, then there was nothing to rate. It made sense to me.

That is what I thought when I asked about it after HoJo left. I was surprised but dropped it. Just glad it's posted up now thank you.

jordan7831 · January 27th, 2012, 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by venture

I certainly will not go against the wishes of the admins of this site, but I do have a bit of a different opinion regarding this issue.

Here is an example:

A person is selling an item. Another member contacts him by PM and asks several questions. Eventually a price is agreed upon and the buyer says he will purchase the item for the agreed upon price. Now the buyer flakes.

Illusion's position is that there never was a transaction, so there can be no feedback on a transaction that does not exist. I see his point that hundreds or even thousands of times this happens with online buyers. My point is that a deal has taken place. The buyer committed to buy, but did not follow through with his responsibilities. To me,this warrants negative feedback.

An example where negative feedback is not appropriate is for lowballers. If I am selling an item for $100 and someone offers me $15, then I can ignore it or even tell the offerer "no". This is not a reason to apply negative feedback.

Technically there has been no deal so far. No money has changed hands. I consider everything up until money is exchanged just offers and counter offers. But I do see your point. Its aggravating when you thing your item is going to a new home and then suddenly the seller bails on you. It helps to be pessimistic when selling sometimes

theshaneler · January 27th, 2012, 01:02

this is where you get into verbal or written contract law. has a payment occurred? maybe not.
but saying OK i will buy this item for that price. is a written contract, and at that point i would say a deal has been made.
I'm honestly not sure where i sit on this. i agree that some people have gotten unjust negative feedbacks, but i think once someone commits to buy a deal has been made.
this can also work both ways, if a seller agrees to sell you an item, they can not change their mind.

edit: not wanting to be argumentative, or imply the rules are wrong, just giving my opinion.

jordan7831 · January 27th, 2012, 01:06

Sorry I just finished a contract law course... Technically its not a contract unless money is exchanged. Other wise anything leading up to the contract is call "puffs" or pre contractual statements. And since there is no contract technically there are no obligations on either party. How does this apply to our rep system? Well it applies because its basically your reputation on the line when you screw someone over by flaking. Unfortunately it seems our rep system is the only method of reprisal for such behavior.

ILLusion · January 27th, 2012, 16:44

How's this: what if flaker feedback is restricted ONLY to a neutral rating? It does not impact the sellers score, as a trade never took place, but it can alert other sellers to behaviour patterns.

Danke · January 27th, 2012, 17:09

Or for fun, get rid of the PMs and go back to when you could reply in the classifieds. Then the whole exchange would be in the clear for all to see including flakes.

Of course that would mean the self appointed moderators of good taste and fair pricing would swoop in on those threads again too.

When I buy or sell something I do hit the view all posts just to see what kind of person I've got on the line on top of the trader rating.

jordan7831 · January 27th, 2012, 17:17

Ive feel that the neutral rating is actually a fair compromis, it allows people to report flakers without affecting score. Hmm maybe an ammendment to the rules could be in the works.

Still its pretty sad that our members feel its okay to act dickish to eachother. Me thinks perhaps we can make the work "flaker" highlighted in red every time it comes up on the forum.

LocoYokoPoco · January 30th, 2012, 06:11

Where's ma stuffs Illusion? I'll give you a negative feedback right now! :P

On the serious note, I concur 100%.

Ricochet · February 2nd, 2012, 15:58

Feedback is left because a "deal" went good or bad, not because your upset. Stick to your guns while selling, or buying. And be firm and fair all the time. And there is nothing wrong with asking the seller questions about the product. If you don't want to politely answer the questions, then don't. I'll bet they'll buy elsewhere though.

Hades · February 2nd, 2012, 16:03

I used to have a problem with people flaking out on deals, which is a piss off, especially if I had other interested people whom I turned down because I was waiting on someone and then are no longer interested when I contact them again.

Now my rule is, first one pays get's it. I don't hold anything for anybody unless you want to pay a non-refundable deposit. You flake out, you lose your deposit. Simple as that. Since then, have not had a problem.

kullwarrior · February 2nd, 2012, 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by jordan7831

Ive feel that the neutral rating is actually a fair compromis, it allows people to report flakers without affecting score. Hmm maybe an ammendment to the rules could be in the works.

Still its pretty sad that our members feel its okay to act dickish to eachother. Me thinks perhaps we can make the work "flaker" highlighted in red every time it comes up on the forum.

I agree 100%
I think this is how it should work out...
Neutral:
-Promised to buy and ask for hold which back out or never reply back after a weeks
-Item receive with damage not mentioned or item missing (small stuff worth less than 5% of the transaction)
-Item receive with damage exceed 10% of transaction and it took over 2 weeks to have a response and a fix (not compromise)
Negative:
-Item was never shipped
-Item was missing item or damage value over 10% of transaction
-Item receive damage with value less than 10% but never reply back when condition is issued.

Home	Forums	Register	Gallery	FAQ	Calendar
Retailers	Community	News/Info	International Retailers	IRC	Today's Posts

British Columbia	Alberta
BCAC	EAR
Op-For	JOC
Northern Arms Airsoft	Skunkworx Airsoft
Airsoft Kelowna	RAAT
Prince George Airsoft	Manitoba
Saskatchewan	MAA
SK Airsoft	Ontario
PDW	Airsoft Ottawa
South Sask Mercs	Snow Dragons
Quebec	1st Ranger Platoon
PQAC	Wolfpack Tactical
1st Pathfinders Regiment	TTAC3
Quebec Airsoft
MTX Airsoft	Atlantic
FAQc	Atlantic Airsoft

January 26th, 2012, 18:47	#18
ILLusion GBB Whisperer Trader rating Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto	I'm still basing this off an old precedence set by HonestJohn back when he'd owned the forum and first enacted the rating system. If something's changed since then, I'm not aware of it. But at the time, HoJo said that unless a TRADE actually took place, then there was nothing to rate. It made sense to me. __________________ *Advanced Airsoft Armaments and Enhancements* Quick to the gun, sure of your grip. Quick to the threat, sure of your shot. Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas Accuracy, Power, Speed

January 26th, 2012, 18:51	#19
venture Trader rating Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Halifax	I certainly will not go against the wishes of the admins of this site, but I do have a bit of a different opinion regarding this issue. Here is an example: A person is selling an item. Another member contacts him by PM and asks several questions. Eventually a price is agreed upon and the buyer says he will purchase the item for the agreed upon price. Now the buyer flakes. Illusion's position is that there never was a transaction, so there can be no feedback on a transaction that does not exist. I see his point that hundreds or even thousands of times this happens with online buyers. My point is that a deal has taken place. The buyer committed to buy, but did not follow through with his responsibilities. To me,this warrants negative feedback. An example where negative feedback is not appropriate is for lowballers. If I am selling an item for $100 and someone offers me $15, then I can ignore it or even tell the offerer "no". This is not a reason to apply negative feedback. __________________ Visit us at :www.ventureairsoft.ca

January 27th, 2012, 16:44	#24
ILLusion GBB Whisperer Trader rating Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto	How's this: what if flaker feedback is restricted ONLY to a neutral rating? It does not impact the sellers score, as a trade never took place, but it can alert other sellers to behaviour patterns. __________________ *Advanced Airsoft Armaments and Enhancements* Quick to the gun, sure of your grip. Quick to the threat, sure of your shot. Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas Accuracy, Power, Speed

January 27th, 2012, 01:06	#23
jordan7831 will always be Mike Litoris in our hearts Trader rating Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: North York - Toronto	Sorry I just finished a contract law course... Technically its not a contract unless money is exchanged. Other wise anything leading up to the contract is call "puffs" or pre contractual statements. And since there is no contract technically there are no obligations on either party. How does this apply to our rep system? Well it applies because its basically your reputation on the line when you screw someone over by flaking. Unfortunately it seems our rep system is the only method of reprisal for such behavior.

January 27th, 2012, 17:09	#25
Danke Prancercise Guru Trader rating Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Danger Zone	Or for fun, get rid of the PMs and go back to when you could reply in the classifieds. Then the whole exchange would be in the clear for all to see including flakes. Of course that would mean the self appointed moderators of good taste and fair pricing would swoop in on those threads again too. When I buy or sell something I do hit the view all posts just to see what kind of person I've got on the line on top of the trader rating. __________________ Airsoft, where nothing is hurt but feelings.

January 27th, 2012, 17:17	#26
jordan7831 will always be Mike Litoris in our hearts Trader rating Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: North York - Toronto	Ive feel that the neutral rating is actually a fair compromis, it allows people to report flakers without affecting score. Hmm maybe an ammendment to the rules could be in the works. Still its pretty sad that our members feel its okay to act dickish to eachother. Me thinks perhaps we can make the work "flaker" highlighted in red every time it comes up on the forum. Last edited by jordan7831; January 27th, 2012 at 17:20..

January 30th, 2012, 06:11	#27
LocoYokoPoco a.k.a. ian209 Trader rating Join Date: May 2009 Location: Calgary, AB, Canada	Where's ma stuffs Illusion? I'll give you a negative feedback right now! :P On the serious note, I concur 100%. __________________ World record in propane sniffing. Armory -KWA Tavor TAR21 GBBR -TM PX4 w/Detonator Aluminum Slide

February 2nd, 2012, 15:58	#28
Ricochet How much sand CAN you fit in your vagina!? Trader rating Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: North Delta, BC (Greater Vancouver)	Feedback is left because a "deal" went good or bad, not because your upset. Stick to your guns while selling, or buying. And be firm and fair all the time. And there is nothing wrong with asking the seller questions about the product. If you don't want to politely answer the questions, then don't. I'll bet they'll buy elsewhere though. __________________ I have developed a new sport called Airhard. Pretty much the same as Airsoft, except you have to maintain an erection...

February 2nd, 2012, 16:03	#29
Hades Trader rating Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Home	I used to have a problem with people flaking out on deals, which is a piss off, especially if I had other interested people whom I turned down because I was waiting on someone and then are no longer interested when I contact them again. Now my rule is, first one pays get's it. I don't hold anything for anybody unless you want to pay a non-refundable deposit. You flake out, you lose your deposit. Simple as that. Since then, have not had a problem. __________________ If I was banging all of them, I'd be a manwhore. At the moment, I'm just an opportunist.

Negative Tradeback Ratings, Tire Kickers, Flakers, and YOU!

General