Myself :(

[flagg07]

I'm just confused about the positive reference left on a trade that never went through

[Ironhide]

For all intents and purposes, the OP did not adhere to the rules of the forum. Again, people might think that is petty, but other users could use this as a precedent if they were to get suspended, because they did not post the "proof" in their BTR or backout thread.

Example:
Trader Z: Why was I given a suspension?
Admin: You didn't post your proof.
Trader Z: Walls didn't give proof in his backout thread, and you let that fly.
Admin: But that thread was him admitting to a backout.
Trader Z: But the rule clearly states that you show proof. He didn't show proof. How come I have to show proof, but not him?

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

For all intents and purposes, the OP did not adhere to the rules of the forum. Again, people might think that is petty, but other users could use this as a precedent if they were to get suspended, because they did not post the "proof" in their BTR or backout thread.

Oh, no, I get that totally. Is the OP unwilling to post the proof?

[Asif Chaudhry]

For all intents and purposes, the OP did not adhere to the rules of the forum. Again, people might think that is petty, but other users could use this as a precedent if they were to get suspended, because they did not post the "proof" in their BTR or backout thread.

Example:
Trader Z: Why was I given a suspension?
Admin: You didn't post your proof.
Trader Z: Walls didn't give proof in his backout thread, and you let that fly.
Admin: But that thread was him admitting to a backout.
Trader Z: But the rule clearly states that you show proof. He didn't show proof. How come I have to show proof, but not him?

Given your example here, this might be a good reason to let MM take this thread "away" to the staff-only forums. Because clearly, schmucks like "Trader Z" exist in this world, and frankly, trying to get through their thick skulls the difference between having to post proof when trying to become unsuspended, as opposed to not having to post proof because your thread is a "Mea Culpa", is more than I (or any of the you staff guys) should have to do.

[Ironhide]

Now if there was a rule saying you can post a thread in the BO/DB and BTR forums without proof only if you are admitting guilt; that would be a different story.

I wonder how many people would be man enough to do that though? At least we know we have one member on here who is man enough to do that.

[MagickalMemories]

This thread will NOT remain in the public eye as long as the OP is "called out" in it. It is unnecessarily detrimental to his reputation.
Why?
Because it does not conform to BTown rules.

Regardless WHO posted it, it does not meet the reporting guidelines for any forum.

Eric

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

This thread will NOT remain in the public eye as long as the OP is "called out" in it. It is unnecessarily detrimental to his reputation.
Why?
Because it does not conform to BTown rules.

Regardless WHO posted it, it does not meet the reporting guidelines for any forum.

Eric

I agree that the thread has diverged, significantly, from what is supposed to appear in a BO thread, beigininng about the 4th post (kturock's). I think it's fair to say we were taken aback at an unexpected sort of post.

BUT--I think that the OP should post the message thread for the record, and the OT posts be deleted. It is a legit BO, right?

[Asif Chaudhry]

This thread will NOT remain in the public eye as long as the OP is "called out" in it. It is unnecessarily detrimental to his reputation.
Why?
Because it does not conform to BTown rules.

Regardless WHO posted it, it does not meet the reporting guidelines for any forum.

Eric

I agree that the thread has diverged, significantly, from what is supposed to appear in a BO thread, beigininng about the 4th post (kturock's). I think it's fair to say we were taken aback at an unexpected sort of post.

BUT--I think that the OP should post the message thread for the record, and the OT posts be deleted. It is a legit BO, right?

Uh Sorrow? My question would be for you: "To what purpose ???"

You really want the OP to post "Here's a backout I did, here's the PM stream to support my 'Mea Culpa' "?

I mean - really?

Looks like Ironhide should want this thread removed to avoid "Watchman Z", instead of worrying so much about "Trader Z". This discussion is wildly veering off into "Retar-culous" land.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MM - I'd like to post an official request from a forum member to you, a staff member, to please remove this thread from the BTR/D&B forum. As Sorrow and Ironhide have noted, it does NOT conform to the posting regulations for this forum, and thus should be removed for such failure, to whatever sub-forum / trash bin you deem most appropriate.

Sincerely,
Asif Chaudhry

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

Uh Sorrow? My question would be for you: "To what purpose ???"

You really want the OP to post "Here's a backout I did, here's the PM stream to support my 'Mea Culpa' "?

I mean - really?

Looks like Ironhide should want this thread removed to avoid "Watchman Z", instead of worrying so much about "Trader Z". This discussion is wildly veering off into "Retar-culous" land.

Hi Asif,

I think BOs should receive BO threads. It's good policy. It protects our membership.

Now in this case, Walls posted it on himself. He has some good explanations, but he did back out.

Now, HYPOTHETICALLY, Walls COULD by misleading us. Maybe these are just excuses. Maybe it's a straight out BO. If so, it's good for members to be able to refer to a thread to see what his background is. You know, in case of a future HYPOTHETICAL BO where he says he just got engaged. Again.

So, if Walls doesn't post a BO thread, I would like to see Kelanen post one. But since Walls did post, i don't see why he shouldn't follow through the process.

[Asif Chaudhry]

Uh Sorrow? My question would be for you: "To what purpose ???"

You really want the OP to post "Here's a backout I did, here's the PM stream to support my 'Mea Culpa' "?

I mean - really?

Looks like Ironhide should want this thread removed to avoid "Watchman Z", instead of worrying so much about "Trader Z". This discussion is wildly veering off into "Retar-culous" land.

Hi Asif,

I think BOs should receive BO threads. It's good policy. It protects our membership.

Now in this case, Walls posted it on himself. He has some good explanations, but he did back out.

Now, HYPOTHETICALLY, Walls COULD by misleading us. Maybe these are just excuses. Maybe it's a straight out BO. If so, it's good for members to be able to refer to a thread to see what his background is. You know, in case of a future HYPOTHETICAL BO where he says he just got engaged. Again.

So, if Walls doesn't post a BO thread, I would like to see Kelanen post one. But since Walls did post, i don't see why he shouldn't follow through the process.

Sorrow, I understand that you want to follow procedure in ALL cases, but in this one, I think it's pointless.

1.) The man outed himself
2.) The 2 people he "supposedly" backed out on, have already replied in this thread.
3.) 1 of those 2 people already left him a Negative reference. Said person's 1st response in this thread was a word-for-word reiteration of the Neg ref description he left for Walls.

So, quite literally, there is NOTHING in this thread that a person couldn't get from reading the guy's references - the exact same text that is there, is in this thread.

COULD Walls be playing a huge prank and trying to be a scammer? Possibly - but his (-8) trader rating already means most sensible people will not send anything to him first, so mission accomplished.

Again, MM, I'm OFFICIALLY placing the request to get rid of this thread, which does not conform to the posting rules for this forum.

Cheers,
-Asif

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

Sorrow, I understand that you want to follow procedure in ALL cases, but in this one, I think it's pointless.

Why, yes, I do fancy myself a by-the-book sort of person. In most cases, anyway.

1.) The man outed himself
2.) The 2 people he "supposedly" backed out on, have already replied in this thread.
3.) 1 of those 2 people already left him a Negative reference. Said person's 1st response in this thread was a word-for-word reiteration of the Neg ref description he left for Walls.

So, quite literally, there is NOTHING in this thread that a person couldn't get from reading the guy's references - the exact same text that is there, is in this thread.

1.) If the thread is deleted and not replaced, he is un-outed.
2.) Why is "supposedly" in quotation marks? He baked out on Kelanen. No "supposing" about it.
3.) BTR and BO threads exist in part to support Neg references. If we applied your argument reductio ad absurdum, there would be no reason for either forum to exist.

So: Walls, are you willing to repost the BO on yourself, complete with PM history, as required by the forum rules?

[MagickalMemories]

@ Asif...

I already said earlier that, a couple days after the conversation dies out, I'm doing just that. It will happen. Don't worry.



@everyone...

Per the BTR rules (which are also the backout rules):

viewtopic.php?f=34&t=71

The Bad Trader forum is for reporting people who have ripped you off, not someone who said mean words to you. Don't come here to gripe and moan - legitimate complaints only.

By extension, the Backout forum is for people who have backed out of trades with you.

This thread, even from the first post, does not conform to the rules of the forum.

Eric

[gammer]

the thing thats confusing me about the bad ref left is that no one has quoted the title for the db/bo
They're not Bad Traders per se but they are REALLY annoying.

it should have never come to this. no deal was done so IMO all ref in this instance should be removed! why should Kelanen and the other fella get bumpd up for walls mistake?

that being said. i enjoyed reading this post.

[Walls]

I admitted my guilt. That's good enough. I am not further damaging my already hurt rep when I needn't do it. I would also request this thread be removed.

[squalie]

If nothing changed hands, how can it be a bad trade?