Why negative refs for backouts?

[squalie]

Recently I read a backout thread where Dragonfangs received a negative ref for backing out of a trade.

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=124653

Although I did feel that he deserved a backout thread, as he did in fact, back out -- I couldn't undestand why he received a negative ref.

I posted in the thread, I know, I know -- You shouldn't do that, but I felt that this in fact was setting a very dangerous precedence and really, did have something to do with me and every other member on these boards. After my posts were deleted, a mod pm'd me saying that wasn't allowed (I expected that) and that the rules were the same for bad traders and back outs, so that's why he was allowed a neg ref. I followed his link and sure enough -- it states the rules are the same.

Then what's the difference with having to seperate forums? Wouldn't just the "Bad Trader" forum be enough? The thing is that he received a negative ref for backing out, and no one got hurt, but a fellow like this:

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=120772 ,

could only leave a neutral and he was shorted figs in an actual trade!

Someone help me understand as it seems a grey area.

Thanks in advance.

[MagickalMemories]

It's not really a greay area, any more than people *make* it one.

Hmm... reading that back, it almost reads with an attitude. FWIW, it wsn't writen with one. : )

What I mean is that there are rules for BO's, just like BTR's. They're eligible for negatives. It's just that not everyone leaves them. Not everyone handles (or even LOOKS AT) them the same.
Scour the BTR forum. Some people don't leave them for those, either. :shrugs:
Typically, you get more leniency for a BO, simply die to the fact that the "offended" party isn't out any trade goods.

The reason BO's are eligible, mainly, is to stop "Serial Backouters." Backing out is one possible sign of a scammer. Someone who backs out of trades a lot is often just looking for someone to scam. Fishing for someone to fall for his schemes, if you will.

For the record, staff has been in some informal discussions about revamping the way backouts are handled. They'll remain reportable but, what happens after that, is still not solidified. As always, we're open to hearing member comments.

Thanks.

Eric

[JohnHwangBT]

I couldn't undestand why he received a negative ref.

Someone help me understand as it seems a grey area.

There's nothing grey about it whatsoever.

A lot of reputable and honest traders get strung along, holding goods / payment for a deal which never completes. Those goods / monies then aren't available for other trades / purchases, because they're being held in good faith based on the promise that was made. There's an opportunity cost associated with this good faith being taken advantage of. When the other trader reneges on that promise, a Negative reference in their reputation reflects their being untrustworthiness.

If you don't want a Neg, all you have to do is this:
1. Don't make any promises you can't keep, and
2. Follow through any promises that you make.
It's very simple. If you can't do that, then you deserve whatever Negs you get.
____

Oh yeah, if you're detecting any "attitude", it's probably intentional. If you go through the BTR and BO posts, from before Btown Mods went "pro", you'll see that I'm a hardass about honoring one's word in deals. Eric can confirm that for you.

typo fixed

[kturock]

1 of the criteria for a negative ref is "someone you wouldn't trade with again."

If the guy strung you along and the entire process left 'a bad taste in your mouth', that you put this person on you 'do not trade list', he would fit the criteria.

I have a couple people, that I've traded with, and would not trade with again. The offense wasn't so egregious to warrant a negative ref, but he doesn't deserve any ref; because neutral gives a +1.

[MagickalMemories]

If you go through the BTR and BO posts, from before Btown Mods went "pro", you'll see that I'm a hardass about honoring one's word in deals. Erik can confirm that for you.

I can confirm that. : )
It's a good train to have!

I can also confirm that, after having posted my name at the bottom of 8300+ posts, John should probably know how to spell it by now.



Eric

[oaflord]

Typically, you get more leniency for a BO, simply die to the fact that the "offended" party isn't out any trade goods.

Best. Typo. Ever.

Even better than John misspelling Eric's name.

That being said, everyone is different. Everyone will react differently to a BO/BT. No grey, just people being people.

oAF

[MagickalMemories]

Typically, you get more leniency for a BO, simply die to the fact that the "offended" party isn't out any trade goods.

Best. Typo. Ever.

Even better than John misspelling Eric's name.

That being said, everyone is different. Everyone will react differently to a BO/BT. No grey, just people being people.

oAF

LOL

What? You expect me to proofread my posts before hitting "send?"
Foolish mortal.


While I'm thinking of it - John DID address the misspelling with me. I deleted the post because, frankly, it really isn't a big deal to me & I didn't think he needed to apologize for anything.

It was a very heartfelt and blubbery post. I think John may have wept a bit while writing it. I know it touched my heart deeply.
Oh, yeah... and those last 3 sentences were absolute B.S.

Eric

[Ironhide]

I will add this, if you agree to a deal and then realize that for some reason you can't go through with it; then inform your trade partner immediately. Don't string them along, leave them hanging without a response, or avoid them. Be a man and let them know immediately.

For example, you agree to a deal on the 11th and then realize you won't be able to go through with it on the 12th. Don't wait till the 13th or later to tell them; tell them immediately. This way they are not out that much time and they can still offload the stuff; whereas if they got strung along for a week or two, they might not.

Traders will probably be less inclined to hit you with a negative if you don't waste an ungodly amount of their time. Of course there will be some who will hit you with the negative based solely on the principal, but that is their prerogative.

[MagickalMemories]

There he goes.
Speaking wisdom again.


Preach it, brother Ironhide! Preach that Gospel!

Eric

[squalie]

I've let some of this sink in and I want to make it clear; I'm not defending Dragonfang in as much as curious as to what can constitute a negative ref? I'd certainly consider myself an individual that wouldn't be caught in a situation like this and I think my rating speaks for itself.

I was sincerely a little muddled as it just seemed that one could get a negative ref if you caught another fellow on a bad day and I guess that can happen. I also very much agree that avoiding that situation altogether is the best action.

Thanks for the clarity.

[JohnHwangBT]

curious as to what can constitute a negative ref?

it just seemed that one could get a negative ref if you caught another fellow on a bad day

A Negative ref is possible any time that *both* parties AGREE to a deal, and it isn't completed to mutual satisfaction.

While "a bad day" is possible, it's nearly always self-created and exacerbated by bad communications. Nearly always, for Backouts, it's going to be after someone feels they got jerked around, usually after waiting for weeks, but could also tie to lengthy / difficult negotiations leading up to the deal.

Now if you're dealing with someone who's lenient, and you're nice and timely about it, they may let you slide. If you're not so nice, and take your time, well, them's the breaks.

[Ironhide]

curious as to what can constitute a negative ref?

it just seemed that one could get a negative ref if you caught another fellow on a bad day

A Negative ref is possible any time that *both* parties AGREE to a deal, and it isn't completed to mutual satisfaction.

While "a bad day" is possible, it's nearly always self-created and exacerbated by bad communications. Nearly always, for Backouts, it's going to be after someone feels they got jerked around, usually after waiting for weeks, but could also tie to lengthy / difficult negotiations leading up to the deal.

Now if you're dealing with someone who's lenient, and you're nice and timely about it, they may let you slide. If you're not so nice, and take your time, well, them's the breaks.

I cannot express enough how the underlined is the most common reason for trades gone bad.