What would you do ?

The Drop Zone · Post by **The Drop Zone** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:45 am

Here is the deal.. ill try to make it simple

i sent a fairly exspensive new blister to a relatively new trader (had rating of 8 ) at the time before the item was paid for...several emails were sent only after i tracked the delivery conformation number was the package acknowledged as received payment was never sent for the item

several exscuses were made as to why i didnt receive it.. even claimed a money order was mailed which never was

after about 4 weeks the product was sent back but the postage i paid was never refunded and requests for the payment have been ignored

Im wanting to file a warning report not necessarily a bad trader report but would neg feedback be warranted?

i did get my product back in its new condition but the money for postage was not refunded.. the buyer backed out of the deal why should i have to eat the postage cost ?

just thinking about it before i act

ancientsociety · Post by **ancientsociety** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:53 am

You sent to a trader with a lower rating before they paid but were lucky enough to recieve the item back. Technically, you're not out anything and IMO I don't think this warrants any feedback. You shouldn't have sent an item without payment (especially not to a member with lower ratings), so I don't think you're entitled to have the money for postage refunded.

Forsaken Poptart · Post by **Forsaken Poptart** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:04 am

I'd just say don't leave any feedback, so that said trader can't progress any farther up the ladder.

jagavahn · Post by **jagavahn** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:32 am

If you feel you were lied to, and are out of your shipping costs I think it warrants a negative.

If you don't think this warrants a negative, but want to warn others about your experience--leave a neutral reference. This wouldn't have the stigma associated with a bad report, but would make other aware that it may be a good idea to have this fella ship first.

( 832 ) · Post by **MagickalMemories** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:43 am

Well, TDZ... Why the heck you shipped forst is beyond me.
Bad call on your part, IMO.

That being said...

Technically, you're not out anything

This is incorrect. TECHNICALLY, you ARE out something... the cost of the shipping.

It cost you this money to ship the blister. You're out that cash.

I say give him ONE LAST CHANCE (send it via PM and Email) to refund your shipping charges and give him a week (7 days) to do it.
If he doesn't, then he deserves the negative reference and should have to accept it.

Those ARE bad trade practces and, per the rules, he DOES qualify.

If you leave him a Neutral, then he gets a feedback bump for it, if you leave nothing, then you aren't warning potential victims of a possible scammer (not assuming he scamming, but it wouldn't be unlike a scammer to "test the waters" like this to see what happens.

Eric

Eric

Lord_Nagash · Post by **Lord_Nagash** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:15 am

I totally concur. One more week should be plenty of time to allow him to settle the shipping cost. If not, a negative is WARRANTED!!!. Just make sure that if you post in the Bad Trader forum to display your proof. I'm not going to even comment about the shipping to lower rated person without payment, it's a dead horse now and doesn't need to be beaten any further.

Kevin

Alkatchoff · Post by **Alkatchoff** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:36 pm

I'd leave a neutral reference, explaining the exact situation, maybe with a link to this thread. Anyone wishing to trade with him in the future will check his references, and by seeing the little-used 'neutral' rating, will be curious and make sure to have him send first. I feel that since you did get the blister back, that's the fairest thing to do. Then again, you could do the exact same thing and post a negative ref. Again, depends on how you feel about what happened.

The Drop Zone · Post by **The Drop Zone** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:10 pm

well guys this all happened during the bitz snafu

the new trader was skittish so i was trying to earn some good will thats why i sent it first.

took a chance and got hosed for it

ill wait a week
thanks
R

starslayer · Post by **starslayer** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:40 am

Nah,that trader is bad news,others should be warned. IMHO he deserves a negative reference.

If he cancelled the deal,the least he should do is pay for the return shipping.

( 832 ) · Post by **MagickalMemories** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:15 am

A few things to touch on here...

Just make sure that if you post in the Bad Trader forum to display your proof.

I wouldn't bother with THAT. The thread should be reserved for serious low-lifes. This guy actually sent the item back (eventually). It doesn't appear that scamming was his intent. it was probably a case of buyers remorse (or lack of funds) and he waited to scratch together shipping, but was too embarassed to talk about it.
That being said, I don't change my Neg. Ref. opinion.

Anyone wishing to trade with him in the future will check his references

That's not true. That's not true at all.
I almost NEVER look at the actual references themselves. I look at the number and base my decision on that. If the name looks familiar and rings the "bad" bell that I keep stored in my head, then I'll look at his ref's to see if there are any bad things mentioned... sometimes I'll do it for VERY HIGH ratings just out of curiosity to see how long the old-timer has been around here... but, aside from that, I almost never do.
Why bother? The number speaks for itself.

the new trader was skittish so i was trying to earn some good will thats why i sent it first.

I had a feeling you might say that. Any other and I'd have thought it a poor decision on your part. I can TOTALLY understand it for this reason, though. Good will is important.

Nah,that trader is bad news,others should be warned. IMHO he deserves a negative reference.

"Bad News" might be too severe, but I agree with everything else here.

Eric

Datadep5 · Post by **Datadep5** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:22 am

You could make the argument that a trade never happened and therefore doesn't warrent a neg. reference. However, it should be made public to warn other members, i.e. in the bad trader report.

As for not checking the references.....

ehh I can't recommend that.

Hope you get your shipping money back robert.

flagg07 · Post by **flagg07** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:54 am

Datadep5 wrote:You could make the argument that a trade never happened and therefore doesn't warrent a neg. reference.

Totally disagree with you on this. Let's take a look at the facts, as presented here.

1) TDZ and another member agreed to make a trade. TDZ would ship an item 1st and the other would pay $ for it.

2) TDZ shipped said item. Let's make the assumption that he utilized USPS priority with delivery confirmation and total shipping came out to $4.55

3) The other party received his item, but did not pay the agreed upon amount.

4) For whatever reason, the other party shipped the item back. Let's make the assumption that he used the same USPS as TDZ... $4.55

5) TDZ is out $4.55

6) While $4.55 is not alot of money, it is still money that is no longer in Robert's coffers for no fault of his own. If somebody makes a trade and they end up with less than they agreed to, it's a broken deal regardless of the value.

I suggest you leave NEGATIVE feedback rating. Furthermore, use the description to fully explain exactly what happened. This will alert people that they should have him pay 1st, but also that they are not dealing with a Ticknor type. This person broke a deal and deserves the consequences, a Neg FB.

( 832 ) · Post by **MagickalMemories** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:38 am

Quote Datadep5:

As for not checking the references..... ehh I can't recommend that.

In most cases (for me)... Why bother? In the majority of trades, I have earned the reputation to allow me to NOT ship first. Most reasonable traders understand that references are a sign of reliability that can be used as a fairly sound basis for such decisions.

That being the case, I rarely ever ship or pay first or simultaneously.
I have very strict personal "rules" for when I will simu-ship of ship first. I have not HAD to use them in over a year, though I have CHOSEN to use them on numerous occasions.
They are:

1) Higher rating than mine
2) Similar rating to mine (100+)
3) Rating of 50+ and an established presence in the forums (post count)
4) Lower than 50, but has earned my trust (very few of these)

Datadep, as of my writing this, you have a 50 rating. Guess what... We've interacted enough that I'm pretty comfortable with you. I don't need to look at who's left feedback for you. I'm comfortable with you. Depending (slightly) on the trade, I'd probably (95% sure) be willing to do a simu-ship.

Now, take Flagg07 (Sorry... you just happened to be next in line on the thread). He has a 44 rating -- Very respectable. NOTHING to shirk at. Unfortunately, however (no disrespect intended), we haven't have a lot of interactions together. As a result, he doesn't fall under any of the 4 mentioned above. I'd trade with him if he shipped first. If he's not willing to, then I'm not out anything. If he DOES, then I'm not out anything... Ergo, no need to check his references.

It's all relative.

KWIM?

Eric

( 60 ) · Post by **NuWishA** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:41 am

But.. its $4.55..

You guys want to knock a new trader into the negatives for less than five dollars?

Nice.

Datadep5 · Post by **Datadep5** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:12 am

MagickalMemories wrote: I have very strict personal "rules" for when I will simu-ship of ship first. I have not HAD to use them in over a year, though I have CHOSEN to use them on numerous occasions.
They are:

1) Higher rating than mine
2) Similar rating to mine (100+)
3) Rating of 50+ and an established presence in the forums (post count)
4) Lower than 50, but has earned my trust (very few of these)

I like those rules.

Neg. feedbacks just make me a bit nervous.