| Discussion Forum: Thread 101846 |
|
 |
| | | Author: | TorontoLego  | | Posted: | Oct 13, 2010 10:01 | | Subject: | NPB vs. THEFT | | Viewed: | 349 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| 1. When a person places an order, and then doesn't pay before the seller ships
-- it's annoying. It ties up inventory, wastes time, etc. But in this case
the Buyer doesn't actually receive anything. This is Bad and should result in
completed NPB's and Negative Feedback.
2. When a person places an order and subsequent to shipping, and then uses some
underhanded or otherwise fraudulent method of reversing payment -- charge backs,
non-completed trade etc. This is Theft.
With the 1st kind: There can be a lot of innocent reasons, or at least naiveté
or simple inexperience with BL could be to blame. These should have IMHO some
term limit applied to them.
I think it should go something like this --
1st NPB - After 12 months it disappears
Each NPB after - 24 months.
In other words -- after your 3rd NPB -- Buying privileges are revoked for 24
months -- but that only removes ONE NPB - you would still be 1 Strike from OUT.
And the feedback would remain of course.
With the 2nd kind: - This would obviously need some objective judgment (ADMIN)
- but this should revoke buying privileges immediately and without opportunity
for reinstatement.
I know some sellers (especially the larger ones) -- feel that they do not want
to waste their time with previous bad apples. To deal with this I think that
WHILE a member has their buying privileges revoked, their name should be on a
list - so that sellers can choose to add them to their own stop-list. Maybe
even have an option to automatically add people on that list to one's stop-list.
When reinstated, certainly they will have far fewer choices to shop at -- but
that # would still be greater than Zero. Once reinstated, their name would not
be on the list anymore -- no scarlet letter or mark of Cain.
Probably needs tweaking -- but as BL grows in popularity, I think this will become
a recurring problem that might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater too
often.
Mike.
P.S. -- Sign up for the Holiday Exchange.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Oct 13, 2010 10:54 | | Subject: | Re: NPB vs. THEFT | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| While it's more likely that the people that would do this would be new than established,
what would you do, if you were the buyer in this, if you got your buying privileges
revoked??
I think most people, especially those intent on ripping people off, would just
create a new account.
In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | 1. When a person places an order, and then doesn't pay before the seller ships
-- it's annoying. It ties up inventory, wastes time, etc. But in this case
the Buyer doesn't actually receive anything. This is Bad and should result in
completed NPB's and Negative Feedback.
2. When a person places an order and subsequent to shipping, and then uses some
underhanded or otherwise fraudulent method of reversing payment -- charge backs,
non-completed trade etc. This is Theft.
With the 1st kind: There can be a lot of innocent reasons, or at least naiveté
or simple inexperience with BL could be to blame. These should have IMHO some
term limit applied to them.
I think it should go something like this --
1st NPB - After 12 months it disappears
Each NPB after - 24 months.
In other words -- after your 3rd NPB -- Buying privileges are revoked for 24
months -- but that only removes ONE NPB - you would still be 1 Strike from OUT.
And the feedback would remain of course.
With the 2nd kind: - This would obviously need some objective judgment (ADMIN)
- but this should revoke buying privileges immediately and without opportunity
for reinstatement.
I know some sellers (especially the larger ones) -- feel that they do not want
to waste their time with previous bad apples. To deal with this I think that
WHILE a member has their buying privileges revoked, their name should be on a
list - so that sellers can choose to add them to their own stop-list. Maybe
even have an option to automatically add people on that list to one's stop-list.
When reinstated, certainly they will have far fewer choices to shop at -- but
that # would still be greater than Zero. Once reinstated, their name would not
be on the list anymore -- no scarlet letter or mark of Cain.
Probably needs tweaking -- but as BL grows in popularity, I think this will become
a recurring problem that might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater too
often.
Mike.
P.S. -- Sign up for the Holiday Exchange.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | DadsAFOL | | Posted: | Oct 13, 2010 11:02 | | Subject: | Re: NPB vs. THEFT | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | 1. When a person places an order, and then doesn't pay before the seller ships
-- it's annoying. It ties up inventory, wastes time, etc. But in this case
the Buyer doesn't actually receive anything. This is Bad and should result in
completed NPB's and Negative Feedback.
2. When a person places an order and subsequent to shipping, and then uses some
underhanded or otherwise fraudulent method of reversing payment -- charge backs,
non-completed trade etc. This is Theft.
With the 1st kind: There can be a lot of innocent reasons, or at least naiveté
or simple inexperience with BL could be to blame. These should have IMHO some
term limit applied to them.
I think it should go something like this --
1st NPB - After 12 months it disappears
Each NPB after - 24 months.
In other words -- after your 3rd NPB -- Buying privileges are revoked for 24
months -- but that only removes ONE NPB - you would still be 1 Strike from OUT.
And the feedback would remain of course.
With the 2nd kind: - This would obviously need some objective judgment (ADMIN)
- but this should revoke buying privileges immediately and without opportunity
for reinstatement.
I know some sellers (especially the larger ones) -- feel that they do not want
to waste their time with previous bad apples. To deal with this I think that
WHILE a member has their buying privileges revoked, their name should be on a
list - so that sellers can choose to add them to their own stop-list. Maybe
even have an option to automatically add people on that list to one's stop-list.
When reinstated, certainly they will have far fewer choices to shop at -- but
that # would still be greater than Zero. Once reinstated, their name would not
be on the list anymore -- no scarlet letter or mark of Cain.
Probably needs tweaking -- but as BL grows in popularity, I think this will become
a recurring problem that might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater too
often.
Mike.
P.S. -- Sign up for the Holiday Exchange.
|
As a mid-size seller, *IF* there were a "shared" NPB list, then I would like
to see 1) a flag in my orders received that a buyer has a prior NPB with another
seller (can be anonymous) and 2) an *OPTION* for me a as a seller to block buyers
with a prior NPB (similar to blocking buyers with negative feedback).
My feeling is that each seller will want to choose how they handle buying priveleges
for buyers with NPB's, regardless of the count, age, or severity of the NPB.
-Jason
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | RobErNat | | Posted: | Oct 13, 2010 11:09 | | Subject: | Re: NPB vs. THEFT | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | 1. When a person places an order, and then doesn't pay before the seller ships
-- it's annoying. It ties up inventory, wastes time, etc. But in this case
the Buyer doesn't actually receive anything. This is Bad and should result in
completed NPB's and Negative Feedback.
2. When a person places an order and subsequent to shipping, and then uses some
underhanded or otherwise fraudulent method of reversing payment -- charge backs,
non-completed trade etc. This is Theft.
With the 1st kind: There can be a lot of innocent reasons, or at least naiveté
or simple inexperience with BL could be to blame. These should have IMHO some
term limit applied to them.
I think it should go something like this --
1st NPB - After 12 months it disappears
Each NPB after - 24 months.
In other words -- after your 3rd NPB -- Buying privileges are revoked for 24
months -- but that only removes ONE NPB - you would still be 1 Strike from OUT.
And the feedback would remain of course.
With the 2nd kind: - This would obviously need some objective judgment (ADMIN)
- but this should revoke buying privileges immediately and without opportunity
for reinstatement.
I know some sellers (especially the larger ones) -- feel that they do not want
to waste their time with previous bad apples. To deal with this I think that
WHILE a member has their buying privileges revoked, their name should be on a
list - so that sellers can choose to add them to their own stop-list. Maybe
even have an option to automatically add people on that list to one's stop-list.
When reinstated, certainly they will have far fewer choices to shop at -- but
that # would still be greater than Zero. Once reinstated, their name would not
be on the list anymore -- no scarlet letter or mark of Cain.
Probably needs tweaking -- but as BL grows in popularity, I think this will become
a recurring problem that might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater too
often.
|
Voted Yes, but should also be implemented for sellers (NRS/NSS), and timeperiod
should be extended for every NPB/NSS/NRS (with at least 1 year) received (remember
the current problems with the Canadian seller). Otherwise a very well balanced
idea, if it needs refinemend, I'm sure the responable person/people can do...
BL is growing and as I said earlier today to another member in PM, the current
rules are made based on times were the number of sellers/buyers AND sales weren't
as 'large' as it is now...
| | Mike.
P.S. -- Sign up for the Holiday Exchange.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BLUSER_79471 | | Posted: | Oct 13, 2010 11:53 | | Subject: | Re: NPB vs. THEFT | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | 1. When a person places an order, and then doesn't pay before the seller ships
-- it's annoying. It ties up inventory, wastes time, etc. But in this case
the Buyer doesn't actually receive anything. This is Bad and should result in
completed NPB's and Negative Feedback.
|
For sellers there's a simple solution to this problem--- don't ship the order
until you are paid. If you follow this rule you loose nothing except a bit of
time waiting for the order cancellation request to go through.
As for the rest, I vote no on this suggestion solely on the grounds that there
are many reasons that orders are not completed (and many are very innocent).
For the small percentage of members that join with the intent of riping people
off, Admin already does a great job of taking care of them IMO (along with members
making forum posts).
Rumrunner
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ABS_bricks | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2015 19:46 | | Subject: | Re: NPB vs. THEFT | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, RUMRUNNER writes:
| | For sellers there's a simple solution to this problem--- don't ship the order
until you are paid. If you follow this rule you loose nothing except a bit of
time waiting for the order cancellation request to go through.
|
It seems like the problem mentioned is that the person pays and then reverses
or blocks payment somehow.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Pher | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2015 19:49 | | Subject: | Re: NPB vs. THEFT | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ABS_bricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, RUMRUNNER writes:
| | For sellers there's a simple solution to this problem--- don't ship the order
until you are paid. If you follow this rule you loose nothing except a bit of
time waiting for the order cancellation request to go through.
|
It seems like the problem mentioned is that the person pays and then reverses
or blocks payment somehow.
|
Archaeologist ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada, Ontario
USA, California
Belgium, Flemish Brabant
Germany, Hessen