|
 |
| | | Author: | Lonely_Brick_OH  | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2014 16:06 | | Subject: | Selling probation. | | Viewed: | 281 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| I would like to see a "selling probation" implemented.
This can be implemented as easily as a % of negative feedback or a certain number
of completed transactions that bring you out of probation.
I have been seeing more and more negative experiences with 'defraud sellers'
both on here as well as other LEGO venues.
Thank you for your time.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | kzinti | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2014 16:20 | | Subject: | Re: Selling probation. | | Viewed: | 100 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Interesting notion. We all started out at Feedback (0), so how would this roll
out, how would Sellers and Buyers redeem themselves when limits are crossed?
What kind of limits would be in place? How would Sellers and Buyers be protected
against unjust feedback? If I leave a Buyer Negative feedback for whatever reason
and they respond with a Negative in return, how does that effect me? Now if you
deal with many New Buyers, how likely are you to get more than average numbers
of Negative feedback? This raises a whole lot of questions as to when intervention
is required, who will intervene and in what way. I understand the goal is to
make BrickLink a safe and reliable venue, but how much oversight is really necessary?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Lonely_Brick_OH | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2014 09:33 | | Subject: | Re: Selling probation. | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | Interesting notion. We all started out at Feedback (0), so how would this roll
out, how would Sellers and Buyers redeem themselves when limits are crossed?
What kind of limits would be in place? How would Sellers and Buyers be protected
against unjust feedback? If I leave a Buyer Negative feedback for whatever reason
and they respond with a Negative in return, how does that effect me? Now if you
deal with many New Buyers, how likely are you to get more than average numbers
of Negative feedback? This raises a whole lot of questions as to when intervention
is required, who will intervene and in what way. I understand the goal is to
make BrickLink a safe and reliable venue, but how much oversight is really necessary?
|
Considering we currently have at least one person who is openly scamming people,
as well as other stores starting up over and over again to do the same this idea
would create a buffer.
There could be a warning sign to buyers; ON PROBATION that would allow people
to understand secure sellers vs. possible 'fly by night scam artists'.
Currently there is very little warning for people. Many buyers think we are
one big seller vs. many smaller ones.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | kzinti | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2014 09:51 | | Subject: | Re: Selling probation. | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Lonely_Brick_OH writes:
| | In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | Interesting notion. We all started out at Feedback (0), so how would this roll
out, how would Sellers and Buyers redeem themselves when limits are crossed?
What kind of limits would be in place? How would Sellers and Buyers be protected
against unjust feedback? If I leave a Buyer Negative feedback for whatever reason
and they respond with a Negative in return, how does that effect me? Now if you
deal with many New Buyers, how likely are you to get more than average numbers
of Negative feedback? This raises a whole lot of questions as to when intervention
is required, who will intervene and in what way. I understand the goal is to
make BrickLink a safe and reliable venue, but how much oversight is really necessary?
|
Considering we currently have at least one person who is openly scamming people,
as well as other stores starting up over and over again to do the same this idea
would create a buffer.
There could be a warning sign to buyers; ON PROBATION that would allow people
to understand secure sellers vs. possible 'fly by night scam artists'.
Currently there is very little warning for people. Many buyers think we are
one big seller vs. many smaller ones.
|
Personally, I would prefer to see a $10 deposit for Sellers, which would be credited
towards their fee payments. If it took $10 to open a store, you would see a dramatic
decrease in scammer accounts.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | tazzy | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2014 10:45 | | Subject: | Re: Selling probation. | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | In Suggestions, Lonely_Brick_OH writes:
| | In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | Interesting notion. We all started out at Feedback (0), so how would this roll
out, how would Sellers and Buyers redeem themselves when limits are crossed?
What kind of limits would be in place? How would Sellers and Buyers be protected
against unjust feedback? If I leave a Buyer Negative feedback for whatever reason
and they respond with a Negative in return, how does that effect me? Now if you
deal with many New Buyers, how likely are you to get more than average numbers
of Negative feedback? This raises a whole lot of questions as to when intervention
is required, who will intervene and in what way. I understand the goal is to
make BrickLink a safe and reliable venue, but how much oversight is really necessary?
|
Considering we currently have at least one person who is openly scamming people,
as well as other stores starting up over and over again to do the same this idea
would create a buffer.
There could be a warning sign to buyers; ON PROBATION that would allow people
to understand secure sellers vs. possible 'fly by night scam artists'.
Currently there is very little warning for people. Many buyers think we are
one big seller vs. many smaller ones.
|
Personally, I would prefer to see a $10 deposit for Sellers, which would be credited
towards their fee payments. If it took $10 to open a store, you would see a dramatic
decrease in scammer accounts.
|
I don't think a $10 deposit would stop the Scammers. Once they have sold
1 very large set (which is the scam) they would just simple go.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2014 10:56 | | Subject: | Re: Selling probation. | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, tazzy writes:
| | In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | In Suggestions, Lonely_Brick_OH writes:
| | In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | Interesting notion. We all started out at Feedback (0), so how would this roll
out, how would Sellers and Buyers redeem themselves when limits are crossed?
What kind of limits would be in place? How would Sellers and Buyers be protected
against unjust feedback? If I leave a Buyer Negative feedback for whatever reason
and they respond with a Negative in return, how does that effect me? Now if you
deal with many New Buyers, how likely are you to get more than average numbers
of Negative feedback? This raises a whole lot of questions as to when intervention
is required, who will intervene and in what way. I understand the goal is to
make BrickLink a safe and reliable venue, but how much oversight is really necessary?
|
Considering we currently have at least one person who is openly scamming people,
as well as other stores starting up over and over again to do the same this idea
would create a buffer.
There could be a warning sign to buyers; ON PROBATION that would allow people
to understand secure sellers vs. possible 'fly by night scam artists'.
Currently there is very little warning for people. Many buyers think we are
one big seller vs. many smaller ones.
|
Personally, I would prefer to see a $10 deposit for Sellers, which would be credited
towards their fee payments. If it took $10 to open a store, you would see a dramatic
decrease in scammer accounts.
|
I don't think a $10 deposit would stop the Scammers. Once they have sold
1 very large set (which is the scam) they would just simple go.
|
I think it's more than the $10, it's paying in a way that will identify
them using something like Paypal's identification. Credit card, mailing
address, deposit codes..
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2014 12:28 | | Subject: | Re: Selling probation. | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| |
Personally, I would prefer to see a $10 deposit for Sellers, which would be credited
towards their fee payments. If it took $10 to open a store, you would see a dramatic
decrease in scammer accounts.
|
This fee,
combined with a limit on dollar amount of non completed sales, at any one time,
would likely solve the issue.
Once a seller has met certain criteria the limit gets increased, and upon further
criteria increased even more.
I do not like use of the term "ON PROBATION" for sellers that are only limited
due to being non established. I would rather they had a note that indicated
they had limits due to not being well established.
"ON PROBATION" should be reserved for sellers who have some amount of negatives.
I prefer to buy from a start up seller (in an amount within my risk limit) than
from a seller who has thousands of positives and several (or more than one recent)
negative and/or neutral.
However,
This type of system has been suggested (and voted yes by many) in the past.
I believe it was once proposed by admin.
So it is not a matter of people voting yes, but a matter of implementation and
details.
That is something the owners have to decide to do.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WILYKAT | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2014 14:44 | | Subject: | Re: Selling probation. | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | In Suggestions, Lonely_Brick_OH writes:
| | In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | Interesting notion. We all started out at Feedback (0), so how would this roll
out, how would Sellers and Buyers redeem themselves when limits are crossed?
What kind of limits would be in place? How would Sellers and Buyers be protected
against unjust feedback? If I leave a Buyer Negative feedback for whatever reason
and they respond with a Negative in return, how does that effect me? Now if you
deal with many New Buyers, how likely are you to get more than average numbers
of Negative feedback? This raises a whole lot of questions as to when intervention
is required, who will intervene and in what way. I understand the goal is to
make BrickLink a safe and reliable venue, but how much oversight is really necessary?
|
Considering we currently have at least one person who is openly scamming people,
as well as other stores starting up over and over again to do the same this idea
would create a buffer.
There could be a warning sign to buyers; ON PROBATION that would allow people
to understand secure sellers vs. possible 'fly by night scam artists'.
Currently there is very little warning for people. Many buyers think we are
one big seller vs. many smaller ones.
|
Personally, I would prefer to see a $10 deposit for Sellers, which would be credited
towards their fee payments. If it took $10 to open a store, you would see a dramatic
decrease in scammer accounts.
|
Scammer can still use stolen CC to make deposits, grab the money from the first
day sales from suckers, and run before CC gets charge backed. It's not foolproof
but it would help deter some scammers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Ohio
United Kingdom, Wales
Canada, Ontario
