We need something in the rules about the current idea of "post first" for newbies
Getting a bit fed up of the way people treat new sellers on here(and also noticed at least 1 other forums does this too) where if someone is selling something people are like "oh I want you to send first due to your low feedback"
Sellers are basically holding buyers to ransom as if the buyer says no they get told something like "oh its what new sellers normally do" and/or "its to provide safety as theres no proof you are a genuine seller and I am not willing to risk losing money"
This kind of situation gives the buyer all the power to choose when they pay, if they dont want item, or to create a issue.
We need some shakeup of the way newbies are treated but not expect them to send item first.
All Comments (27)
Jump to unreadLockedso what do u propose then?????????????
so what do u propose then?????????????
Something but that, I mean some of the things I have seen in FS/T are quite silly someone IMO was quite tight when they asked someone to send a game worth £1.50 first because the seller was new(despite the seller saying they knew it was worth a few quid more but it was just lying about) and they word it in such a way as to say "everyone does it"
Or another one when someone had like 14 positive feedbacks and someone with like 25 says "can you send first due to your limited feedback history"
If I was buying a half decent phone from a newbie then I would possibly ask them to post first.
I know I could ask for their name, address and phone number and I could ring the number and speak to them but at the end of the day, that is not absolutely guaranteed is it?
If the newbie doesn't want to post first, then that is fair enough.
I will take my custom elsewhere and they can wait for someone who will pay them first.
But that may never happen.
Every time you buy or sell on a forum like this you are taking a chance, even with established members.
You just have to weigh things up and decide if you want to pay up first, if you are buying, or send first, if you are selling.
No one is forcing anyone to send first.
I actually went and bought something from a seller in my home town, for a guy on here I had previously dealt with, and then posted it on to him.
The buyer sent me the money first 'cos he trusted me, I paid the seller and picked up the goods and I then posted the item off to the buyer.
At the end of the day, everyone was happy.
But if I hadn't done that, the buyer wouldn't have the item he wanted, and the seller would still be holding onto something he no longer wants.
You just have to take a chance sometimes and go with what is comfortable for you.
As Bossyboots has said, what would you do to change things?
/end
I have seen situations where the "newbie" seller is strong armed into posting first, but it is a choice taken by two adults how they wish to trade.
One party is always going to have to trust the other, and I see no reason for the rules to change.
His feedback is quite frankly appalling....i suggest he gets his own house in order before commenting on others.
Edited By: boothy on Jul 31, 2010 08:30:
Edited By: boothy on Jul 31, 2010 08:30:
His feedback is quite frankly appalling....i suggest he gets his own house in order before commenting on others.
+1
after the tv fiasco the op should understand why people want new members to post first
His feedback is quite frankly appalling....i suggest he gets his own house in order before commenting on others.
has a bloody cheek if you ask me after seeing that feedback
.
Ryouga your post in that thread was really out of order you know, plus you were thread spoiling and unnecessarily bumping that thread up. That OP was happy to post first and had obviously felt satisfied with Saints 50 positive feedback...............yet you who have 5 NEGATIVE feedback jumps in with that comment.
Tbh 5 negs is attrocious and I personally wouldnt buy from someone with that feedback unless they posted first.
What TV fiasco?
What TV fiasco?
he went crying to the mods and got it deleted from here but the one on avforums is here
The thread on here was much worse with alsorts of stuff being said by the Op that weren't true
Edited By: colinsunderland on Jul 31, 2010 12:39:
Op does not give a monkeys about other members only himself as shown by his constant inability to complete trades in a professionals manner.
The threadspoil in the saints thread is worthy of an infraction,and imo anyone who gets more than 3 negs without a very good reason should be banned from FS/FT until they can show they are mature enough not to abuse that facility.
I guarantee the op will come along with his usual bag of excuses as he does in every thread he makes,nothing is ever his fault and we are all picking on him etc etc
Edited By: boothy on Jul 31, 2010 12:46:
However, on deal threads I have seen since he "always" seems to be moving location; probably a gross exaggeration, but it appears to be that way. I appreciate I do not see every thread.
I am mentioning this because it is also a good reason to ask for a seller to send items first.
If in the negotiations you learn that a seller is moving house soon, it alerts buyers to the fact that they may never hear from the seller again after funds have been transferred.
As mentioned above, though, you will get an appreciation of a (new or existing) member's reliability from the responses you gain. You can still be caught out though (as I was earlier this year). Fortunately I got a refund, but that was only after chasing the seller almost every day including when he had left the country (without telling me or any of the other buyers waiting on items that he was going away for two weeks).
On the flipside of this, I bought the same item in another forum & the seller (with zero feedback) sounded very reliable but had no problem sending an item to an established member (such as myself) first because they appreciated the reservations I had about the sum of money involved.
A rule you should adopt with trading with anybody you do not know (or, in some cases, do know) is that you should not spend more than you can afford to lose.
BFN,
fp.
he went crying to the mods and got it deleted from here but the one on avforums is here
The thread on here was much worse with alsorts of stuff being said by the Op that weren't true
Wow I have just read through all of that oO thats worthy of a movie script X)
he went crying to the mods and got it deleted from here but the one on avforums is here
The thread on here was much worse with alsorts of stuff being said by the Op that weren't true
Wow I have just read through all of that oO thats worthy of a movie script X)
Same here!! Certainly an eye opener!
Four months earlier a TV with the same model number was sold successfully by the same seller:
For Sale : Samsung LE32R73BD
BFN,
fp.
he went crying to the mods and got it deleted from here but the one on avforums is here
The thread on here was much worse with alsorts of stuff being said by the Op that weren't true
Wow I have just read through all of that oO thats worthy of a movie script X)
The one on here was much better - stuff like saying it had never been used, until someone found a thread where he had bought it 2nd hand, then changed to he meant he had never used it, until someone else found a post that showed he had etc etc.
He still whinges when I bring it up but in over 15 years of being online I don't think I've ever seen a trade go as badly wrong as that one. Obviously wasn't a one off either as his feedback on here shows.