Questionable Trading Ethics - ThomasMendes1

I hear ya...You are correct here.. Would sure be cool if there was some way to tag threads like this to users on their profiles where they cannot remove them...Like a scarlet letter..Trade at your own risk..

 

Two things I've learned the hard way: (1) Feedback system, always. (2) Trust your gut and call off an unconfirmed trade if it doesn't feel right.

Yes.

Just as you planned, so no possibility of further negative feedback on your shady actions. Not only slimy but conniving. The worst kind of #newmoney.

FTFY

 

I don't think there is any reason why he can't be banned. The mods gave him a reprieve for the ban-worthy offence of leaving retaliatory feed-back because he was willing to change the feedback, and "apologized." That is their prerogative. They can change their minds about that if they want as well, regardless of his subsequent behaviour, in my opinion. Moreover, despite his current actions not breaking explicit trading rules, they do seem to run counter to the spirit of the rules surrounding trading here. They can revoke his privileges in using this site for that if they want too. As far I am concerned, they can ban whomever they want, and their reasons can be fluid.

I'll echo those who have implored people to always use the feedback system. I have yet to hear a good reason to defend not using it when trading.

I will also echo those who have said traders should be monitoring this particular forum. Even when there is a run on these threads like there has been recently, it really doesn't take long to peruse the bad trader forum and decide if you want to add the user/users in question to your do-not-trade-list. Not doing this is imprudent. It is kind of akin to buying something from a web-site you have never heard of, without first doing what you can to verify that the site is legitimate. Again, I have yet to see a good reason for not maintaining personal do-not-trade-lists.

Cheers!

 

He's still posting away in the ISO forum. Hope anyone that even considers trading with him sees these threads. And of course makes him ship first + uses the feedback system.

 

Well, it seems like the mods have gone dark on this thread just like most bad traders. BA announces that you can back out of trades at any time as long as no beer is exchanged and Todd closes down the only thread I've seen asking for an explanation

 

I am willing to bet they are discussing this. I imagine this guy is on really thin ice.

1. Flakes on a trade after multiple excuses
2. Leaves retaliatory feedback to the person he flaked on
3. Shows up in a thread whining about how his history of good trades should be taken into account and he should not be banned
4. Proceeds to flake on another trade a week later
5. Posts an ISO "willing to negotiate ratios" (i.e. willing to flake on you at a moment's notice if someone offers better)

Some shameless stuff right there.

 

Like @cducap said, I have to imagine there's a behind-the-scenes discussion. @F2brewers and @blue-dream are very active in these threads and seem committed to whatever makes the community better, as a whole. I have hope there is a resolution of some sort coming.

 

Agreed and hopeful.

Some thoughts on this. I understand BA would like to limit the amount of moderation and BS they need to deal with. But the combination of the following things seem to protect the guilty and not the innocent.

1. No commenting on trade threads limits the ability of people to respond to bad traders to warn other people.
2. Removal on restrictions on auctioning threads
3. Not being able to leave feedback unless box is sent allows people to back out of an accepted trade to get a better offer.

 

Me, I'd rather see the rules enforced as written, rather than because torches+pitchforks.

 

So I mainly trade on reddit where comments are allowed, and a lot of the comments end up being threadshitting which doesn't end up being productive. I think to combat point number one, mods should be allowed to post links to bad trader threads. If people see a bad trader they recognize, pm a mod and have them post the link. Im not sure if that can be done, but if it could I think that would be a good solution. Wonder if there should be a feedback option that is backed out of trade. That was it's not positive or negative? And people can take it fwiw

 

You keep saying things to this effect. Retaliatory feedback is against a written rule. Does that matter?

 

IMO once you accept a trade request, the trade is finalized. If you flake on the trade, your partner should have the right to leave you bad feedback. Don't think a Bad Trader thread is needed for flaking, but bad feedback is definitely warranted. If OP had used the Trade system then he would have left bad feedback and this would be the end of it.

 

I agree that this is how it should be, but now you can't leave feedback until you have shipped. So even if you buy beer for a trade and the other person backs out, its conisdered ok within the rules.

 

I think 99% of people would agree with your opinion... accept that is no longer the rule, or I guess it never was? Per Todd from another thread....

"Additionally, the clarification was made as we got tired of people using it for trades that never happened, the retaliatory feedback left by the person who backed out, the subsequent whining thrown at mods by the person who left the original bad feedback (when they weren't supposed to) and the time wasted having to deal with the back and forth between both traders until ultimately the feedback was purged; every single time, so there's also no point."

- "we got tired of people using it for trades that never happened" You mean because one side backed out after agreeing to a trade, possibly after one party bought beer for the agreed to trade, turned down other offers, or spent time packing up the box

- "the retaliatory feedback left by the person who backed out" Shouldn't that be an insta-ban. Along with backing out on a deal they then leave retaliatory feedback

- "the time wasted having to deal with the back and forth" Isn't that what the mods jobs are? To keep the peace when the rules aren't followed? And how much time can mods really be spending on cases like this, I doubt they are popping up 5 times a day.

 

Of course it matters. But the goal of all this is a happy and healthy BA community, not vengefully smiting people to oblivion the second they've possibly stepped over the line, so as is usually the case, the mods gave ThomasMendes1 the opportunity to correct his potentially offending behavior and/or respond to the allegations. He did both, that same day.

I'd like to also note that: A) the previous dispute also did not warrant a Bad Trader thread (according to the rules), and B) since no beer was shipped or exchanged, neither party in that previous dispute should have left feedback, and C) the offendee in this current dispute isn't exactly a model citizen either, given that his immediate response when it looked like the other person might be backing out was "fuck off". I personally wouldn't want to trade with either of them.

 

First, I absolutely agree that the goal is a happy BA community (not so sure about healthy if most of our livers were examined). That said, while this trader addressed his behavior on that day (after whining about how he didn't think it was right that he should leave positive feedback) he did nearly the same thing a week later based upon the details of this thread. That isn't the BA boards on some kind of witch hunt. This is a trend.

I think everyone would agree that technically, this person does not qualify as a "Bad Trader" but you have to admit that this person is carefully skirting the edges of the rules and appears to be playing offers against one another behind the scenes after already agreeing to a deal.

There are no courts who are going to hear legal technicalities of BA rules and even the mods have to take cues from the community in general when it comes to this type of behavior. This might be a case where the rules need to be enhanced. If the goal is a happy BA community, then weeding out unethical behavior has to occur. This is a trust-based system that can't tolerate the untrustworthy.

 

Well put, agree totally.

This ongoing discussion has yielded very positive changes for us here over the years, and I don't think it is unreasonable to think there'll be more changes for the better in future

 

I guess I'm not seeing really much of anyone who's talking about vengeance. I see a lot of people talking about removing trading privileges from someone who 1) broke a stated rule, 2) was given leniency for breaking that rule, then 3) turned around and proceeded to act with the same lack of scruples that earned him the first bad trader thread.

Whether or not the two bad trader threads were warranted, and the choice of language by the OP are utterly irrelevant to the question of how to appropriately deal with ThomasMendes1's behavior. His behavior is his own, and has nothing to do with how people respond to it.

I'm simply not clear on how allowing ThomasMendes1 to continue enjoying the privilege of trading on BA promotes a happy and healthy community. On the other hand, I can think of some ways in which suspending those privileges does just that.

 

I believe it was Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice at the time, who once said, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of traders I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["bad traders"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know them when I see them, and the trader involved in this case is most certainly one."