Deleting threads and ghosting offers

No one is saying anyone is missing anything, except the thread and the username. The unnamed OP posted a trade was straightforward: FT: one beer ISO: this beer or this beer. @wesmilligan was able to satisfy the post. He replied to the thread that he could do the deal and messaged the OP as well. Unnamed OP didn’t reply to messages and deleted the thread. They were online as it was happening. I was viewing the thread.

It’s an odd move and could certainly rub some people the wrong way. @wesmilligan felt there was no accountability and I agree. Sure, we can move along, but this type behavior shouldn’t be tolerated and an OP should be called out for it.

Forget the trade agreement. If they bailed after that, they’re a bad trader. Even without it in my mind, they’re not someone I’d want to deal with.

I’m sort of confused why the person hasn’t been named/tagged yet. I’d be interested to hear an explanation. I’m sure it’s, “just beer, what’s the big deal.” Well, why are you here trading if it’s not big deal and why conduct yourself in that way?

I’d rather someone lie to me, tell me to eff off, than to ghost me. At least a response gains a little bit of respect even if I still wouldn’t trade with them.

 

Ah yeah, that make more sense. I get it now, yeah bad move by the other trader. I can see why he’s pissed.

 

It's pretty clear what happened here. Continuance dropped in value like an anchor within a few hours. OP saw this and ghosted @wesmilligan. Although it's bad form, unfortunately a trade is not completed on BA till a trade request is accepted.

On most FB pages, trades are hashed out on the thread for transparency. And if you respond first to a post, the trade is yours. Like @wesmilligan did. This has been discussed previously and it seemed like the majority was against closing trades within a post. They preferred making a deal via PM. I prefer when a deal is made in a thread because it allows for transparency.

I do agree that the "trader in question" should be named and let people make their own decision on whether to deal with them in the future.

Just my 2 cents...

 

Bolded is where I disagree. Seeing people reply “PM” to a trade post is one of my biggest pet peeves of the trade forums. Just message the person without that unnecessary reply if you’re messaging them anyways. Being the first to reply “pm” is some odd dog marking territory move and maybe/likely it’s a carryover from Facebook based on what you’ve said. I’ve never had a FB so I don’t know.

That “pm” reply guarantees nothing here. Being first doesn’t/shouldn't make it yours. What if I didn’t bother replying “pm” and I just messaged the OP and it was done before the first reply pm? Is the trade still theirs since it was posted publicly?

I’ve seen it happen countless times where the first person to respond “pm” and then an OP replies, “still open.” That’s why I’ll never understand why some users still do that in addition to messaging someone. Just message them directly. You don’t need to announce it.

I will agree with you on the transparency part. Let it all play out in the thread.

 

I took this to mean “whoever responds first to the post with the desired ISO [either publicly or privately]” has dibs, with which I would agree. Maybe I’m interpreting that generously though.

 

This 100%. Certainly the unnamed OP should have responded in some way to say he was going another direction, but it isn't necessarily first-come, first-served. OP is under no obligation to do the trade with anyone unless they initiated the trade agreement; and certainly not if there was zero dialogue. Is a trade poster not allowed to review potential traders to find a more preferable trade partner - as in one they have previous experience trading with, a closer location, better reputation, expanded trade, etc.? A trade shouldn't close immediately just because someone calls "dibs" because they can satisfy the initial conditions of the trade and/or sends a PM. Trade poster should not be required to trade with the first person to respond. Sure first consideration should go to those who respond first, but it is not binding. There is no "dibs".

For those that disagree, consider this... What would happen if someone you added to your personal Do Not Trade list called dibs? Would you be "required" to trade with them since they got dibs?

 

Right, but when I see people respond “pm” here, I’m assuming they can satisfy the OP offer. Yet still see It plenty of times where that is not the case. OP coming back with “still open.” So, did they respond to Mark territory then haggle in the Pms?

 

I don't see a harm with posting "pm". Maybe just a reminder in case the OP didn't see the PM or forgot.

Either way, the OP isn't locked into make a trade with the one that posted "PM"

 

What I don’t get is if you went in a different direction or made a trade somewhere else say it, don’t just delete the post especially if someone posted they had the iso the op was iso. It doesn’t make any sense. No the OP isn’t obligated to trade but give some clarity as why he couldn’t complete the trade. I assumed ,like others did, that this trade was basically closed, another member even made a trade post trying to make the opposite trade and mentioned the other “closed” trade. I’m not saying the Op has to make the trade because he has every right not to since the trade wasn’t official. However his actions speak for themselves and that’s someone I personally wouldn’t want to deal with.

 

I think the trader who never responded had incredibly poor form, and very likely has a garbage profiteering attitude towards trading, but personally I don't see the need to call them out in this thread specifically by name.

I'm sure at least the vast majority of you have had experiences before where you PM someone with a trade offer and they never even respond to you. It's rude and frustrating. But I don't think every time this happens that person should be called out by name in a new thread, or tagged in a "bad trader" thread.

Rather, this person should go on your DNT list, and you move on and don't trade with them in the future. If the OP wants to PM other folks who would like to know the name of this trader to add to their personal DNT lists, it's the OP's choice if they want to do that.

 

But the only way to know who to put on one’s “DNT list” is if their name is broadcast?... it seems like you’re advocating for exactly the same end (accountability in the sense that people can choose not to trade with them) just in a far less efficient manner. Maybe I’m missing something?

 

If anyone is looking to add the unnamed user to their personal DNT list, feel to message me.

Don’t reply to this message with PM.

 

My thought is that the OP (or other folks who know who the trader is) could PM interested folks with the information if they wanted to. Yes, you're right, it's a lot less efficient. But I don't think a public focus on the specific user by name is appropriate here. Are we supposed to create "bad trader" style threads with that user called out by name every time someone doesn't respond to our PM, or every time someone is being unreasonable with the terms of a trade and that trade falls through? Seems like it could be a bit excessive and create tons of perhaps unneeded drama.

 

I like shaming in these situations. It doesn’t seem like @wesmilligan was being unreasonable at all. He responded in the unnamed OP’s thread and through messages.

The OP didn’t like something it seems. Someone mentioned earlier that value plummeted one way or another so maybe they felt like they were “losing” even if someone was providing exactly what they posted iso.

Give a courtesy response in messages. Communication is one of, if not the most important part of trading.

If I’m dealing with someone and they’re not great with it, flags start to go up for me. I try to see it through if we’ve hit the agreement.

I’ve had numerous conversations over the last year with trades that never happened. In most cases people reached out to me, then disappeared. Never understand that. Again, courtesy message.

 

Within a niche hobby that relies very much on being able to trust other people I think public shaming (to a reasonable degree) is totally fine. It also gives the other person a chance to say “hey it didn’t quite happen like that” or “I’m sorry, I fucked up it won’t happen again.” But then again, maybe I’m just a sucker for drama.

Either way, I hear where you’re coming from. I don’t think anyone in the thread is too far apart, which is always nice.

 

Some posters delete and repost the same thread every other day (seemingly). The recent changes just made their life real interesting.

 

@wesmilligan you are a good dude. That being said, this other dude’s antics are garbage and should get him/her banned. They’d be slaughtered on the way out in most other trading groups.

 

FWIW I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what happens on FB as far as "dibs" on a trade post. I'm simply reporting the "news" and why @wesmilligan would respond to a post "close it".
Like I referenced, most pages do not allow DM until trade is closed utilizing "dibs". This allows for transparency on the page. Which I understand.

 

If I had to guess....this is what I would assume the reason for the ghost move