So I am thinking about starting a TGO Hall of Shame

[TGO David]

So I am thinking about starting a TGO Hall of Shame upon which I will post the names of members who have, for various reasons, earned themselves a public shunning.

 

Extreme?  Hear me out.  :)

 

Every so often I have to spend an hour or so of my time in email and on the phone fighting to keep $20.  Because every so often someone buys a Benefactor membership here, uses it to post some ads in the Trading Post, and then goes to PayPal and disputes the charge saying that we charged them without authorization.  :rolleyes:

 

Bear in mind that we do not do automatically recurring subscriptions for this precise reason.  I never want TGO to automatically debit someone's account and be the reason why they overdraft at their bank, or can't buy groceries or put gas in their car.  An unexpected debit could easily cause any of those scenarios to play out.

 

So when someone buys a Benefactor membership, it's not a mistake.  They did it willingly.  And as most of you know, a Benefactor membership on TGO has some pretty immediate value and perks, the least of which not being the ability to use our Trading Post to post advertisements.  Which means that anyone who summarily demands a refund from PayPal is essentially trying to defraud TGO and "screw the system", so to speak.

 

And that's why I am tempted to start a Hall of Shame.   Because if you're willing to rip us off, everyone ought to know it.

 

:shrug:

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

[KahrMan]

I am all for it.  Shame away.  The electronic version of putting the bounced checks on the wall behind the cashier.

Edited October 18, 2015 by KahrMan

[Raoul]

I say go for it. Screw'em.

[LagerHead]

I recently read a pretty convincing article on the value of shaming. I can't say I agreed 100% with it, but a very good argument was made. In this sort of situation though, I'd say let 'em have it. If they want to act like douches, treat them like douches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[10-Ring]

Yes!  I want to know for the simple fact that it is dishonest behavior and I don't want to do business with someone that would do you and the forum that way.

[DaveTN]

No, you should ban them. If I understand what you are saying, they know they need to be a benefactor to sell something. So they place the item for sale and then later dispute the charge? Who wants to buy and sell guns with people like that; ban them and call it a day. I’m generally against banning people over BS; buts that’s just plain criminal.

You could post who they are though for the entertainment value or in case they sell other places.

A lot of us have been benefactors a long time and rarely sell anything.

[gregintenn]

How sorry can a guy be? Wow. I'd like to know who people like this are so I won't have the misfortune of trying to deal with them.

[KKing]

Go for it. Feed em' fish heads


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigun]

I like it. I became a benefactor to join in on the buying and selling, and to support the site which I enjoy greatly.

[jwinter]

Would you post their user name which is usually a made up name or their actual name? If you post "Chicken lips" to the wall of shame, would it make a difference? I think banning them at the IP address level would be better. That way you can make sure they can't just make a new name and show up again.

Maybe a simpler way would be to charge the fee before they can have access to the selling process with a long enough time to insure there claim is false. Would that work?

[nightrunner]

Do it! They earned it.

I say ban them too but I'm assuming you will have already done that. If not, your house your rules.

Like Dave said, many of us have been Benefactors a long time yet rarely if ever use the Trading post.


Does this mean you will post past banned people and why? Voldemort... Etc.

[Pain103]

I don't see a problem with it but are these people actually staying around after disputing their benefactor purchase? If not then they don't get the real shame. It might be helpful if we saw those usernames and might be able to avoid future interaction from other sites where people make deals.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Go for it.  I know of other forums that do this, and they include banned members with the reason for banning them (including quotes).   :hiding:

[Joe357]

Go for it.

[RED333]

Your house, your rules, shame them.

Might make a new member wait 30 or so days, have a number of posts before posting

something for sale.

[Caster]

Do it!

Maybe even consider some retroactive hall of fame alumni. I can think of a few thieves, crooks and general douche bags worth mentioning.

[CommsNBombs]

Hall of Shame is pretty legit.

ProfessionalSoldiers has the "Your Rucksack Is In The Hall" (not a good thing to hear btw) for people who fail to follow simple instructions/screw the system.

And some honorable mentions of how to be a total moron like DamYankee or Gecko45.

Its good comedy and serves as an example - and builds cohesion through adversity lol.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[Jonnin]

Do it.  For this specific case, where someone posted an AD and then tried to get out of the charges, there is no contest as to their intent.  

[hlb14]

Not extreme at all, a list of people not to do business with would be quite nice.

[Oh Shoot]

Would you post their user name which is usually a made up name or their actual name? If you post "Chicken lips" to the wall of shame, would it make a difference?

 
Yeah, I don't see much purpose in just listing a user name. Maybe some might use same one on other sites, but probably anyone really low enough to plan a scam like this wouldn't. Plus there may well be unrelated folks using that username here and there on the web, and could be unjustly besmirched.
 

I think banning them at the IP address level would be better. That way you can make sure they can't just make a new name and show up again.

That generally doesn't work worth a hoot except briefly,  as only very few people have a static IP.

 

The last two IP fields, especially the last one, change frequently with the various ISPs.  Even all 4 fields may (they certainly do with Comcast). So at some point not far down the road, you'd actually be banning someone unrelated by doing a specific IP.  Or you'd have to ban a range of IPs, so you'd be nixing all the Comcast users in an extended area or whatever at any given time, and you might still not be getting the target baddie.

 

Not to mention the use of IP anonymizers. 

 

- OS

Edited October 19, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[btq96r]

It's a sad state of affairs that you have to deal with this, David.  Proves gun owners can have their asshat's just like any other group.  If anyone is slimy enough to pull a trick like disputing the charges when they go through all the steps to buy a benefactor membership, they deserve to be called out for it. There is no excuse with the rules laid out very clearly in the stickies, and a dose of internet vigilante justice would seem to be called for.

 

I'd recommending an update the sites user agreement to make it clear that's what will happen if they try to screw the site so the offenders will think twice about retaining an ambulance chaser to sue TGO over it.

[btq96r]

Yeah, I don't see much purpose in just listing a user name. Maybe some might use same one on other sites, but probably anyone really low enough to plan a scam like this wouldn't. Plus there may well be unrelated folks using that username here and there on the web, and could be unjustly besmirched.

 

Post the email they have tied to their profile, and you have a much better way to protect against the unscrupulous.

Edited October 19, 2015 by btq96r

[Sam1]

Yes, especially after what happened last year during the secret santa thing.

 

Speaking of, it's almost time again!

Edited October 19, 2015 by Sam1

[runco]

I'm not a benefactor, I am here for local comrade, fellowship, sharing of info and fun.  I really don't have a dog in this race, but if my opinion matters, take the high road.  Move on.   

[Ted S.]

I wouldn't get tied up in shaming, that may open you up to unwarrented libel lawsuit.

 

If you could do this without repercussions, my opinion is: your site, your rules 120%