So I am thinking about starting a TGO Hall of Shame

[suspiciousmind]

Ask me this question a few years ago, I would've said shame on! But, after my Dad passed away.. Stuff like that doesn't matter anymore to me anymore.. I would get no enjoyment out of seeing someone shamed. I think those people putting that kind of bad energy out there get what they deserve eventually.

[swim615]

Its your site and your decision.

 

For my business (I"m the lawn care and in order of important bills to pay I'm low man on the totem pole) I get the shaft from people a couple time a year. Its just part of business.. IF its only a couple hundred or less its not worth the trouble. If its $500 or more I threaten to turn it over to collections and I have always been paid after that, when I explain the a collection stays on your credit report for 7 years. YMMV

[DWARREN123]

Yes, then ban them for life!

[raildog]

I like the idea not just for the ones that try and rip you off anyone who gets baned and the reason

[Sam1]

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% 

 

Irrelevant, libel is a false statement.  Can't be libel if they did it.

[Parrothead]

Can you use the email address to sign them up "other" newsletters when they screw you?

 

Hillary 2016

 

Bloomberg circle-jerk

 

"but wait--there's more" hot line.................

Edited October 19, 2015 by Parrothead

[Ted S.]

Irrelevant, libel is a false statement. Can't be libel if they did it.

If they have a good enough lawyer, anything is possible in the legal system.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[tartanphantom]

Aw, c'mon... ever since he lost his FFL, "Kwik-r-Nu" has gotta sell his stuff someplace, I guess he figures might as well be here... so what if he disputes a charge or three on Paypal?... give the guy a break-- he's had a rough couple of years... :rofl: :rofl: :jester:

 

 

 

Seriously though, David, I wouldn't do it personally, but I understand your frustration. It's your call, man.

Edited October 19, 2015 by tartanphantom

[nightrunner]

I'm pretty sure that other forums have this or similar and it's not an issue, legal or otherwise. I see it as a service to the upstanding members.

[RC3]

Does it have to be only to the disputes or can it be for other misshaps. Such as making a new hole on the wall?

[Grand Torino]

People have no shame anymore. Sometimes you have to do it for them.

[FTE]

I'm confused.....do you have members pulling this stunt...and then sticking around?

My guess is that most are leaving the site after they file their claim. And, if that's the case, what good is trying to shame them? Publishing their personal information is rife with potential legal issues, especially if some other yahoo here decides to use that info to try to harm that person (and yes, I've seen it happen on other sites).

Better to ban them and let it go. You could also see if there were any steps you could take through PayPal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dolomite_supafly]

I wonder if having a minimum post count would help? Don't make it a crazy number but requiring anyone who wants to sell something to have a minimum of 5 or 10 posts would cut down on those who register to dispute them.

 

Another option could be that staff approves all posts by those who do not have 10 posts.

 

I think there is a large segment of the population who does not believe it is stealing if it is done on the internet. I have had people try to dispute stuff with me even though I had a no questions asked money back guarantee. But I believe it was never about getting the refund and all about being able to keep what I sold them without paying for it. And if I could have convinced my local LE to I would have prosecuted every single one of them.

 

I would rather see a hall of shame with all the classic threads where people have lost their minds.

[Tncobra]

Personally Id just walk. 

 

I find it easier to forgive and move on. I don't have a lot of extra space in my head to worry about who did what and why.

[bud]

I find it appealing that folks can sign up to become a benefactor, and post items the same day.
I would hate to change the marketplace by requiring minimum post counts, since some here are more interested in procurement than comradery.

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

Shaming works.. even if just  for a few days.Let it be known that business people and grownups are worse than some 13 years olds.

[NextExit]

Minimum post count is a good idea.  And since the new members thread doesn't count towards the post count, that means a newbie couldn't go there and say "hi" to 5 or 10 people just to sell something.

[btq96r]

I wonder if having a minimum post count would help? Don't make it a crazy number but requiring anyone who wants to sell something to have a minimum of 5 or 10 posts would cut down on those who register to dispute them.

 

Probably the most practical option.  Even easier to enforce if the intro section can be added to post counts.

 

 

I find it appealing that folks can sign up to become a benefactor, and post items the same day.
I would hate to change the marketplace by requiring minimum post counts, since some here are more interested in procurement than comradery.

 

I think it's the 2nd and 3rd order effects that has David where he is in contemplating this step.  In addition to the demands on his personal time, every benefactor subscription helps pay for this site, which enables those interested in the community aspect of TGO take away some practical benefits from.  So, when someone pulls the stunt of trying to get their benefactor fees back, they hurt us all in some way.

 

I'd place more value on protecting the site for all members by keeping the operating costs spread out than making it convenient for those looking to buy or sell quickly.

[hipower]

There are so many ways to look at this. first and foremost, it's your decision. So do what is best for you.

 

I am of mixed feelings on this. I really would like to see some restrictions on the ability to buy and sell here. Or at least restrict the ability to see the classifieds until having met a minimum number of posts as some other forums do.

 

For example, the TaurusArmed forum restricts access to sales info until 50 posts have been reached. That at least will show a bit of interest in the forum and maybe weed out some of the rif-raf. Because that takes time to do, it will slow down and stop some.

 

I can't post names for examples, but I have run across other forums with some form of requirement before buying and selling.

 

If you do decide to post anything about these people, I would vote in favor of a list showing screen name, actual name, and type of infraction with a date associated with it. Long explanations would not be necessary, I think.

 

My only question is whether or not some form of violation of implied privacy would cause issues for you. I mean since we use a screen name rather than our actual names, does this enter into some legal area that could be trouble? Since our full information, such as names and address(?), I think, is taken at the point we registered to have access, does that imply a restriction, legally or otherwise, on your part to not release said info?

 

As the site owner, you, and I think the admin help you have; do have access to this information. but does that allow you to put it out for all to see? 

 

That, I think, is the big issue.

 

Overall, I believe I would favor some form of what you suggest. For your protection as well as ours.

 

In the 6 years I've been here, I've met many great people, and had only two questionable transaction with a member.

 

One was more my fault for not backing out than the sellers, but it did get into some misrepresentation issues. Then there was one real liar, being courteous to him at that, from my first dealing with the buying aspects. But he has long ago disappeared.

 

So...I say it's your site, do what you are comfortable with. If I, or anyone else doesn't like it; we have the option to leave.

[Mike.357]

I like the idea of a Hall of Shame for people who provided so much entertainment value here in threads that lead to them getting banned.  

 

As for people stiffing you,  unless it is real common and not just the occasional act I'd take the high road and file it under the cost of doing business.

Karma is a cruel mistress and those people will get theirs someday.  

[bersaguy]

I don't see anything with a Hall of Shame at all. I always say if the shoe fits wear it and if someone deserves to be placed in the Hall let it be! This is your site and you are the one that has to deal with these less desirable's so you do it as you see fit and folks can just deal with it...................JMHO

[suspiciousmind]

I also support the idea of a waiting period or post count minimum before listing in the classifieds. I've seen guns that I'm interested in but because they have no history on the forum I decided against dealing with them.

[jgradyc]

I don't like the wall of shame because of potential liability issues. The person doesn't have to be in the legal "right" to file a court action. People can (and do) file for frivolous or other reasons. Imagine some anti-gun poster with the legal support of some anti-gun group doing this specifically to get posted on the wall so they could file a slander lawsuit, for example. It's not worth the hassle, in my opinion. 

 

I'd suggest that posting an ad requires 1) At least 30 days of membership to include at least 20 real posts. (No "Me too" or multiple posts to that in your opinion, are made just to pad the post count. 2) An upgrade to benefactor. 

 

There may be some better policies at other gun groups. I'd suggest checking them out.

[NoBanStan]

What do you guys think?

 

As much as I like to see people who deserve it "get theirs", I would suggest against this. One of the biggest appeals about this site is that it doesn't hang people like an ARFCOM. Typically those who cause problems just disappear over time and we're left with a community of mostly likable people.

 

David, forgive my analogy, but you or the other admins cleaning house without us knowing is kind of like mom and dad struggling with the bills but the kids have no idea. You do a good job of it.

 

Besides, the ones you plan to shame will likely be gone anyhow.

 

Of course, if they make an utter fool of themselves, post away :)

[Jamie Jackson]

 

I'd suggest that posting an ad requires 1) At least 30 days of membership to include at least 20 real posts. (No "Me too" or multiple posts to that in your opinion, are made just to pad the post count. 2) An upgrade to benefactor. 

 

 

 

I think jgradyc's suggestion is solid.

 

Quite a few forums I've been on in the past had similar requirements. In some manner it can add to the credibility of the individual.

 

I plead ignorant as to the legal ramifications as it relates to this, but I certainly wouldn't have any issues with calling out someone of dubious character and having a place to refer to for such information.

 

:2cents: