RFF Censorship?

[Zathras]

I recently participated in a thread in which a reader had purchased a Leica IIIc on ebay with a lens that turned out to be a fake Elmar. The original poster had posted to the Leica Screwmount forum, wondering if he had been screwed. I chased down the listing on ebay and voiced my opinion that yes, for the amount of money he had paid, he definitely had been screwed. I also stated that I felt that the seller had knowingly passed the hacked Industar off as a genuine Elmar, and when the buyer asked about a discrepancy on the lens, the seller replied that it was a rare factory typo. I also mentioned the seller's ebay ID's and my opinion of said seller.

I recently looked for the thread, wanting to see if the reader was able to resolve this issue with the seller to his satisfaction, and I discovered that the thread had disappeared. :eek:

I have also noticed that the forum dealing with scam alerts and bad ebay and other sellers also no longer exists. I find this to be disturbing since we need a forum to alert RFF members to these things and possibly protect other RFF'ers from getting burned by unscrupulous sellers.

Mike Sullivan

[CameraQuest]

I removed the Ebay Scam Alert forum.

I don't believe any useful purpose is done by RFF providing a venue for accusing anyone of mis-deeds, especially when the accused is seldom involved in the discussion to give their side.

The old forum provided for someone complaining about something, and then a lot of people who knew nothing about the situation other than the info accuser is offering, giving their own opinions of something they really know very little about.

I don't want RFF to be involved in such rumor mongering. But there are of course a lot of forums that love that kind of stuff.

IF there really is some sort of scam going on, Ebay is already set up to handle it, as well as the various law enforcement agencies. Real scam problems are for law enforcement to handle, not RFF.

Stephen Gandy

[back alley]

and just as a point of information...that thread was deleted by the original poster, rff had nothing to do with it's 'disappearance'.

joe

[RayPA]

I removed the Ebay Scam Alert forum.

I don't believe any useful purpose is done by RFF providing a venue for accusing anyone of mis-deeds, especially when the accused is seldom involved in the discussion to give their side.

The old forum provided for someone complaining about something, and then a lot of people who knew nothing about the situation other than the info accuser is offering, giving their own opinions of something they really know very little about.

I don't want RFF to be involved in such rumor mongering. But there are of course a lot of forums that love that kind of stuff.

IF there really is some sort of scam going on, Ebay is already set up to handle it, as well as the various law enforcement agencies. Real scam problems are for law enforcement to handle, not RFF.

Stephen Gandy

I disagree, but that doesn't matter. It's your forum, so delete as many member posts and contributions as you want. I thought that forum served a purpose. Maybe rename the forum and set some new rules regarding posting, but deleting post*s* is in bad form, Stephen.


.

[jan normandale]

I don't believe anyone bringing this 'laundry' .. 'he said, she said' stuff to any forum. Courts have a hard enough time sorting this out with people in one room. It's a forum that is easy to misuse and abuse. I end up feeling the poster is just trying to enlist me to their cause which in the end is 'using people'.

Stephen 'removed the Ebay Scam Alert forum.' because Ebay has their own..

Joe noted.. 'as a point of information...that thread was deleted by the original poster, rff had nothing to do with it's 'disappearance'.

My two cents

[ChrisN]

There have been non-ebay issues and problems raised in that forum, now lost.

[Zathras]

and just as a point of information...that thread was deleted by the original poster, rff had nothing to do with it's 'disappearance'.

joe

If this is the case, I have no problems with the thread being deleted. However, I would like to have known if the original poster was able to resolve his problem satisfactorily. I think that the camera in question was somewhat misrepresented WRT the lens, and since this seller sells things that are very interesting to many people on RFF and other sites, it is important for potential customers to have some kind of idea of the kind of seller they are dealing with. This is why I was concerned when I saw that the thread was gone. The price of the camera was too much to be expected to merely "pay yer money and take yer chances".

I'm not knocking the Industar lens here, but if I was buying a Leica IIIc that was listed for sale as coming with an Elmar, for the same price as paid by the original poster for his camera, then it had better have a REAL Elmar, and one in very good usable condition to boot.

Mike Sullivan

[Zathras]

I don't believe anyone bringing this 'laundry' .. 'he said, she said' stuff to any forum. Courts have a hard enough time sorting this out with people in one room. It's a forum that is easy to misuse and abuse. I end up feeling the poster is just trying to enlist me to their cause which in the end is 'using people'.

Stephen 'removed the Ebay Scam Alert forum.' because Ebay has their own..

Joe noted.. 'as a point of information...that thread was deleted by the original poster, rff had nothing to do with it's 'disappearance'.

My two cents

I don't believe that it is so much a question of airing dirty laundry as much as somebody wanting to know if he paid a fair price for his camera or was he somehow cheated. The poster was asking for help from more experienced members because he felt that all was not right with his new purchase. In this case, the camera was not as advertised, and when he asked the seller about the lens, he was told it was a rare factory mistake. This kind of reply, from a person who I feel should know better, gives me the impression that the seller hoped to sell the camera to somebody whose knowledge of the camera was limited.

I think that people should know something about the person that they are sending their hard-earned money to. I do not like to be ripped off, and I want to know if I might have a potential problem with a given seller. Fortunately, most people are good and I haven't been burned too often, but it pisses me off when it does happen to me.

If I were to post a complaint in a forum, I would stick to the facts, and list all the details of what happened in a hopefully non emotional way. Of course, I would first try to resolve my problem with the seller without involving others unless I needed information on how to proceed. If the situation is resolved satisfactorily, I would report back to the forum, to let others know that the seller treated me well. If I felt that I had been screwed, you can bet yer sweet bippy that I would not hesitate to let people know what happened to me if they were asking about a particular seller. I would want to be able to help someone else avoid a bad experience.

Remember, the most powerful form of advertising is still word of mouth, and this truly can make or break any seller or company. This even applies to Cameraquest, of whom I have heard nothing but good. I plan to buy a lens or two from Stephen when the finances allow me to do so, my decision being based on the experiences of his customers.

Just my 2 cents...

Mike Sullivan

[RayPA]

I don't believe anyone bringing this 'laundry' .. 'he said, she said' stuff to any forum. Courts have a hard enough time sorting this out with people in one room. It's a forum that is easy to misuse and abuse. I end up feeling the poster is just trying to enlist me to their cause which in the end is 'using people'.

Stephen 'removed the Ebay Scam Alert forum.' because Ebay has their own..

Joe noted.. 'as a point of information...that thread was deleted by the original poster, rff had nothing to do with it's 'disappearance'.

My two cents

Stephen deleted an entire forum, not just one thread or post. You may not have found value in it, Jan but there's something to be said for giving your friends a heads up regarding a place almost all of patronize. Members weren't just b*ing and moaning about bad transactions, they were asking opinions about auctions, before bidding. They were asking for advice on how to handle suspicious or peculiar dealings. Heck even Camera Quest benefited when sellers were using images taken from the CQ website. I learned a lot about cameras from discussions about auctions that were highlighted in that forum.

No one says a thing about the HU: threads that point to directly to auctions. Those threads help members get gear. What's wrong with helping on the other side of the equation.



.

[Zathras]

I wanted to say something like ... "spoken like a true retailer!" ... but that would be a bit cheeky I think? :angel:

Don't say it then. :p We don't approve of cheekiness in a serious forum such as this one!!! :D :D :D

[ClaremontPhoto]

I'm with Stephen on this. If he lets people complain about eBay deals gone wrong he could be held responsible for defamation. eBay has a feedback system so use it there, and no need to write anything here.

But, Stephen, can we have the regular 'Gallery Picks' thread back in the General discussion forum and not in some obscure forum that gets so little traffic?

[rxmd]

Stephen deleted an entire forum, not just one thread or post. You may not have found value in it, Jan but there's something to be said for giving your friends a heads up regarding a place almost all of patronize. Members weren't just b*ing and moaning about bad transactions, they were asking opinions about auctions, before bidding.
I guess they will continue to do so in the forums associated with the respective cameras. Also, "scam alerts" or whatever will now go in those forums, too. Of course, Stephen can still delete both kinds of posts, but (a) it would be a lot of work and (b) it would be rather bad style IMHO.

I think the main loss here is what Chris has pointed out:
There have been non-ebay issues and problems raised in that forum, now lost.
I tend to agree. That's a pity.

On a completely different note,
The original poster had posted to the Leica Screwmount forum, wondering if he had been screwed.
I wonder if that's the purpose of a Screw-mount forum. (Har, har. I'll be here all week.)

Philipp

[back alley]

I'm with Stephen on this. If he lets people complain about eBay deals gone wrong he could be held responsible for defamation. eBay has a feedback system so use it there, and no need to write anything here.

But, Stephen, can we have the regular 'Gallery Picks' thread back in the General discussion forum and not in some obscure forum that gets so little traffic?


jon,
it's me who moves/moved those threads to the rff projects section.
it seems to have become an ongoing project for many here and that section seems more appropriate.
there are so many threads that get started in rf general discussion that do not fit there.
joe

[ClaremontPhoto]

back alley:

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree although I know that a lot in General Discussion does not belong there. Gallery Picks does not fall into that cetegory.

The Gallery picks thread each week is not an RFF project as the photos we mention were not submitted for any project.

By sending the thread to a forum not even listed on the front page you are taking away one of the few image-centric parts of RFF.

Already for every one post about photos there must be ten posts about bags and so on. This new policy can only make things worse for folks who want to talk about photos.

I addressed my remark to Stephen in the hope that he would confer with mods and decide to keep Gallery Picks in General Discussion.

[FrankS]

By sending the Gallery picks thread to a forum not even listed on the front page you are reducing the exposure of one of the few image-centric parts of RFF.

I agree too.

[iml]

By sending the Gallery picks thread to a forum not even listed on the front page you are reducing the exposure of one of the few image-centric parts of RFF.

I agree too.

I agree three. The gallery is my favourite bit of RFF and I like these threads.

Ian

[Trius]

I pretty much agree with Aaron that eBay is not really set up to efficiently (not to mention fairly) settle disputes. But I also see Stephen's point. Since RFF is now owned by a retail entity that is both a competitor to and a customer of eBay, one has to be careful not to give even the appearance of conflict and defamation.

And Stephen's point about rumour-mongering is a great one. Here's a little (but long!) story...

On 12/21/06 I placed a small order through a retail website. I won't mention the company, but it's one that a lot of folks here would recognize. Total purchase was $16.49, so not a lot of money. I used PayPal, with funds drawn from my bank account as the source.

By early January I hadn't received my order, so on 1/06 I forwarded my PayPal receipt to the email address of the retailer, and a request for status. No response. I waited and forwarded the receipt again on 1/26. Still no response.

I forgot about it for awhile, then yesterday I tried to register a dispute with PayPal. PayPal's automated online system stated that the dispute wasn't allowed, but there was no explanation as to why.

Next I tried to call the customer service number listed on PayPal for the retailer. I got a "number has been disconnected" recording. Oh crap.

Next I did a reverse phone number look-up, and found the name and address of the person attached to the disconnected number. (Naturally, I won't post that here.) Not that it gave me much information other than an address; and my source (whitepages.com) isn't authoritative anyway.

So, I called PayPal, and went through their IVR hell. I finally said "representative" to the voice response unit, and got an agent on the phone within a few minutes, a woman with a strong Caribbean accent... as if that matters. She stated the reason for the dispute not being allowed was that the transaction was more than 45 days old. However, she stated that she would submit a "courtesy refund" from PayPal. She didn't know if it would be allowed, and that these types of refunds are processed once a week, so I might not know until sometime next week.

Next I went to DNSSTUFF.COM and did a whois lookup for the website. Interesting. The actual business name (the website name is a DBA) matched the PayPal vendor listing, but the name and phone number was different from the PayPal listing and my reverse phone lookup. So, I called the phone number. I asked for the person listed as the contact from Whois. The person who answered identified themselves as the spouse, and that the spouse wasn't there but they could take a message for them.

I explained why I was calling, and was informed that there were a couple of orders in December that were lost. He took my information and stated they would send out the order to me. There are still a couple of questions in my mind ... i.e., why weren't my emails answered, and why didn't the person with whom I spoke ask for any details as to my order?

In any event, I am going to trust this will get resolved. Initially I thought of posting on RFF to see if anyone had any bad experiences lately with this retailer, as they had had a great reputation and so I was puzzled.

But I also remembered some of the previous posts about "scams" here and how more than a couple had been resolved because there were misunderstandigs, simple mistakes, etc., that could be rectified by persistence and patience. The RFF threads had caused more heat than light, and feelings were unnecessarily hurt.

Sorry for the long-winded story, but this is why I agree with Stephen's position.

Oh, and if I get a "courtesy refund" from PayPal, I'll keep it for my trouble or maybe just buy a Gordy strap, soft release or something. :D

[dnk512]

What about a sticky thread/forum with a list of scam types and tips of recognizing fakes (pictures?), what to check for on used and new gear, what to avoid/look for on sellers, buyers, risks of paying and receiving payment etc WHITHOUT seller/buyer names? This is info that exists on the net but in bits and pieces and takes days to find and read.

[ray_g]

Over the past years on Ebay, I had gotten scammed twice. Nothing major, but still... On both occasions, Ebay's dispute resolution was next to non-existent, aside from a message to file a claim with Lloyd's, which handled ebay's insurance claims. Of course, I did not even get a response from them. Law-enforcement agencies? Maybe if I bought a Canon 1DSMkII, but not for something much less expensive.

If we are not to post negative feedback or "rumors," then it follows, given the same logic, that positive posts are similarly one-sided and have no place on this forum: heads-up threads, feedback about Youxin Ye, etc. Can we only post feedback about retailers who are RFF members as well, like Luigi, Tony Rose, CQ? Where do you draw the line?

[ray_g]

"I became involved with RFF because that I like RFF the way it is! I don’t plan any big changes."

Unilaterally deleting an entire forum with hundreds of member posts is a pretty big change, don't you think, bartender?

[Ash]

Having had a few bad experiences on ebay, the 'scam alert' forum was great to bitch and whine and warn others of bad sellers. Just as in real life you warn people off of shops where you might have bad service or get ripped off.

The forum was like an ebay condom - better to have it and not need it, then end up with an ugly baby after 9 months of waiting.

[planetjoe]

Maybe Google will become the Ebay killer, too. We'll see.

Now that's a possibility that hadn't occurred to me - wouldn't that be interesting. Like Jim Morrison is puported to have said, "I'm not talking about a revolution...I'm talking about having a good time."

As an aside, endustry, I liked your static HTML "signpost" complaint method.


Cheers,
--joe.

[RayPA]

As Trius points out, I think the conflict of interest between Stephen being a retailer himself probably has more to do with it than we're led to believe. Ebay loves to sue people and Stephen's ass is the only one on the line.
...


That's a lame excuse. If he's using that as a reasoning for deleting an entire forum and hundreds of member posts, then he shouldn't own the forum or he should train his moderators to distinguish and ferret-out any bit of potentially litigious comments. Better yet, maybe he should hire lawyers to moderate his forum. Online forums like this are built upon opinion and "rumor-mongering,“ and besides what was the litigious content within that forum that justified deleting ALL of it?

That line of reasoning suggests one thing: we can expect more post deletions.

[BillBingham2]

As a frequent buyer on eBay and now going back to selling again, this truly is a doubt edge issue. It is dangerous for Stephen to own this site, sell on eBay, sell direct and have folks post what could be inflammatory stuff about eBay.

eBay is floundering from their own success. They are branching out into areas where they can increase their growth and are not fixing some of the underlying problem that they are experiencing. Dispute resolution is a very hard thing for the courts (in any country) to handle, let alone some low paid person. eBay should have dispute info emailed to everyone who bids (costs them almost nothing) so that you know there are time limits and limits to what they will do.

I bought a 28/2.2 AIs lens from down under, good seller from his rating, paid a fair price (read not my best deal, but not the highest price they went for at the time). When it got here the aperture was way to slow to use in an SLR. I took it to the local Nikon shop (being in Chicago it was the old Nikon establishment that now is spun off to a private person/group). They said it needed to be rebuilt, $80. That put the total cost well above the going price for NIB ones. I tried to explain to the seller, he did not answer at first. But when he did stated it was in great shape when it left, I was SOL. It was shipped via slow boat and could have been damaged (read baked to a crackly crunch) during transit (several weeks). I have no way to prove it was DBS (dead before shipment), but I knew I was on the hook. He did not provide me feedback for the transaction waiting to see what I would say. This unfortunately is a sign (IMHO) of a bad seller. Perhaps a burned seller, but there is no way easy way to see if this is a pattern on eBay. As I have 100% positive, I did not want to chance him slamming me, no way. I work hard being a far buyer and seller.

I had another transaction where before I even got the wrong camera (close, a Black F2 Photomic rather than a Chrome F2A) the sell refunded all my money and let me keep the camera.

I like the idea of asking people for their opinion of an item before you bid, but there are two issues. Often, many of us are looking for the same thing (e.g. User Nikon SP, Mint 75 ‘Lux) and we are opening up what could be our competitors eye to something we hope to get a fair deal on. Some times there is not time to wait for reply, you might find something in the last 10 mins of bidding. But it is better than nothing.

Perhaps what eBay should have is another rating tool in addition to the feedback. It should be a ratio, the number of items sold + won over the number of feedbacks given. This would tell you if there is potentially issues with folks not wanting a black mark back in their rating too.

I know there are ways to get black marks removed (if they are truly not fair) but I’m about as sure that works as I am the current rating system give you a complete picture.

B2 (;->
(a man going back to selling on eBay)

[BillBingham2]

As a frequent buyer on eBay and now going back to selling again, this truly is a doubt edge issue. It is dangerous for Stephen to own this site, sell on eBay, sell direct and have folks post what could be inflammatory stuff about eBay.

eBay is floundering from their own success. They are branching out into areas where they can increase their growth and are not fixing some of the underlying problem that they are experiencing. Dispute resolution is a very hard thing for the courts (in any country) to handle, let alone some low paid person. eBay should have dispute info emailed to everyone who bids (costs them almost nothing) so that you know there are time limits and limits to what they will do.

I bought a 28/2.2 AIs lens from down under, good seller from his rating, paid a fair price (read not my best deal, but not the highest price they went for at the time). When it got here the aperture was way to slow to use in an SLR. I took it to the local Nikon shop (being in Chicago it was the old Nikon establishment that now is spun off to a private person/group). They said it needed to be rebuilt, $80. That put the total cost well above the going price for NIB ones. I tried to explain to the seller, he did not answer at first. But when he did stated it was in great shape when it left, I was SOL. It was shipped via slow boat and could have been damaged (read baked to a crackly crunch) during transit (several weeks). I have no way to prove it was DBS (dead before shipment), but I knew I was on the hook. He did not provide me feedback for the transaction waiting to see what I would say. This unfortunately is a sign (IMHO) of a bad seller. Perhaps a burned seller, but there is no way easy way to see if this is a pattern on eBay. As I have 100% positive, I did not want to chance him slamming me, no way. I work hard being a far buyer and seller.

I had another transaction where before I even got the wrong camera (close, a Black F2 Photomic rather than a Chrome F2A) the sell refunded all my money and let me keep the camera.

I like the idea of asking people for their opinion of an item before you bid, but there are two issues. Often, many of us are looking for the same thing (e.g. User Nikon SP, Mint 75 ‘Lux) and we are opening up what could be our competitors eye to something we hope to get a fair deal on. Some times there is not time to wait for reply, you might find something in the last 10 mins of bidding. But it is better than nothing.

Perhaps what eBay should have is another rating tool in addition to the feedback. It should be a ratio, the number of items sold + won over the number of feedbacks given. This would tell you if there is potentially issues with folks not wanting a black mark back in their rating too.

I know there are ways to get black marks removed (if they are truly not fair) but I’m about as sure that works as I am the current rating system give you a complete picture.

B2 (;->
(a man going back to selling on eBay)

[BillBingham2]

I love technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology, technology!

Sorry about the double post.

B2 (;->

[back alley]

That's a lame excuse. If he's using that as a reasoning for deleting an entire forum and hundreds of member posts, then he shouldn't own the forum or he should train his moderators to distinguish and ferret-out any bit of potentially litigious comments. Better yet, maybe he should hire lawyers to moderate his forum. Online forums like this are built upon opinion and "rumor-mongering,“ and besides what was the litigious content within that forum that justified deleting ALL of it?

That line of reasoning suggests one thing: we can expect more post deletions.


that is not the reason stephen gave, please read what stephen has already posted on this thread.

[back alley]

This new policy can only make things worse for folks who want to talk about photos.


jon,
before this gets out of hand.
this is NOT a policy.
as mod, everyday i clean up the forum.
i delete nasty and personal comments, i move threads to the most appropriate section and this is sometimes a judgement call. some are easier than others.
when someone asks about the price of the new 50 elmar m lens and the post is in the fsu section then it's an easy call.
i know the the pics that are chosen were not part of a project. the 'picking/selecting/posting of those has become a project though, at least that is what it seems to me.
and when i visit the forum i immediately hit 'new posts' so i see all that has happened since i was last here. i assume many also do this.

anyway, it's not a big deal to me, only clean up, and if folks want it under general discussion i can let them stay there.

maybe we need a section for all things photographic but not gear related.

joe

[Trius]

It's OK, Bill ... we expect as much since you are B2 ... :D

Any transaction is subject to caveat emptor, and when it is on-line, doubly/triply so.

I do think there should be some sort of online consumer alert forum/site for auctions, etc. After all, people post their experiences with sellers on all sorts of site, e.g. bizrate, etc. But I don't think Stephen (or anyone who is owner/admin) is under any obligation to make RFF that forum.

The one negative I have on evilBay was because a seller did not ship anywhere near the date he promised in a private email. I left negative feedback, even though it was a mistake; I had meant to leave neutral feedback.

He said I'd be hearing from his lawyer, but I never did. His threat didn't bother me. He was going to sick his lawyer on me for a $5 item? Right.

Whatever the pros and cons here, Stephen has his own reasoning and I think we have to live with it and move on.

[NIKON KIU]

I wonder how everone got the Idea that the forum got deleted? It did NOT...just closed:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=51

All the info is still there,

Kiu

[ClaremontPhoto]

back alley:


Thank you. I do understand your position here and appreciate all the hard work you put in.

This will not get out of hand. It's just that us people who appreciate good photos would rather see our regular thread up at the front and not lost around the back.

There is no big problem here, and I'm certain we can understand each other and reach a solution.

[RayPA]

that is not the reason stephen gave, please read what stephen has already posted on this thread.

Read my post there's a big ol' "IF" in there. I'm responding to replies from other members.

.

[back alley]

Read my post there's a big ol' "IF" in there. I'm responding to replies from other members.

.


i saw the big ol' if and i was pointing out the source of info to help remove the if.
i thought that's what you were asking for.

[BillBingham2]

NHSWB,

I was going to bring you guys up as a great example of adding value and giving people heads up. The ebay area is great.

B2 (;->

[Ash]

Same as .

[Al Patterson]

FWIW, I get the same message as Keith...

Not that I care, as I think the forum owner has a right do do as he pleases. Some folks here would be pissed if they came to my house and I offered them a free beer. They would probably want champagne.

[photogdave]

I guess you have to be a "premium member" to see it. I can't.

[ChrisN]

I guess you have to be a "premium member" to see it. I can't.

No, that's not it. I was able to see it three hours ago, but not now. I guess the new owner has decided to delete it (or at least stop anyone from seeing it -same result) after all. Personally, I find that disappointing.

[Ash]

someone start a petition here http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ titled "The NWO is making forums illegal!"

I'd like to see how many people sign up :D

[Steve Bellayr]

Ebay does not reflect the buyers' real atitudes to the sellers. It is very easy for a seller to remove unflattering comments from ebay. Secondly, there is no law enforcement mechanism set up anywhere, including the USA, to deal with fraudulent sales, especially over the internet. State office Consumer affairs will contact the seller. If the seller does not wish to resolve the complaint there is nothing that they can be done by them. There are no Federal Laws...sorry I just contact the Federal Government and made that inquiry. They said on normal sales, i. e. one on one, there are NONE, NADA. They do not get involve. International sales are worse. In the USA if you pay by credit card your credit card company has some leverage. On international sales the charge to the buyer could be higher than the initial cost of the item, therefore on small items, usually under $100, it is better to let the seller keep your money. There is one site www.resellerratings.com (http://www.resellerratings.com) (I have come across it recently.) that is much more accurate than ebay ratings on the same seller. I have no comment either way concerning the removal of the threads.

[JohnM]

Stephen gave us his reasoning - that's all the communication that was needed. The decision was his to make so let's respect it and move on.

[ChadHahn]

I am a member of a Martin guitar forum. Almost daily people ask about different auctions. Is this guitar refinished? Did that model come with those features in that year? Is this person lying or just deluded?

When you are talking about guitars that can sell for many tens of thousands of dollars you can imagine that they pick apart the tiny out of focus pictures in the listing trying to figure out every nuance of the auction.

These threads often get pretty hot and heavy and lots of times the seller of the guitar rings in. I've seen the seller call the posters about every name in the book but I've never seen anyone get threatened to be sued.

I think that not wanting to say something for fear of being sued is cowardly and a disservice. If you keep quiet you are just allowing the person to rip off more people.

Chad

[back alley]

has anyone noticed a decline in the number of posts with questions about ebay items?

and chad, calling stephen a coward? that's out of line.
this site has provided more of a service for rf users than most any around.

joe

[jlw]

I can easily understand Stephen not wanting to provide an open forum for discussions about a business that has absolutely nothing to do with him, especially when those discussions are likely to become slanderous.

And since RFF is his proprietorship, for him to exercise control over what he wants to present isn't "censorship." For all of you who think it is: Hey, I want to come over to your house and put up a yard sign urging people to vote for a political candidate you don't like. If you say, "No thanks, not in my front yard"? are you censoring my political statement? Or are you simply exercising your right to make your own statement on your own property?

[ChadHahn]

I'm not calling him a coward, but I feel this fear that people have is uncalled for.

He calls himself a bartender. What if there was a bar you went to where all of a sudden there was a sign on the door listing the topics that you couldn't discuss. Sure it's their bar but one still can speak their mind.

Where would America be if people couldn't speak unpopular topics in bars? The internet was built on the free exchange of ideas. When people buy popular websites in the hopes of making money from them, then often the exchange of ideas suffers.

Chad

[back alley]

the internet was originally built for the armed forces, to be able to communicate in times of war when the lines of normal communication were gone!
making money from a website? what a dreadful idea.
i suppose you volunteer all your time and survive off the charity of others?

joe

[jan normandale]

Stephen deleted an entire forum, not just one thread or post. You may not have found value in it, Jan but there's something to be said for giving your friends a heads up regarding a place almost all of patronize. Members weren't just b*ing and moaning about bad transactions, they were asking opinions about auctions, before bidding. They were asking for advice on how to handle suspicious or peculiar dealings. Heck even Camera Quest benefited when sellers were using images taken from the CQ website. I learned a lot about cameras from discussions about auctions that were highlighted in that forum.

No one says a thing about the HU: threads that point to directly to auctions. Those threads help members get gear. What's wrong with helping on the other side of the equation.



.

Ray, I was more focused on details of the posts where issues were aired. I think Trius/Earl posted a good summary of what my experience at RFF has been. Often a lot of heat but little light and usually there was a valid reason for these mixups. With most of them resolved however there is was a pallor hanging over the person/s named.

A specific example involved a RFF member Flashover. He was out of commission, had posted/bought camera related stuff and was nowhere to be found. A lot of things were written about him that were totally wrong. Eventually he resurfaced and resolved all the ‘noted’ problems and he continues to be an active and contributing member. The problem was people leapt to conclusions based on notions and not fact. I don’t take much stock of these threads for the reasons illustrated in these two examples.

Regarding the Ebay forum that was deleted. My bad there. I have never used one of the threads in that Forum nor read any. This lead me to the response of there being a redundancy that seemed logical to delete the RFF forum if Ebay was on the job. I guess I’ve just been lucky at Ebay.

As an aside a yellow flag comes up for me when a new member with less than 10 posts arrives on site to raise issues. We’ ve seen this before at RFF and then the poster almost invariably disappears after raising these things. So I’m less than enthusiastic when a “he said, she said” gets posted.

[Keith]

From the 'bartender'...

[quote] Don’t worry folks. If George and I had not announced the change of ownership, you would not have been able to tell it from the site’s contents! [unquote]

:D :rolleyes:

[TeePee Smith]

From the 'bartender'...

[quote] Don’t worry folks. If George and I had not announced the change of ownership, you would not have been able to tell it from the site’s contents! [unquote]

:D :rolleyes:

who is "george"?

[rpsawin]

Where would America be if people couldn't speak unpopular topics in bars? The internet was built on the free exchange of ideas. When people buy popular websites in the hopes of making money from them, then often the exchange of ideas suffers.

Chad

Yeah, like porn, mortgage rates and online gambling. It may be used to communicate ideas but it was not built based on them. And the internet took off when commerce seized control of it.

Bob

[TeePee Smith]

Jorge... George. I'm confused... one guy or two different guys?

[JohnM]

One guy.

Most call him Jorge - Stephen Gandy calls him George.

[TeePee Smith]

Oh, I guess I get it. Any of my Hispanic friends would be offended... but whatever works around here is okay by me.

[back alley]

jorge=george same guy same name one is english and one is spanish

[charjohncarter]

MY friend just got major scr4w5d on Ebay with a camera deal. It's too bad but I'm not dealing with them any more.

[TeePee Smith]

Muchos gracias mi amigo, Jose.