Well crap. There goes my perfect record.

"Kris Baker" <kris.baker@prodigyyy.net> wrote in message
news:W5rZh.20292$Um6.11431@newssvr12.news.prodigy. net...
>
> "jim menning" <jmenningSPAM@new.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:463635c2$0$4697$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Kris Baker" <kris.baker@prodigyyy.net> wrote in message
>> news:%9qZh.20282$Um6.5559@newssvr12.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>
>>> "jim menning" <jmenningSPAM@new.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46362ad6$0$19458$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Kris Baker" <kris.baker@prodigyyy.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:NPpZh.20280$Um6.1719@newssvr12.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim menning" <jmenningSPAM@new.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:46361194$0$18875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Kris Baker" <kris.baker@prodigyyy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:uInZh.20259$Um6.8064@newssvr12.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <spaam_this@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1177945176.737545.7780@n59g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com...
>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 3:10 pm, Lee <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> seller went NARU
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You should request withdrawal under the following condition:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Feedback left by a person ineligible to participate in eBay
>>>>>>>> transactions, according to Section 1 of the eBay User Agreement, at
>>>>>>>> the time of the transaction or the time the feedback was left."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wasn't the feedback left *after* the seller's suspension was lifted?
>>>>>>> In that case, he was eligible to leave feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And to be fair, if the buyer can leave feedback after a seller's suspension is
>>>>>> lifted, shouldn't the seller have the same opportunity?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did the buyer do so in this case? I thought the negative was left
>>>>> before the seller was NARU'd. I don't hold grudges (or much
>>>>> memory) that long.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kris
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't paying much attention, it's such a trivial matter anyway, but it's only
>>>> fair if one party can leave feedback, the other should be able to also. If
>>>> there are cases where one party is not allowed to leave feedback or follow-ups,
>>>> the other party shouldn't have the ability to take a free shot.
>>>
>>> Even if, as the OP claims, that the seller did not ship the goods after
>>> having been paid via PayPal?
>>>
>>
>> We all know that a lot of feedback is false. We also know a lot of the posters
>> here give us false stories. We can't be the judge and jury without both sides of
>> the story. We need to let both sides have their say in the feedback, and we can
>> then decide whether to avoid just one, or both of them in the future. Isn't that
>> what feedback is for?
>
> So....if the buyer was telling the truth, you believe that the seller would have,
> also?
>

Who is to know with the multitude of circumstances that could cause a seller to
disappear?

What if this is like a lot of instances in the past where the seller is hospitalized
or some other event caused them to fail to make delivery or contact? They should at
least get a shot to say "I'm sorry, I was hospitalized, the matter has now been
resolved".

My point is, unless we can know the full story , the best chance we have of
understanding is to allow both parties to leave feedback. Automatically barring one
party from leaving feedback, but letting the other party have a shot at it, just
gives one upset person the chance to exaggerate, and take their wrath out on the
other party. Often it can be deserved, but often it isn't.

"jim menning" <jmenningSPAM@new.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463652d9$0$9971$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Kris Baker" <kris.baker@prodigyyy.net> wrote in message
> news:W5rZh.20292$Um6.11431@newssvr12.news.prodigy. net...
>>
>> "jim menning" <jmenningSPAM@new.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:463635c2$0$4697$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>> "Kris Baker" <kris.baker@prodigyyy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%9qZh.20282$Um6.5559@newssvr12.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>>
>>>> "jim menning" <jmenningSPAM@new.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:46362ad6$0$19458$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Kris Baker" <kris.baker@prodigyyy.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:NPpZh.20280$Um6.1719@newssvr12.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jim menning" <jmenningSPAM@new.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:46361194$0$18875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Kris Baker" <kris.baker@prodigyyy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:uInZh.20259$Um6.8064@newssvr12.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <spaam_this@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:1177945176.737545.7780@n59g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 3:10 pm, Lee <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> seller went NARU
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You should request withdrawal under the following condition:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Feedback left by a person ineligible to participate in eBay
>>>>>>>>> transactions, according to Section 1 of the eBay User Agreement,
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> the time of the transaction or the time the feedback was left."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wasn't the feedback left *after* the seller's suspension was
>>>>>>>> lifted?
>>>>>>>> In that case, he was eligible to leave feedback.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kris
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And to be fair, if the buyer can leave feedback after a seller's
>>>>>>> suspension is lifted, shouldn't the seller have the same
>>>>>>> opportunity?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did the buyer do so in this case? I thought the negative was left
>>>>>> before the seller was NARU'd. I don't hold grudges (or much
>>>>>> memory) that long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kris
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't paying much attention, it's such a trivial matter anyway, but
>>>>> it's only fair if one party can leave feedback, the other should be
>>>>> able to also. If there are cases where one party is not allowed to
>>>>> leave feedback or follow-ups, the other party shouldn't have the
>>>>> ability to take a free shot.
>>>>
>>>> Even if, as the OP claims, that the seller did not ship the goods after
>>>> having been paid via PayPal?
>>>>
>>>
>>> We all know that a lot of feedback is false. We also know a lot of the
>>> posters here give us false stories. We can't be the judge and jury
>>> without both sides of the story. We need to let both sides have their
>>> say in the feedback, and we can then decide whether to avoid just one,
>>> or both of them in the future. Isn't that what feedback is for?
>>
>> So....if the buyer was telling the truth, you believe that the seller
>> would have,
>> also?
>>
>
> Who is to know with the multitude of circumstances that could cause a
> seller to disappear?
>
> What if this is like a lot of instances in the past where the seller is
> hospitalized or some other event caused them to fail to make delivery or
> contact? They should at least get a shot to say "I'm sorry, I was
> hospitalized, the matter has now been resolved".
>
> My point is, unless we can know the full story , the best chance we have
> of understanding is to allow both parties to leave feedback.
> Automatically barring one party from leaving feedback, but letting the
> other party have a shot at it, just gives one upset person the chance to
> exaggerate, and take their wrath out on the other party. Often it can be
> deserved, but often it isn't.

I know what your point is. But there would have been nothing to prevent
the seller from later communicating to the buyers, offering refunds or to
ship their items. After that, he could have asked if they'd approve of
mutual feedback removal.

But no. After crawling out of that four-month coma, the seller's most
important priority was to leave a bunch of retaliations.

You can put matchsticks under the OP's fingernails.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wasn't the feedback left *after* the seller's suspension was
>>>>>>>>> lifted?
>>>>>>>>> In that case, he was eligible to leave feedback.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kris

Yes. Seller went NARU after about two weeks AFTER the auction ended. NARU
status lasted about a month. There was NO response from seller despite 3
attempts to contact prior to disputing, no response from seller during the
dispute process, no goods received, nada.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And to be fair, if the buyer can leave feedback after a
>>>>>>>> seller's suspension is lifted, shouldn't the seller have the
>>>>>>>> same opportunity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did the buyer do so in this case? I thought the negative was
>>>>>>> left before the seller was NARU'd. I don't hold grudges (or
>>>>>>> much memory) that long.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn't paying much attention, it's such a trivial matter
>>>>>> anyway, but it's only fair if one party can leave feedback, the
>>>>>> other should be able to also. If there are cases where one party
>>>>>> is not allowed to leave feedback or follow-ups, the other party
>>>>>> shouldn't have the ability to take a free shot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if, as the OP claims, that the seller did not ship the goods
>>>>> after having been paid via PayPal?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We all know that a lot of feedback is false. We also know a lot of
>>>> the posters here give us false stories. We can't be the judge and
>>>> jury without both sides of the story. We need to let both sides
>>>> have their say in the feedback, and we can then decide whether to
>>>> avoid just one, or both of them in the future. Isn't that what
>>>> feedback is for?
>>>
>>> So....if the buyer was telling the truth, you believe that the
>>> seller would have,
>>> also?
>>>
>>
>> Who is to know with the multitude of circumstances that could cause a
>> seller to disappear?
>>
>> What if this is like a lot of instances in the past where the seller
>> is hospitalized or some other event caused them to fail to make
>> delivery or contact? They should at least get a shot to say "I'm
>> sorry, I was hospitalized, the matter has now been resolved".
>>
>> My point is, unless we can know the full story , the best chance we
>> have of understanding is to allow both parties to leave feedback.
>> Automatically barring one party from leaving feedback, but letting
>> the other party have a shot at it, just gives one upset person the
>> chance to exaggerate, and take their wrath out on the other party.
>> Often it can be deserved, but often it isn't.
>
> I know what your point is. But there would have been nothing to
> prevent the seller from later communicating to the buyers, offering
> refunds or to ship their items. After that, he could have asked if
> they'd approve of mutual feedback removal.

Y'know what? That would have been fine with me. But there was no contact,
but seller re-materialized as a *buyer* shortly after the NARU lifted in
Feb 07 and earned a few positive feedbacks. So someone was using the
account. My ONLY contact from the seller was the neg posted on April 28
2007 for an auction that ended Dec 02, 2006. I posted my neg to seller on
March 04, right after the dispute settled in my favor.

> But no. After crawling out of that four-month coma, the seller's most
> important priority was to leave a bunch of retaliations.
>
> You can put matchsticks under the OP's fingernails.

Ouch, dammit, that hurts.

In retrospect, my error was mentioning PayPal in my feedback. I won't do
that again. The neg isn't a big deal, especially one that is clearly no
more than retaliation. It's an annoyance that has passed, but I have
learned a lot from all of your responses. Thank you all for that.

Lee

G a z . <Spam@NoEmail.Com> wrote:

> In article <NPpZh.20280$Um6.1719@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> kris.baker@prodigyyy.net says...
>
>> Did the buyer do so in this case? I thought the negative was left
>> before the seller was NARU'd. I don't hold grudges (or much
>> memory) that long.
>>
No. I left neg after seller was re-instated and after dispute was settled
in my favor.

Auction ended Dec 02 2006.
Buyer (me) paid Dec 02.
Seller went NARU mid-December.
Buyer initated dispute end of January 07 after waiting about 5 weeks.
About same time, seller was reinstated.
Dispute settled, PayPal credited me last week of February.
I left neg March 04.
Retaliation neg left April 28.

> In that case then you cannot be, all that good an eBayer then! ;-)
>

"Lee" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9922BEC0961E6Lee@130.133.1.4...
>

>
> In retrospect, my error was mentioning PayPal in my feedback. I won't do
> that again. The neg isn't a big deal, especially one that is clearly no
> more than retaliation. It's an annoyance that has passed, but I have
> learned a lot from all of your responses. Thank you all for that.
>
> Lee
>

You're welcome.

We like to growl and nip, but the purpose of the group is for education and fun, not
necessarily in that order. We like to make sure we have a little of each in every
thread.

>>
>
> Have you ever seen a ebay who is honest? I've never seen a ebay buyer
> doing the perp walk or on the Judge Judy show, plenty of sellers do
> such.
>

Eh, if a buyer doesn't pay, as a seller, you lose your FVF and your listing
fee, but you still have the goods.

If a seller doesn't send the goods after the buyer pays, then the buyer is
out a lot more than just a listing fee and and FVF. They have nothing, and
the seller has BOTH the money and the goods.

I've left over 220 feedbacks, and this is the first one that wasn't
positive. So yes, there are a lot of honest sellers out there.

Lee

"Ftatch U . Lance" wrote: [snip]

Why is your name spelled differently?

"Kris Baker" wrote:
} Did the buyer do so in this case? I
} thought the negative was left before the
} seller was NARU'd. I don't hold grudges
} (or much memory) that long.

One thing I am proud of is that I never hold grudges. One guy named Billy
Fonebone stated otherwise back in August of 1997, and I have never forgiven him
for saying such a thing.

"jim menning" <jmenningSPAM@new.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4634ffcc$0$15131$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> Looks like he went about it the wrong way. He could have had the feedback
> you left for him removed, as you violated the feedback rules.
>
> http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/...ithdrawal.html
>
> "Feedback that meets any of the circumstances below is feedback abuse and
> may be subject to removal.
> The feedback makes reference to an eBay, PayPal or law enforcement
> organization investigation."
I'm not sure I understand Ebay's rationale for this rule. In fact, I think
a seller's feedback profile should show the number of times a claim for
reimbursement was settled on behalf of the buyer. (*Not* the number of
claims made, but the number of claims that were settled on behalf of the
buyer.)

Likewise the buyer's feedback profile should show the number of times the
buyer was high bidder and did not make payment.

Personally, I never leave feedback until after it's been left for me. (I
don't sell, only buy.) Yes I know this negates the purpose of leaving
feedback in that other buyers don't have the benefit of my experience in
determining whether or not to bid on a seller's item, especially since bad
sellers won't leave feedback for me until I've left for them so I never
feedback them.

So be it. Until Ebay comes up with a way of stopping retaliatory neg
feedback, they have no cause for complaint with my policy.

Once I had a seller email me to ask that I leave feedback because he wanted
to get to the next level. (To be honest, I'm not at all sure what he
meant -- I pretty much ignore the Ebay levels and just look at numbers.)
The item listing specifically said that he wouldn't leave feedback until he
had gotten it. I basically told him, "You first."

Anny

Anny Middon wrote:
> Personally, I never leave feedback until after it's been left for me.
> (I don't sell, only buy.) Yes I know this negates the purpose of
> leaving feedback in that other buyers don't have the benefit of my
> experience in determining whether or not to bid on a seller's item,
> especially since bad sellers won't leave feedback for me until I've
> left for them so I never feedback them...

There is no real "purpose" for feedback. It's optional.
It's a grain of salt. No trader should rely on it too
much when trying to judge another trader. And that's true
with any kind of feedback/review process, not just eBay.

> ... Until Ebay comes up with a way of stopping retaliatory neg
> feedback, they have no cause for complaint with my policy...

eBay has no cause or need to "complain" about anyone's
"feedback policy".

> Once I had a seller email me to ask that I leave feedback because he
> wanted to get to the next level. (To be honest, I'm not at all sure
> what he meant -- I pretty much ignore the Ebay levels and just look
> at numbers.) The item listing specifically said that he wouldn't
> leave feedback until he had gotten it. I basically told him, "You
> first."

Ask Don if it's a good idea to mention feedback in
any correspondance.


Lumpy
--
You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.

www.lumpyguitar.net