Bad 57frontier

KELAMA said:
^ While not perfect, it's worked pretty well for me.
Click to expand...

There are entirely too many restrictions on when feedback can be posted. That, combined with the abysmal participation rate, make it worse than useless - it's too often misleading. One need look no further than the Shepherdcc situation to understand the problem. If we're going to have a feedback system, it needs to be able to stand on its own and not require supplementation by scouring GBU to find the real truth.
 
Last edited:
These are all of the PM's. I cleaned them up a bit. I didn't think our names or addresses need to be public record. One screenshot also didn't post because it said it was too big. It was just the other pics I posted on the OP. @Boru13
 
Alchemy1 said:
That was my exact intention. I would love to hear from @57Frontier. He's been tagged multiple times, so this thread shouldn't be a secret to him. I truly wish we could have resolved this amicably.
Click to expand...

Edit: I just read the PM/email chain. It looks to me that earlier on, he did mention something about either reversing the trade, or +/- cash.


HappyDaddy said:
There are entirely too many restrictions on when feedback can posted. That, combined with the abysmal participation rate, make it worse than useless - it's too often misleading. One need look no further than the Shepherdcc situation to understand the problem. If we're going to have a feedback system, it needs to be able to stand on its own and not require supplementation by scouring GBU to find the real truth.[/QUOTE]

^ You can't argue these facts!

Sheperdcc, is a perfect example. I'm certain that many people have seen his 90+ 100% positive feedback, and then concluded there must be nothing to worry about.

And you didn't even mention, the fear of retaliatory feedback, which is usually the case here, once one member leaves a negative.

I guess I should've factored in, that I do a lot of my own due diligence (phone calls), whenever I'm dealing with someone I'm not completely certain of. :)

I'd still rather have the system that's currently in place, than nothing at all.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
KELAMA said:
Edit: I just read the PM/email chain. It looks to me that earlier on, he did mention something about either reversing the trade, or +/- cash.
Click to expand...

He did say he'd reverse the trade, but if you read the messages, he says that he didn't want to do +/- cash. I'll tag him again @57Frontier, but a mod has stepped in. Let's see what results he can get. I hope all is well with @57Frontier, but after 5 days, I have to ASSuME he just doesn't care.
 
This guy is sheisty. Just goes to show buyer beware is the golden rule. Makes me nervous to trade here, atleast purchasing has some protections.
 
The circumstances in which I'd do a trade with a complete stranger come very close to zero. I'd be much more inclined to do a simultaneous buy/sell where both parties are protected by PP. the peace of mind would be well worth the extra few $s.
 
HappyDaddy said:
The circumstances in which I'd do a trade with a complete stranger come very close to zero. I'd be much more inclined to do a simultaneous buy/sell where both parties are protected by PP. the peace of mind would be well worth the extra few $s.
Click to expand...
I never thought of this but I doubt it would work all that much. My impression is that most people offering trades do it because they don't have liquid funds. Still, might work in a few instances.
 
SpySmasher said:
I never thought of this but I doubt it would work all that much. My impression is that most people offering trades do it because they don't have liquid funds. Still, might work in a few instances.
Click to expand...

Not sure I'm understanding. Unless I'm selling a knife of significantly less value than than the one I'm buying, the amount of money involved is ultimately going to be small. If I can't financially tolerate the absence of my money for the period of time between sending and receiving the funds for the deal, I ought not be spending it on a knife.
 
HappyDaddy said:
Not sure I'm understanding. Unless I'm selling a knife of significantly less value than than the one I'm buying, the amount of money involved is ultimately going to be small. If I can't financially tolerate the absence of my money for the period of time between sending and receiving the funds for the deal, I ought not be spending it on a knife.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm the one misunderstanding but it would seem to me that for some period, even if it is short, the value of the knife I traded would exist not in my hands but in Paypal's hands. This would require me to give paypal some money (from my credit card or bank account) that I do not necessarily have. No?
 
SpySmasher said:
Maybe I'm the one misunderstanding but it would seem to me that for some period, even if it is short, the value of the knife I traded would exist not in my hands but in Paypal's hands. This would require me to give paypal some money (from my credit card or bank account) that I do not necessarily have. No?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. My point is that (assuming relatively even values in the knives "traded") each party is only out his/her money for a couple of days. If that causes financial heartburn, my view is that one ought not be spending the money on knives. But, that's just my view, not a judgment on other's decisions.
 
I just recently made a purchase from the guy and he was pretty difficult to deal with and shipping took a few days and he never even provided tracking. I wasn't upset enough to post a -1 because the knife was as described but he's now going on my ignore list and I retract the feedback I left for him (I wish I really could).

Also, dude never left me feedback even tho I politely asked, even instructed him how easy it is to return feedback for someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top