May have bought a clone here.

But not "out money." Merely not keeping a promise or merely misrepresenting does not, without loss of money, warrant feedback according to Spark - who IS the law here. "[M]ove long."

 

My apologies for being curt. That was what I disagreed with and should have explained why.

I happened to in a subsequent post:


The rule was reworded a few years back to make it somewhat less ambiguous.

Here's how the contentious part reads now:
As long as you're not out any items or money hasn't changed hands, move along.

Not out money OR money hasn't changed hands. Money did change hands.

 

I still disagree. As I read it, "out money" isn't required if money has changed hands. If it were, then the rule would either conjoin the phrases with "and" or just leave the latter half out since it would be redundant.

The wording of that rule was changed 2-3 or so years back. I don't remember how it was originally worded, but as I recall, you would be correct based on the old rules. With the change, it allows more situations to be applicable.

Regardless of who is correct, this is a hypothetical question until the situation arises.

 

Respectfully, the word "or" typically means that if either fact obtains, no feedback is allowed.

This illustrates one "con" to cutting free from legal rules developed over generations. There are also potential "pros." Under the law, a deal (contract) exists when the seller accepts an offer to buy, whether anyone is ultimately out-of-pocket or not. Failure to deliver the described goods is breach of contract.

We can report welshers here, but cannot leave "feedback" "as long as you're not out any items or money hasn't changed hands...." because if either case obtains, there was no deal - here. Or whatever Spark says.

 

Correct.

But this person is not a welsher. Money did change hands. A refund will reverse the receiver of funds and product, but not change the fact that it occurred.

 

An agreement was made, money exchanged hands, item was shipped and received. Feedback is warranted. Now in this situation, it was in haste, before any attempts at resolution were made.

 

As I remember it, the change was made due to some not being able to leave feedback on bad transactions that necessitated PP claims to get the money back. The seller never willingly refunded the money. It seemed unfair to let these people off the hook.
It was changed to money hasn't changed hands from something like being out money.
I have always found leaving negative feedback to be a bit tricky
1. you had to know what was written in the rules
but 2. you also had to have a feel for how the moderators interpreted and enforced the rules.
I have no doubt that the administration thinks the rules are crystal clear on this, but they really aren't to many-though only 1/2 have likely even read the rules

 

I think it has come time for me to admit my mistake, and stop digging. Seems like the feedback rule is clear enough and it is being implemented in a logical way. I believe I am on the right page now-we will see

 

The moral of the story is communication. If you receive something you're not happy with, contact the seller to see if things can be made right or refunds can be issued. If not, then you leave feedback.

 

+PP G&S
if you gift someone your money don't expect anything or an item of equal value in return.
but being that they are your friends and family you likely already know this about them

 

I don't mind sending F&F with some of my buddies here, they are in fact friends and see them at Bladeshow every year. But someone I don't know? Always G&S.

 

Just to be clear-I wasn't directing the statement at you, just adding +PP G&S to your previous statement. The rest was directed at to whom it may concern.

 

Oh I know and I wasn't directing that statement towards you either...

 

This is so true. We have here a classic case of communication breakdown/inability to respectfully negotiate. Now both parties have negative feedback over a $100 used pocket knife. How unnecessary!

 

Communication breakdown starts many wars as well.

 

Some more advice to the buyer above and over other sage suggestions: you seem to be very reactionary and trigger happy. I understand that you purchased good and expect the seller to have been more professional in his responses, but from your own writings, you don't seem like a courteous type of buyer either. ALWAYS BE COURTEOUS till the person you are transacting with deserves to lose that privilege.

If you are planning on being a contributing member of this Forum and Community, then spend the literal pittance ($10) to become a paid (Basic) member. At the very least your communications will remain private!

Q to the seller: Did you put your buyer on ignore literally 5 mins after he posted a snarky response to the profile post message? Really? REALLY? You don't need to be a dealer to be professional, but it is a modicum of civility to NOT ignore the buyer till he has received the knife to inform you of his satisfaction or dissatisfaction. I understand ignoring someone who becomes ala a stalker badger type, but your predicament is also self-inflicted.

To Both: apart from what bravo91 had correctly stated both the nature of the feedback process on this Forum, your own admitted actions and reactions warrant the negative feedback on you both.

 

No , it was the buyer who literally 5 minutes after emailing me for a refund (no reason given and the only email sent to me) leaves negative feedback for me, four days after receiving knife. Buyer had already started a G,B & U thread accusing me of selling him a clone. Because he perceived that the stand offs were different colors and the ZT box had no sticker? It was sometime after his snarky response that I put him on ignore. People with that attitude I have found are trouble, as his posts show. I did not want to do business with him again not to defraud him. In retrospect sure I should have waited until some time after he received item. However, Under Section 4 Rules For Feedback #7 states: "Threads started in G ,B & U section should contain facts to support your reason for starting this thread. Remember there is a difference between opinion and fact." Nothing to support funky419's claims. In fact the pictures of the knife linked in post #53 support me that it is Genuine and in the stated condition. The Moderator says in (post #53) that until decent pictures are posted it is impossible to authenticate the knife. funky419 said in (post # 33) he would post pictures then sends none. Only excuses - problem with getting a phone, cost money for account ( though members have sent him free link sites) - takes to much of his time - and then asks members to do it for him! funky419 also goes on to accuse me of breaking feedback rules by leaving him negative feedback. Moderator determined feedback was within rules (post #53) but still disputes the Mod's determination (posts #58,#64 & 71)! I purchased the knife Jan 23 from jgang and sold it to funky419 3 weeks later. I never used it, sharpened it , disassembled it or took it out of my house. Both the sales and pictures can be viewed on (post #53). I am willing to have a reputable and qualified third party make a determination. As to the authenticity and condition of the ZT 0450. I would pay his return shipping costs. Perhaps a dealer or moderator? I would appreciate any members help in facilitating this matter.

 

Seller, that is not what you had said earlier on:

https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/may-have-bought-a-clone-here.1643186/page-3#post-18790928

When the story keeps getting changed, it does not reflect too well on you either. The buyer is already on many radars, but you also keep digging.

 

Hopefully he got it authenticated at the show today and there will be no need to pursue that further.