User feedback discussion - post your opinion

This is a very difficult subject. On the one hand, yes, being able to warn people about 'Time-wasters' is a definite plus, and you can say it is down to the individual to explain about the change in circumstances; reasonable people would most likely refrain from rating someone poorly on legitimate grounds.

On the otherhand, some people perceive time differently than others, and expect everything to move according to their schedule...all you have to do is look at the alarming frequency of the 'Bump' post brigade, and the "??You still interested??!??!" posts. Some people will have different opinions as to what a time waster is.

There is also the legal implications of defamation - everyone is entitled to their name (their reputation), and it would be an area which is likely to be subjected to torrents of abuse.

Now, with that said, I think that with proper legislation it could be a success...for example:
- Deal must have gone through to PMs
- Adequate time must be provided for person to explain cancellation (48 hours or so)
- Proof of 'Time-wasting' must be retained (legal purposes; copies of PMs)
- Citations must be included in feedback, so as to enable people to judge for themselves if it was indeed time wasting by their own standards

Overall, I can see the benefit of it...but in my eyes it does not outweigh the negative. Personally I wouldn't bother.

I think it should be allowed for a few reasons, mainly these;

Hypothetical situation #1:

-Over 18s only or with parent/guardian

User "X" has offered asking and the offer was accepted, when brought to PMs, he states that they are 20, however when you meet up you find out he's 16 and has no parent/guardian present. Transaction cancelled.
Not only has user "X" lied, but also wasted time and may want the airsoft device to cause havoc.
In my opinion you should be allowed leave feedback saying: "User "X" lied about their age, claiming to be 20 when they were in fact 16, I backed out of the sale as a) they are under 18, and I said I wouldn't sell to a minor, without a parent or guardian present and b) no parent or guardian was present".

Hypothetical situation #2

Will not sell to someone I deem as irresponsible, etc

Quite hard to tell if someone is irresponsible until you see them. So lets say user "Y" has made an offer and you accepted it. Upon meeting user "Y", you realise they're a 15 year-old, track suit clad, scumbag. Sorry mate, instant sale refusal.
Feedback: "Arranged to meet up with user "Y" today, and when we met up, I didn't like the way they acted/composed themselves, they seemed reckless, irresponsible and in my opinion, not suitable to own the item being sold, therefore I refused the sale".
Ok, stuff like this is highly down to personal opinion, but the logic stands.

Hyopthetical situation #3
Sale agreed with user "Z" and gone to PMs. User "Z" lives in Cork, you live in Longford. Due to distance a face to face meet up isn't possible, but both users are happy to post.
User "Z": I want to see it and make sure it works before paying, post it down and I'll make sure it works and then send you the money.
You: I've been scammed before and this item is quite valuable, I'd rather not.
User "Z": Yeah, I've been scammed too, its only fair I get to be sure it works first of all.
You: How about I sent it to retailer "B" and they can check it and then post it down to you?
User "Z": That will take ages, I'll get back in touch later with a decision.
You recieve no more word from User "Z" for a day or two.
User "Z": Thanks for wasting my time, got sorted today.

User "Z" wanted you to post down a €200 AEG so he could make sure it worked, and then paypal you the money, you'd have to be a bit mad to do that. But apprently having retailer "B" certify it wasn't good enough and would take too long, so user "Z" gets his new AEG elsewhere and proclaims you to be a time-waster for what ever reason.
So they wanted the AEG to be posted down and pay for it at a later date and called you a time-waster for no reason.
Feedback: User "Z" was not happy with my word that the AEG works and insisted it be posted fown before he paid so he could check it, I said no, but I'll have retailer "B" certify it. User "Z" waited a few days before saying that he had sorted himself out and said I was a time-waster, when I was waiting for him."


All these situations are hypothetical, but I'm sure they've happened and I'd want the more regular users (Despot, McShape, Thermo, Inari, DeBurca, etc) to know that they were refused a sale for whatever reason. However, users "X", "Y" and "Z" should be allowed to have their say in response to it, albeit in a civil and courteous manner, the same way you had been.

Stercus is right, from what I've heard it's not a case of it being true, but how you've said it. If they believe it is affecting their name/reputation, they have the right to take you to court to rectify it. That's mostly to stop exaggerated truths, or half-truths though such as paraphrased quotations etc.

This type of thread would be a negative feedback thread, without a shadow of a doubt. It is for cancelled transactions. Maybe that would suffice? 'Transaction Cancelled due to A) A Stop in Communication Did not meet my specified Criteria (Over 18's etc), C) Other.

Keeping it that simple should remove most of the problems, but it also removes a significant portion of the benefit i.e. knowing exactly why transactions were cancelled