Full Version: Board Of Inquiry
From: aj [#1]
11 Feb 2006
To: ALL
Seeing The first post by David
David said
8) A formal grading system produced annually which lists the top 5 or 10 vendors or service providers in their particular specialty.
I just have to respond having just had a bad experience with a seller on here that I was involved in trying to buy a piece of equiment from.
Since there is, as far as I can see no area for this type of discussion. I feel this would be beneficial also.
I feel that as people in business you should act in an ethical manor yourselves as you think the suppliers should, and that advertised for sale items by individuals here should hold up to a board of inquiry also.
Ebay has a seller and buyer rating system also.
On another site I frequent they have an advertised for sale area also. Due to problems such as the one I just had they instituted a Board of Inquiry. below I have copied their posting rules
(Board of Inquiry
SHARE YOUR BUYING SELLING EXPERIENCES
1. The Board of Inquiry is intended for posting requests for business references on sellers and buyers doing business in the community. You may also post feedback after the fact with regards to a deal you have made.
2. ALL OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT items, ACCESSORIES, PARTS, CONTACT INFO REQUESTS, AND GENERAL INFORMATION POSTS should be posted on the appropriate forum.
3. Keep it civil, as elsewhere on the site, foul language, racial slurs, and personal attacks will not be allowed.
4. Overall please be honest in your assessment of the people you are talking about. We are not responsible for incorrect information about a buyer, seller, or products mentioned on this forum.)
as Nick said,
"What credible supplier would not want to be graded on his or her performance unless they have a problem rectifying complaints. And if there are that many people with complaints, it deserves to be known, that would be the purpose."
I add that a credible business person with equipment for sale here should adhere to the same.
cindy said
"When a supplier acts in an unethical manner, and it stays only between the supplier and retailer, the next guy to come along gets taken just like the previous one and the supplier keeps the money, laughing all the way to the bank. Or visa/versa.
It is a shame. It used to be that your word or a handshake meant the deal was done and both parties would keep their word, but those days are gone for the most part as far as I can tell."
Yes, Cindy those days are gone! buyer beware.
As I stated above I thought since I was dealing with someone here that their word would be a bond.
Also when a seller on here acts in an unethical manor and it stays only between the seller and buyer, the next guy to come along gets taken in just like the previous one, lucky for me there was no money but I did offer to give them my credit card number for them to put the equipment on.
What's really sad is for this to happen here, question is has it happened to others?
Best wishes
Ray
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#2]
11 Feb 2006
To: aj [#1] 11 Feb 2006
Ray,
We have a "Supplier Reviews" folder, which serves the purpose you mention. Good, bad or in between, your comments are welcome, as long as you present a factual, first-hand account of your situation.
You're free to relay your story. Of course, we'll make the person whom your complaint is with, aware of your comments, to which they'll have an opportunity to respond.
Business ethics are taken very seriously here.
EDITED: 11 Feb 2006 by DGL
From: UncleSteve [#3]
11 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#2] 11 Feb 2006
Does this also apply to individuals, as well as "traditional" vendors/suppliers?
There are often member to member transactions and, fortunatly they usually go quite well.
From: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#4]
11 Feb 2006
To: UncleSteve [#3] 11 Feb 2006
Steve,
I'm not going to answer for David, but we have one "former member", not a vendor, who has been wormed because of their unethical dealings with fellow members. This "worm" classification means that you can read all the posts, reply to a post, but no one can read your reply. You think you are in the game, but it appears that everyone is ignoring you.
This is a forum feature we take seriously and only provide to "special" members. It really is a unique club to belong to, but not one I would care to partake in.
EDITED: 12 Feb 2006 by DATAKES
From: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#5]
11 Feb 2006
To: ALL
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#6]
11 Feb 2006
To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#5] 12 Feb 2006
Rodney,
You've commented on what you feel is a bad idea.
What do you see as a good idea, for this type of situation?
As I mentioned to Ray, we're not looking for one-sided stories. If a person chooses not to respond to anothers accusations, it's their choice.
Allowing scam artists, or the ethically-challenged, to prey upon forum members isn't an option.
EDITED: 11 Feb 2006 by DGL
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#7]
11 Feb 2006
To: UncleSteve [#3] 12 Feb 2006
To air a factual account is an equal opportunity.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#8]
11 Feb 2006
To: aj [#1] Unread
Ray,
Is the Board of Inquiry, of the site you referred to, a behind-the-scenes mechanism, or a publicly viewable account of people's dealings?
From what you've said, it sounds like the latter.
How's that working for the other site? Any upheaval, threats of lawsuits etc?
In your estimation, has that system been effective?
EDITED: 11 Feb 2006 by DGL
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#9]
11 Feb 2006
To: aj [#1] Unread
Ray,
It's difficult to say, if what you experienced, has happened here before or not.
We don't know what happened to you.
If you're not comfortable telling your story in public, which you seem to be a proponent of, according to your mention of the others site's Board of Inquiry, I'd like to hear your complaint privately, to measure the severity of your grievance.
From: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#10]
12 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#9] 12 Feb 2006
David , I dont think the members of this board and the board it'self are or should be champions of the poor underdog
This airing of dirty laundry is never a good thing , its like getting involved in some other couples marital strife.
This looks like a private matter between 2 ppl on the board , it does not seem to be a vendor trying to scam ppl , a vendor who uses the boards commecial advertising or a banner to entice board members and uses the advertising etc as establishement of their bona fides , that is perhaps a different thing.
Why should anyone here get involved in this , we do not put ourselves up as a policing sturcture and no one here is even qualified to judge anyone elses case , their business morals or personall morals. There are far more qualified forums to take these type greivances and winges to.
To be honest , the IMHO original poster is also somewhat of a troll ,
If you want to say something , say it , dont make veiled references to board members or unnamed vendors and their machinations and dissembling and then ask others to do your dirty business or comment or enforce some hypothetical situation. So now a little hornets nest is stirred up and a whole lot of speculation and behind the scenes hoo-haa is developing. Sheesh!!!
I recon if you cant fight your own battles in business and are not wary enough about deals that you get taken , then you shouldnt be in business. S--T happens - deal with it and move on and anything it's cost you , write off to school fees. Unless you real stupid , you wont do it again and it teaches one a valuable lesson.
I really like the way it is here , an easy sense of community and mainly a technical board with an international flavor
Getting into board of enquiries and ratings etc makes it very localised and it can start to feel restrictive as well , very much a big brother approach with the board as the stick.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#11]
12 Feb 2006
To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#10] 12 Feb 2006
Rodney,
The questions I've posed to Ray, in a couple of posts, show as unread.
Personally, if I were to bring a case of such high import to the forum, I'd be very interested in its progress.
I agree, that, until we know what Ray's specific grievance is, either publicly or privately, it's a dead issue.
EDITED: 12 Feb 2006 by DGL
From: UncleSteve [#12]
12 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#11] 12 Feb 2006
I would like your opinion as to whether the following scenario should be "vented" in the forum. Names, product and companies are withheld out of fairness to all parties.
A vendor sells a system to a customer that consists of a piece of hardware and the supplies required to produce a product. The hardware arrives fine, but the supplies don't show up for a month and the customer wants to return everything if/when the supplies ever arrive.
Points:
1. multiple promises that the supplies were already shipped are given by the vendor to the customer.
2. customer repeatedly told to "keep the hardware since the supplies were shipped and then reshipped." NO TRACKING RECORD FOR THE SHIPMENTS EXIST.
3. the vendor turns out to be a "reseller" or middleman and never had possesion of the supplies but rather ordered the equipment and supplies and was "only" passing on the information that the dropshipper was giving them.
4. the two companies (the vendor and the mfg/dropshipper) have relatively good reputation in the forum and general marketplace and the buyer is a regular participant with a similar good reputation.
Now to the question:
Is it fair for the reseller/vendor who never bought/possessed the supplies to charge a 25% restocking fee (amounting to a few hundred dollars) for something they never had in stock or even saw when the transaction went sour?
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#13]
12 Feb 2006
To: UncleSteve [#12] 12 Feb 2006
Steve,
In my opinion, if the restocking fee is the policy of the equipment manufacturer, which is being collected, in exact dollar amount, by the middleman, to be forwarded to the equipment manufacturer, it's fine for the middleman to be the collector of the fee.
If, as you're implying, the middle man is imposing his own restocking fee, separate and regardless of an equipment manufacturer's policy, and has never taken physical custody of the equipment, it's not right.
EDITED: 12 Feb 2006 by DGL
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#14]
12 Feb 2006
To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#10] 12 Feb 2006
Have to agree with you 100% here Rodney.
The rule is always first and formost "let the buyer beware". "You" have to be responsible for what "you" buy, and who "you " buy from. Do the research that is necessary if "you" are making a transaction that would affect "your" business in a big way.
I think it's way too easy to blame everyone else for not doing the research that you should have done on a company before buying.
I have always believed that it's best to work out your problems with the entity that is causing your problem. If that doesnt work on a one to one level....It's the reason why we have a legal system in this country. Is it fun? No!, but it's the way to handle a problem ethicaly. Yes unfortunately you get to be the bigger person when acting ethicaly, but isn't that just acting out what you believe to be important anyway?
I think so....
my .02
From: UncleSteve [#15]
12 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#13] 12 Feb 2006
The problem I have is that the equipment showed up immediatly (shipped right away) and it took over a month with the vendor stalling, for the supplies that were required to make the product (it was sold as a package) to show up. The vendor was on notice that the buyer wanted to return the hardware withing 10 days of receipt since they believed they were being lied to/mislead/stalled just so they couldn't return it without the penalty.
Also, no restocking charge was mentioned until it was time to send it back. The vendor just didn't want to lose the sale I guess.
No, it wasn't me involved as seller, distributor or buyer.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#16]
12 Feb 2006
To: UncleSteve [#15] 12 Feb 2006
Steve,
From what you've said, the vendor didn't go out of his/her way to provide tracking numbers for the supplies, which, surely could have been provided, if, in fact, the supplies had been sent.
There's a big difference between lip service and customer service.
A little bit of honesty, goes a long way in business, no matter how humbling.
From: UncleSteve [#17]
12 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#16] 12 Feb 2006
That is why I question ANYONE enforcing a restocking fee if they were not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! :-(
That is also why I am not fond of buying from someone that doesn't stock the item I am buying...
I understand some items like an engraving machine, other large/heavy/bulky items or something that has to be customized prior to shipping may be dropshipped, but I want to know that before I place my order. Like the difference between buying a new car off the lot (I know it is there when I buy it) and ordering a vehicle with my choice of options which may have to be factory installed.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#18]
12 Feb 2006
To: UncleSteve [#17] 12 Feb 2006
Steve,
There are unprovable aspects of this case.
At most, if pressed for a straight answer, I would expect the salesperson to admit to the less aggregious act of not telling the truth about if/when the supplies were shipped, (maybe shift the blame to the mfg.) than admit to a purposeful act of attempting to run out the statute of limitations (10 days) on a return policy.
EDITED: 12 Feb 2006 by DGL
From: spudislander (WILLM) [#19]
13 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#18] 13 Feb 2006
David,
There are as many scenarios as there are members on this board.
if I were to write a lengthy opinion on the subject, it would parrallel Rodney's well written opinion.
I would recommend that the forum continue in the direction as a technical forum and stay out of individual's complaints regarding suppliers. They have many other legal recources to follow.
Will :O
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20]
13 Feb 2006
To: spudislander (WILLM) [#19] 13 Feb 2006
I agree with what you say, although there are some bona fide "snakes in the grass" which aren't allowed access to the forum, but those actions weren't taken until after they did their damage.
A couple of scam artists and a sociopathic con man.
The case Steve layed out, had no definitive solution.
Show messages: 1-20 21-40 41-60 61