beware: planman2014 here, planonit (Hunter Smith) ATS

Your anger shows in the way you posted that in the BST forum. It comes off as reactive instead of smart advice from an experienced mod. Try editing it when you've given it a day to think it over. You can make your point without all the "damn"s and SHOUTING certain words in all caps. Also, it says, "you cannot ever get our money back." I think you meant to write "your money back," but that happens a lot when people author something in an angry mindset.

In the end your idea is a good one and kudos for at least doing something about it. But your execution is flawed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'd also point out that the warning is flat-out false for auctions that take place on a standard venue like Heritage, Great Collections, or (wait for it) eBay, which do robustly protect buyers and track, monitor and enforce seller behavior.

 

Yeah, I'm not quite sure providing an open bazaar to facilitate trade, profit from this bazaar (whether directly or indirectly: you are providing the venue, members see your ads, you make money = you are profiting from this marketplace one way or another), denying any protection, actually protects you from liability.

I, for one, will not be partaking in any part of this forum until this is resolved. In my eyes, you are providing a venue for scammers and denying any culpability.

There are multiple established venues where systems are in place to protect the buyers and sellers from each other without putting the administration at risk. For instance, please go check out Reddit -coins for sale- for an existing, working self-reporting system. IMO "afraid of litigation" is simply a cop out for "we want the audience but we don't want the work".

 

Sometimes one just can't win. There comes a time when we cannot protect folks from themselves, and in cases where the advertisement is an outside link the obvious should be, well, obvious, especially considering the below....

And CT and its staff will NOT get involved in your transactions in any way !
So if you buy anything here, arrange to trade anything here - you're a damn fool !

JMHO, of course.

 

I'm sorry but you guys pressed this too hard. There is some really old past history that set the policy on this site. It's not going to change. I feel Doug and Peter are doing what is best.

 

"There are multiple established venues where systems are in place to protect the buyers and sellers from each other without putting the administration at risk. For instance, please go check out Reddit -coins for sale- for an existing, working self-reporting system. IMO "afraid of litigation" is simply a cop out for "we want the audience but we don't want the work".

Then I hope you and all concerned take advantage of that site. The classifieds here were never to raise money as there is no fee. Yes, frequent ads required the supporter supplement, but it wasn't required. I am sure you are aware that Reddit has been making restrictive changes in their listings. so they must not be working as well as indicated.
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/865cl2/megathread_reddits_new_rules_regarding/

Remember there still remains the "nuclear reaction" as the administration ( mods get no separate vote) to just remove them. I would hate to see this occur for their original intention was ( a member to buy/sell/or trade an occasional coin) and not another eBay.
The emphasis has Always been the education and discussion of Numismatics. Any B/S/T was just an extra piece of cake. The "audience " is those interested in numismatics and not those that are just interested in a quick buck for no output. Sorry you are disappointed. IMO ( not representing anyone other than myself) Jim

 

In a Facebook group dedicated entirely to rooting out scammers, a claim of someone scamming someone else is taken seriously ONLY if solid proof is given, usually in the form of screenshots of all correspondence with that individual. If no proof is given, then the charged individual is given the benefit of the doubt.

I have since been removed from the group because its moderator simply did not like me (he thought I was trying to correct him when I was actually agreeing with him), and now he goes around claiming I am a pompous, arrogant idiot. I guess I could sue if I wanted. Coin Talk faces the same dilemma with regards to slandering someone by (possibly incorrectly) banning them. That is the root of the matter.

 

Unfortunately, you and I are from generations who knew who John Wayne was. The younger generations would argue that other words should be included.

 

There's more than 1 person on this site, but he ripped me off for eight hundred twenty-five dollars in October, 2016. About the only thing that can be done now, since more than a single incident has been revealed, is get postal authorities involved. They generally require multiple violations before they'll act. I believe they will then start "discovery".

I believe Dougs statements are correct within some legal limitations.

JMHO

 

I'm afraid your mistaken. I've been violated numerous times on public sites. Multiple times on EBay. All a firm has to do is remove all evidence of violation. It is your task to prove guilt. The courts, peers, etc. will silence you.

I suggest you read some of the posts on this site from Hugh Stiel, who I found too be a great guy that didn't understand Caveat Emptor.

An individual can start a Pro Se action, but generally it's a futile exercise, and seemingly everyone will tell you you're crazy. A "class action" generally needs to be sponsored by a government agency, which needs to show an appreciable return. You have no idea how difficult was the exercise for the Minnesota "Bullion" legislation.

JMHO

 

I agree with you, Doug. I was surprised when I joined cointalk that there were any ads allowed. As soon as exchange of money or goods is involved, there are increased chances of disputes. Folks start thinking about lawyers, DAs, AGs, FTC, etc. Inevitably when folks think they have been cheated, the board owner and staff are going to be asked to intervene and maybe blamed. You guys do a great job. There would still be plenty of actions requiring your moderating without the added burden of those associated with ads. Cointalk would still be a popular forum for exchange of ideas, support, news, etc. without ads. There are other forums, eBay, sales sites, and auction companies where coins can be bought and sold. The coin trade wouldn't cease if it couldn't occur on cointalk.

Cal

 

Why did you not pay with a payment method that would allow you to recover your funds? I NEVER pay without protection unless I either have the coin in hand or know 100% that the seller will send my my coin. The list of sellers I trust 100% is very small.

 

I believe, being the fools that we generally all are, it appears that the logical option seemingly is no choice, which would also generate discontent.

CAVEAT EMPTOR and VENDITOR EMPTOR should suffice!

I personally believe in "Karma", for which I'm very thankful!

JMHO

 

Personally, I believe in trust (but verify) until otherwise proven. I have been blessed in life by an intuitive sense which has been very rewarding.

To directly answer your question, I generally pay with cash when "sight-seen", or with a personal check sent through the mail. The personal carbon check sent through the mail provides me with verification, evidence, and a means for POSSIBLE retribution. I have a legal copy of my payment which would allow me satisfaction if desired, as mail fraud is a very serious Federal crime.

I was raised on the streets in numerous "ghettos", seeing many of my "associates" forfeit their lives for less than my expense. I was promised a refund several times. If my transaction was a normal practice by the individual/seller, I believe justice/Karma will occur. Otherwise, I've been contacted from a prison, and personally by a debtor more than once. We became good friends after a debt payment.

I still trust average citizens more than many established "businessmen" or politicians.

JMHO

 

Doug, I’m offering the following in the interest of discouraging future scammers.

I’ve always been a bit surprised that CT allows people to post ads after only 10 posts. Perhaps increasing that to 100 posts would discourage fly by nighters from joining, making a quick 10 posts and then putting up a fraudulent ad.

This, of course, will not alleviate the situation that triggered this discussion. But I think it’s food for thought.

 

I agree, but I think 100 might be low. Coin community has the following

250 quality* posts and membership for 90 days are required to; post items for sale, post items for trade, or reply to a want list. Specific selling rules here.

100 quality* posts and membership for 21 days are required to; post links to sales on external sites such as eBay or eCrater.

50 quality* posts and membership for 14 days are required to; buy items, respond to a trade, or post a want list.

I think that would be even more discouraging, or maybe somewhat less if a long time member will verify him/her

 

THIS

 

I like the higher limits, but... is it really that much work to click on a poster's user name and check out their history? I mean, you can see the date they joined, how many posts they've made, and the content of all those posts. You can even search for posts that mention them. That's a lot more to go on than you get from, say, eBay, or even a major auction house.

I'd also like to see the footnote for quality*.

 

How about this one...

"You must be a participating member. If we discover that you are primarily selling, rather than primarily participating in the discussion forums, action will be taken."

Yes, the clown in question did "participate" when not conning, calling folks trolls, or making baseless self-serving accusations, but generally speaking it strikes me as a win-win idea.