Taking a stand against poor Traders
23 April 2011, 04:11 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 2,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody has the occasional off day when stress levels are well beyond "safe", but its a shame IF it shows in dealings with a customer.
I have also bought stuff from Mark and found him to be exceptionally helpful, selling good value parts and and going well beyond expectations on customer service.
Its a pity that one negative "public" comment can put off possible new customers who don't get to know about the thousands of "silent" satisfied customers.
A rating system would be good only if all customers added to it - which they wouldn't.
I have also bought stuff from Mark and found him to be exceptionally helpful, selling good value parts and and going well beyond expectations on customer service.
Its a pity that one negative "public" comment can put off possible new customers who don't get to know about the thousands of "silent" satisfied customers.
A rating system would be good only if all customers added to it - which they wouldn't.
23 April 2011, 06:34 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck in what you are trying to achieve.
As far as Scoobynet is concerned there is a total lack of backup and support for the average guy who needs the best help possible as opposed to smarmy sales talk and lack of support. It seems to me that the emphasis is to take money from members and advertisers and sweep the rest under the carpet.
As far as Scoobynet is concerned there is a total lack of backup and support for the average guy who needs the best help possible as opposed to smarmy sales talk and lack of support. It seems to me that the emphasis is to take money from members and advertisers and sweep the rest under the carpet.
What would you like us to do?
23 April 2011, 06:42 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it would wouldn't it.
The account is a duplicate and it has been banned. I would probably ignore anything that has been said by this person.
24 April 2011, 09:14 AM
#35
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Club Chairman - West Mids Imprezas
Posts: 8,889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good points are being raised on this topic.
I totally agree you generally get what you pay for, however this is no excuse to be ripped of! Business is business, regardless at what level.
I have been in the Subaru game for some years now and have seen plenty of companies/"specialists" come and go.
The ones who get my cash are the ones that go the extra mile and when they do f*ck up (lets be honest we are all human) they apologise and sort it straight away, often going beyond what is expected.
Manors, commuinication and advise is free (this is why Harvey is held in high regard by most)
A simple area where you can discuss or vent off any issues would suffice.
A public thread could be created and the trader then has 2 weeks to respond/sort the issue.
We should be working together. Stop making these mickey mouse companies rich!
I totally agree you generally get what you pay for, however this is no excuse to be ripped of! Business is business, regardless at what level.
I have been in the Subaru game for some years now and have seen plenty of companies/"specialists" come and go.
The ones who get my cash are the ones that go the extra mile and when they do f*ck up (lets be honest we are all human) they apologise and sort it straight away, often going beyond what is expected.
Manors, commuinication and advise is free (this is why Harvey is held in high regard by most)
A simple area where you can discuss or vent off any issues would suffice.
A public thread could be created and the trader then has 2 weeks to respond/sort the issue.
We should be working together. Stop making these mickey mouse companies rich!
24 April 2011, 12:32 PM
#36
We've provided the iTrader system that people fail to use, placed rules and advice damn' near everywhere that people STILL choose to ignore (Paypal gift payments are still happening), forced sellers to pay to advertise so we have a payment trail and people still respond to non-paying members adverts.
What would you like us to do?
What would you like us to do?
Would you like me to publish his response which was basically that Scoobynet provided a forum for Traders and it was not the duty of Scoobynet to police the forum for honest content.
This stance is actually contrary to UK legislation relating to internet forums as I am sure Scoobynet will find out to their cost.
This is not going to go away despite the current lull.
Last edited by harvey; 24 April 2011 at 12:41 PM.
24 April 2011, 12:39 PM
#37
So someone comes along in the name of STI Singh and makes disparaging remarks about Mark at Lateral who is probably not my best friend and it is found the user name STi Singh is a duplicate for another user name. STi Singh is banned. So what.
If I were Mark Aigan I would want to know who STi Singh is and what his other user name is. I would also want his name and address.
Now if Scoobynet think they have discharged their responsibility satisfactorily by banning STi Singh you are unfortunately greatly mistaken. What about your responsibility to Mark Aigan?
Personally I think the alternative user name should also be banned along with the IP address and the information given to Mark Aigan.
Until Scoobynet take a much harder line on sly, devious, dishonest users of this forum the problem will manifest itself to the great detriment of Scoobynet.
If I were Mark Aigan I would want to know who STi Singh is and what his other user name is. I would also want his name and address.
Now if Scoobynet think they have discharged their responsibility satisfactorily by banning STi Singh you are unfortunately greatly mistaken. What about your responsibility to Mark Aigan?
Personally I think the alternative user name should also be banned along with the IP address and the information given to Mark Aigan.
Until Scoobynet take a much harder line on sly, devious, dishonest users of this forum the problem will manifest itself to the great detriment of Scoobynet.
24 April 2011, 02:55 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So someone comes along in the name of STI Singh and makes disparaging remarks about Mark at Lateral who is probably not my best friend and it is found the user name STi Singh is a duplicate for another user name. STi Singh is banned. So what.
If I were Mark Aigan I would want to know who STi Singh is and what his other user name is. I would also want his name and address.
Now if Scoobynet think they have discharged their responsibility satisfactorily by banning STi Singh you are unfortunately greatly mistaken. What about your responsibility to Mark Aigan?
Personally I think the alternative user name should also be banned along with the IP address and the information given to Mark Aigan.
Until Scoobynet take a much harder line on sly, devious, dishonest users of this forum the problem will manifest itself to the great detriment of Scoobynet.
If I were Mark Aigan I would want to know who STi Singh is and what his other user name is. I would also want his name and address.
Now if Scoobynet think they have discharged their responsibility satisfactorily by banning STi Singh you are unfortunately greatly mistaken. What about your responsibility to Mark Aigan?
Personally I think the alternative user name should also be banned along with the IP address and the information given to Mark Aigan.
Until Scoobynet take a much harder line on sly, devious, dishonest users of this forum the problem will manifest itself to the great detriment of Scoobynet.
I think you're making rather too much of one person complaining publicly about a Trader on here, and all you are doing is simply throwing into stark relief exactly why a complaints forum would very quickly degenerate into a nightmare.
One person complains, is suspected of being a troll account and dealt with, and now you're telling us that we HAVE to reveal who that person is?
Does this mean that if you disagree with someone's complaint that person has to be publicly outed? This isn't mob rule Harvey. If traders make dishonest statements we cannot be held responsible as we simply do not have the resources to investigate every claim made. It will be blatently apparent if people are ripped off as the number -ve ratings will soon reveal. Of course that depends on people being bothered to use the system.
If people need to take legal recourse against a dishonest trader then SN will co-operate with the authorities that make a formal request for information. We will not be part of a witch hunt.
24 April 2011, 03:27 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
this was tried before and a it was 'fixed' by one of the tuners lol
also problem is you post it and its not true, or not as described scoobynet gets taken to court.
there are too many people with a grude or like to throw there wieght around and just make stuff up.
also problem is you post it and its not true, or not as described scoobynet gets taken to court.
there are too many people with a grude or like to throw there wieght around and just make stuff up.
24 April 2011, 06:46 PM
#41
Please read what I said.
I do not suggest that your make the name of the person in question public but Mark Aigan may well want that person's name or at least his solicitor might.
I have no time for mob rule and am completely against it hence why I posted what I did.
Perhaps Scoobynet should update on their responsibility and obligations regards operating this site. Quite onerous. Also very clear. You can provide a facility but if it is not managed properly you have a problem. Unfortunately this will become more significant as time goes on. Permit a tort and you share responsibility. That is the law.
Does this mean that if you disagree with someone's complaint that person has to be publicly outed? This isn't mob rule Harvey.
I have no time for mob rule and am completely against it hence why I posted what I did.
Perhaps Scoobynet should update on their responsibility and obligations regards operating this site. Quite onerous. Also very clear. You can provide a facility but if it is not managed properly you have a problem. Unfortunately this will become more significant as time goes on. Permit a tort and you share responsibility. That is the law.
24 April 2011, 06:54 PM
#42
Please read what I said.
I do not suggest that your make the name of the person in question public but Mark Aigan may well want that person's name or at least his solicitor might.
I have no time for mob rule and am completely against it hence why I posted what I did.
Perhaps Scoobynet should update on their responsibility and obligations regards operating this site. Quite onerous. Also very clear. You can provide a facility but if it is not managed properly you have a problem. Unfortunately this will become more significant as time goes on. Permit a tort and you share responsibility. That is the law.
I do not suggest that your make the name of the person in question public but Mark Aigan may well want that person's name or at least his solicitor might.
I have no time for mob rule and am completely against it hence why I posted what I did.
Perhaps Scoobynet should update on their responsibility and obligations regards operating this site. Quite onerous. Also very clear. You can provide a facility but if it is not managed properly you have a problem. Unfortunately this will become more significant as time goes on. Permit a tort and you share responsibility. That is the law.
Very true. In the same way newspapers can be brought to task via civil procedure, the same applies to the web. A tort is not a criminal indiscretion but can be dealt with by the courts in a similar manner.
24 April 2011, 07:05 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
But this is one reason why when I was "involved" anything that caused any potential legal issue was "blitzed".
You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. When your "nuts" are on the line you tend to accept the "damned if you do" approach, believe me.
This "issue" is far from clear cut.
You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. When your "nuts" are on the line you tend to accept the "damned if you do" approach, believe me.
This "issue" is far from clear cut.
24 April 2011, 07:17 PM
#44
But this is one reason why when I was "involved" anything that caused any potential legal issue was "blitzed".
You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. When your "nuts" are on the line you tend to accept the "damned if you do" approach, believe me.
This "issue" is far from clear cut.
You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. When your "nuts" are on the line you tend to accept the "damned if you do" approach, believe me.
This "issue" is far from clear cut.
24 April 2011, 09:53 PM
#47
Proper business' need not worry IMHO. Although scoobynet seems to have some 'traders' pretending to be more established as a business than they actually are, with their snet revenue unwisely a greater part of their revenue
As far as I read the OP's first post this isn't just about snet traders anywho, rather a much wider heads up to potential unresolved issues regardless of forum sponsorship
Tossmonkey Flat4 being of prime example
24 April 2011, 10:13 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Einstein RA,
You have totally misunderstood what I as refering to, if your post is to counteract what I said.
The medium "owner" can be liable for anything that is "printed" using that "medium", whether they actually typed it themselves or not.... they are providing the "medium" to do so. Ergo my comment about "blitzing" anything that stands a chance of causing said issue (hence the "damned if you do" comment as others think "others get special treatment because they pay for advertising"), if ones nuts are on the preverbial chopping block legally speaking. I am not referring to anyone "shirking" their responsibilities. Rightly or wrongly self preservation steps in. IMO the income side has nothing to do with it..... right is right and fair is fair. Some people don't always see it that way.
The disclaimer at the bottom of these pages don't mean jack in UK law.
There is a legal procedure that anyone is able to follow to preserve their own rights should they see fit. I know of several commercial entitys that have done this to positive effect within this community and the owners of old fully cooperated with any responsibilities around that process.
I am certainly not sticking up for the current owners, they will be all too aware of how this all works. I can only make comment on my past experiences in this area.... and I for one never had to stand in front of a judge and plead "our" case, so something must of been done right back in the day.
Common sense normally prevails.
You have totally misunderstood what I as refering to, if your post is to counteract what I said.
The medium "owner" can be liable for anything that is "printed" using that "medium", whether they actually typed it themselves or not.... they are providing the "medium" to do so. Ergo my comment about "blitzing" anything that stands a chance of causing said issue (hence the "damned if you do" comment as others think "others get special treatment because they pay for advertising"), if ones nuts are on the preverbial chopping block legally speaking. I am not referring to anyone "shirking" their responsibilities. Rightly or wrongly self preservation steps in. IMO the income side has nothing to do with it..... right is right and fair is fair. Some people don't always see it that way.
The disclaimer at the bottom of these pages don't mean jack in UK law.
There is a legal procedure that anyone is able to follow to preserve their own rights should they see fit. I know of several commercial entitys that have done this to positive effect within this community and the owners of old fully cooperated with any responsibilities around that process.
I am certainly not sticking up for the current owners, they will be all too aware of how this all works. I can only make comment on my past experiences in this area.... and I for one never had to stand in front of a judge and plead "our" case, so something must of been done right back in the day.
Common sense normally prevails.
Last edited by Shaun; 24 April 2011 at 10:14 PM.
24 April 2011, 10:56 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Caged "R"; 24 April 2011 at 10:57 PM. Reason: Pubically!
24 April 2011, 11:05 PM
#52
+1
In addition...
Moley is a case in point, deals with any KM insurance issues with up most professionalism. Never see KM's whining about reputation should someone start a thread
In addition...
Moley is a case in point, deals with any KM insurance issues with up most professionalism. Never see KM's whining about reputation should someone start a thread
Last edited by 53; 25 April 2011 at 08:26 PM. Reason: Upmost... Abjective 'upper most' or 'highest' ;) :p
25 April 2011, 12:10 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: OLD MY53 STi @ 341bhp/349lbft -> NOW Evo 8 385bhp/380lbft
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
