Slashdot Mirror
Attorney Sues eBay over Negative Feedback
Mephie writes "MSNBC is running a story on an attorney who is suing ebay over negative feedback a seller left about him. It sounds like a classic case of buyer leaves negative feedback for seller; seller responds accordingly. The plaintiff claims he'd not be filing the suit if he didn't feel ebay's policy needs revision, stating 'They can control content and for them to fail to do so is unconscionable.' Yeah. That's great."
...or he'll sue you too!
("sue you! sue everybody!" - Jerky Boys)
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
Just a reminder, don't leave a negative message here about the case!...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Does the attourney have a web site to Slashdot?
I'll sue Slashdot over my negative karma.
i am issuing a subpoena to all reader to be deposed in my action against CmdrTaco, et al., for damage done to my technological reputation by poor or uninformed moderation of my comments.
it is clear that the macintosh operating system is indeed superior, indicating that a recent 'troll' moderation was slanderous, and it is too funny to make that beowulf cluster joke -- another indication of improper and damaging moderation.
my lawyers will be in touch.
go get it
If this post doesn't get modded up, I'm suing.
Glog!
...are the best part about eBay's system. It doesn't always work, but it seems that the honest half of the honest/dishonest feedback ratio is much higher than in normal venues.
C'mon, you idiot. Not everyone is going to be pleased with your business, and eBay can't say "Only say positive things about the buyer, even if they screwed you over!" People have opinions, and eBay allows you to voice them on the buyer. eBay isn't going to change their policy now over something that has made them sucessful. Deal with it; not everyone's going to distrust you if you manage to keep your positive feedback up.
Karma whorin' since 1999
Although libel is obviously not protected under "freedom of speech", the banning of certain words (such as fraud, liar, cheater, scam artist, con man) as proposed by this lawsuit, certainly lends itself to a slippery slope.
How can individual words represent libel out of context? Who is the judge of this libel-ous words? Where does it stop?
Is this an underhanded way of getting ebay to pay tax? And the rest of it a smoke screen?
Last summer I stopped selling on eBay. I had been selling since Nov of 97 to make a few bucks on the side. I'd probably sold 2000-3000 items and 99% of the transactions went perfectly. Over that summer I had a huge number of people leaving me feedback for totally bogus reasons. People would pay with a money order with no return address and no note of what it was for even though I e-mail out detailed instructions. When I didn't mail the item (since I didn't know what the payment was for) they would just leave negative feedback without e-mailing me first. I would also get negative feedback from people a week after they made payments. They claimed I had failed to ship items even though these people were paying for parcel post mailing which takes up to 2 week sometimes. I think that there is a new wave of people on eBay that forget they are dealing with people and not businesses. Remember catalogs quote 4-6 weeks. Dont expect a week off ebay. If you need it the next day go to CompUSA or Fry's and pay full price. If you dont want to pay full price dont expect lightning fast delivery and perfect items. They're on eBay for a reason.
Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
About six months ago in London a guy sued his credit card company for declining a charge he made. He said the decline caused him to lose face at a business dinner and since he had available funds it was wrong.
Porbably won't get very far either.
eBay doesn't censor user feedback, so wouldn't they be considered "common carrier" and therefore immune from liability for libel?
--
There is no hatred more pure and true than that expressed by children.
Personally I find people take online opinions too lightly.. For instance, if a lawyer named Joe Lawyer were selling items on ebay, and someone left slanderous bad feedback, a google search for "joe lawyer" could producer the page with the bad feedback. If someone was considering hiring Joe lawyer, but did a google search first, they might reconsider hiring him as a result of the bad feedback on ebay. Now if the feedback is warranted, it's a different situation, but the people who leave the negative feedback would have to provide concrete evidence that what they wrote was true, including official documentation (word of mouth doesn't count).
It is hard to patch up one's reputation after it has been slandered, and the Internet is a global medium that reaches the entire world! Personally I feel there should be more cases like this just to make a point: Online slander is illegal and cannot be tolerated!
Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!
I was informed last night that at the current rate U.S. law schools are turning out lawyers, by the year 2035 it is expected that there will be more lawyers than actual people.
Really, the only thing Americans can do avert this terrible trend is to stop electing lawyers to political office :-)
ISRAEL, Jan. 24 An Israeli programmer who says he was libeled in Slashdot Inc.'s "comments" section of its Web site has sued the online Geek News site for refusing to remove statements he says damaged his Karma. Analysts say the case, sparked by an online comment about Linux, cuts to the heart of what makes slashdot work: the power of moderators and meta-moderators to keep an eye on each other.
In his lawsuit, MimsyBoro demands 2.5 million Karma points in punitive damages from Slashdot and [(-5) Redundant] from Neeley. A spokesman for Slashdot said the company would not comment on pending litigation.
God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man - Kronecker
I'm pretty sure this guy was the lawyer for Bernie Shifman about eighteen months ago.
any chance there's a way to get the (former) PayPal to acknowledge that I paid them a year ago with my M/C, thereby removing the restrictions on it? After all, it's had a $0 balance since May 2002...
C|N>K
In soviet russia the lawyer sues,...um, well I guess thats just in the US.
the searchking law suit aginst google's page rankings. I wonder if they will file a similar motion to dismiss based on the fact that ebay didnt do anything wrong. See Here for the section on the The motion to dismiss in the search king case
According to the article...
"alleging in the online forum that the magazines he bought had arrived late and in a worse condition than advertised"
It's not like he said anything all that bad - They probably did arrive late, which could be blamed on the shipping company or any other factor, And the part about them being in worse condition then advertised was also probably true, but that is open to interpretation.
Why do people have to be such whining little babies these days? so someone left you bad feedback, which, was more then likely true. EBay gives you a chance to publicly reply to feedback - simply reply there stating your own side of the story and leave it at that. If a user has to worry about being dragged into court for leaving negative feedback, then nobody is going to leave feedback and the system is going to be ruined.
And where does he get these figures?
"In his lawsuit, Grace demands $2.5 million in punitive damages from eBay and $100,000 from Neeley."
I'd like to see him prove that one bad feedback is going to cost him that much.
Don't Tread on Me
its been slashdotted, links are dead, no videos.
Actually, I figured it was only a matter of time before this happened. I believe eBay does caution you to state your complaints concisely and accurately, without letting it reflect negatively on the individual themself. (I don't recall the exact wording, but they do try to warn you about it right before you leave a feedback comment.)
I can see how it could be taken as libel/slander if a negative comment was left in a certain manner.
Generaly, it's been my observation that the feedback feature is very useful, but needs to be taken with a few grains of salt, too. I know I've had times where I wanted to warn others of a problem with a produce being sold, but didn't want to completely "slam" the seller - so I left neutral feedback. Sometimes, this seems to anger the sellers so they retaliate by leaving me negative feedback for no good reason.
(EG. I recently bought 4 sticks of memory for a PowerMac 7600. The eBay seller said the memory being sold would work in a 7500, 7600, or several other Mac models. When the RAM arrived, it was not the right type for my 7600. I was able to get an RMA for a quick refund of my money (good!), but the inflated shipping price I initially paid was *not* refunded. In essence, I was out over $20 because of an incorrect statement on the auction listing.) I left a neutral feedback to warn others that it didn't really work in 7600's - and the seller left me negative feedback saying "Don't use feedback for this! Use our RMA process." (Duh!)
The world would be a better place if we shot all the lawyers
Although eBay has successfully fended off similar suits, an erosion of the feedback system's credibility could be devastating, said Rashtchy.
Excuse me? This is eBay we're talking about here, right? You mean the feedback system actually has credibility? Did I wake up on an alternate Earth?
People can sue over anything. This isn't some huge outrage, it'll probably get tossed out. Hell, I could sue Slashdot for using ESP on all the girls I meet to ensure I never get a date (although, I doubt they'd need ESP influence). It doesn't necessarily mean it'd go before a judge and jury.
Ebay clearly states: "WARNING: Once placed, comments cannot be retracted. If you later change your mind about someone, you may leave a follow-up comment to explain the misunderstanding. See the Feedback Forum for an explanation about how your comments affect a user's feedback rating.... eBay cannot remove a comment once it is submitted, nor edit a user's feedback profile. For this reason, we encourage you to contact your trading partner directly by email or by telephone before leaving a negative feedback comment."
The purpose of the ebay feedback system it to create social governance. If you have one or two negative feedbacks out of a hundred or so, I will still buy from or sell to you. If, however, you have a 50% negative feedback I will not. That is the point.
(sig on loan to Smithsonian)
He sounds like ye has the same spirit as the lawyers in this article that are ambulance-chasing the Bush Administration, from the front of the ambulance. See my log or web page for more comments toward them.
For once, I can say that we sure could use FEWER lawyers (by individual choice, not government edict) and MAYBE they would spend their time on important things instead of this nonsense. Idle hands and all...
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Does anyone know this loser's EBAY ID or email address? I would like to give this guy some direct negative feedback. In case you didn't read the article, not only is he whining about his (allegedly deserved) "negative feedback" but
The lawsuit also demands that buyers and sellers, who use aliases in eBay transactions, register their screen names with the state of California as fictitious business names, and that eBay be forced to collect state sales tax.
So not only does he want better EBAY Karma, but he wants to try and destroy EBAY via judicial legislation. I don't think the court has the power to make every Ebay'er in California register, but you never know how judges will interpret the law in these uncertain times.
Ebay is the world's largest yard sale and should remain sales tax free!
IANAESL (I am not an e-bay suing lawyer) but....
Obviously, the guy is a whiner... but the last paragraph of the MSNBC article is interesting:
" The lawsuit also demands that buyers and sellers, who use aliases in eBay transactions, register their screen names with the state of California as fictitious business names, and that eBay be forced to collect state sales tax."
This seems to have little to do with his complaint; but making everyone register with the state Secretary of State would be a big deal! So your name would be Your Name, d.b.a (doing buisines as...) screename. Christ, what a mess... Can someone who is a Calfornian and or a lawyer comment on paying sales tax on USED items? I know that here in RI, sales tax is only on (some) new sales - used goods (and many new goods) are exemt.
But shouldn't he have submitted an Ask Slashdot query first?
Go here to create your own Slashdot dis
Someone want to look up this guy's ebay address so we can give him a -10,000 feedback rating? Poetic justice and all that.
....where he wants all sellers to register with the state of CA and pay state sales tax. Why the hell should he care about that? Is he just trying to get some sympathy from the government for his lawsuit?
I am NOT a man!
I am a free number!
This guy is obviously a product of the "I-can't-take-responsibility-for-my-actions" generation. If someone gave him negative feedback, then he should act to rectify the situation immediately, not sue the messenger. That's like suing the ISP that allowed someone to send you a bad breath notification. hahaa
Sounds actionable to me.
...if eBay added a notice explaining how to trust a user's feedback. While you can respond to feedback in your profile, it would help to have something that explains how the opinion of a buyer with zero (or negative) feedback should not really be trusted, since it's likely they're either on there to fuck things up or just a hard to please bastard to begin with.
Or hell, just stick a 'trust' rating beside a buyer's feedback, based on how much negative/positive feedback the buyer and seller have.
eg.
a buyer with 0 leaving negative feedback for a seller with 3000 = feedback can't be accurately trusted, since the buyer is most likely new to ebay and may not realize that stuff you win online doesn't automagically appear in a few hours at your doorstep (as was the case with another poster to this story).
a buyer with 100 leaving negative feedback for a seller with 0 = probably can be trusted, since they've most likely been around for a while and got shafted on a deal with a deadbeat seller.
a buyer with 500 leaving negative feedback for a seller with 400 = probably chalk it up as a problem between the buyer and seller, probably not as a result of either party being deadbeat or a fraud.
Of course, it's possible all this might be a little too confusing for ebayers, but it seems like a decent solution to this problem.
That's not flamebait. That's the view of the rest of the world. Just cause you are a world hater doesn't mean you have to mod him down.
Fucking right! God-damned yankies and their petty lawsuits. Only in America...
Don't sell things to lawyers...
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
I am suing you for the slanderous use of my name when exploding in emotion while experiencing blue screens of death, spam from Alan Rasky, and those lovely pop-up ads :)
Love,
God
Boo hoo! Boo hoo! I'm an American and someone said something mean about me. I'm gonna sue! Boo hoo, eating McDonalds made me fat. Waaaaa, I'm gonna to sue! Boo hoo! A Coke machine fell on our stupid son. We're gonna sue!
Christ, can't you people accept any responsibility for your own actions anymore?
Just ban all lawyers and such from e-bay, /., and any other things internet related!
Clearly, the anonymous cowards who troll me should be handled accordingly by slashdot. I am offended to receive their negative feedback; and I hold slashdot fully responsible! /end insanity
Only one of the 11 times we've been ripped-off at work have we been allowed by ebay to leave feedback. ebay claims that one day, they'll have their "Buy Now" system fixed so you can always leave feedback within a short period of time of the end of the auction. The problem we've encountered is that ebay archives the auctions very quickly. They disable feedback when they do that. For most of the things we buy, the few days they allow you to leave feedback isn't long enough. So, we get ripped-off, and the crook is still selling stuff on ebay without a single negative comment. ebay is just protecting the crooks. They don't care as long as they get paid for hosting the auction.
You heard that wide load?
Honestly, who the hell cares? There are plenty of people, myself included, who hate that Ebay shit. Online auctions, buying questionable products from questionable sellers, piss-poor, complicated interfaces (especially EBay's). Blech. EBay is like Slashdot... it's own little self-contained universe of people who live there. He may have had his reputatino damaged within EBay, but EBay isn't the public at large. It's not like slander in a newspaper. It's one fucking website.
So I guess this is just pointing out that anything anyone says on any site you have control over is your responsibility. You are responsible for verifying any and all statements for truth to protect yourself from being sued. Is this the way its supposed to be?
Somehow, I think Ebay gets a lot of baseless complaints from people about feedback left by other members. So why would this one be any different? Did he come to them with concrete evidence that the comment was untrue? I didn't read anything like that. Do they have the right or responsibility to moderate what are essentially opinions? I think not.
Why does everyone seem to think that just because a message is hosted by a company, that they should be responsible for its content? If you have a problem with what someone is saying about you, you SUE THEM. If someone spraypaints totally untrue statements about me on the sidewalk, who am I going to sue? According to this guy, the city is responsible because its their sidewalk. Come on people, think before you sue.
I nominate you Robert Grace, for biggest douche in the world. (ok, maybe not biggest, but you're still a douche. enough southpark reference for today...)
One more thing though, about this sales tax plan. WHAT? Ebay sells nothing, so there is nothing to tax right? Unless their services are taxable, this is just pointless fluff to throw at them.
From: Squaretrade
You can have your negative feedback removed as part of an arbitration process, IF both parties agree and pay $20.
Q. What circumstances will eBay will consider removing Feedback?
A. In limited situations eBay may remove feedback without a ruling or settlement agreement from SquareTrade. See eBay's Feedback Removal Policy for more information.
eBay will remove feedback after filing a case with SquareTrade in two situations.
1) Feedback can be removed after you file a case with SquareTrade and there is no response to your case filing if:
-At least 14 days have passed since you filed your case;
-The feedback was left less than 90 days prior to this case filing;
-All necessary case notices were sent to the respondent and SquareTrade received no response either online or by email;
-Filer used the same item # and eBay IDs as recorded in the feedback record (note that a separate case must be filed for each item #); and
-The item bought or sold must not violate the marketplace policy.
2) Feedback can be removed after you file a case with SquareTrade and receive a response from the other party if:
-You have obtained the help of a SquareTrade Mediator;
-Both parties agree to the removal in a Settlement Agreement;
-The item bought or sold must not violate eBay marketplace policy; and
-All other terms of the mediated settlement have been completed.
{Note: there is no time limit to resolving problems - feedback can be removed through mediation even if more than 90 days has passed.
This Robert Grace? Orange County real estate lawyer? http://www.robertgraceproperties.com/
When it clearly states in the feedback section that you should talk to the other party BEFORE posting negative feedback to try to resolve complaints... I am amazed that people dont do so.
Out of 20 or so auctions I've won on eBay, only once have I wanted to leave negative feedback. A guy quoted shipping of 18 dollars US, and in the end, the USPS shipping he used was only 8. I felt sort of angry that he'd ripped me for 10 dollars but in the end we just agred NOT to leave feedback for the auction, as the draft I sent him was (according to him) 'uncashable' and he ended up waiting an extra week for a different pay type to show up.
Moral of the story is that if you have a negative experience, and don't get any satisfaction from the person, leave negative feedback as a last resort. Otherwise, just never ever deal with that person again. It's pretty easy.
As for this moron and his suit, exactly how much libel can be fit into 80 characters? And how bad could it really be? I mean... come on! Man, I am glad I live in a country where spurious litigation is thrown out so fast it would make this blood sucking parasite's head spin! Maybe there would be less of these sort of nuisance lawsuits if, when it is thrown out, the plaintiff is made to wrestle an aligator...
It happened to me as well. I bought a router that was marketed as "clean" and "cosmetically perfect" as well as "don't have facilities to test". What I received was a router that had been dropped from a high shelf. I emailed the seller and received no response. I asked eBay for the insurance payment that goes with the sales since what I bought was not what was received. Finally on the last day I could, after getting no response from the seller, I left negative feedback. The response from the seller was not an just an acrid email blast, but a feedback message indicating that I had wasted his time and he had other buyers that were interested in the router, just short of actually saying, but implying that I backed out of the purchase (after I sent payment out within minutes of the auctions close BTW).
...) The seller had a greater than 100 rating, mostly from buying bulk CD-rs and burners ... I reported the piracy and turned the CD-Rs over to the manufacturer, who turned them over to the police, and got zip in compensation, not even a coupon for the cost of my postage to mail them the material and cover my photocopy costs for the various receipts. They also never returned the originals. And because I was asked not to disclose the particulars of the investigation, could not ask eBay to cover the purchase (even though eBay knew of the case, they wanted the material, now evidence, to process the claim...). So, yeah, eBay is convienient, but really examine the feedback and expect to be burnt occasionally. And, Postal Money orders are your friends, then you can skip the locals and report incidents to the Postmaster General's office who actually will do something about postal service related crimes. Done ranking, back to the news...
eBay refused to payout (never mind the photo in the ad clearly shows the two devices to be the same router, the damage made non-obvious through the lighting and angle of the photo, way to critical for it to have been coincidental), so their word is worthless, and even confronted with the evidence would not remove the negative feedback, which they should have by their own guidelines in the safeharbor portion of their site at the time.
So I say, I hope this guy wins. eBays feedback system is not to be trusted (I bought so supposedly retail software that arrived without documentation on CD-R with the serial numbers as a text file burnt on the disk
truth has always been a defense for libel. if they ask the person who left the feedback if it's true, then its not libel!
look back to early american history!
*the governer fucked my wife* was published (not like that, but same intent). someone responded with "its true!" and therefore not seditious libel (given this isn't seditious, but thats where we get the 1st amendment from)
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
Wheeewww...Dodged that bullet, didn't we Taco?
New feedback comment against plaintiff: "Don't do business with this person, too likely to sue if pissed."
Table-ized A.I.
If I ever get negative feedback (4 times), I simply contact the person and explain what happened, and he/she posts a "follow-up" along the lines of "Oops, my bad" "Showed up the next day" etc. THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO DO! Duh... It's not perfect, but it's far-from-chaos.
How can he add a part of a cicil suit saying ebayers need to register as buisness. That's asking for laws to be creatd and civil suits can never do that.
6 months ago I would have said this guy is a crackpot like everyone else on the forum -- but then a complete idiot left me negative feedback on my 200th or so sale on eBay -- the only neg I've ever gotten.
This is what happened: Newbie buyer provides mailing address (this is for a Half.com transaction BTW -- where Half is a huge middleman in the operation) of something like 100 North St., with ZIP code, etc. I ship the item Media Mail as specified... 2 weeks later it comes back to me No Such Address. I file a trouble report with Half.com. Hear nothing. File two more. Hear nothing. Eventually after 3 weeks have passed, the newbie tracks me down and angrily wants to know where his package is. I tell him what happened, and by this time I've already fully refunded his money. He is completely oblivious to what's going on -- does not believe I shipped the package (I even scanned the envelope and forwarded the original order with his bogus address -- "That's not my address!" he tells me...) All to no avail. He dings me with a negative feedback claiming I didn't ship the item.
Eventually I take this up with eBay but apparently the guy has been such a nuisance his account has been deleted. They won't do a thing about it, even though a dozen emails explain the situation... and after several weeks even the buyer says he FINALLY understands what happened and will remove the negative feedback. Alas, he's been deleted, so he can't remove it.
I sell a lot of junk on Half and eBay and though I have a 240something rating, there are some buyers who simply will not bid if you have a single negative rating. I can certainly understand that, and I may or may not take the time to dig down as to why negative points were received. I don't blame the idiot for giving me the negative point -- I blame eBay for not employing common sense in removing it.
The lawsuit is right in that the policy is totally unworkable and is abused frequently. His call for fictitious business names and tax collecting might be a bit much, and in the end I doubt this guy will win his case. What will have far more effect is when a similar case becomes a class action lawsuit -- and then eBay might finally realize how rife the system is with abuse.
filmcritic.com - Movie reviews on Internet time
That idiot as you call her sued because the coffee was hotter than coffee usually would be. She had sever injuries that requires skin transplants. I can understand why she would sue. I can't understand however how the jury could aware over a million dollar in punitive damages. It's good to know that the judge reduced it to $650,000.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
Breaking news: After an attorney won a lawsuit over Ebay for receiving negative feedback, a well-known goatse.cx troll was awarded 20 karma by the district court after winning a lawsuit placed against Slashdot (OSDN). The troll claims that the ASCII art of the main picture on goatse.cx was "Interesting" and "Funny."
CmdrTaco recently stated that Slashdot is already planning for an appeal.
Why don't they just not allow lawyers on Ebay? Wouldn't it make things much smoother?
I've had problems with kids getting on there and bidding up on video games then not paying and later leaving negative feedback just because they don't care about their new account. It happens. I've got over 150 positive feedbacks and 2 negatives. You won't see me crying about it.
...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
If you want lawyers banned from bars, go to Idaho. I know of a couple bars that have the words "No Lawyers" on their signs (in very large print).
neurostarAs a Russian all I can say is if your courts take this case its a sad thing. Here civil cases almost never go anywhere. The government can kill 129 people in a botched rescue attempt and they arent responsible for a thing. In America Ebay refuses to fix some pricks feedback and he sues them! Yeah life is fair. Frankly lawsuits are generally a good thing. In Russia they are rare and that is the single bigest cause for Russias problems there is no way to resolve problems without bribing someone in the government. So ultimately I dont know if lawsuits are goof or bad. They create a financial burden on society since unproductive people can sue productive institutions for vast sums, but they do address problems that otherwise would fester and ultimately destabilize society. Russia is slowly developing a workable civil law system, but its years away.
sue all of those trolls who falsely claimed that BSD was dying, and for causing mental distress to those of us who actually use BSD.
--
"Here's a nickel kid, get yourself a real operating system."
Better yet, don't buy anything from him, or he just might sue you too.
...with a phrase like "The following statement is my opinion on this transaction:", since you can't be held libel for your opinion.
The line between fact and opinion, though, is still not always easy to define.
I'm a bit concerned with the last sentence in the article about eBay being forced to collect sales tax in CA. If this person wins, that last part could open a kettle of fish that is better left alone for the time being. I don't live in CA but I also don't know the details of what they are talking about here. I do a lot of Half.com business in CA. Could it affect me? There is a lot we don't know here.
If he's feelin' froggy, I say go for it:
I think this guy's a fucking asshole. I think he should be sued for being an asshole.
Now, come and sue me, bright boy. My words are my own. Slashdot is only the conduit by which I post them for the world to see. I bear full responsibility for my words.
Idiots like this are why the justice system is completely fubar and needs to be overhauled.
How hot was it? How hot is hotter than normal?
That's all BS. It doesn't get any hotter than 212 deg. F (plus or minus depending on altitude, barometric pressure, etc).
It's freaking HOT COFFEE. If you spill it, you will get burned. There should be no lawsuit for that. Period. She just paid the stupid tax. Maybe next time she'll put the coffee and cell phone down when she's driving.
Its times like this that I wish I knew these people so I could tell them to their face that they are idiots! Yes you heard me Mr. Attorney Man. You are an idiot. Sueing because you don't like feedback that someone left you on ebay. What a retard.
If a company owns a building with a big, white wall facing the street, and some unruly teenagers cover it with libelous and derogatory graffiti, is the building owner responsible for those words?
If a web server with poor security has a website defaced, and the defacement contains derogatory or libelous statements, is the server owner or website owner responsible for those words?
IANAL so I don't know the answers to these questions, but if the answer is "yes", then we live in a pretty f'ed up place.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
It's called evolution folks. There is a natural price for defective cognative thought. She got lucky, in primative times she'd have been eaten by lions and that would be that.
Bet she's more careful with trying to buy hot coffee at a drive-thru. If not, then here's hoping for the lions.
Just post that the seller is a lawyer and the damage will be done!
Perhaps the word "lawyer" should be banned!!!
http://www.cnpa.com/Bulletin/may%2013%202002/searc h%20warrant.htm
Does this mean that I can start suing the moderators who mod me down as "Flamebait" or "Troll"?
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
This is totally bogus, and you know it. Accounts on ebay are simply that: an account. There is nothing that says: use your real name or your real business name (mind you, most selling on there (right now) is mostly individuals).
If some company is relying on feedback on ebay for your employment, then it isn't a place anyone should be working at. Anyhow, the point is that feedback on ebay should be held within the context of ebay, not towards anything else. It is an ebay transaction, and nothing more: not personal, not political, and not anything astrological!
In the broader scope, on-line slander is one thing. There is definitely a line, but people have a right to their opinions about a person, place, or thing. Not everyone will like you, and that is one guarantee in life. If they put it in print, so be it.
Anyhow, back to the topic at hand, feedback is feedback. If you get negative feedback, you have the option to respond, permanantly, to it. When future buyers investigate your feedback, they see the negative and neutral (does anyone leave neurtral?!) comments and your responses.
It is the truth about the transaction! Why hide it? It is up to the future buyer to weigh your overall record and your response to the negative feedback before they decide to trust you with regards to a purchase.
For example, if I buy from someone, I check their feedback. Mentally, I make a couple of rules:
o Buying online from some joe schmoe out there is risky. I don't care who it is or via what forum (ebay, newsgroups, etc), you still have no idea who they are.
o No one describes their product as "slightly worn" or "damaged piece of crap I want to unload." Everyone describes their items as being "MINT" or "Nearly MINT" or "slightly used". Consider reality when purchasing a product.
o People with no feedback, sunglasses next to their name, or very very little feedback should be dealt with gingerly as they have a limited record of transactions.
o People with a LOT of feedback (doesn't matter if it is 50 or 50000) can be trusted only slightly more than those with little or no feedback.
With those rules in place, I always look at the feedback. Negative feedback from one person doesn't usually mean crap. There are a whole mess of people out there with chips on their shoulders, and they are usually trying to get something for nothing. However, the feedback record will show trends.
For example, over Christmas, how many people were selling those ZipZap knock-off cars? And how many of them were so overwhelmed with sales that they couldnt keep up, and hence, people left them negative feedback? I would see that and skip right past them because it would show that they could not handle the intense load, but otherwise were good sellers.
YOU need to evaluate the person you are purchasing from. Experience in BUYING as well as SELLING helps make sense of it all.
Don't let one bad apple (or feedback) spoil the whole bunch.
Competition would perhaps move in a direction to discredit or otherwise reduce interest in something popular before comming out with their own similiar product or service that doesn't have the same drawbacks.
Ultimately, in a buyer beware market, there is the counter point of seller beware.
How can you blame the media YOU chose to use?
sue, only in america. it will stop here. i do not want to rant.
If you replace eBay with Experian (or TransUnion or Equifax), not only do you have something which most Slashdotters would jump on the bandwagon of, you have something which is already the law in the United States.
But since eBay IDs aren't social security numbers, somehow that makes it OK...
It is stated clearly on eBay that feedback can not be changed and is permanent. eBay won't go changing it for simple reasons: they don't want to leave the system vulnerable for tampering, whether it be internal or external.
HOWEVER, it is also stated in VERY PLAIN words that leaving negative feedback can constitute slander, so be careful of what you say.
The lawsuit needs to be a slander lawsuit against the buyer if the seller has all his ducks in a row like he claims. In fact, I don't see why you would sue eBay instead of the buyer who left negative feedback in the first place. After all, the buyer is a much more obvious target while eBay hasn't put themselves in an actionable position. Especially considering that the policy on changing feedback has been the same since it's inception - eBay won't do it.
Just a thought...
So rather than change the entire Internet, why not consider carefully what you do online. We spend our young lives dealing with conflict resolution only to get online and regress back to age two. Sheesh, why do people do this?
/. Sure, this is a smart move because now everyone knows and will pass judgement far more easily. Kind of hard to undo that one now isn't it?
This guy is acting the fool. Before ebay, nobody heard of him and whatever reputation he has was of little consequence to anyone but the locals in his area.
After the ebay transaction, a few more people get to know him but are very likely not to care. Sure you can bring up the google thing, but I think that is far less important than this guy makes it out to be. So, he quits ebay, or changes id, or some combination of the two along with a short explanation about his side of the story. Wait a while and it all goes away.
After seeing this would you seriously consider that minor exchange to be an issue? I would not because I understand how the Internet works and would consider the matter accordingly like any sane adult would.
Now he files suit and makes the front page of
Would you hire him now?
It is not reasonable to change the workings of the Internet just to make it easier for people like this to exist online because they are the problem, not the structure of the Internet.
Put another way, this is a people problem, not an Internet problem. When you have large groups interacting this will happen and everyone knows it.
This guy should have considered some advice before doing anything rash over something as minor as an ebay negative feedback. If he had, the obvious consequences would likely have resulted in some other course of action than this lawsuit...
Blogging because I can...
Let me get this straight -- it is Ebay's fault that a seller can't keep straight what he has sold and ends up not being able to associate payments with auction. And what gall: to complain about buyers who have the termerity to give negative feedback when the item they paid for never arrived!
... Microsoft's monopoly for this frivolous case, but I'm drawing a blank!
I tried to sell stuff on ebay, it was really good stuff, but then people started leaving me negaative feedback, it was like BLEEPBLEEPBLEEPBLEEP and then everything got all messed up. It was really good stuff too. Now I just get stuff at Fry's and everything is so much better....
No, no, no. A million times, no.
I don't know how hot you take your coffee, but it's not 180+ degrees F, which is how hot McDonalds used to store their coffee. There's no good reason to have coffee that hot. They were wrong, they got sued, and they changed.
If you spill hot coffee on yourself, yes, you get burned. If you spilt *THAT* hot coffee on yourself, you'll have 3rd degree burns and skin grafts like she did. As a company, you have to be pretty frigging dumb to sell something that can cause serious injury on contact with human skin, and have it be meant for immediate ingestion.
They could call the people involved "assholes" and "motherfuckers" and say that the hoaxes were "bullshit". Go fig.
An interesting first episode, by the way. Probably worth following.
This guy is obviously a dirt bag if he is suing for 2.5 million dollars. I hope he has a horrible life. He probably thinks sending spam is ok.
As a seller, I can see how ONE negative comment in my 1500 affects some bidders/sellers opinions. I have 10 negatives. Some are unfair comments. (IE, "Broke after a couple of uses" - how that's my fault, I have no idea) I think ALL negatives should be be "warned" and then posted 30 days later if no mutual resolve. For instance. If I want to post a negative, I should have to go through the same laborious process a seller has to go through to get a fees credit. That system prevents mass fraud because it is COMPLICATED. Often negative feedbacks and Neutrals for that matter are posted hastily and emotionally. I think if the negative poster had to wait 7 days for a response and then another 10 days for the comment to post (maybe a time for the receipient of the negative to work something out with Squaretrade) a lot of problems could be avoided.
One thing I have come to realize is that there are just rear ends every 1000 or so people. It doesn't matter what went right and what you can do, you are wrong and a scammer. The problem is, when people with big wallets and even bigger mental and social instability are able to get something in the media's eye and they lash out against eBay - it HURTS MY SALES TOO.
Have I done everything right on eBay? No. Have I made mistakes? yes. Have I learned anything? Yes. I encourage all to read and actually learn from my eBay ME page. I have been on eBay almost since it's inception. I find the issue of this article and the previous article about "scamming on eBay" very informative. I hope you find my eBay ME page informative as well and how I typically can avoid feedback problems. Also note how I handle my feedback by actually clicking on the number next to my name.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/adzoox
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
if he wins, i'm gonna sue everyone on every internet forum who has ever flamed me.... who's his attorney again?
Runnin' On Empty
Agreed. I don't see how this relates to the Ebay case.
Speaking as somebody who will be an attorney in the relatively near future, this guy is full of horse shit, and he is exactly the type of scum-sucking attention slut that I'm going to work to get booted from the ABA (American Bar Association).
/me begs forgiveness from the kind hordes of Slashdot for the behavior of the toothless morons who defame my profession.
There, was that enough defamation? Tough. I can't ruin his reputation any more than it already is. I should sue this prick for defamation of MY character for the crap I'll have to deal with from friends over this.
but, be that what it may, this could certainly backfire on the lawyer -- if such an article is indeed "part of the claim", then the patently bogus nature of this provision should help throw out the entire case...
All these years, I've wondered what step 3 could be. I should have realised that the only people that every profited from the .com boom were lawyers. We humans can learn much by observing their strange behaviour.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
A couple years ago, I accidentally gave a seller a "negative" feedback rating when I had meant to click on "neutral". eBay refused to let me retract my own comment, and neither the seller nor I was happy with the result.
I suspect the "no retractions" policy is mostly a way for eBay to save money in their customer service department.
Damn it.
/punitive/ damages. The intention was to make it cheaper for McDonalds to fix the problem than to ignore it - because now everyone burnt by the coffeee could point to this ruling.
Ok, look. There was a problem with the coffee. McDonalds knew there was a problem, and a small proportion of their customers were being injured. They took the view that it was cheaper to throw each customer a couple of thousand dollars than to change their processes.
The judge awarded
Whether the whole idea of punitive damages is a good one or not... well, personally I think justice should be blind. But you should at least understand that the damages awarded were a punishment against McDonalds, not a reward to the victim, before you start spouting about the case.
Trial was great! Would preside over again! A++++!!
And to go back on-topic: I propose a class action lawsuit against the Internet to get that done.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
If Slashdot+psychohistory = ?
Isaac Asimov spinning in his grave. Hahaha, just kidding.
Consider the wheels of time spining madly, Slashdot evolving over the centuries into something the founders couldn't have anticipated.
the treads crushing the dry bones and skulls of generations past, seeking out the opinions of those not fast enough to scurry beyond the reach
of sensors tuned to detect all living things.
A rat scrambles over a femur and into a Campell's soup can, a century before having contained a slurry of chicken feet and monosodium glutemate.
The Slashdot machine crunches to a halt, its spotlight resting on the red, white, and rust can. It announces:
What do you think of this?!
The can rolls from side to side as the rat tries to squeeze itself behind a dried noodle.
The depleted uranium cannon fires a single slug at the can.. *SPLAT*. The machine cries out:
NEGATIVE ONE, OVERATED!!
The voice booms out, rattling the sheetmetal of the discarded cars that lie alongside the road and causing whatever intact glass in the vicinity to explode, spraying glas and dust.
Sorry, but this isn't News for Zionist Oppressors.
1. Feedback is generally far more important to sellers - negative feedback can be awfully damaging, especially if you've worked a while to build up your reputation. 2. "Feedback wars" - posting negative feedback can lead to retaliation from the postee. This is a serious disincentive when considering posting negative feedback, and it's quite possible many people don't leave feedback if they have a reputation to protect..they just avoid future transactions with the person in question. One idea that I had was to have ebay periodically purchase something from each auctioneer, and check for quality (at random intervals), masquerading as a regular buyer. The terms of ebay's contract would of course let ebay return the item at no charge. This would let ebay say that they had made a good faith effort to maintain quality, at any rate.
i like poo!
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Buyer says 'feedback' comments damaged his reputation
If he has a prior reputation has an asshole, which I wouldn't doubt, then it's obviously not damaged. It's only reinforced.
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
Who can put a price on reputation anyways? It seems a little hard to qualify in dollars. We don't know this guy and his reputation. Who's to say that his rep isn't worth only $1? Why 2.6 mil?
I think Grace should retaliate by posting some negative feedback at EBay like: "Neeley is an idiot.", or even publish it in his newspaper. And then they can both call it even. He might even get some enjoyment out of the process.
Sounds like it could be the war of egos rather than anything else. Sometimes this sort of thing happens when people think too highly of themselves -- "How dare he slander me!". Blemishes add character too.
People will always have postitive and negative things to say throughout life. It would be a much better world if everybody understood that.
Try to actually convince people that a comment on eBay is going to ruin your life. I don't think so. Even if you had to use another auction site then it's not the end of the world.
It's amazing what a little bit of anger can lead to, especially against somebody you don't know. I bet Grace's mom could call him all sorts of nasty names and he wouldn't sue her. (well, we don't know him, but let's assume).
So often the rest of us suffer because of the potential resulting precedent set by the case. I hate a world where we have to all walk on eggshells.
They sound like a couple of normal, even nice guys who have just gotten into a bit of an argument.
I agree, it does sound completely different from the eBay case. And while IANAL, I would think this would be actionable (at least here in the US), since there is presumably a quantifiable business loss. I don't think it's the credit card company that's at fault though -- they just have an expert system that rejects suspicious charges. I'd think that the restaurant is at fault for the manner in which they informed him of the rejected charge. At any restaurant swanky enough to take a potential client out to they should have pulled the guy aside ("You have a phone call," or something like that), and handled the situation away from the rest of the party. Of course, maybe the restaurant wasn't that swanky, in which case it's that guy's fault.
Just thinking out loud. . .
-"Zow"
Have a option that allows a EBay member's feedback not to be displayed.
....
This is trivial, and it will allow other members to avoid these loosers
I know that I would not buy from or sell to anyone who blocked their feedback.
Are you paranoid if you know that they just want to know everything you say and do?
You critical like a pro!
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
mod up
1) She wasn't driving; 2) have you ever tried to dring a boiling cup of anything? Would you serve it to your grandmother?
Mickey D's intentionally kept the coffer at 180, b/c they wanted it to be hot if it wasn't drank for a few minutes. 'course, Mickey D's did not run a disclaimer telling people to not drink the coffee for 2 minutes. And, they were sued before for having hot coffee. Mickey D's didn't want to settle (for far less than was won at jury), and instead helped instigate a smear campaign against the women after the initial verdict.
Okay, so ordinary people develop a community and set of ad hoc standards which accurately inform everyone and serves as an adequate conveyance of trust. In so doing, we create the online mechanism of ensuring fairness and justice.
Then a lawyer comes along...
From the article:
"One of the cleverest things they did was saying, 'We are not responsible, we are only a platform,'" said said analyst Safa Rashtchy for U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffrey.
If this is a legitamate argument, how can the RIAA go after P2P networks?
Why do people have to be such whining little babies these days?
Well, duh. He's a laywer.
"In his lawsuit, Grace demands $2.5 million in punitive damages from eBay and $100,000 from Neeley."
I'd like to see him prove that one bad feedback is going to cost him that much.
Again, lawyer.
Christ, if I brought lawsuits against everyone who ever said a negative thing about me I'd --
wait a minute! I'd be filthy rich!
I'll sue you!
I'll sue you all!
I'll sue you all to hell!
Bwahahahahahahahhahaahaha!
Please realize, people making outraged responses to SF, that he *is* one of Slashdot's more prolific trolls. Don't respond. Just give him a "foe" marking and move along.
May we never see th
It costs $$ to register a business name in California.
Best Buy can have you arrested
Why doesn't Neeley countersue for breach of contract? After all, the magazines DID arrive late, and not in the agreed upon conditio.?
If the man (Grace) is trying to use such an amateurish scare tactic (How does he plan to justify the amount of money involved here? Did he get the idea from Berke Breathed or something?) a justifiable countersuit might be enough to convince him to back down.
Can we sue them if we're denied credit (assuming their reports are inaccurate, of course)?
As a company, you have to be pretty frigging dumb to sell something that can cause serious injury on contact with human skin, and have it be meant for immediate ingestion.
Simple reason -- many, if not *most* of the people that get coffee at McDonald's at the drive-through (as she did) purchase a coffee that they will drink at work when they get in.
You can always ask for it to have some cool water added.
I mean, it comes down to the fact that anyone should be expected to deal with hot beverages. I make hot cocoa that's too hot to drink frequently, and let it cool for a bit first. Soup -- same thing. Letting things that are too hot for you cool is simply something that anyone older than a very young child should be able to handle.
May we never see th
IANAL, so take this post as coming from such. One, the guy read and agreed to eBay's terms of service when he created an account on their system. In that terms of service agreement, it states: "Release. Because we are a venue, in the event that you have a dispute with one or more users, you release eBay (and our officers, directors, agents, subsidiaries, joint ventures and employees) from claims, demands and damages (actual and consequential) of every kind and nature, known and unknown, suspected and unsuspected, disclosed and undisclosed, arising out of or in any way connected with such disputes." And.. "In no event shall we, our subsidiaries, employees or our suppliers be liable for lost profits or any special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of or in connection with our site, our services or this agreement (however arising, including negligence). Our liability, and the liability of our subsidiaries, employees, and suppliers, to you or any third parties in any circumstance is limited to the greater of the amount of fees you pay to us in the 12 months prior to the action giving rise to liability, and $100. Some States do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you." And... "Indemnity You agree to indemnify and hold us and (as applicable) our parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, and employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of your breach of this Agreement or the documents it incorporates by reference, or your violation of any law or the rights of a third party." Lastly: "If you do not agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do not use or access our services." As for the sales tax nonsense, eBay is currently complying with all federal tax regulations governing their conduct, and therefore, cannot be penalized. A lawsuit cannot seek to force an entty to collect and pay sales tax when the laws currently in force do not require that taxes be collected. The same with being foced to register eBay user ID's as fictitious business names in your state of residence. Since governing law does not require it, a lawsuit cannot seek to enforce it. Sheesh! I wish that guy would get a life!
In this case, a third party is providing the information and eBay is the "common carrier" (or whatever you want to call it). If eBay the commany posted a note that this guy is a rip-off, then you would have a valid comparison.
Ok, about the mcdonalds coffe suit. One there were having it way too hot, 2nd and third degree burns within seconds and skin graffs needed, Second they had a history of knowing this happened to people and just buying them off without changing the way they served their coffee.
Thirdly the amount she was first payed was in line with a corporate lawsuit, in which the penalties should be grave enough that the corporation won't do it again. In her case it was medical expenses + the amount of money the mcdonalds coporation made from their coffee in ONE day. Which is almost fitting.
From here on out eBay should ban lawyers from buying, selling OR commenting.
"Are you a Lawer? If so, we'd like to tell you about LawBay, our new site for Lawyers only. No comments of any kind are allowed on LawBay - this allows us to keep our costs low. No actual buying or selling actually occurs on LawBay - you can post pictures of stuff you would have liked to have sold and other lawyers can look at those pictures, but no actual transactions are allowed - again to keep our legal costs low."
I can sue /. for bad karma?
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
I left negative feedback for a guy who was advertising a somewhat rare anime calendar, but what arrived was a CDR with some scanned pictures of a calendar.
Asked for my money back, with the threat of going to ebay - he gave me back my auction cost, but not the shipping. I claimed that I wouldn't be out 12$ if it wasn't for him - I complained to ebay, but they claimed his seller rating proved he was a good seller.
Anyhow - after leaving negative feedback saying that the auction description was fraudulent he wrote back saying "Yeah....whatever! >8^P"
Out of prinicple I would have sued this guy if I had the money since what he did was pratically mail fraud (which the postmaster - according to what he said to me is where what someone says your getting is different that what you are actually getting)
Of course you would want your coffee that hot!
If I don't misinterpret your silly way of measuring temperatures 180F = 82C which isn't so hot. Coffee should in my opinion be at least 90C (though not when you drink it) or it will not taste as good.
What good is rating system if it does not allow negative feedback?
+++ath0
Did you only use eBay once, or do you sell and buy there regularly?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
According to my take on this incident, she put the soft, deformable cup between her legs!!! C'mon, coffee is made from BOILING water. There's too many frikkin' lawyers out there w/o honest jobs. IMHO the shysters are always on the prowl for the poor bastard who can provide the big 'payday'.
My mother sells costumes on eBay and makes a pretty good business, but she is terrified of negative feedback, or even a mere neutral. She's got 200-something total feedbacks now, all positive, but I swear she's going to kill herself at the first negative. Conversely, she's also afraid to buy from anyone who has any negatives or neutrals, even if it's something like only 1 in 500.
More Dr. Fuck! Please, I beg you. Wheee!!!!
I remember in the 80s when software companies tried to enforce DRM...and ran head-first into the will of their customers. So they gave it up for a few years but now it's back.
So what's the threshold that must be reached before companies, organizations, and lawmakers realize that they're pissing people off? I was too young to care back in the 80's...I just bought whatever cartridge allowed me to make backups of my C64 games and pressed on. But there must have been some point at which the software companies realized that they were wasting more money on ineffectual copy-protection schemes than they were making on legitimate software sales.
I wonder if any of you folks with more historical background can offer some insight about issues like this. This E-Bay case is barratry. I'm sure there have been eras in the past where lawyers ran amok, else there wouldn't even be a word such as barratry. So at what point does Joe_Everyman and Sue_Everywoman get pissed off enough to spout off?
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
EBay isn't the public at large
Not yet... but eBay already owns the following: Half.com, Internet Auction, iBazar, HomesDirect.com, NeoCom and PayPal. And when feedback ratings start to impact your home-buying ability (via HomesDirect) or personal finances (via PayPal) people will start to care a little more. By then, enacting change will be far more difficult.
filmcritic.com - Movie reviews on Internet time
... who had negative feedback posted against them, as a buyer, every word of which was false (well, save the conjunctions, maybe). Even though eBay was notified about it, there has been no attempt made to correct or remove this feedback. Ultimately, it probably qualifies as libel, which would require ... you guessed it ... a lawyer.
eBay's feedback posting system does need revision, and I fear this is the only way it will change.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
You can find a thorough discussion of the facts here
As to the amount of the damages, if you accept the premise that McDonalds was at fault then suggesting that she got too much is foolish if you have any idea what the hell punitive damages are for. Punitive damages are not determined by what the plaintif deserves but as punishment for the defendant to deter him from such behavior. McDonalds is a huge corporation, so it would take a huge amount of money (say, hmmm, a million dollars) to make any difference to them and deter them from keeping their coffee so rediculously hot.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
It is nothing else than extortion ... why the hell would he tack on the demand for eBay buyers and sellers be forced to register for business names and pay sales tax? Do you think he cares? He most likely just wants to raise the stakes for eBay in hope of a settlement.
Here is what I think is the most likely scenario. The guy needed some money, searched for something to sue and found eBay. The guy buys something on eBay, mangles it a bit, complains about the quality, waits for the natural response and then he cries foul.
Looking at this clown's feedback, this looked like this was how he got his jollies. Usually used "buy it now" so that the seller wouldn't have a chance to remove the bid.
So I filled a non-paying bidder complaint, and a request to have the feedback removed. Ebay not only removed the feedback (mine and his), they suspended the idiot's account, and refunded the fees on the auction, all within 36 hours of my complaint. Sure Ebay has a few hoops to jump through but they dont make it needlessly hard. If this lawyer really thought the feedback was wrong and it was going to cause him harm he should have gone through things the right way and not run off to court. Heck he could have hired an arbitrator for $20 and gotten it removed.
Honestly, I'm not surprised by this. eBay has had a poorly implemented feedback system for quite a while now. The main problem with feedback, is that the other guy gets to see the feedback you left right away. This causes 2 problems.
Firstly, no one wants to be the first to leave feedback, since they are then helpless to react if they leave nice feedback and get bad feedback in return. Secondly, the idea that you can retaliate to the feedback you were given is completely fucked.
The best way to fix eBay's feedback system is to make a transaction's feedback completely invisible until the transaction is fully completed. That means that you don't get to see what feedback the other guy is leaving you until you've BOTH left feedback. This keeps everyone honest. If the deal goes sour in one person's eyes, then it will be reflected appropriately.
The biggest drawback to this system is the ability to stall feedback from showing. By never leavnig feedback, you could effectively keep a transaction in limbo. Thus, if you knew you fucked the other guy over, you could easily just never leave feedback and your rating would be unaffected. The solution to this is to enforce a timelimit on feedback. Once the other person leaves feedback, you have 30 days to leave feedback of your own. If you let the time limit pass, then you are assumed to have left neutral feedback, and a nice generic comment. Something like "".
Anyways, until eBay fixes this, I pretty much ignore the raw numbers that feedback provides. The aggregate data is completely useless. *shrug* Maybe they'll catch a clue and fix it one day.
Loser Pays.
Derek Greene
I'd think that the restaurant is at fault for the manner in which they informed him...
Good point. Just to be safe, sue 'em both.
I've sent numerous emails to EBay asking why they won't change their policies. I've yet to get a reply.
The main problem is that many Sellers hold Buyers hostage for ratings. The Seller refuses to leave a feedback for the Buyer, until the Buyer leaves a Positive Feedback for them. This puts the Buyer at a huge disadvantage, if you're not satisfied, and leave a Negative Feedback for the Seller, you run the risk of him retaliating with a Negative one for you. This artificially inflates Seller's ratings.
If a Buyer makes an appropriate payment, either instantly with some form of internet payment, or 'the check clears the bank', he/she has fulfilled his part of the transaction, and should be given their Feedback immediately.
Only when the Buyer gets the package, in good condition, has the Seller fulfilled his half of the transaction, and be eligible for their feedback to be made.
The only way to make it an equitible marketplace is to just require that Sellers don't get Feedback until they've left feedback for the Buyer. For Sellers who feel like noone will take the time to leave feedback for them, put in an "Automated Positive Feedback" after say 15 business days. This gives Buyers about three weeks to leave a personalized Positive (or Negative) Feedback, or else one would assume things went well, and the Seller should therefor get their Positive Feedback.
Problem Solved.
I used to have a good sig...
They crash their planes into a forest.
Actually, the settelment was unjust. Coffee is prepared by passing boiling hot water (212 Deg. F or 100 Deg. C) through the grounds. Anyone who expects something different when they order coffee is wrong. The woman should have gotten nothing. And no I am not a fan of McDonalds (my family used to call them the competition).
This is such a typical problem for lawyers. They are such pompus ass haughty morons that think so much of themselves. They think that they control the world.
Most people would be pretty upset if somebody left bad comments for them, especially if it were unfounded...but come on...Sueing ebay for 'offensive' comments made by another?
Get a life buddy...and grow some skin. You can't please everybody, and nobody else is responsible for you being a jerk.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
the salaries of lawyers now make up TWO PERENT of the GDP for the United Stated of America.
Stop the madness.
Afterall only anonymous nics get libeled, not real people.
Grace can simply get a new nic
We'll have to add "-1 Sue Me." to the moderation scores on slashdot.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
This guy (Roger, not Robert, by the way) uses the ID rgrace@metnews.com.
You can view his feedback profile at http://cgi2.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPI Command=ViewFeedback&userid=rgrace%40metnews.com&i tems=25
They'll get my encryption algorithm when they pry it from my cold, dead hard drive.
A quick search of publicly available information on the internet reveals that Roger M. Grace is the publisher of a couple of legal newpapers in downtown Los Angeles, "The Los Angeles Bulletin" and the "Metropolitan News-Enterprise." Offices for both of these papers are located at 210 South Spring Street. Los Angeles.
Phone:(213) 346-0033
FAX:(213) 687-3886
Of course this may not be the same Robert Grace that's suing EBay. Indeed, there may be dozens of Robert Graces that are publishers of legal newspapers in Los Angeles.
But, if this really is the Robert Grace mentioned in this article, please give him a call or send him a quick fax to let him know just how much you support his campaign against evil.
Recently, I've started to listen to Jim Cramer, a (egotistical but successful) financial analyst who also happened to be a stock analyst on CNBC in the late 1990s... up until the point when he gave a "bad" review of a certain tech company, and told the viewers to sell.
The company in question sued him for slander, went to his managers at the station, and pressured them to fire him... he was released from the show for trumped up reasons because of the pending lawsuit. After a big public farce, he was found innocent, but they ruined his public career for a good 2 years... up until the point when the company went bankrupt, because they really were a crappy company, and just didn't want anyone to look at what was going on behind the curtain. As we know now, there never was a "tech boom", no economic prosperity of the late 90s, because all of it was lies on paper, and all those startups were counting on the fact that noone was looking.
So in this case, we have an entity who is providing a review of a service, who in their opinion happens to be bad. Reviewee is now taking legal action against the reviewer to silence the opinion, with no regard to whether or not the review is factual or not. I can't help it if I get a feeling of deja vu... "Our service is great! No really, do you see any complaints?"
All these replies are just wonderful, really. However, every factual resource disagrees with you.
Kindly read here, here, here, and... oh lord, I could go on, but why?
Yes, you're all way too manly to be afraid of boiling hot water. Yes, yes, indeed, you must have very large testicles, or something, I'm not sure why you need to think you're so macho. 180-190 degrees is *HOT*. And sure, the coffee you get from McDonalds has just been made, passed through grounds! Or, maybe it's been stored in a huge vat for several hours, and you're kidding yourself. And yes, coffee should be *hot* or else you don't like it! Yes, but not that hot, even if you don't admit it. And I'm sure they drink it when they get in to work, even though McDonalds' own research indicates the vast majority *try* to drink it right away, while driving.
Besides. Of course you people are perfect. You've never spilled a drink in your life! You're fully comfortable having to hold a fucking *beverage* container as if it held nuclear waste. Severe burns that will require surgery? In *UNDER TWO SECONDS*? Yeah, sure. Clearly, this is appropriate.
All your points have the following in common:
1) Enhanced machismo. Clearly you're making up for something.
2) Finding humor, reveling in your own ignorance. You don't care about the actual facts, it just makes you happy to think, "Ha, ha. She's so dumb, she got burned by coffee!" Sure, just neglect the fact that she's 80, *wasn't* driving, and was holding a liquid in a fragile, disposable cup, capable of doing a full skin burn in under two seconds.
3) Express strong opinions, without really having a deep understanding of what your talking about.
I know, 3 really shouldn't surprise me, considering what website this is. Oh well. You know what? Think whatever you want, since trying to change the minds of the willfully ignorant is one of the most difficult things you can do. McDonalds now serves coffee at 160, which is still way too hot to drink, but is several orders of magnitude too cool to cause severe damage, just like *every other fast food chain* has always done. Good.
"MSNBC is running a story on an attorney who is suing ebay over negative feedback a seller left about him."
Obviously he never saw Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. I mean, hell, he already has the address he needs to go to...
I am soooooooo glad someone finally had the balls to take on eBay and their flawed "feedback system" that they think is so great. It doesn't work at all: If you leave a seller bad feedback, even if it's deserved, they can leave you negative feedback for no reason whatsoever, and if you leave feedback you can't change it, so what ends up happening is if you're the bidder and the seller sends you a broken item, wrong item, etc, you're scared to death to leave negative feedback in fear of getting negative feedback yourself.
The worst offenders are the powersellers because they have so many positive feedbacks they don't give a &*^% if a few people leave negative. That's why I've always found it best to avoid buying from power sellers or at least check the negative feedback to make sure I'm not buying the same product.
One thing is for sure on eBay: take the number of negative feedback a member has a multiply it by 10 because that's probably the real number of bad transactions.
The seller slandered the buyer because he complained about the transaction. It's one thing to say "the stuff I bought from X arrived late." It's another to call someone "dishonest all the way." This is a case of a wronged consumer rather than a whiny merchant.
So this dude bids on an Iomega Buz that I was trying to sell back in November 1999. In the terms of my auction, I clearly stated that PayPal and money orders were the only payment methods I would accept. Furthermore, I stated that payment must be received within a week of the auction's close.
So the winner of said auction sent me an eMessage asking if I'd accept COD. I say no, because I already stated in the terms that I would not accept COD. Cut and dry, right? Nope. Dude gets pissed and questions why I won't accept COD. Does it matter? I said no in the bidding terms!
A week goes by, and I receive no payment from him. I notify him that I'm going to offer the item to the next person down on the list, and post negative feedback to the seller for failing to follow through on the auction (read: failing to comply with a binding contract.) Out of retaliation, the guy posts this:
Complaint: NO GOOD SELLER,,SENT MONEY NEVER RECEIVED ITEM..BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obviously, anyone who uses all-caps and places two commas together is challenging to deal with, to say the least. As it stands, eBay won't remove the feedback, even though it is easily verifiable as libel. He never sent the money as I told him not to.
The worst part? He has a history of this shiat, and he fucked my otherwise perfect rating.
Pissed doesn't even begin to describe how I feel.
This makes interesting reading The Value of Reputation on eBay: A Controlled Experiment by Paul Resnick, Richard Zeckhauser, John Swanson, and Kate Lockwood[1]
Abstract
Many empirical studies assess the effectiveness of reputation mechanisms, such as eBay's Feedback Forum. These investigations involve products ranging from pennies to collector guitars; they vary widely in their conclusions on how well reputation systems perform. Part of the explanation for the disparity among prior studies is that they merely collect samples from the eBay population. Such observational studies significantly increase the number of other variables that are left uncontrolled. This makes it difficult to isolate the effects of reputation on auction outcome.
In our main experiment, we worked with an established eBay auctioneer to sell matched pairs of items -- batches of vintage postcards -- under his extremely high reputation identity, and under newcomer identities with little reputation. Our second experiment followed the same format, but compared sales under newcomer identities with and without negative feedback. Having controlled the content of the auctions, and the presentation of item information, we were able to minimize the effects of variables other than reputation. As expected, the established identity fared better. The price difference was 7.6% of the selling price. Back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that this amount is reasonable, given the level of risk that buyers incur. Surprisingly, one or two negative feedbacks for our new IDs had no price effects, even though these sellers had few positives.
If eBay were to actually implement filtering, how would they stop you from calling someone from using leet speak to call someone a $C@M 4rt1st? Or a c0n man? Or in true eBay style, "A F R A U D !!! !!!!!!!!111111" Certainly not an easy task.
But like the man said, This d00d really needs to get a life.
base page for California State Bar lookups:
2 19C.pgm?13432 8D
T 219C.pgm?13432 8S
http://calsb.org/mm/sbmbrshp.htm
searching for a Robert Grace only returns one name:
http://www.calsb.org/cgi-bin/NT201C?134328
Member# 134328
Robert L. Grace Jr is an ACTIVE Member
Only ACTIVE members may practice law in California
5533 Garth Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90056
Phone: (213)974-3562
FAX:
E-Mail:
Admitted in California on June 14, 1988
Undergraduate: Univ of California at Los Angeles; Los Angeles CA
School of Law: Loyola Law School; Los Angeles CA
(This person *does* show up as the only Robert Grace that lives in Los Angeles and is a member of the California State Bar)
No Public Record of Discipline:
http://www.calsb.org:8080/cgi-bin/NT
No further information:
http://www.calsb.org:8080/cgi-bin/N
--
Could it be?
In the 21st century, the dream has changed. The dream doesn't involve work at all. It's all about filing suits against people with money. Got lung cancer? Hey, it's not YOUR fault! It's the tobacco companies'! You're 200lbs overweight? Nevermind the fact that you havent moved your fat ass off the couch once in 10 years, or that you never exercise. Blame Burger King!
It's all about blaming anyone but yourself for your problems, preferably people with deep pockets.
This guy's an idiot if he thinks the courts will pay him any mind. He'll be lucky if they don't nail him for filing a frivolous suit.
ROBERT GRACE is a greedy little man with a small penis.
Ebay is a gathering place where people can come on and sell their stuff. In a sense, Ebay is nothing more than a msg board almost. However, over the past years, people used Ebay as their median of business. That serves as a new opportunity for many (as well as TAXES for uncle Sam)
True, I agree that Ebay should have quite a bit of protection for the sellers as well as buyers (remember the little kid who bid for millions worth antique and thought it was a game?). Protection DOES NOT EQUAL to babysitting. There's no easy way to prevent 5 year olds giving negative feedback or bidding on crap they don't want, just for kicks. The drawback is that ebay do not have the necessary information to take drastic actions, they are, again, a median. I have seen and thought about ways to avoid that, but since I don't work for them, nor I use their services, oh well =P
That lawyer better start selling his logic on ebay soon. If he can put a monetary value on his reputation in a MSG board, then those who didn't leave him positive should be in the case. His reputation cannot be quantified, Ebay has risks, and I am sure he AGREED before entering. If he wins, thousands of ebay sellers will follow. He probably should sue himself too, since I doubt anyone will EVER bid on his sales for the fear of being sued.
He might win, actually. Even some extreme cases have their doubts....(McDonald Case - I am clumsy so I will sue your ass to be responsible).
"I see dumb people"
-The Common Sense
So, um, hey. What part of the internet dont these people understand?
This sig was cut off by the sla
I had a deal with an ebay seller..for a 4X4X16 scsi CD-RW. I promptly sent my money within 5 minute of the end of auction. I received a message saying that it was on the way. A week later nothing had shown up. I continued to email the seller......nothing. I made copies of the 7 emails I sent. He claims he received none. My last email was a deadline, respond or I will take action. He did not, I did, starting with a negative feedback. Once the feedback it the website I finally got an email from him saying he had a death in the family and that he would be sending it shortly, even though he stated before that it was already "in the mail"...also berating me for leaving bad feedback and contacting ebay and paypal. 14 days later after calling the dogs off him and still not getting the drive I paid for I emailed him again...the drive is in the mail..several days later...no drive. After a few more days I contacted ebay and paypal and told them if I did not get a package tracking number within 24 hours that they could go ahead with charges....Like magic I got the tracking number. A few days later a 4x8 CD burner arrived..not the 4X4X16 that he advertised. I told him that the drive he shipped was not the one at auction, but I would keep it because I was tired of his lies and dealing with him. To my surprise he roasted me with his feedback and I had little recourse to explain it a single line what he had done. To this day I think that he beleives he has done no wrong and was very upset the I brought down his rating. In fact he wrote ebay to have it removed.....they did not comply.
Having read the article, this little snippet near the bottom provided much food for thought.
"The lawsuit also demands that buyers and sellers, who use aliases in eBay transactions, register their screen names with the state of California as fictitious business names, and that eBay be forced to collect state sales tax."
Interesting! Now, ignoring the fact that the buyer was a lawyer, and taking into account that the whole spat is alleged to have started simply because of comments in the 'Feedback' areas, why in the Multiverse would the filer of this lawsuit want to use it to try and force two other requirements that are (in my view) utterly irrelevant to the original issue?
Perhaps someone should have a look at any connections Mr. Grace may have to the State of California's Franchise Tax Board, or other California state politicians, direct or otherwise.
On a more personal note: I sincerely hope this is one lawyer that loses his case, big time! Regardless of the condition of the magazines, it sounds like he does indeed need to "get a life." I know from direct experience that it is simply not possible to sell for more than a year or so on Ebay and -not- get a negative feedback or two. It Just Doesn't Happen that way.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
It's this kind of "lawsuit" that is turning the US into a joke and killing it's industry.
I've said it before in this thread, and got modded as flamebait. Go ahead and mod me down again. Karma is useless, and I don't give a rat's fat ass whether I offend the so-called "lawyer" involved.
Any societal leech who thinks this kind of lawsuit deserves anything but being laughed out of court with court costs levied against the suitor deserves to suffer the economic damages the US is working it's way up to.
Here's one finger on high for the lawyer who initiated this case. Another for those who were offended that I challenge the useless sack of flesh to try such a lawsuit outside the US. And a third for anyone stupid enough to think this is an anti-American rant. And a pair for anyone else wasting society's time through such frivolous self-serving bullshit lawsuits.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
in the sea?
It's a good start!
Remember, all lawyers are scum.
The scummy lawyer (scummy lawyer is redundant) who sued eBay just proves the point!
Long live free speech!
Sounds like the lawyer got their panties all up in a bunch... I guess the lawyer's feelings got hurt and can't take it like an adult - he just sues instead.
What a loser!
I was the winning bidder on an item.
The seller and I exchanged info.
I sent a check.
I did not get product.
After bitching to the seller, I posted negative feedback on eBay.
The seller freaked out and demanded that I retract my statement. (Not sure that's possible, honestly).
I responded via email saying I am just stating facts, that my check was deposited, and that I had no goods to show for it, and then...
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAIL IF YOU DONT TAKE DOWN MY NEGATIVE RATIN I WILL SSUE YOU INTO THE GROUND.
I am not making this up.
I asked the person to sue me. I also mentioned that I've been in touch with barristers that might have an interest, and hinted that if my cash came back, I may not attack.
I got a premium on my cash. The lawyers asked me if I'd work on another project. I said no.
(Don't do this if you don't, actually. have a lawyer, it can go horribly wrong. Take the advice they give you if you do have one. Get one if you don't. IANAL, etc.)
I forget what 8 was for.
In my case, a buyer with "0" feedback bid on and won my auction. After the auction, I emailed them no less than 4 times over the next two weeks with payment instructions and requesting an address to ship too. I never heard a peep from the buyer. (You guessed it - an AOLer.
As a result, I had to relist the (not inexpensive) item and lost the listing fees. (Yes, I know you can apply for a refund. eBay makes it difficult). After about 2 months had gone by, I posted a negative feedback, indicating that the buyer never paid and did not respond to repeated emails. Within days, the buyer hammered me with a negative feedback, stating "I refused to answer questions and never provided payment info". Huh?
Of course, eBay won't remove the comment, even though it is patently untrue. This sucks, it affects potential buyers to see that kind of comment, and I didn't even get paid for the "transaction"!
I think the gripe is not that negative feedback can be left, it's that eBay WILL NOT remove feedback that is clearly wrong or slanderous, even when presented with factual evidence that the comment is false. As a result of this, I have simply started stating in my auctions that AOL users are not welcome to bid, and I cancel their bids if they do. Whenever I have non paying bidders that don't answer email, 90% of the time it's an AOLer.
"The lawsuit also demands that buyers and sellers, who use aliases in eBay transactions, register their screen names with the state of California as fictitious business names, and that eBay be forced to collect state sales tax." that's like two more completely different issues! and, imo, much much worse than any silly squabble over some neg. feedback. -olly the limey
The suit asks a judge to force the cyber-auctioneer to filter words like "fraud, liar, cheater, scam artist, con man" from the site...
That's amusing. A lawyer demanding that Ebay filter all words that most people use when describing lawyers.
Those are exactly the words my father used when his attorney charged him $600 for a three-minute phone call that blew the $25,000 deal my father was negotiating.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
When you are acting as a seller on eBay, just how do you overwhelm yourself? eBay sellers set the quantity of items they are selling. I don't see how a responsible seller can become overwhelmed, unless they are in fact irresponsible sellers and are listing items with higher available quantities than they actually have. I sell on eBay, yet I've never been overwhelmed with too many sales because I only list what I can ship. What am I missing here?
Putting moderation advice in your
I lost 4,000$ in living expenses, and could not buy an engagement ring or afford rent, which a series events led me to be unable to propose. Also I failed that semester of college, pushing my graduation back a year.
It was because: Everquest misinterpreted an auction of mine to be for their game.
oooh and mr big shot lawyer got bad feedback, cry me a river.
God spoke to me
If a Buyer makes an appropriate payment, either instantly with some form of internet payment, or 'the check clears the bank', he/she has fulfilled his part of the transaction, and should be given their Feedback immediately.
To some degree this is true - however, the transaction really cannot be considered complete until *both* parties have what they are owed. I've bought plenty of stuff on eBay, but not sold any, so I'm speaking from limited experience, but I would think that just as buyers want to know about sellers that don't ship what is promised, the sellers also want to know about those rare problem buyers that, even after reasonable efforts are made to satisfy them regarding a perceived problem, will still leave negative feedback, not to mention those sellers that accept a cashier's check, only to find out two weeks later that it's bogus. Your suggestions regarding possible reforms are pretty interesting just the same.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Cmon... even with all absurdity aside, demanding 2.5 million dollars (plus 100k from the actual comment writer) is a bit much. Is this guy so pretentious that he thinks the value to his precious reputation is worth 2.6 million total dollars? Unless this guy sells Monets, I'd say he's bidding a little high.
If he misrepresented his items, and the buyer didn't like it, he can't very well sue the buyer for speaking the truth. Always remember that truth is the ultimate defense against slander/libel. This case, while ridiculous, should come down to the merits... either the items were misrepresented, or they were not. If the seller tried to pull a fast one, and is just upset that he got called on it, then tough... he should be countersued by all parties involved, including Ebay.
Honest feedback is the only thing that Ebay has going for it. Think how great it would be if every place you bought stuff from (car dealers, mechanics, electronics stores, LAWYERS, etc) had this feature...
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
This case is almost as stupid as the fat kids vs. McDonalds case, where some fat kids tried suing mcdonalds for.. well.. making them fat. I think Einstein said it best: "Human stupidity is infinite".. or something along those lines. Next, people will be suing over bad weather forecasts or something..
roger != robert
yes, there are this many lawyers
Folks,
Forgive me but, for those of you who live in the Litigious Land that was formerly known as the Land of the Brave and Home of the Free... this should neither surprise nor bother you.
I mean Jeeezus Hornblower Keeeriest... We've been slapping sanctions on wistle blowers forever... criminal corporations rape and pillage... and keep their images springtime fresh and sweet smelling by forcing all parties into silence and paying the court to shut everyone the frigg up... Why our fearless leader, President Shrub has just finished gutting the Freedom of Information act, about the only way we had to keep our elected bozos in line and make them tow the mark...
And you're suprised any little scumbag (not speaking about anybody in particular mind you), decides the answer for queiting bad news about his decency as a human being, is to have a lawyer sue the general locality into silence... well hell that's almost as American as Mom, and Apple Pie...
Where the hell is your sense of patriotism!
Genda Bendte
--Don't sweat the petty things and vice versa...
They'd just need to translate common character/letter combo's, put a little logic into combining single letter words together ( f r a u d = 'fraud') and then soundex the words..
:)
But if they *SHOULD* is another question.. The guy wrote his opinion, which is perfectly legal in most states (I'm not sure about Cali).. In *MY* opinion, it's up to him to make everyone happy..
In the real world, I've seen people protesting businesses with written signs saying "This business ripped me off".. The police look, make sure he's peaceful while he's there, and leave him alone.
Of course, the guy has the right to sue for anything he wants..
Unless of course, the feds get into it, then they'll consider him a cyber-terrorist, and he'll go to jail indefinately.
I've had people threaten to sue me over so many things it isn't even funny.. Most of them want to sue because of whatever painfully pathetic reason.. Feel free.. Try to associate my alias of the day to a real person.. The courts will be full of attempted hearings regarding JWSmythe, John Smith, John Doe, G Public, Joe User, etc, etc..
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
If he really is it -- here are all the facts:
You obviously replied in the heat of the moment.
Regarding your three points
1) I fail to see what machismo has to do with this. This has to do with the plaugue of unmerited lawsuits destroying this nation.
2) Standard resturaunt practice is to store the coffee at 180 Deg. F if using an urn type coffee maker. This is set by controlling the temprature of the water jacket. McDonalds was simply following an established industry wide proceedure. The proper remedy for this is legislative, not punative and judicial.
3) I personally worked for 15 years in the resturaunt buisiness. I am presently a chemist. I believe I do know of what I speak.
BTW 160 Deg. F is not several orders of magnitude cooler than 180 Deg. F.
"Is it possible to get pregnant having anal sex?"
The doctor says: "Where do you think lawyers come from?"
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
I only use that name for posting in the eBay discussion boards and not even for that so much recently. At the time, it was unusual for such "posting names" to have feedback so I bought something with it. I have 2 more ID's with ~40 feedbacks each.
Because my anonymous*coward character is a bit unconventional, I bought a 6' inflatable party pecker with it. Had some good laughs in the eBay Town Square with that one.
BTW, the party pecker was a great pool toy for a year (inflatable pool toys never last more than a year around here). Highly recommended.
Female Prison Rape in NY
I wonder if maybe EBay isn't just interested in having their cake and eating it too. One of the reasons Ebay is so monumentally successful as a business is that they have all the margin and none of the responsibility. Get ripped off? Not our problem. Get untrue feedback? Not our problem. Not our problem. Not our problem. We didn't get our cut of your sale? Now its our problem, and our only problem.
I've bought only 2-3 things off of Ebay, primarily because I don't want to get ripped off and I'm a little disgusted with their willingness to create a marketplace but not enforce any rules of fairness or any kind of justice.
I'm not naive -- I know that the more they get involved in sales, the less profitable it is for them. But because their sole interest is making a percentage off of sellers they seem to have every incentive to just generate sales of any kind, regardless of the integrity of the sale.
I'd have more faith in Ebay if they didn't just create a market, but created a market that did more than just pay lip service to honesty and justice.
I've split coffee on myself before. I've even spilt it in my lap. I've never needed a skin graft from it. That is because I don't use vacuum boiled coffee.
As for the unmerited lawsuits - this wasn't one. McDonalds was knowingly serving something unsuited for consumption form thier drive through - there had, in fact, been a history of complaints about the coffee, and they hadn't changed the policy. The plaitiff asked for a pretty reasonable amount of money - hospital bills + (I believe) a hundred thousand or so in personal injury. She had tried to settle out of court before going to trial. The jury, for whatever reason, decided to pump the award up to the multi-million dollar levels. The AWARD was certainly unmerited, and the judge reduced it to a much more reasonable level.
If you really want an unmerited lawsuit, look at the guy who sued the AMDA and Colgate for making toothbrushes, because you can injure your gums if you brush too much.
I've split coffee on myself before. I've even spilt it in my lap. I've never needed a skin graft from it. That is because I don't use vacuum boiled coffee.
You confuse me. Vacuum-boiled coffee would be *cooler* than normal, not hotter.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
While bad feedback can indeed cause a loss of sales to a seller on eBay, I don't think the sellers themselves should be freed of the responsibility to control the situation which landed them the negative feedback in the first place.
First of all, they need to realize they are running a business and that their customers are going to demand a certain level of respect. If you leave negative feedback, your gonna get negative feedback. Furthermore, if you rip off your customers, they will complain... and loudly.
My advice to you sellers... If you are going to hand out feedback about your customers, do so at your own risk and be cautious about it. Unlike how you see it, none of them owe you any favors.
If you do have a bad experience with a customer, be sure to contact them before filing feedback to try and resolve any issues. If that doesn't work, then decide how bad the problem is.
Many situations don't require negative feedback. Unless the customer sent you a check that bounced or forged a money order, don't mark your feedback negative!!! Sure, it's tempting to flame the "Buy It Now" idiots that never pay up, but is it really worth getting negative feedback yourself? Instead, for minor complaints, simply mark it off as neutral and post the complaint. Since neutral feedback doesn't affect the feedback rating, these users are less likely to retaliate... and, you've still gotten your complaint made.
In short, don't let an itchy trigger finger ruin your reputation as a seller. Limit truly negative feedback to the lowlives, con-artists and thieves.
8==8 Bones 8==8
EBay is extremely arrogant. They don't even give you a way to contact them out in the open except for snail mail. Yeah, like I'm going to wait 3 weeks for a reply that may never come. I would say that most complaints to EBay never get more than a cursory look and probably nothing is done. (note to ebay: don't believe me? give me my f--king money back to prove it)
EBay's arrogance rubs off on its sellers, especially power sellers since they seem to get preferential treatment.
The only problem is that all the other auction sites on the net suck, too, so are you going to go a loser, high traffic site, or a loser, no traffic site?
I have a feeling it is maybe 60 days?
eBay has a whole thing for resolutions. I think the best smoothest way of resolving things is to know where to contact (cases of using e-mail instead of the form, or something like that.) Also, PowerSellers have their own special e-mail address for fast resolutions.
So maybe it's not published, but I've read cases of PowerSellers happy that it was (60) days since they left a neg and they didn't get a retalitary feedback.
Cover your eyes and click this link!
BTW 160 Deg. F is not several orders of magnitude cooler than 180 Deg. F.
Don't worry, it's only reading comprehension. One day, you'll get it. 160 degree water takes 20 seconds or more to do the same ammount of damage as 180 degree water can do in three seconds or less. Now, look up orders of magnitude, and apply.
God, I sure hope you're lying about being a chemist. Or maybe you don't actually work on anything that can hurt people.
Not to mention that 180 degrees is not a standard *anywhere*, since every independant test has shown McDonalds coffee to be about 20 degrees warmer than everything else.
I do research. Your fabricated bullshit doesn't work here. Go play with someone else who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Ah, the Town Square... I'm a regular there now. t*a. I guess you were before my time. Things are tense there, as ever, because of the new moderation system brought in about 6 months ago just after I arrived. eBay censors their boards, unlike /.
Especially since eBay added the feature to click one button to leave feedback for all transactions done in the last 30 days, many people do "mass feedback writing" every so often - rather than leaving immediate feedback when funds are received for each item.
I simply don't have the time to leave feedback to buyers right away, sometimes. It bothers me when people get after me because I'm not fast enough in leaving them feedback. I'm not purposely waiting around to see what they say. I'm simply trying to do things as efficiently as possible for me!
MattCohnDotCom(1)
Oct-28-03 00:51:37 PST
2581103731
B
Complaint : CAR CRASHED!!!!! NOT SAFE!! ###BEWARE###
Response by MollerInt - Sorry, stated car was experimental. Didn't read disc.
Follow-up by MattCohnDotCom - I almost DIED! MOLLERINT SELLS UNSAFE CRAP!!!!!
So you just insult people. Nice troll.
Since you do "research" could you please provide references and citations for your "facts"? I myself was relying on memory of practices that were usual in the food service industry at the time (which was the late 80' or early 90' if memory serves).
By the way, you said McDonalds coffee was 20 Deg. warmer than anywhere else. Did you get that from their ads? I know the coffee was hot. McDonalds was proud of it.
Do not answer if you cannot keep a civil tongue in your head.
Do not answer if you cannot keep a civil tongue in your head.
Why not? Since the research you're asking me to provide is in the links I *already provided*... I don't know. Doesn't that make you a dumbass? It's called scrolling up. Try it. I mean, I provide you with links and research on coffee temperature, and legal analysis of the case, and I'm supposed to take your memory over that?
Why?
I had checked the reasearch. It's useless. Goodbye.
I left negative feedback and was ready to chalk up the experience to an unfortunate run in with a crooked seller. Then about a month later was informed by Ebay that the feedback had been summarily removed. What transpired I found out (through many emails and phone calls to ebay) was that the seller had her husband who was an attorney file a notice of defamation with Ebay. Basically this is a certified piece of paper that basically states that the person finds the feedback statement defamatory in nature. On the grounds of this piece of paper, Ebay immediately removes the negative feedback, leaving no trace whatsoever that anyone had a problem with the seller.
Makes you wonder doesn't it? Basically I got shafted by Ebay and the seller. So did anyone else who purchased stuff from this seller on the basis of a total absence of negative feedback. I never received the refund either. Lousy thieving seller.
-- Patience - A minor form of despair disguised as a virtue.
The bar record for ROGER Grace shows the same e-mail address as listed on the previous E-Bay reports. This lookup can be found here.
Yahoo! has an updated story here.
You can see the new and "improved" feedback here.
Since eBay had already banned the seller when I first looked at the feedback (for what I think was an unrelated issue), it was probably the right thing to do.
They'll get my encryption algorithm when they pry it from my cold, dead hard drive.
I had checked the reasearch. It's useless. Goodbye.
Seriously, that was amazing. Wow, all that 'restaurant' background, and being a 'chemist'. What a load of bullshit you are. You spout off pretending that you know what you're talking about, ignore every fact and link I put in my posts, and then *finally* maybe click on the link, and that's what you have to say. What a total waste of time you turned out to be.
Goodbye!