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.
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
...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.
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.
In soviet russia the lawyer sues,...um, well I guess thats just in the US.
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
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!)
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?
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)
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!
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.
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
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
Personally I find people take online opinions too lightly
You are right. Where were our manners. The opinions of the goatse man and all the hot grits, natalie portman, etc trolls were overlooked. We appologize as a community. Now get a fuckin clue Stan. If you base your choice of lawyers on his e-bay feedback, I'm sure you choose your doctor on what he's ranked at Yahoogames. I hear DocJones395842 is the man at Hearts.
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
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.
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...
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
Don't know about that, but it makes a cool new karma sig.
--
Karma Excellent (Mostly due to pending lawsuit.)
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
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.
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."
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.]
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 happen to be a 'ebayer'; you want good feedback? Send your check/item when you are supposed to, immediately after the auction ends, not 'when I get around to it.'
I had a guy wait a month before he sent the item (to the wrong place) - that is bullshit.
It's dumbasses that can't get their shit together that deserve bad feedback. If you get a bad one for no reason, so what? Intelligent people can make their own decisions whether or not to buy/sell from/to you. 3 bads in 1000 good mean nothing.
This laywer guy should should be smacked.
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...
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 $100,000 from Neeley."
I'd like to see him prove that one bad feedback is going to cost him that much.
Again, lawyer.
Christ, if I brought lawsuits against everyone who ever said a negative thing about me I'd --
wait a minute! I'd be filthy rich!
I'll sue you!
I'll sue you all!
I'll sue you all to hell!
Bwahahahahahahahhahaahaha!
I left negative feedback for a guy who was advertising a somewhat rare anime calendar, but what arrived was a CDR with some scanned pictures of a calendar.
Asked for my money back, with the threat of going to ebay - he gave me back my auction cost, but not the shipping. I claimed that I wouldn't be out 12$ 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)
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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
Besides, the important part is the way the buyer has tried to rig the suit to get the government of California on his side:
In other words, if that provision of the suit had already been in effect, when I bought that pair of speakers from somebody who turned out to live here in the same county in North Carolina, California would have gotten some of the money even though North Carolina didn't collect any sales tax on the deal. Then again, if you have to register with the state of California just to buy something off of eBay, it might be a good time to unload your eBay stock.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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.
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
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAIL IF YOU DONT TAKE DOWN MY NEGATIVE RATIN I WILL SSUE YOU INTO THE GROUND.
Why is it that nearly every seller on ebay sounds like the same twelve year old kid who hang out in IRC/AOL chat rooms? Is this a coincidence? Maybe the under-15 demographic has more control over spending than we thought....
moto411.com
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..
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.
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!!!!!