Reloading Supplies and being lied to in the EE forum

Maybe 2 members should get a hold of each other by phone, then one of them post on a thread and the other waits and see how long it takes. Try it with PM's and E-mails as well
I have found the up dates are done in randon time increments and hitting the refresh function usually brings it up to date as well as can be expected.
 
Heres a funny thing. When sellers get money from buyers why don't they immediately rate the buyer. I've never had a seller yet rate me as a buyer until after I've rated them. I gaurantee that if I ever sell anything, which may happen one day, that I will rate the buyer as soon as I recieve the cash.

Thats the way I am. This should be the law.
 
No it shouldn't. The seller owes the buyer two things: money, and an honest evaluation of the received goods.

Sorry, I thought the buyer owed the money to the seller.

So the seller owes the money to the buyer, right?

EDIT: is this Monty Python?
 
I prefer for the buyer to rate first. That way, if there is a problem that can't be rectified, a refund will be in order for a deal that never took place.
 
A: (For OP) The person who sold the item may have had 3 or 4 responses and may have took the first response at the top of his inbox (this would end up being the last response received).

B: To those who think that the Ebay Feedback way is the right way...I call B.S. That only gives the buyer the option to leave a positive feedback for fear that they will receive a Negative feedback for leaving a Negative feedback. I have done it this way here but not to hold a gun to the buyers head, only to make sure they were happy with the purchase, and if they were not, I would have given a refund and (as stated above) the transaction would have never taken place as far as anyone else was concerned.

I believe Ebay (for one) should change their policy to have the seller rate first. If the buyer held up his/her end of the bargain by paying promptly then they should not be in fear of receiving a negative feedback. Of course, this is a topic more suited to a diffrerent part of the forums.
 
A:
B: To those who think that the Ebay Feedback way is the right way...I call B.S. That only gives the buyer the option to leave a positive feedback for fear that they will receive a Negative feedback for leaving a Negative feedback. I have done it this way here but not to hold a gun to the buyers head, only to make sure they were happy with the purchase, and if they were not, I would have given a refund and (as stated above) the transaction would have never taken place as far as anyone else was concerned.

I believe Ebay (for one) should change their policy to have the seller rate first. If the buyer held up his/her end of the bargain by paying promptly then they should not be in fear of receiving a negative feedback. Of course, this is a topic more suited to a diffrerent part of the forums.

First the people I have dealt with on here have been excellent, and I never expected otherwise. But at the same time I believe the buyer has fullfilled their part of the bargain and displayed trust when their cash is received by the seller. At that point their is no earthly reason why the seller should not rate the buyer. Things can still be discussed/settled when the goods are received. And yes their will still be a minority of problem deals that get posted. This forum polices itself very well from what I can see and most may feel that this post is unwarranted.

I just feel that personally I would have to rate the guy when I got his money. To me that's what is right, plain as day.
 
Last edited:
Pointless debate.

The seller can sell to whomever pleases him and doesn't need to defend his choice.


Yes, you are quite correct. Ethics has NOTHING to do with it; however, a Pox on the house of those who increase the sellers asking price to leap-frog over the first "I will take it" - These are Dirty little f**kers with ZERO moral character: Both the guy who jerks-over his fellow nutter and and the seller who accepts the Vulchers offer. Real do-gooders whose Mothers should be proud of them. :sniper::slap::ar15::kickInTheNuts:
 
Yes, you are quite correct. Ethics has NOTHING to do with it; however, a Pox on the house of those who increase the sellers asking price to leap-frog over the first "I will take it" - These are Dirty little f**kers with ZERO moral character: Both the guy who jerks-over his fellow nutter and and the seller who accepts the Vulchers offer. Real do-gooders whose Mothers should be proud of them. :sniper::slap::ar15::kickInTheNuts:

Couldn't agree with you more, without a visual update in the forum we don't know if this happens. Go to any other site and you will see who was the first in line and the item was indeed sold to that person. Very simple and I am not sure why we do not use this and would illuminate the above circumstance.
 
I wonder how it really works. If I post something for sale it shows up as 1 viewed as soon as its posted. I can edit the add without the edit thing popping up at the bottom. Pretty sure no one has looked at it if that is the case. This has nothing to do with the clock, less than a minute has changed. If its viewed by someone else, the edit thing pops up. Perhaps it isn't a perfect program but it does make one think.

Just adding, this is at 1097 views now.
 
I think the key here is the fact that the offers from others were pm'd.
Also the fact, as mentioned earlier, is that the time details of other replies are not necessarily correct due to online delays, etc.
Nuttin rong wit mi spelin. :)
 
Ummm

Just checking.....

We do all know that Canada has time zones right?

It still just shows the seller the time that the pm was received in their own time zone though right. If a person posted an ad at say 5:00 in Ontario that doesn't mean the ad won't appear to somebody out west for a couple hours at 5:00 out there.
 
Back
Top Bottom