Should the Wanted forums be viewable by Supporting Members only?

[BlueTalon]

Any restriction on trade is an abomination.

??? How is this helpful? In this context?

 

[202dy]

??? How is this helpful? In this context?

It states the basic premise of laissez faire economics. The comments that follow are directly related to that statement.

 

[Oldbasslover]

Any restriction on trade is an abomination.

As far as buying and selling on the internet in general or this forum in particular, it pays to protect one's self. A separate credit card is a great idea for protection after the transaction goes south. It is important to start the investigation at the beginning of the buying/selling process.

There is an old saying that you buy the merchant before you buy the product. That is true in brick and mortar stores. It is more important on the internet where all transactions are at arms length. Who buys anything from a salesman they do not like?

The sales begins long before money changes hands. It is incumbent on both buyers and sellers to perform due diligence on their prospective trading partner. If they have limited or no transactions/feedback then only risk what you are willing to lose. Or just walk away. There are very few things we desire that will not be available at a later date.

I think that you actually make the point for having supporting members being the sellers with your statement that you "buy the merchant". People making investments want to deal with someone who has skin in the game - businesses that don't support the community they are in, real or virtual, are likely not as reliable as those who have to deal with consequences of unsatisfied as well as satisfied customers. The "traveling salesman" makes the sale and leaves behind whatever it is.

I think that you seriously underestimate the level of sophistication of thieves that are present in the world today. They can create identities - yes with plenty of feedback as well - e-mails, quotes from forums, etc. It is not that difficult to provide a very thorough image of oneself (as false as it may be) on the internet. So, due diligence is not as powerful a weapon as one would like. Still, one does the best one can.

So even though thieves can establish themselves, it is probably more difficult to do so in a tight knit community. At the very least, supporting members have declared that they have some interest in the community than the casual "lurker."

 

[Clark Dark]

You have to be a supporting member to sell correct? A wanted post that can be viewed by a non supporting member who just happens to have what's wanted can circumvent the system through the PM system.

 

[BlueTalon]

You have to be a supporting member to sell correct? A wanted post that can be viewed by a non supporting member who just happens to have what's wanted can circumvent the system through the PM system.

That's true. But adhering to the TalkBass rules offers a certain level of protection. And if the rules require a want-to-buy transaction to be concluded in the for-sale forum, that prevents non-supporting members from selling. And if the buyer ignores the rules and gets burned, he has only himself to blame.

 

[BlueTalon]

Any restriction on trade is an abomination.

??? How is this helpful? In this context?

It states the basic premise of laissez faire economics. The comments that follow are directly related to that statement.

OK, so you have nothing constructive to offer. ("Buyer beware" is not helpful in this context.)

 

[Tracebassplayer]

Any restriction on trade is an abomination.

If I restrict my sales to "cash only & buyer must pick up in person", That's my Right. No "abomination" there.
If those are my rules then you have to abide by them or go somewhere else.
Likewise, if I say I'm paying cash and will pick up in person and you balk... I'll walk... With my cash safely in my pocket, saying "later Scammer".

I got response from a scammer today on a mim fender jazz I have for sale. He wanted to pay by check and ship it to him... ya right. Half his text didn't make sense. I replied "cash only and pick up in person".
POOF he disappeared. ...
scammer denied.

Here on talkbass we assume a higher level of transaction safety as a buyer because we KNOW the seller has registered, paid via debit/CC transaction and is trackable. Which makes the seller more apt to be honest, knowing there is some recourse via Talkbass.com.

if you think that restricting trade is unfair or an abomination then I suggest all the members on talkbass AVOID ANY TRANSACTIONS WITH YOU. Obviously you are a proponent of letting people scam others.
That's how your opening statement comes across.

 

[202dy]

I think that you actually make the point for having supporting members being the sellers with your statement that you "buy the merchant". People making investments want to deal with someone who has skin in the game - businesses that don't support the community they are in, real or virtual, are likely not as reliable as those who have to deal with consequences of unsatisfied as well as satisfied customers. The "traveling salesman" makes the sale and leaves behind whatever it is.

I think that you seriously underestimate the level of sophistication of thieves that are present in the world today. They can create identities - yes with plenty of feedback as well - e-mails, quotes from forums, etc. It is not that difficult to provide a very thorough image of oneself (as false as it may be) on the internet. So, due diligence is not as powerful a weapon as one would like. Still, one does the best one can.

So even though thieves can establish themselves, it is probably more difficult to do so in a tight knit community. At the very least, supporting members have declared that they have some interest in the community than the casual "lurker."

Registration as a supporting member is not a barrier to a dedicated

I think that you actually make the point for having supporting members being the sellers with your statement that you "buy the merchant". People making investments want to deal with someone who has skin in the game - businesses that don't support the community they are in, real or virtual, are likely not as reliable as those who have to deal with consequences of unsatisfied as well as satisfied customers. The "traveling salesman" makes the sale and leaves behind whatever it is.

I think that you seriously underestimate the level of sophistication of thieves that are present in the world today. They can create identities - yes with plenty of feedback as well - e-mails, quotes from forums, etc. It is not that difficult to provide a very thorough image of oneself (as false as it may be) on the internet. So, due diligence is not as powerful a weapon as one would like. Still, one does the best one can.

So even though thieves can establish themselves, it is probably more difficult to do so in a tight knit community. At the very least, supporting members have declared that they have some interest in the community than the casual "lurker."

The only barrier to entry suggested here is a small fee. A few posts and small transactions make anyone look legitimate and trustworthy. For an investment of less than a hundred dollars a dedicated thief can scam thousands out of unsuspecting members. This small barrier is no barrier whatsoever. It makes people feel safe when in fact it offers little safety at all. If anything, it may encourage people to engage in risky transactions. In light of this, placing the suggested restriction does not result in any protection against fraud.
On a personal note, I feel for those who have been victimized by internet scams, or by any merchant who does not deal fairly with the public. That too is an abomination.

 

[BlueTalon]

The only barrier to entry suggested here is a small fee. A few posts and small transactions make anyone look legitimate and trustworthy. For an investment of less than a hundred dollars a dedicated thief can scam thousands out of unsuspecting members. This small barrier is no barrier whatsoever. It makes people feel safe when in fact it offers little safety at all. If anything, it may encourage people to engage in risky transactions. In light of this, placing the suggested restriction does not result in any protection against fraud.
On a personal note, I feel for those who have been victimized by internet scams, or by any merchant who does not deal fairly with the public. That too is an abomination.

You seem to be of the opinion that since modest measures can't stop a highly sophisticated, dedicated scammer, then those measures are not worth taking. But that assumes all potential scammers of TalkBass members are highly sophisticated and dedicated. That simply isn't true. There are a lot of shitbird types of people who just think they can pull a fast one and get away with it, and I would dare say the shitbird types vastly outnumber the sophisticated types.

That's life. We lock our house doors, we lock our car doors, knowing full well those locks won't stop a determined thief. So why do we bother locking them? Because determined thieves constitute a very distinct minority, while mischievous teenagers and normal people suffering a moment of temptation represent most people, and locks are effective deterrents for the vast majority of people like that.

The authorities at TalkBass are trying to determine the best course of action to protect members who choose not to be idiots. I believe it is completely reasonable to think TB could have an effective set of rules that will protect members, and give them an avenue of recourse if something does happen, assuming members read the notices and follow the rules.

 

[mpdd]

i either don't have an opinion on this or don't wish to vote, thanks everybody

 

[202dy]

You seem to be of the opinion that since modest measures can't stop a highly sophisticated, dedicated scammer, then those measures are not worth taking. But that assumes all potential scammers of TalkBass members are highly sophisticated and dedicated. That simply isn't true. There are a lot of shitbird types of people who just think they can pull a fast one and get away with it, and I would dare say the shitbird types vastly outnumber the sophisticated types.

That's life. We lock our house doors, we lock our car doors, knowing full well those locks won't stop a determined thief. So why do we bother locking them? Because determined thieves constitute a very distinct minority, while mischievous teenagers and normal people suffering a moment of temptation represent most people, and locks are effective deterrents for the vast majority of people like that.

The authorities at TalkBass are trying to determine the best course of action to protect members who choose not to be idiots. I believe it is completely reasonable to think TB could have an effective set of rules that will protect members, and give them an avenue of recourse if something does happen, assuming members read the notices and follow the rules.

Not at all. It is just that, in fraud, an ounce of protection is worth less than an ounce. Someone will always think of a way around the defense. The proposed measures are just that. It does not take much sophistication to pay a small fee and do a few cheap transactions. So that stops only the most casual of thieves. However, it does limit the number of buyers and sellers.

It appears that all of this came about because of some more major fraud. These are cases in which honest folks lost hundreds or thousands of dollars. These kinds of thieves will not be deterred by the proposed measures. They guy that wants to buy or sell a twenty dollar pedal will be affected.

The analogy of the locked door is specific to limiting theft. It does not carry with it a limit on buying or selling. There are no other consequences, intended or unintended.

We will not agree on this subject. So I respectfully suggest we agree to disagree.

 

[202dy]

If I restrict my sales to "cash only & buyer must pick up in person", That's my Right. No "abomination" there.
If those are my rules then you have to abide by them or go somewhere else.
Likewise, if I say I'm paying cash and will pick up in person and you balk... I'll walk... With my cash safely in my pocket, saying "later Scammer".

I got response from a scammer today on a mim fender jazz I have for sale. He wanted to pay by check and ship it to him... ya right. Half his text didn't make sense. I replied "cash only and pick up in person".
POOF he disappeared. ...
scammer denied.

Here on talkbass we assume a higher level of transaction safety as a buyer because we KNOW the seller has registered, paid via debit/CC transaction and is trackable. Which makes the seller more apt to be honest, knowing there is some recourse via Talkbass.com.

if you think that restricting trade is unfair or an abomination then I suggest all the members on talkbass AVOID ANY TRANSACTIONS WITH YOU. Obviously you are a proponent of letting people scam others.
That's how your opening statement comes across.

You are correct. It is your right to place a restriction on your individual sales. It would be a bad thing to limit your right to do so. You have effectively limited the pool of buyers who are willing to buy your wares. Your buyer has the right to choose whether to deal with you. But your decision to do so only affects your transactions. What is proposed here affects the ability of others to do business.

When an institution places a restriction on trade that is a different story because it limits the venues in which sellers can ply their legitimate interests. One can make the argument that TalkBass is a private institution and as such can make rules as it sees fit. In this instance, the owner is asking for opinions and as such, there will be diversity of said opinions. It is up to the owner to make the decision. Sellers and buyers will have to abide by the rules.

Speaking of safety in transacting business, the proposed rule change may offer some degree of protection stateside if and only if the scammer is unsophisticated and has not used methods to hide his identity. In an international transaction it offers no protection whatsoever unless the government of the nation is willing to aid the police in finding and prosecuting the thief. Most of them have neither the time nor resources to aid in this kind of investigation. To a national government, or even most local police departments, a couple of thousand dollars is a very small transaction and as such does not warrant the expenditure of time or materiel.

As far as the ad hominem attack, that has nothing to do with the discussion of restrictions on trade. It is incumbent on all who engage in this debate to stay on topic. All else is superfluous and adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Tracebassplayer]

Bottom line is...
If you don't like the restrictions then don't participate in or facilitate a possible fraudulent transaction. Just move along.

 

[BlueTalon]

Not at all. It is just that, in fraud, an ounce of protection is worth less than an ounce. Someone will always think of a way around the defense. The proposed measures are just that. It does not take much sophistication to pay a small fee and do a few cheap transactions. So that stops only the most casual of thieves. However, it does limit the number of buyers and sellers.

The fraud that took place on TalkBass happened largely because there weren't any protections. Yes, you are correct, you and I are likely to never agree, but I can't let your presuppositions go unanswered.

You have decided that placing any restrictions on buying or selling is more counterproductive than having any restrictions regardless of reason. OK, but TalkBass already restricts sales to supporting members, and it appears to me that nobody in the TalkBass community has a problem with it besides you.

You have also apparently decided that the fraud that occurred was inevitable, and would not have been circumvented by slightly different rules and requirements, and you have no way of knowing that. My take on what happened is that some scumbag saw an easy target of opportunity and took it -- and that takes no sophistication at all. Such a person would be far less likely to register and buy some cheap items than he would be to find an easier internet target to scam.

AFAIK, there has been NO scam on TB that has taken the level of sophistication you seem to think is prevalent. Plenty of people have been victimized, but it has mostly been the things like Darren Huff and SGD where the culprit is more likely to be drugs or mental illness than sophisticated criminal intent, or someone pulling a fast one with dishonest descriptions.

 

[202dy]

Bottom line is...
If you don't like the restrictions then don't participate in or facilitate a possible fraudulent transaction. Just move along.

Bottom line is, short of becoming a moderator, it is not within the purvey of individual posters to set new rules for other forum members.

 

[202dy]

The fraud that took place on TalkBass happened largely because there weren't any protections. Yes, you are correct, you and I are likely to never agree, but I can't let your presuppositions go unanswered.

You have decided that placing any restrictions on buying or selling is more counterproductive than having any restrictions regardless of reason. OK, but TalkBass already restricts sales to supporting members, and it appears to me that nobody in the TalkBass community has a problem with it besides you.

You have also apparently decided that the fraud that occurred was inevitable, and would not have been circumvented by slightly different rules and requirements, and you have no way of knowing that. My take on what happened is that some scumbag saw an easy target of opportunity and took it -- and that takes no sophistication at all. Such a person would be far less likely to register and buy some cheap items than he would be to find an easier internet target to scam.

AFAIK, there has been NO scam on TB that has taken the level of sophistication you seem to think is prevalent. Plenty of people have been victimized, but it has mostly been the things like Darren Huff and SGD where the culprit is more likely to be drugs or mental illness than sophisticated criminal intent, or someone pulling a fast one with dishonest descriptions.

I have decided nothing. Nor have I indicated that I believe that TalkBass or it's members have been the victims of sophisticated criminals. I have not stated or implied any such thing. All I have said is that if someone wants to steal, all the rules in the world won't stop them. My grandfather used to say, "Locks were made for honest people."

What I have observed over time is that making more rules usually has a greater effect on those for whom the rules were not necessary. Criminals, those with drug abuse problems, and the mentally ill by definition, ignore laws in the real world. These are laws that have real consequences like fines, prison time, or time out in a hospital. It follows that criminals, those with drug problems, or the mentally unstable will ignore the rules on an internet forum where the chances of getting caught are very slim.

As far as the inevitability of fraud, wherever there is commerce there will be cases of fraud. That is fact. Same goes for theft. Brick and mortar stores employ thousands of people to reduce the amount of "shrinkage." The difference here is that there can be no active policing of transactions on TalkBass. The only thing that will be left is a flimsy paper trail. It might help. It might not. Depends on what the local constabulary are willing to do if the victim can present them with a valid name and address.

The individual circumstances of the events that took place here may or may not have happened with new rules in place. But new rules will not stop bad things from happening. Will new rules lessen the number of events? No one can say. It is likely that it will deter the casual thief. Those who want to steal won't care about new rules one bit.

Since we will never agree, and neither of us will change their mind, let us both leave this discussion where it lies. As you are worthy of respect, if you feel that you must continue, discussion through private messaging is acceptable. However, the result will be the same.

 

[Tracebassplayer]

Bottom line is, short of becoming a moderator, it is not within the purvey of individual posters to set new rules for other forum members.

You're wrong....
No individual poster is setting any rule. TB asked for a vote and opinion from individual users to help them decide how to best protect their users.

Besides....

The few,
have always written the rules,
for the many,
for centuries.

And there's nothing you can do about either by calling it an... lol... abomination.

 

[paul]

Thank you to all who voted on the poll! The
Wanted: Bass Guitars, Amps, and Accessories
at the following URL: http://www.talkbass.com/forums/wanted-bass-guitars-amps-and-accessories.11/

.. is now set with the following permissions:

Who can post threads (ie wanted ads): any registered TalkBass member
Who can view their own threads: any registered TalkBass member
Who can reply to their own threads: any registered TalkBass member
Who can view OTHERS' threads: Supporting Members, Gold Supporting Members, and Moderators.

Thank you!