Question about the good traders list [Archive] - Forums

View Full Version : Question about the good traders list

05-24-2004, 07:11 AM
I have received a couple emails concerning the removal of unregistered members from the Good Trader list.

Reasons being listed as-

1. They were removed from the community for a good reason.

2. The thread states that it is only for deals involving members of the boards to which unregistered members are not.

I will not say what my opinion on this is, but I would like a general array of opinions on this matter.

Please keep it civil or I will just delete the thread.

[ May 24, 2004: Message edited by: KtownJoes ]

05-24-2004, 09:37 AM
I'm all for it, and for the exact reasons you stated.

I say give them the big ol' boot.

05-24-2004, 10:10 AM
I say leave them on the list.

They may have been banned from the board because they had no common sense on what to talk about here but if they still trade well, how does that affect anything?

The point of the list IMO is to show if someone is a good trader or not.

05-24-2004, 10:14 AM
I think JLB_8118 is a good example of what I am trying to say.

I may not like the guy, others may not like the guy, he may have had no sense on what you can't talk about on this board........

But he is obviously a good trader. People from this board have had many good trading experiences with him. He still uses this board to trade with people. Why remove his good trader status? He earned it. He is trust worthy. Leave it there I say.

Ann G
05-24-2004, 10:22 AM
Given the fact that you do not need to be a member here to click on the email button by someone's name, and thus an unregistered person CAN answer an ad on these boards...leave it up.

All deals as a result of an ad on these boards should be fair game for feedback whether good or bad or whether the person is registered on these boards or not.

However the disadvantage to being unregistered means you are screwed when it comes to leaving feedback for others (good or bad) on THIS board because you can't comply to simple rules of a message board. If a banned person winds up in the bad trader section, their actions earlier prevent them from defending themselves as well.

The whole point of banning someone is silencing THEM..not us.

[ May 24, 2004: Message edited by: Ann G ]

05-24-2004, 10:27 AM
I would take this one step further.

If we take the unregistered people off the good traders list, we need to take all non-yojoers off the bad trader list. Fair is fair.

This would mean no more reports about retailers who don't use this board (ex. and eBayers who don't use this board (ex. scarlett rooster).

I don't think you can have it both ways.

My examples are examples based on past experiences reading the bad trader section. They are not examples of my experiences am not trying to make comment of them by using them as examples.

[ May 24, 2004: Message edited by: dockingbay97 ]

Ann G
05-24-2004, 10:44 AM
The only thing with smalljoes is that even though they don't post, the do advertise on yojoe and sometimes their banner is the one showing on the bottom of the sponsors should be fair game as well as any e-tailers that post here for the heck of it.

Also even Ktown decides to keep nonmembers off the list, the rules for yojoe in general don't change...all sales as a result of the boards and ebay are fair game.

[ May 24, 2004: Message edited by: Ann G ]

[ May 24, 2004: Message edited by: Ann G ]

05-24-2004, 11:01 AM
What about those traders that were banned because they didn't trade well? There have been some that have been banned for (at least partially) their trading practices.

Since we ARE naming names (which I think nobody was trying to do initially), the glaring example of my point has to be Brian Cripps. He was/is a VERY known bad trader who got banned, and came back under another name just to get another user banned.

If you get unregistered, for whatever reason, 99.9% of the time, it's your own fault. There have been occasions where the mods have let a user be un-unregistered to defend themselves.

I think the list should be reserved for REGISTERED members.

[ May 24, 2004: Message edited by: Deogg ]

05-24-2004, 11:58 AM
Being unregistered for whatever reason does not negate the good trades the person has had.

If you argue this, then the bad traders section should be only used for members of this board; and we all know that is not the case.

Also, just because you are no longer a registered member of this forum that does not mean that you can no longer trade here.

In the case of Jacob: I know he still deals with members of this forum and he uses the good traders list as a reference for people trading with him.

We shouldnt take away that from someone who is indeed a good trader.

05-24-2004, 02:11 PM
The "good traders list" was never ment to be compared with anything else.

It was simply for people to get some feedback on who is a good trader.

Comparing one 'forum' to one 'post' is stupid!!! :D

The 'bad trader/seller' section is for posting about bad traders and sellers.

The 'good traders/sellers' section is for posting about good traders/sellers!

One post in the 'good traders/sellers' section is the 'good traders list'...this should not be compared to anything else especially another entire section...again stupid idea! :D

I think that it should be updated and kept current for the members of this board...meaning that if you are not a member you’re off the list...these guys better make amends or go somewhere else and start a feedback rating. We should not be baby sitting anyone who gets banned.

Being on the 'good traders list' is a privilege not a right!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also I think it should be brought up a level with the date of there last we can see how active these members are...and if need be traders who have not traded for some time (a year or two) get removed as well...this way it is current. If need be perhaps make a retired list at the bottom of the people removed from the list because of no current trading practices.

By the way my comment are not directed at anyone...perhaps there ideas, but not them personally...I have to post this to stop getting death threats which have occur here many times because of the so called free speech our countries enjoy and the trade practices between some of the so called good members of this board.

05-24-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Being on the 'good traders list' is a privilege not a right!!!!!!!!!!!!!



As for the idea of tracking how often a person trades, that could get a little sticky. I mean, not all the trades (good or bad) that go down on here are refelected by the list. Some people don't always post the good trades they DO have. Tracking a trader's activity might not go over that well.

[ May 24, 2004: Message edited by: Deogg ]

05-24-2004, 04:11 PM
It would be easy...when you update the +56 or whatever then you just paste the date next to it...I know that some guys I have traded with have a +1 or 2 or that because they traded 2 years ago...or last week...the activity of a trader can be important and might be valuable...???

05-26-2004, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KtownJoes:
I am changing nothing in the format. Damed did it perfect the first time, so his notes stay & apply.


Its not broke; no need to fix it.

[ May 26, 2004: Message edited by: acmirro ]

05-26-2004, 08:37 PM
I thought about this for a long time. At first I agreed banned should be removed, as they shouldn't be here. But as long as they are able to read and make deals and come through why not leave em up. It makes it easier for everyone to know who they can trust.
If you read this hey Jake.

05-26-2004, 08:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spillspleen:

Being on the 'good traders list' is a privilege not a right!!!!!!!!!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, if a banned person like Jacob has done nothing but superb trades and still trades actively with board members and trades based on ads on this board - why remove him?
Isn't his rating at least helpful for those who might be considering trading with him for the first time?

[ May 26, 2004: Message edited by: dockingbay97 ]

05-26-2004, 11:43 PM
Another vote to leave it the way it is.