| Discussion Forum: Thread 106115 |
|
 |
| | | Author: | TravisW  | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 01:14 | | Subject: | Negative removal for declining customs fraud | | Viewed: | 306 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| If the prevalence of requests for customs fraud is as common as some people have
suggested here recently, then possibly some sellers feel pressure to assent to
the fraud to avoid negative feedback as, under the current feedback system, they
have no recourse.
So, I propose that provably having declined customs fraud be added as a reason
for removal of negative feedback. I understand that Admin is reluctant to add
conditions that depend on the contents of transactions (and not just on procedural
issues like whether a buyer actually paid), and this is more than prudent. But
customs fraud deserves special consideration for two reasons:
(1) fraud is illegal, and so giving sellers the recourse of negative feedback
removal for this reason encourages them to decline to participate in illegal
conduct; furthermore, such a policy might discourage buyers from making a request
for customs fraud, because would-be inquirers might worry (more) about receiving
negative feedback outing their request for fraud if they knew they could not
effectively retaliate;
(2) unlike more complicated feedback removal suggestions that have been made
here, including for (generic) violations of store terms, it should always be
unambiguously provable that a request for customs fraud occurred -- just C&P
the relevant message(s) into the feedback removal request form.
The downside to this is that it may disempower people who request customs fraud
from leaving appropriate neutral/negative feedback. But protecting that right
for people who attempt to commit fraud and potentially intimidate vendors seems
plainly less important than protecting the interests of generally good-faith
sellers.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 01:18 | | Subject: | Re: Negative removal for declining customs fraud | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TravisW writes:
| | If the prevalence of requests for customs fraud is as common as some people have
suggested here recently, then possibly some sellers feel pressure to assent to
the fraud to avoid negative feedback as, under the current feedback system, they
have no recourse.
So, I propose that provably having declined customs fraud be added as a reason
for removal of negative feedback. I understand that Admin is reluctant to add
conditions that depend on the contents of transactions (and not just on procedural
issues like whether a buyer actually paid), and this is more than prudent. But
customs fraud deserves special consideration for two reasons:
(1) fraud is illegal, and so giving sellers the recourse of negative feedback
removal for this reason encourages them to decline to participate in illegal
conduct; furthermore, such a policy might discourage buyers from making a request
for customs fraud, because would-be inquirers might worry (more) about receiving
negative feedback outing their request for fraud if they knew they could not
effectively retaliate;
(2) unlike more complicated feedback removal suggestions that have been made
here, including for (generic) violations of store terms, it should always be
unambiguously provable that a request for customs fraud occurred -- just C&P
the relevant message(s) into the feedback removal request form.
The downside to this is that it may disempower people who request customs fraud
from leaving appropriate neutral/negative feedback. But protecting that right
for people who attempt to commit fraud and potentially intimidate vendors seems
plainly less important than protecting the interests of generally good-faith
sellers.
|
Have you ever seen any negative feedback generated by a seller's refusal to commit
fraud?
If you have and it's prevalent, I'd vote yes.
However, judging by the posting, I'd say those buyers that are asking for sellers
to do this likely don't complete orders.
As much as I don't like paying duty, it's really a small percentage that is equivalent
to the tax I pay regardless.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | TravisW | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2011 01:50 | | Subject: | Re: Negative removal for declining customs fraud | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Hi, Brett,
| | | | So, I propose that provably having declined customs fraud be added as a reason
for removal of negative feedback.
|
|
| | Have you ever seen any negative feedback generated by a seller's refusal to commit
fraud?
If you have and it's prevalent, I'd vote yes.
|
Actually, I know of no example of this. But feedback actually left for this
reason is just one prong of the problem: Some otherwise law-abiding sellers
might feel pressure to agree to such an (again, illegal) request to avoid negative
NB; I'd argue that this is still a substantial problem, even though no one is
receiving negative feedback. (I'd be concerned about negative feedback if a
buyer asked me to commit customs fraud but as I policy I'd decline for ethical
and legal reasons.) Granting this reason for feedback removal sellers in that
position to follow their conscience and the law, and as I argue in the OP it
may even discourage buyers from soliciting fraud.
| | However, judging by the posting, I'd say those buyers that are asking for sellers
to do this likely don't complete orders.
|
At least in the case most recently discussed on the forums, the buyer /did/ agree
to pay full duties:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=503109
I don't know how often this happens, maybe a high-volume seller can comment here
about the prevalence of (non)delinquency in this situation?
| | As much as I don't like paying duty, it's really a small percentage that is equivalent
to the tax I pay regardless.
|
Best,
Travis
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Apr 5, 2011 09:04 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 107 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
|
|
|
|
USA, North Carolina
Canada, Ontario
