Suggested Public Acknowledgement Rule for Vendors/Sellers

[RSO 34]

After the recent flurry of activity regarding frustration over vendor disputes, may I suggest the implementation of a Public Acknowledgement Rule for vendors/sellers to abide by in exchange for free advertising of their products. This would simply require that all disputes publicly listed be responded to publicly to allow other members the opportunity to utilize the transactional history as part of their decision making process as to whether to patronize a particular vendor/seller. The Prime Administrator/Moderators will not resolve nor otherwise rule on the dispute but simply require a response be posted to allow others to make an informed opinion as to whether to risk a transaction with those parties in the future.

Any thoughts on the following:

1. Vendors/Sellers acknowledge that listing of items for sale on Prime is a privilege and not a right.

2. In exchange for free listing/advertising of such items for sale, each Vendor/Seller agrees to abide by the Public Acknowledgement Rule for Disputes.

3. In the event of a Dispute, a Buyer may create a new thread in the Buyer, Seller & Vendor Experiences Forum and provide details of the disputed transaction.

4. Vendors/Sellers agree to post their response to the Dispute within 10 days after creation of the thread. To avoid a claim that the Vendor/Seller was unaware of the thread, the Moderator of that forum shall send a PM notification to the Vendor/Seller upon approval of the thread’s creation.

5. Each party will thereafter be permitted one additional post to respond to the other party’s contentions, after which the thread shall be locked.

6. A failure of a Vendor/Seller to respond to the posted Dispute shall result in a 30 day suspension from Prime of the Vendor/Seller. The Dispute thread in question shall be locked with an indication that the Vendor/Seller declined to respond.

7. A second failure to respond to a new posted Dispute shall result in a 60 day suspension from Prime of the Vendor/Seller. The Dispute thread in question shall be locked with an indication that the Vendor/Seller declined to respond.

8. A third failure to respond to a new posted Dispute shall result in the Vendor/Seller being banned permanently from Prime. The Dispute thread in question shall be locked with an indication that the Vendor/Seller declined to respond.

9. The Administrator/Moderators of Prime will not intervene otherwise in any disputes and remind all parties that the rule of Caveat Emptor applies in all transactions on Prime.

10. The Administrator/Moderators will not mediate nor attempt to resolve the differences between the parties to a Dispute and this Public Acknowledgement Rule is designed simply to provide background information to be utilized by other Prime members in making their voluntary choice of doing business with any Vendors/Sellers. All Buyers are still encouraged to utilize the Trader Rating System as part of their investigation into whether to do business with a Vendor/Seller and to consult with other members as part of their investigation of a Vendor/Seller.

 

[nsxtasy]

Great idea!

 

[NSX Prime]

Thanks for the constructive input Bob. Allow me to play devils advocate. I expect you are probably already ahead of me here, but...

What constitutes a "response?" As long as a vendor provides some sort of response they do not get suspended or banned?

What if the response is essentially to say "the customer is lying," but the customer provides ample documentation in his one permitted response before the thread is closed? That is the end of it

 

[Coz]

There is 2 sides to every story...Who is to judge who's right and who's wrong, who telling the truth and who's lying, without actually being the 2involved ?

 

[RSO 34]

I expect you are probably already ahead of me here, but...

What constitutes a "response?" As long as a vendor provides some sort of response they do not get suspended or banned?

What if the response is essentially to say "the customer is lying," but the customer provides ample documentation in his one permitted response before the thread is closed? That is the end of it

Yes, I did anticipate this question. The goal of the rule simply is to force the vendor/seller to acknowledge that there is a dispute. All too often all we hear is the buyer complaining that Vendor X has taken money and not shipped the product or even returned a phone call/email. We do not hear Vendor X's defense because Vendor X simply ignores the situation.

At times, that type of scenario has resulted in some of Vendor X's flock of cronies coming out of the woodwork to sing his praises and somehow suggest that Buyer must be the culpable party in the transaction. Vendor X then hides behind his wall of silence and the rest of the community is presented with only one version of the failed transaction.

The rule is designed so that Prime itself is not required to sit in judgment as to which party is telling the truth or is more credible. It merely provides the community with the description of the transaction and compels vendors/sellers who advertise for free to "respond" so that both sides of the story are available for review by potential future customers/buyers.

So what if the buyer provides documentation and the vendor/seller simply says "I delivered the product" or "I refunded the money"? If the vendor/seller does nothing more such as provide a paypal receipt, cancelled check, email trail, etc., then it is up to future buyers to make up their mind as to which party to believe. By allowing each party an opportunity to provide as much background information they freely choose to share as well as a chance to respond to each other's evidence, the community will be able to see who is more forthcoming and draw their own conclusions.

The threat of suspension/banishment is there only to force the vendor/seller to at least acknowledge a "claim" and does not require a specific amount of details to avoid suspension. In that fashion, it is up to the vendor/seller to explain his side in however many or however few details he chooses. If there are repeated claims posted and the same vendor/seller simply states each time "the buyer is lying" and provides no backup then future buyers need to gauge the risk of dealing with such a vendor/seller.

There is 2 sides to every story...Who is to judge who's right and who's wrong, who telling the truth and who's lying, without actually being the 2involved ?

Potential future buyers/customers are to judge their individual comfort level with the parties involved. All this rule provides is the ability of a buyer to air his dispute and a forum for a response with the ultimate "judges" being individuals who may choose to do business with the same vendor/seller in the future.

 

[NSX Prime]

Yes, I did anticipate this question. The goal of the rule simply is to force the vendor/seller to acknowledge that there is a dispute. All too often all we hear is the buyer complaining that Vendor X has taken money and not shipped the product or even returned a phone call/email. We do not hear Vendor X's defense because Vendor X simply ignores the situation.

I think I am still a little confused about the practical application of such a system. It seems the problem you want to solve is that we currently don't necessarily hear the vendor's defense because they are not required to respond.

But you are not asking that they be required to provide a defense, just that they be required to acknowledge there is a dispute, correct? Which practically speaking doesn't seem to accomplish much, because if one side posts a dispute obviously a dispute exists.

I guess I think most people would draw the same conclusion in either case (vendor does not respond vs. vendor provides acknowledgment of some kind but does not launch into a defense) so I'm not sure what it is actually accomplishing. Is it your hope that if a response is required you expect that they will probably present some sort of defense as their response?

But if they don't, and just say for example "There is more to the story, but I am not going to get into it online" every time they are in compliance with the requirement?

 

[RSO 34]

I recognized this was going to be the follow up but as you can see I sent my earlier response at 4:30 am before I hit the road today and didn't have time to finish my thoughts.

The practical application of the rule will require an actual "response" rather than a "reply". I can't remember which Woody Allen movie it was but he was being cross-examined and there was an objection that he was not answering the question. He replied "I am answering, I'm just not responding."

If a vendor refuses to state his position and takes refuge under "I don't want to get into it online" then suspension should be enforced. Once again, these vendors/sellers are utilizing Prime to sell their items without paying any fees for the those listings. At a minimum, if they use the space they should respond to market concerns in this space. If they prefer not to respond online to an online claim, then they should be prepared to forfeit their privilege of free advertising online.

If a Buyer claims "I paid but the product was not delivered" and the Vendor "replies" that "I believe the sky is blue" then the vendor's post is not approved and he risks suspension. Most disputes come down to non-delivery, no refund or damaged product. Most vendor/seller responses should fall into such categories as "product delivered - trace being placed", "refund made - receipt is shown", "refund delayed for xxx reasons", "product not damaged when packed and shipped" and similar such responses.

If a vendor/seller needs more time to investigate, an additional 2-4 weeks may be allowed to permit that vendor/seller to post an informed response to the claim. However, that vendor/seller will risk suspension if a follow-up is not posted after the time to investigate has expired.

Too often in the past I have seen people chastise other members who feel they have been wronged by saying "we haven't heard the other side of the story so why should we believe you when we have had good transactions personally with that vendor." This Rule will require, at a minimum, that the vendor/seller confirm knowledge that there is a dispute, something which has been a problem in the past. Many members have indicated that there simply are no returned phone calls/email/snail mail leaving open the possibility that the vendor/seller is unaware that there is a dispute.

Additionally, the fact that someone has posted details of a disputed transaction has not been sufficient evidence for some to believe that there actually is a dispute. I realize we cannot protect everyone from their own naivete but I think we need to protect the buying members of the community by at least requiring the vendors/sellers to acknowledge that there was a transaction and the member is entitled to communication on that transaction.

Most, if not all, reputable vendors should have no problem with stating their side and providing backup as to whether an item was shipped, a refund is owed, something is backordered or a damage investigation needs to be done. This may involve a claim being filed with the vendor/seller's shipping carrier, something that a buyer may not have a right to do because he was just the recipient of the package.

The goal is to require those "questionable" vendors/sellers to respond to the claim and state their position, or "defense" as you correctly point out, to determine whether there is a pattern of mismanagement, disorganization, supplier delays or misconduct. I realize I did not make myself entirely clear in my early morning post and I hope this long winded one makes a little more sense.

 

[UnhuZ]

I agree with the system RSO proposed...

I even would add a tag, as the "Infractions" one, below the vendor's avatar.

a tag like "Claims pending: #" and/or "Suspensions: ## days" with # being the total of claims that that vendor had and total of days it was/is suspended.
This would be viewed by members instantly and is something vendors here would avoid having.

I think the Marketplace here on prime runs very well and only minor tweeks are needed.

Tweek 1 - The vendor/client problem we are discussing here.
Tweek 2 - Post/Thread Pre-approved on some sub-forums (which takes a lot of time).

about the Tweek 2, i just say that the ammount of work that a mod saves pre approving posts/threads would be about the same they would have deleting posts in a free system. The only difference would be speed... days/weeks vs Instantanious.

Thanks,
Nuno

 

[NSX Prime]

Bob thanks for explaining your idea in detail. I believe I understand where you are going with it now and I think there is potential in such a system. I will think about it more over the weekend.

Nuno - What your suggest for a "vendor history" tag similar to the itrader system is an interesting idea, but the software simply doesn't have that kind of functionality. As for the rest of the Marketplace, we have done it both ways so I am 100% certain it is much messier to moderate threads after the fact instead of requiring moderator approval.

 

[UnhuZ]

Nuno - What your suggest for a "vendor history" tag similar to the itrader system is an interesting idea, but the software simply doesn't have that kind of functionality. As for the rest of the Marketplace, we have done it both ways so I am 100% certain it is much messier to moderate threads after the fact instead of requiring moderator approval.

I agree with you... the mess is the same, it's just a question if it's clean before the public could see it or after they seen it. that's clear...now we only have to solve the time issue :wink: :wink:

About the software...i think there won't be a big number of simultanious disputes, so, couldn't that "tag" be manual updated??? since the mods would control the threads, after the end of the dispute, the tag would be changed for that particular vendor. i don't know...this are just thoughts...hopefully, many thoughts together can result in a new function...

 

[RSO 34]

I will think about it more over the weekend.

Thanks Lud.

One more idea to make it more feasible. The age of the dispute should be a factor to avoid a flood of potential disputes that may no longer have backup available to substantiate. Although I wish all disputes could be subject to the rule, I recognize that the inherent difficulties with validation of such a dispute as "I did not receive my cup holder in 2004". In an effort to provide a fair system to both buyer and vendor/seller, my concern would be the inability of a vendor/seller to be able to find backup for a 4 year old claim.

May I suggest a cutoff date of 12/1/07 for disputed transactions to be subject to the Rule. I would think that 120 days is a long enough period of time for parties to otherwise be able to resolve their dispute on their own and short enough period of time for all supporting documentation/receipts/emails, etc. to still be available.