Your post regarding member hobbyhelp fraud issues indicates the information discussed in the forum market problems is somehow inappropriate for the venue. You have closed the thread. I have tried to send you a message through " contact moderator " feature. Your box is full. Can you provide a more appropriate place to post warnings to the members when there is an abuse of service? Clearly, members have had to rely on each other for information and further damage has been prevented by their postings to this column.

sincere thanks

"propwobble"

The appropriate area is in the Marketplace using the rating system.

It has been demonstrated that the RCU feedback system is ineffective in stopping fraud in a timely manner.
What is RCU afraid of in maintaining on open forum?

A) Because we don't have the manpower to moderate it
B) It opens us up to many legal issues and we would prefer not to spend out time and money in court defending libel cases

Users should use the karma system here. We tried to make credit cars mandatory to cut down fraud and most complained so we opened it back up. RCU has an extensive karma system and we advise members to use it. They should also get the info from those they are trading with such as name, phone, address, email and verify every one of those. If in doubt use escrow.

If things go south it isn't our fault. Compare us to a newspaper. You buy (or sell) a car by placing a classified ad in the newspaper. The deal happens and goes down bad. Do you run to the newspaper and blame them because they didn't run a background check on the guy placing the ad with them? Of course not. RCU is no different. We are platform for users to place ads and meet. The rest is up to the buyers and sellers and that includes protecting yourself in any way you feel comfortable with in order to not get burned.

Furthermore, we have gone well beyond all other RC forum sites with the fact that only RCU has a feedback system AND you can choose to only deal with those that are high in rating and/or credit card verified as indicated by a platinum or power trading seal.

Only after firm evidence that a trader here is in fact fraudelent do we suspend them. If somebody makes a claim and has nothing to back it up then we wait until some evidence is put forth and then we try to verify it which sometimes takes more than a day or two.

RE: fraud control (in reply to propwobble) Contact Moderator | (Post No. 4)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

ORIGINAL: propwobble

It has been demonstrated that the RCU feedback system is ineffective in stopping fraud in a timely manner.
What is RCU afraid of in maintaining on open forum?


A) Because we don't have the manpower to moderate it
You have the manpower to watch posts and write long notes such as this one
B) It opens us up to many legal issues and we would prefer not to spend out time and money in court defending libel cases
The chances of a group getting together to bash some innocent seller are infinitesimally small
And a crook would only be defamed if he was innocent

Users should use the karma system here. We tried to make credit cars mandatory to cut down fraud and most complained so we opened it back up. RCU has an extensive karma system and we advise members to use it. They should also get the info from those they are trading with such as name, phone, address, email and verify every one of those. If in doubt use escrow.
The karma system is also subject to misuse should the unlikely group of defamation crazed buyers get together to bash a seller

If things go south it isn't our fault. Compare us to a newspaper. You buy (or sell) a car by placing a classified ad in the newspaper. The deal happens and goes down bad. Do you run to the newspaper and blame them because they didn't run a background check on the guy placing the ad with them? Of course not. RCU is no different. We are platform for users to place ads and meet. The rest is up to the buyers and sellers and that includes protecting yourself in any way you feel comfortable with in order to not get burned.
Buying sight unseen or from a picture and description on the internet is nothing like buying in person from a classified newspaper ad where one usually goes and purchases the item in person. This comparison is totally incongruent.

Furthermore, we have gone well beyond all other RC forum sites with the fact that only RCU has a feedback system I guess you must be trying.AND you can choose to only deal with those that are high in rating and/or credit card verified as indicated by a platinum or power trading seal.
Sort of a stifling thought isn’t it


Only after firm evidence that a trader here is in fact fraudulent do we suspend them. If somebody makes a claim and has nothing to back it up then we wait until some evidence is put forth and then we try to verify it which sometimes takes more than a day or two.
If you had responded in a couple of days or even a week or maybe even a month, the issue that started all this would probably never have reached such proportions. Perhaps you should post (in some obvious place) exactly what the procedure should be for users to put forth the “proof� you require. Clearly you refer to something more detailed than can be accommodated in the Karma system

Here is a way RC24/7 can make money dealing with this problem. I took this from a post in another forum. The problem there was who took the hit from a loss in transit, but the same system would work with fraud issues:

At the very least this site needs a default rule: If the goods have in fact not reached the buyer in 30 days, seller must refund the money. Then sellers will factor the cost of any shipping insurance and delivery receipt in the sale. Further, upon complaint of a buyer alleging non delivery, absent proof of delivery by seller to rc24/7, rc24/7 should have the right to charge the sellers credit card or paypal account the sums due buyer for the refund. Rc 24/7 keeps 10% as a collection fee. End of bad guys. Money in hands of RC24/7, and buyer is 90% restored. All good eggs feel better about using this site.

It would be a default rule. Buyer could elect to trust and take the risks when he has confidence in his seller. Good sellers prosper, while the crooks look for some other means to ply their trade.

Of course the % could be shifted. Seller could be tabed for the $paid plus 10% for RC24/7.

Here's another idea: All members (per force the rules of membership) agree to resolution of the dispute by binding e-arbitration. The disbursal of the moneys follows the arbitrators award. This would be an economical way of resolving the smaller disputes, say, where the issue involves less than $500.


How say you rc admin? What do you think, propwobble?

Marc it would seem that in the case of sellers or buyers having fraud charges brought to your attention the reasonable thing to do would be to "temporarily" suspend their trading privilages ( as e-bay does) until charges can be reasearched. If they are unfounded then re-instate them. It is always better to protect the guy getting ripped off than the guy doing the ripping.
Also I see RCU wanting to absolve itself (from what I have read) for any responsibility I.E. caveat emptor and that would be more undestandable under the old forum based model but now you have turned this into a pay for play system which in my mind means you DO have a responsibility to police these issues in a timely manner just as Ebay does. I know you aren't getting rich on this stuff but it is your baby and you have to take care of it. It is no longer like a newspaper classified section as you have control over every step of the process now. Just my opinion.
I was not a fan of the "credit card" registration (although I did provide it)to buy since I use paypal as a saftey net of sorts but I feel sellers should be required to provide some sort of verification since the amount of some of the items sold here is very large and sellers should have a source to reimburse anyone who does not recieve the goods they have bought and payed for.

Easysport - this is not strictly a pay for play model. All members get 4 free ads during a trailing calendar year. No cost. No fee. No strings. The pay model doesn't make us a responsible party. A newspaper doesn't guarantee anything and we are not any different despite the poster above who says that was an incongruent reference. Not all newspaper transactions are in person.

We opened up the new RCU because guys like you were CLAMORING for more secure trading. We give that option and the result you ask? 80% of the users here could care less. They would rather take their chances with getting burned in a deal then take their chances of "entering their credit card" on this site. To me that isn't a good gamble but the masses have spoken so I apologize to those who want to ensure safety in trading. Go yell at all the guys who refuse to pay a dime to list an ad or to put in their credit card so we can address verify them. Our cost to list here is beyond dirt cheap so I guess it is like taking insurance when you ship a package. You either declare a value and pay a little bit for the insurance or throw caution to the wind and take your chances. Most here are willing to roll the dice. Don't blame RCU for that. We give the market what they ask for.

Both "easysport" and Go Navy " offer up ideas which would go further than the present system to protect users. How much workload this would add to RCU staff and whether or not it would starve the baby is unknown but I don't think creating more accounting is the answer. Though there is some deterrence effect and possibly some recovery, credit card payments can be disputed, creating an even thicker plot. My point in all of his is a simple one: try to err on the side of the good guys, since nothing will ever be clear right at the onset of a problem. As was suggested, if that means temporarily suspending a member until a proven outcome is available, so be it. This protects others from falling into the same trap, as was the case with this recent flap. A temporary suspension is not a conviction, only suspicion; until the proof in in there is no finding of guilt or innocence. Members can sign an agreement to such a rule when they sell. This "option" is less tyrannical and unfair than RCU shutting down members posts that are trying to expose crooks.

At this point it is clear to me that RCU is not seriously considering taking any steps to improve protection to buyers, only defending its position as a business machine.
The site does have entertainment value however, so all is not lost.

Well...I just got an email from a user who got what he was waiting for from this user in question. His deal is closed to satisfaction now. So what does it all mean?

RCU will continue to follow its policy from day one regarding fraudelent trading. Nothing has changed since we opened the site. The only thing that was supposed to change was the use of credit cards to verify buyers and since most don't want that option we cannot guarantee that every seller will be a good one. Traders shown to be acting in a fraudelent manner are suspended, period.

For those who are suspect we do our due diligence same as before and deal with it accordingly just like on the old site. No process has changed. On the old good/bad/ugly forum AND the old karma system some users would wait for days or weeks until we could verify facts before they would see their negative rating posted. At least now if you post a karma feedback you see it right now. I'd say in light of that the new RCU offers significantly more protection than the old site.

In the end anybody who gets ripped off will want to blame somebody for it. Why not blame RCU for allowing that person to list their ad. That surely makes it our fault, right? This is the internet so do whatever you need to do in a deal to feel comfortable with what you risk INCLUDING possibly using an escrow service (they are not expensive). If in doubt use it or make sure you know who you are dealing with.

What does it mean?
Probably that the complaints that have been raised have been effective, i.e., that when you finally "pulled his ads" this fellow learned there were consequences.

You have never told us what, if anything, you did, learned, said, about the problem, so I surely would not conclude that rc24/7 deserves credit, as your post implies.

You're right Go Navy. Old Joe is backpeddaling as fast as he can with the posse from MECOA and the Oakland DA after him.

GoNavy,

I don't want credit for it. I do want everybody to be made whole again and have this resolved. I for one do not want to see anyone ripped off and want RCU to be safe as it can be. This new marketplace was designed with the intention to provide that since so many had asked for it. Much to my shock I found at that when the time came for members to list their ads according to the credit card verification rules a substantial portion balked. I wasn't happy about it but I cannot make what I feel is a "right" decision for others. That is ultimately up to them.

I do hope everyone else gets their issue resolved regardless of the reason or pressure points. Getting taken is not good, not fun and not right.

(To rc admin) I'm glad to hear that.

I would like to know what Rc 24/7 did to investigate matters about this fellow, what was learned, what was communicated to him, etc. Maybe if we know that, we can all work together to find ways to stop this kind of stuff in its tracks. I for one have learned several things the hard way here, and will be very cautious about striking new deals with any member I don't know or have not dealt with in the past.

Hi all,

I have also been taken by Joe.
Won the auction and sent my casheirs check as requested.
But after giving me the address, I received no goods or subsequent e-mails.
When I made my purchase his rating was high, all good and had no reason to suspect otherwise.
I did check with my bank to ensure that the check was cashed prior to suspecting anything, hoping to give him the benefit of the doubt even after 3 weeks of silence.
My doubt is now confirmed by the poor ratings he has received and by this forum dedicated to his dishonor.
If anyone is interested here is the link to the Superior Court of California in which one can get the form to take Mr. Kennedy to small claims court as I intend to do.
http://www.co.alameda.ca.us/courts/d...ll/index.shtml
No doubt the cost of filing the case will be more than I lost ($42), but it's the principle, not the money.
Besides, it is going to cost him much more if I am awarded court and travel costs.
I don't blame RCU for this loss, but I have lost my faith in the auction process here and will stick to e-bay or ensure that I can use pay-pal purchases in the future.
If anyone has further info on Joe, I would appreciate it, it will make filling out the form easier.

Sorry to hear you got zapped too. I think you are about number 13.
Sending you a pm.

Don't think ebay will protect you. Their buyer assurance pays pennies from what I recall. Check it out for yourself. If in doubt of the person you are about to trade with use escrow or paypal so you have recourse or protection of some kind.

(To rc admin)
On the subject of protection, would you please respond to the query in my post (14) regarding the efforts of RC24/7 and the results?
On the two occasions on Ebay where I experienced a problem, the sellers responded promptly to my satisfaction. Maybe I was lucky, or maybe Ebay polices problems. In any event, I think the many members here are anxious to learn about what you did in your efforts to help victims.