im just for the saying, "if it aint broke, dont fix it"

__________________
your ubb survivor 10 champion!!
Also the recipient of the invisibility and morality awards.
100% win ratio in ubb mafia
wotc marketplace council member, 3 terms and counting

His prior threads have of course been deleted, since he makes new ones all the time with the exact same stupid pricing scheme.

The person in question, avendor

When this individual first popped up, people did politely try to point out the flaws in his pricing structure. This list is actually far worse than what Giggles posted a few days ago. Despite polite comments left on earlier threads, he continues to place horribly unfair lists in the T/A forum that most people would avoid.

I know this, because I watch the T/A forum all the time. It's often the first place I go when I get on the board. This is probably the closest to "proof" you're going to get, because most of the offending threads do not hang around long. They either get closed and lost in the shuffle, or the OP deletes them and creates a new thread when the posts alert too many potential suckers about the problems inherent in their buy/sell prices.

__________________
Get "it" now

quote:

---

Originally posted by iccarus:
You want an example?

His prior threads have of course been deleted, since he makes new ones all the time with the exact same stupid pricing scheme.

---

Like I said, Val brought this thread up, and it's the best of the bunch as far as your point is concerned. Currently, he's in violation of posting rules for upping his post the same day that he posted it, but that's neither here nor there. In this case, his shady practices have been pointed out by three posters (one which was very respectful); the list has only been around for three days, and it hasn't received a reply in two. The question, then, is this: what happened in his previous threads? Did you try ganging up on him, flooding his thread, harassing and ridiculing him? It's a serious question; I don't know.

You keep on bringing up the fact that a post can be deleted; that's possible no matter how many replies it gets, unless it gets locked by a moderator.

@ron: I know, don't worry, I'm not offended. But I realize that I've said a lot in this thread, and I don't want you guys thinking that I'm getting personal with you/hate you/think you're evil or anything, because that's not the case. We're just at loggerheads because we disagree about the rule. Accordingly, it's probably best if I stop posting so frequently; I'm pretty sure nderdog, for one, is sick of it.

EDIT: Typo.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari

That's why we're doing the same thing

__________________
Get "it" now

quote:

---

Originally posted by nstar612:
If we are really in the spirit of helping new users from getting ripped off, why don't we allow the ridicule rule in the Have/Want Lists forum as well. I won't be surprised if more people get ripped off in trading than buying/selling. Should we allow other members to jump in and point a horrible offer when they see one? No reason you would allow it in one forum but not the other.

---

im pretty sure this rule stemmed from bad prices, seeing as prices arent really posted in the HW forum it wasnt needed. as they are mandatory in the ta/s forum its alot easier to work with, besides that most offers are finalized through pm's/emails. Its rarely about an actual deal thats going on. most often its prices and or "im not sending first even though i have no refs" even this is less in the HW forum as there is no "youre buying, just like a store you pay first" type of attitude. now if youre really into helping out a new user you can always just pm that person and advise him the deal he/she is getting is horrible.

__________________
your ubb survivor 10 champion!!
Also the recipient of the invisibility and morality awards.
100% win ratio in ubb mafia
wotc marketplace council member, 3 terms and counting

As far as sellers with zero refs demanding people to pay first, I don't have a problem with it as I understand that is how it usually works outside of MOTL. It's easy to make that mistake, and there's no need to flame them. If someone strongly believe in buyer must pay first, then go ahead and operate his business that way. He might not have any success here in MOTL, but I don't think he is doing anything wrong to deserve to be ridiculed. Going through the rules, I don't see any reference to people with lower refs must send first. It's a common practice, but definitely not enforced upon as a rule. So, I don't see how you can have a rule which allows someone to ridicule another member based on something that's not even a rule! If you require members with 0 ref to simul-send or send first, then make it a rule.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nstar612:
Again, I am not surprised if significantly more people are getting ripped off through trades than buy/sell. I don't know what's more annoying, having someone post ridiculous prices or having someone constantly making ridiculous offers.

As far as sellers with zero refs demanding people to pay first, I don't have a problem with it as I understand that is how it usually works outside of MOTL. It's easy to make that mistake, and there's no need to flame them. If someone strongly believe in buyer must pay first, then go ahead and operate his business that way. He might not have any success here in MOTL, but I don't think he is doing anything wrong to deserve to be ridiculed. Going through the rules, I don't see any reference to people with lower refs must send first. It's a common practice, but definitely not enforced upon as a rule. So, I don't see how you can have a rule which allows someone to ridicule another member based on something that's not even a rule! If you require members with 0 ref to simul-send or send first, then make it a rule.

---

have you read the first 2 pages??

ill agree that more people get ripped off in the trade forum. mainly its because newer members trade with other new members when both parties are at 0-7 refs or so. its asking for trouble. problem is alot of the time its done through pm/email anyways. i dont see how you can ridiculing someone can help in a pm convo. i do see your point however.
as you say, it happens alot more in the trade forum. there is also a hell of alot more posts in the trade forum. if i was to comment on every bad offer i read it would take up my entire day. now thats alot different then the 2-3 threads a day i see in ta/s.

as for your below comment. perhaps the ref rule is not an official rule but its definetly a common practice. everyone knows about it. many other forums actually have it as an enforced rule.
your argument about how it works outsid of motl is ludacris. many places it doesnt work like that. sure, thats how stores operate, some guy selling cards on motl is not a store. people on motl work long and hard to gather respect and references. why should someone come in and demand it?

now ill agree sometimes people dont know. I had a perfect example of an arrogant new member on the boards who had this rule, he was told nicely once, he responded with a rude comment and was ridiculed by a nice group of people. did he sell any cards? i highly doubt it. sadly now i cant seem to locate that thread, somebody help me!!

half the time it doesnt start out as ridicule, it starts out as a polite response advising the person that he/she wont get many sales this way. most often this is met with a rude and obnoxious response. then the mob comes out.

would you send first to someone with0 refs selling cards? i doubt you would. problem being some other new member might and thats how alot of people get ripped off. now i dont know about you but id much rather have someone get ridiculed then have another person get ripped off.

i will say that i think the ref rule should be an official rule but thats a whole other topic

__________________
your ubb survivor 10 champion!!
Also the recipient of the invisibility and morality awards.
100% win ratio in ubb mafia
wotc marketplace council member, 3 terms and counting

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronandaggy:
as you say, it happens alot more in the trade forum. there is also a hell of alot more posts in the trade forum. if i was to comment on every bad offer i read it would take up my entire day. now thats alot different then the 2-3 threads a day i see in ta/s.

---

I don't see why you feel it's your responsibility to comment on every suspicious bad offer? Yes, there's more ripping off going on in the H/W forum, hence it's more important to allow the ridicule rule there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronandaggy:
your argument about how it works outsid of motl is ludacris. many places it doesnt work like that.

---

Really? Care to list some examples as which seller would send out product to the buyer before getting paid? Even a zero ref seller on ebay, amazon, cardshark, ... can demand buyer to pay first. Ref system is very unique and it's definitely not the norm of how businesses are conducted. I do understand how ref works on MOTL and I believe that's how we can trust another on MOTL. However, I am just pointing out that it's not a rule, therefore there's no basis for the ridicule rule to be valid on that ground.

quote:

---

I had a perfect example of an arrogant new member on the boards who had this rule, he was told nicely once, he responded with a rude comment and was ridiculed by a nice group of people. did he sell any cards? i highly doubt it. sadly now i cant seem to locate that thread, somebody help me!!
[/B]

---

That might be the case here, but more often than not, the poor guy wasn't met with a nice group of people. If we consider ourselves nice, then it wouldn't have been called the ridicule rule. Think of it this way, if a mod would comment on the thread initially, would the guy dare to fire back with a rude comment? The way I see it, as long as one person posts on the thread, it's enough to warn rest of the viewers about the ridiculous prices. There is no need for the mob to attack the thread.

quote:

---

would you send first to someone with0 refs selling cards? i doubt you would. problem being some other new member might and thats how alot of people get ripped off. now i dont know about you but id much rather have someone get ridiculed then have another person get ripped off.
[/B]

---

The point is not whether anyone would send first to someone with 0 refs or not. The point is whether a member with 0 ref can demand others to send first. My vote is that unless the rule says you can't, I don't see how we can stop people from making such demands. I don't see your argument of how new members can get ripped off this way. If new members also have 0 refs, then it's not unreasonable for them to send first. If new members have at least a few refs, then they already know better not send first to someone with 0 ref.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nstar:
I don't see why you feel it's your responsibility to comment on every suspicious bad offer? Yes, there's more ripping off going on in the H/W forum, hence it's more important to allow the ridicule rule there.

quote:

---

its not my responsibility, infact youre the one that suggest warning others of bad offers. I dont understand your point here, you seem to want the rule in hw but not in ta/s? either way, if it prevents someone from getting ripped off im all for it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nstar:
Really? Care to list some examples as which seller would send out product to the buyer before getting paid? Even a zero ref seller on ebay, amazon, cardshark, ... can demand buyer to pay first. Ref system is very unique and it's definitely not the norm of how businesses are conducted. I do understand how ref works on MOTL and I believe that's how we can trust another on MOTL. However, I am just pointing out that it's not a rule, therefore there's no basis for the ridicule rule to be valid on that ground.

---

congrats, youve managed to name online stores and sites for selling(and mainly selling, ebay esp.) cards. motl is an online community. people selling cards here are not stores. this community is not ebay, it doesnt allow cash auctions, its not cardshark, its not an online store.
you are correct, its not a rule. its a common guideline that regardless of whom you are, unless this is your first day on a magic site you know of the ref rule.

as for examples, ill have to ask to be sure but im 99% sure its pojo that has the 100% ref rule. wotc, while the rule isnt a 100% solid rule, if you post "i have 0 refs but you send firs" you will be laughed at.

quote:

---

That might be the case here, but more often than not, the poor guy wasn't met with a nice group of people. If we consider ourselves nice, then it wouldn't have been called the ridicule rule. Think of it this way, if a mod would comment on the thread initially, would the guy dare to fire back with a rude comment? The way I see it, as long as one person posts on the thread, it's enough to warn rest of the viewers about the ridiculous prices. There is no need for the mob to attack the thread.

---

but thats not true, if i manage to get ahold of nderdog(or bolty even) im sure theyll say the exact same thing. its happened many a time(again, one of them can vouch for this, infact if you read back im sure theres a comment from nder on it somewhere around here) again, the first comment is nice, its met with a rude response. "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
so one person posts, guy responds "go elsewhere, yadda yadda yadda" i fail to see how that warns others"

quote:

---

The point is not whether anyone would send first to someone with 0 refs or not. The point is whether a member with 0 ref can demand others to send first. My vote is that unless the rule says you can't, I don't see how we can stop people from making such demands. I don't see your argument of how new members can get ripped off this way. If new members also have 0 refs, then it's not unreasonable for them to send first. If new members have at least a few refs, then they already know better not send first to someone with 0 ref

---

i agree, people can do what they want, so long as it follows the rules. in this case there is no rule that says a seller has to send first, there is however a rule that says a thread of this nature can be ridiculed. People are obeying the rules when the post a ridiculing comment. if/when that rule is changed, it will stop. until then it will continue, and im all for it.

i agree, its not unreasonable for someone with 0 refs to send first. thats been my point all along, problem is im looking at it from a buyers standpoint with the seller having 0 refs.

Edit* to be fair to you nstar, i do see your point about the bad offers in the hw section, again, if something can help prevent people getting ripped off im all for it.

anyways, the rule is there, if its changed then so be it. either way, this topic just burns me up sometimes
im done with it. ive said my piece.
__________________
your ubb survivor 10 champion!!
Also the recipient of the invisibility and morality awards.
100% win ratio in ubb mafia
wotc marketplace council member, 3 terms and counting

Yes, that WAS a roundabout way for me to say that while I don't want you guys to feel dragged back in but there are a number of points that I do not feel we've addressed at all, and they need to be talked about in the context of this discussion, else we're not really accomplishing anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronandaggy:
its not my responsibility, infact youre the one that suggest warning others of bad offers. I dont understand your point here, you seem to want the rule in hw but not in ta/s? either way, if it prevents someone from getting ripped off im all for it.

---

I think that his point (and mine too) is that if this rule is in place to prevent ripping, it should also be in place in the H/W forum, where more ripping/ludicrous rules/offers are to be had, and where it's a lot harder for a newb to compare the prices (since they aren't posted). Because the T/A forum requires everyone to post prices, it makes it VERY hard for any remotely intelligent member to get ripped off: all s/he has to do is go through more than one thread to see what the cards that interest him/her are worth, more or less. Everyone wants the best deal for him/herself, and so it only makes sense to shop around. Unfortunately, that's a lot harder to do in the H/W forum, and it actually *gasp* requires you to keep an extra window open to the/a price guide.

quote:

---

congrats, youve managed to name online stores and sites for selling(and mainly selling, ebay esp.) cards. motl is an online community. people selling cards here are not stores. this community is not ebay, it doesnt allow cash auctions, its not cardshark, its not an online store.

---

I think you're missing the point: in many (most) online purchases/transactions, the buyer sends the money first. This sets an expectation that many new members may (and probably do) carry into MOTL--especially if they haven't quite read the FAQ/Rules/Terms of Agreement as closely as they should. It's an easy enough mistake to make, and one that most of us do make at first--and correcting it is pretty damn simple, and should not involve belittling a new member, which is a pretty effective means of driving people away (and even into the arms of less fair trading/selling sites). It's just not in the new member's best interests.

quote:

---

you are correct, its not a rule. its a common guideline that regardless of whom you are, unless this is your first day on a magic site you know of the ref rule.

---

His point (and mine, although I'm sure that it's been lost in a sea of posts) is that if it's going to be a rule (which I vehemently disagree with, as we all know by now), then it needs to be based in the other rules. As it is, it doesn't have a leg to stand on because dealers are welcome on the site, members are encouraged to post their own prices, there is no set standard for prices (a simple link to the price guide would do), and there is no rule governing references and sending order. You can either allow people to post their own prices/sending guidelines, or you can do it for them; what you can't do is both.

quote:

---

but thats not true, if i manage to get ahold of nderdog(or bolty even) im sure theyll say the exact same thing. its happened many a time(again, one of them can vouch for this, infact if you read back im sure theres a comment from nder on it somewhere around here) again, the first comment is nice, its met with a rude response. "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
so one person posts, guy responds "go elsewhere, yadda yadda yadda" i fail to see how that warns others"

---

That may well be the case--in fact, it often is, I won't deny it. But my question has yet to be answered: if that's what a single post gets, what do you think a dozen will? The more posts insulting him/goading him, the angrier the OP will get, and the more "go elsewhere" posts (or death threats ) we're likely to see. I fail to see how antagonising people warns new members any better, and nobody has yet taken a stab at explaining it. As far as I can see, all we're doing is saying "IB4C"--a practice which is forbidden in the other forums.

quote:

---

i agree, people can do what they want, so long as it follows the rules. in this case there is no rule that says a seller has to send first, there is however a rule that says a thread of this nature can be ridiculed.

---

See, that's the problem: we're giving with one hand and taking away with the other, which isn't right.

quote:

---

People are obeying the rules when the post a ridiculing comment. if/when that rule is changed, it will stop. until then it will continue, and im all for it.

---

Well, they're obeying forum rules, but those rules directly contradict MOTL's general rules, the rules that govern the other forums: flaming isn't tolerated elsewhere. Inconsistency kinda sucks.

EDIT: Typo.
EDIT 2: Caught another.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari

If the reason behind the ridicule rule is to prevent new users from getting ripped, then you need to extend the rule to H/W forum, though I can't imagine what sort of effect it would have on the overall community. Otherwise, it seems to me that the ridicule rule only exisits to harrass new members posting in the T/A forum. I know the ridicule rule exists out of good intentions, however I don't think it should be used to make up for the dificencies in the rules. Common practices are not rules. People have a choice of whether they want to follow it or now.

The ridicule rule is virtually always invoked after the scammer is given nice warnings and refuses to listen to reason, and rarely used before that even in cases of clear scams.

It most certainly cuts down potential ripping, both by serving as a warning to people who would otherwise not know better or by forcing the offending morons to clean up their act or delete their posts. Experience has shown that they will ignore people politely telling them to change their ways, but once their stupidity is openly mocked, they get the point.

__________________
Mort was already aware that love made you feel hot and cold and cruel and weak, but he hadn't realized that it could make you stupid.

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
Responses to stupid posts would end up on some poor victim's thread rather than that of the offending idiot

---

Isn't that the correct way to do it? You post on the potential victim's thread so they don't fall for such offer? The whole purpose is to warn the victim and not to start a war against the person who made the offer.

Personally I agree that the ridicule rule will never work in H/W forum. why? Because we all know there's something inappropriate about such rule, and it's bound to tick off a lot of people if used in H/W forum. But why we continue to allow it in T/A forums puzzles me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
The ridicule rule is virtually always invoked after the scammer is given nice warnings and refuses to listen to reason, and rarely used before that even in cases of clear scams.

---

As I said, not everyone will react to "nice" warnings politely. Do you honestly believe everyone will just shut up and listen? The way I see it, in most cases, the "offending morons" are baited into such responses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
It most certainly cuts down potential ripping, both by serving as a warning to people who would otherwise not know better or by forcing the offending morons to clean up their act or delete their posts. Experience has shown that they will ignore people politely telling them to change their ways, but once their stupidity is openly mocked, they get the point.

---

This is the part I don't get. If you honestly don't want noobies to ask people to send first, then make it a rule. Isn't that much simpler than to depend on the mob to do the job? If it's not a rule, then what are you trying to enforce? If someone's prices are way off, make it a rule for prices to be within a certain range. Again, the ridicule rule is enforcing something which isn't specified as rules.

All you have been saying is that the ridicule rule cuts down ridiculous posts. There is no correlation that it cuts down cases of people getting ripped. If you don't believe a polite warning is sufficient, then why don't you make it a rule, or have a mod issue such warnings? I believe both suggestions are much more civilized solutions than to have to rely on the mob tactic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nstar612:
Isn't that the correct way to do it? You post on the potential victim's thread so they don't fall for such offer? The whole purpose is to warn the victim and not to start a war against the person who made the offer.

Personally I agree that the ridicule rule will never work in H/W forum. why? Because we all know there's something inappropriate about such rule, and it's bound to tick off a lot of people if used in H/W forum. But why we continue to allow it in T/A forums puzzles me.

As I said, not everyone will react to "nice" warnings politely. Do you honestly believe everyone will just shut up and listen? The way I see it, in most cases, the "offending morons" are baited into such responses.

This is the part I don't get. If you honestly don't want noobies to ask people to send first, then make it a rule. Isn't that much simpler than to depend on the mob to do the job? If it's not a rule, then what are you trying to enforce? If someone's prices are way off, make it a rule for prices to be within a certain range. Again, the ridicule rule is enforcing something which isn't specified as rules.

All you have been saying is that the ridicule rule cuts down ridiculous posts. There is no correlation that it cuts down cases of people getting ripped. If you don't believe a polite warning is sufficient, then why don't you make it a rule, or have a mod issue such warnings? I believe both suggestions are much more civilized solutions than to have to rely on the mob tactic.

---

No, it isn't the correct way to do it. The offending moron isn't affected at all, and it's much easier to just PM the particular person with the bad offer about it. Your idea does nothing to get the scammers to straighten up and fly right.

We allow it because it's the only thing that's been shown effective to get the troublemakers to change their ways or get the hell off of the site.

I'm completely lost as to some supposed point to this one. You agree that being nice doesn't always work, so that seems to work against you. I'm not sure what responses you're referring to, but yeah, scammers do tend to get upset at having their scams pointed out, but once they realize they're not going to get anywhere, they change their ways or they leave. Either option is a good one.

N00bs asking for people to send first isn't that big of a deal. It's when they're insanely moronic about it that it's a problem. Lots of people post the rule, but are smart enough to realize when to ignore that. It's the 0-ref members telling 200+ ref people that "it's a sale, money first, 'cause that's the way it is everywhere" where it becomes a problem. MOTL's policy is not to enforce specifics on traders such as who sends first, or what values to assign to cards. It's up to the individual traders to decide that. If people decide to abuse this fact and be exceedingly stupid about it, that's their own problem. There are bounds of normal behavior that don't need to be explicitly stated to be in effect. Common sense rules.

Sure there is. When stupid scammers are shouted down because they ignore polite posts, it definitely highlights the dangers to n00bs who don't know better. I don't know what you're referring to about with "why don't you make it a rule, or have a mod issue such warnings?" Make what a rule, or have a mod issue what warning?

I really don't know what is so fricking hard to understand about needing to get tough when civilized solutions don't work. When the scammers ignore polite requests to stop being a complete moron, stronger measures are totally warranted.

__________________
Mort was already aware that love made you feel hot and cold and cruel and weak, but he hadn't realized that it could make you stupid.

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
When the scammers ignore polite requests to stop being a complete moron, stronger measures are totally warranted.

---

Sure, I have no problem with a stronger measure. However, that measure should come from either changing the rules or having a mod get involved. I don't think having other members harrasing the noob is the way to go. I am saying go ahead and make rules that dictate what can and cannot be posted in the T/A forum or have a mod point out to the noob about some of the common practices.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:

It's the 0-ref members telling 200+ ref people that "it's a sale, money first, 'cause that's the way it is everywhere" where it becomes a problem.

---

I seriouly don't see how that's a problem. Yes, it's not a smart move on the noob, however, he isn't breaking any rule. The 200+ ref people have the choice of not doing business with the noob. The noob have a choice of sticking to his rules and not making any trades on MOTL. No, it's not a problem. Does this automatically make the noob a scammer? Of course not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:

MOTL's policy is not to enforce specifics on traders such as who sends first, or what values to assign to cards. It's up to the individual traders to decide that. If people decide to abuse this fact and be exceedingly stupid about it, that's their own problem. There are bounds of normal behavior that don't need to be explicitly stated to be in effect. Common sense rules

---

Exactly, if MOTL allows people to set whatever stupid rules/prices on their threads, then why have this ridicule rule? In a way, you are saying there's no official rules governing this area, however, we are going to sneak one exception rule in there to govern something that's not covered by rules. You admitted that it's their own problems for being so stupid, but then the ridicule rule implies it's the whole community's problem, therefore everyone has the right to correct it.

Also, I am a little concerned of how you are able to use the term "offending moron", "scammer", "troublemakers" so freely. These people might not be scammers. They either asked buyer to send first or they posted their own arbitrary prices. Both are perfectly legal within the realm of MOTL. I am a little shocked as how we can jump to the conclusion of labeling these people as scammers. For all we know, the poor guy we just scared away could be an arrogant kid who's just made his first post on T/A forum. Yet, we are supposed to feel good about ourselves because we just prevented a "scammer" from doing business in MOTL. You have no way of knowing every victim of ridicule rule is a legitmate scammer or not, regardless of how much experience you think you have. Personally, I wouldn't go as far as generalizing the whole group until they are proven guilty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nstar612:
Sure, I have no problem with a stronger measure. However, that measure should come from either changing the rules or having a mod get involved. I don't think having other members harrasing the noob is the way to go. I am saying go ahead and make rules that dictate what can and cannot be posted in the T/A forum or have a mod point out to the noob about some of the common practices.

I seriouly don't see how that's a problem. Yes, it's not a smart move on the noob, however, he isn't breaking any rule. The 200+ ref people have the choice of not doing business with the noob. The noob have a choice of sticking to his rules and not making any trades on MOTL. No, it's not a problem. Does this automatically make the noob a scammer? Of course not.

Exactly, if MOTL allows people to set whatever stupid rules/prices on their threads, then why have this ridicule rule? In a way, you are saying there's no official rules governing this area, however, we are going to sneak one exception rule in there to govern something that's not covered by rules. You admitted that it's their own problems for being so stupid, but then the ridicule rule implies it's the whole community's problem, therefore everyone has the right to correct it.

Also, I am a little concerned of how you are able to use the term "offending moron", "scammer", "troublemakers" so freely. These people might not be scammers. They either asked buyer to send first or they posted their own arbitrary prices. Both are perfectly legal within the realm of MOTL. I am a little shocked as how we can jump to the conclusion of labeling these people as scammers. For all we know, the poor guy we just scared away could be an arrogant kid who's just made his first post on T/A forum. Yet, we are supposed to feel good about ourselves because we just prevented a "scammer" from doing business in MOTL. You have no way of knowing every victim of ridicule rule is a legitmate scammer or not, regardless of how much experience you think you have. Personally, I wouldn't go as far as generalizing the whole group until they are proven guilty.

I think maybe we are all tired of debating on this subject. If the mods are so stuck on the so called noble cause behind the ridicule rule, then it's pointless to discuss further. Perhaps the ridicule rule succeeded in getting rid of 1 scammer out of every 10 victims. Are we supposed to celebrate and sacrifice the other innocent 9 victims? No, I don't think that's good for MOTL. Also,I believe it's in MOTL's best interest not to get involved in individual trades/sales. All of the prices are layout before the transaction and the buyer and seller both mutually agreed on the transaction. MOTL has no jurisdiction over whether it was a fair deal or not.

---

Again, rules should be somewhat vague so that people can work out the details the way they want. You guys seem to be acting like as soon as something is slightly out of place, they get steamrolled. That's not remotely the case. It's the idiots and scammers (and yes, those terms very much apply, because reasonable people will take advice when given and adapt to the community) that get harassed when they refuse to apply any reasonable standards and make it clear they're out to cheat people or act like very shady suspicious people. Innocent bystanders aren't getting the drive-by effect. I honestly don't know why this is such a hard concept for some to grasp, so I'm officially giving up trying.

__________________
Mort was already aware that love made you feel hot and cold and cruel and weak, but he hadn't realized that it could make you stupid.

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

In this spring of 1953 the free world weighs one question above all others: the chance for a just peace for all peoples.

To weigh this chance is to summon instantly to mind another recent moment of great decision. It came with that yet more hopeful spring of 1945, bright with the promise of victory and of freedom. The hope of all just men in that moment too was a just and lasting peace.

The 8 years that have passed have seen that hope waver, grow dim, and almost die. And the shadow of fear again has darkly lengthened across the world.

Today the hope of free men remains stubborn and brave, but it is sternly disciplined by experience. It shuns not only all crude counsel of despair but also the self-deceit of easy illusion. It weighs the chance for peace with sure, clear knowledge of what happened to the vain hope of 1945.

In that spring of victory the soldiers of the Western Allies met the soldiers of Russia in the center of Europe. They were triumphant comrades in arms. Their peoples shared the joyous prospect of building, in honor of their dead, the only fitting monument-an age of just peace. All these war-weary peoples shared too this concrete, decent purpose: to guard vigilantly against the domination ever again of any part of the world by a single, unbridled aggressive power.

This common purpose lasted an instant and perished. The nations of the world divided to follow two distinct roads.

The United States and our valued friends, the other free nations, chose one road.

The leaders of the Soviet Union chose another.

The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.

First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.

Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.

Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.

In the light of these principles the citizens of the United States defined the way they proposed to follow, through the aftermath of war, toward true peace.

This way was faithful to the spirit that inspired the United Nations: to prohibit strife, to relieve tensions, to banish fears. This way was to control and to reduce armaments. This way was to allow all nations to devote their energies and resources to the great and good tasks of healing the war's wounds, of clothing and feeding and housing the needy, of perfecting a just political life, of enjoying the fruits of their own free toil.

The Soviet government held a vastly different vision of the future.

In the world of its design, security was to be found, not in mutual trust and mutual aid but in force: huge armies, subversion, rule of neighbor nations. The goal was power superiority at all costs. Security was to be sought by denying it to all others.

The result has been tragic for the world and, for the Soviet Union, it has also been ironic.

The amassing of the Soviet power alerted free nations to a new danger of aggression. It compelled them in self-defense to spend unprecedented money and energy for armaments. It forced them to develop weapons of war now capable of inflicting instant and terrible punishment upon any aggressor.

It instilled in the free nations-and let none doubt this-the unshakable conviction that, as long as there persists a threat to freedom, they must, at any cost, remain armed, strong, and ready for the risk of war.

It inspired them-and let none doubt this-to attain a unity of purpose and will beyond the power of propaganda or pressure to break, now or ever.

There remained, however, one thing essentially unchanged and unaffected by Soviet conduct: the readiness of the free nations to welcome sincerely any genuine evidence of peaceful purpose enabling all peoples again to resume their common quest of just peace.

The free nations, most solemnly and repeatedly, have assured the Soviet Union that their firm association has never had any aggressive purpose whatsoever. Soviet leaders, however, have seemed to persuade themselves, or tried to persuade their people, otherwise.

And so it has come to pass that the Soviet Union itself has shared and suffered the very fears it has fostered in the rest of the world.

This has been the way of life forged by 8 years of fear and force.

What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?

The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.

The worst is atomic war.

The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953.

This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace.

It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty.

It calls upon them to answer the questions that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?

The world knows that an era ended with the death of Joseph Stalin. The extraordinary 30-year span of his rule saw the Soviet Empire expand to reach from the Baltic Sea to the Sea of Japan, finally to dominate 800 million souls.

The Soviet system shaped by Stalin and his predecessors was born of one World War. It survived the stubborn and often amazing courage of second World War. It has lived to threaten a third.

Now, a new leadership has assumed power in the Soviet Union. It links to the past, however strong, cannot bind it completely. Its future is, in great part, its own to make.

This new leadership confronts a free world aroused, as rarely in its history, by the will to stay free.

This free world knows, out of bitter wisdom of experience, that vigilance and sacrifice are the price of liberty.

It knows that the defense of Western Europe imperatively demands the unity of purpose and action made possible by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, embracing a European Defense Community.

It knows that Western Germany deserves to be a free and equal partner in this community and that this, for Germany, is the only safe way to full, final unity.

It knows that aggression in Korea and in southeast Asia are threats to the whole free community to be met by united action.

This is the kind of free world which the new Soviet leadership confront. It is a world that demands and expects the fullest respect of its rights and interests. It is a world that will always accord the same respect to all others.

So the new Soviet leadership now has a precious opportunity to awaken, with the rest of the world, to the point of peril reached and to help turn the tide of history.

Will it do this?

We do not yet know. Recent statements and gestures of Soviet leaders give some evidence that they may recognize this critical moment.

We welcome every honest act of peace.

We care nothing for mere rhetoric.

We are only for sincerity of peaceful purpose attested by deeds. The opportunities for such deeds are many. The performance of a great number of them waits upon no complex protocol but upon the simple will to do them. Even a few such clear and specific acts, such as the Soviet Union's signature upon the Austrian treaty or its release of thousands of prisoners still held from World War II, would be impressive signs of sincere intent. They would carry a power of persuasion not to be matched by any amount of oratory.

This we do know: a world that begins to witness the rebirth of trust among nations can find its way to a peace that is neither partial nor punitive.

With all who will work in good faith toward such a peace, we are ready, with renewed resolve, to strive to redeem the near-lost hopes of our day.

The first great step along this way must be the conclusion of an honorable armistice in Korea.

This means the immediate cessation of hostilities and the prompt initiation of political discussions leading to the holding of free elections in a united Korea.

It should mean, no less importantly, an end to the direct and indirect attacks upon the security of Indochina and Malaya. For any armistice in Korea that merely released aggressive armies to attack elsewhere would be fraud.

We seek, throughout Asia as throughout the world, a peace that is true and total.

Out of this can grow a still wider task-the achieving of just political settlements for the other serious and specific issues between the free world and the Soviet Union.

None of these issues, great or small, is insoluble-given only the will to respect the rights of all nations.

Again we say: the United States is ready to assume its just part.

We have already done all within our power to speed conclusion of the treaty with Austria, which will free that country from economic exploitation and from occupation by foreign troops.

We are ready not only to press forward with the present plans for closer unity of the nations of Western Europe by also, upon that foundation, to strive to foster a broader European community, conducive to the free movement of persons, of trade, and of ideas.

This community would include a free and united Germany, with a government based upon free and secret elections.

This free community and the full independence of the East European nations could mean the end of present unnatural division of Europe.

As progress in all these areas strengthens world trust, we could proceed concurrently with the next great work-the reduction of the burden of armaments now weighing upon the world. To this end we would welcome and enter into the most solemn agreements. These could properly include:

1. The limitation, by absolute numbers or by an agreed international ratio, of the sizes of the military and security forces of all nations.

2. A commitment by all nations to set an agreed limit upon that proportion of total production of certain strategic materials to be devoted to military purposes.

3. International control of atomic energy to promote its use for peaceful purposes only and to insure the prohibition of atomic weapons.

4. A limitation or prohibition of other categories of weapons of great destructiveness.

5. The enforcement of all these agreed limitations and prohibitions by adequate safeguards,including a practical system of inspection under the United Nations.

The details of such disarmament programs are manifestly critical and complex. Neither theUnited States nor any other nation can properly claim to possess a perfect, immutable formula. But the formula matters less than the faith-the good faith without which no formula can work justly and effectively.

The fruit of success in all these tasks would present the world with the greatest task, and the greatest opportunity, of all. It is this: the dedication of the energies, the resources, and the imaginations of all peaceful nations to a new kind of war. This would be a declared total war, not upon any human enemy but upon the brute forces of poverty and need.

The peace we seek, founded upon decent trust and cooperative effort among nations, can be fortified, not by weapons of war but by wheat and by cotton, by milk and by wool, by meat and by timber and by rice. These are words that translate into every language on earth. These are needs that challenge this world in arms.

This idea of a just and peaceful world is not new or strange to us. It inspired the people of theUnited States to initiate the European Recovery Program in 1947. That program was prepared to treat, with like and equal concern, the needs of Eastern and Western Europe.

We are prepared to reaffirm, with the most concrete evidence, our readiness to help build a world in which all peoples can be productive and prosperous.

This Government is ready to ask its people to join with all nations in devoting a substantial percentage of the savings achieved by disarmament to a fund for world aid and reconstruction. The purposes of this great work would be to help other peoples to develop the under developed areas of the world, to stimulate profitability and fair world trade, to assist all peoples to know the blessings of productive freedom.

The monuments to this new kind of war would be these: roads and schools, hospitals and homes, food and health.

We are ready, in short, to dedicate our strength to serving the needs, rather than the fears, of the world.

We are ready, by these and all such actions, to make of the United Nations an institution that can effectively guard the peace and security of all peoples.

I know of nothing I can add to make plainer the sincere purpose of the United States.

I know of no course, other than that marked by these and similar actions, that can be called the highway of peace.

I know of only one question upon which progress waits. It is this:

What is the Soviet Union ready to do?

Whatever the answer be, let it be plainly spoken.

Again we say: the hunger for peace is too great, the hour in history too late, for any government to mock men's hopes with mere words and promises and gestures.

The test of truth is simple. There can be no persuasion but by deeds.

Is the new leadership of Soviet Union prepared to use its decisive influence in the Communist world, including control of the flow of arms, to bring not merely an expedient truce in Korea but genuine peace in Asia?

Is it prepared to allow other nations, including those of Eastern Europe, the free choice of their own forms of government?

Is it prepared to act in concert with others upon serious disarmament proposals to be made firmly effective by stringent U.N. control and inspection?

If not, where then is the concrete evidence of the Soviet Union's concern for peace?

The test is clear.

There is, before all peoples, a precious chance to turn the black tide of events. If we failed to strive to seize this chance, the judgment of future ages would be harsh and just.

If we strive but fail and the world remains armed against itself, it at least need be divided no longer in its clear knowledge of who has condemned humankind to this fate.

The purpose of the United States, in stating these proposals, is simple and clear.

These proposals spring, without ulterior purpose or political passion, from our calm conviction that the hunger for peace is in the hearts of all peoples--those of Russia and of China no less than of our own country.

They conform to our firm faith that God created men to enjoy, not destroy, the fruits of the earth and of their own toil.

They aspire to this: the lifting, from the backs and from the hearts of men, of their burden of arms and of fears, so that they may find before them a golden age of freedom and of peace.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

"Between that promise and the reality, there is an ocean. That ocean is called the Liberal Party." (Duceppe)

Glitch-Banned/Unbanned 18/03/06

RIP Ari

Personally, I find nothing wrong with the person's post. He listed the price, the number of cards, and the sending order. He didn't violate any rule. As all of the experienced members pointed out, the thread is missing some key information and therefore isn't likely to get any taker. I find the first two posts hardly qualifies as "nice warnings". The tone of the posts are downright degrading. They failed to explain why a new member should be sending first. They basically commanded the noob to send first. Of course this led the noob to respond back negatively, and therefore opened up the gate for the mob.

Then here comes the hammer:

quote:

---

I can guarantee you that if you want to even consider doing business around here, you will need to adjust your attitude and agree to use a 3rd Party service or send first to someone with a lot of refs. Otherwise, you can just expect to be labeled a scammer and forget about trying to get someone to take you up on this. You might not like it, but those are the cold hard facts.

---

Now, by no means is the noob required to agree to use a 3rd party service or send first to someone with a lot of refs. Just because he doesn't agree to those demands doesn't necessarily label him as a scammer. None of those statements are "cold hard facts". They are common practices, not facts!

Looking at what the noob is selling, he is basically selling a lot of 2700 mystery cards for $200. As absurd as it sounds, this is very similar to repacks. Yes, we all know repacks suck, but does that mean the person cannot sell it on MOTL? The guy is selling 2700 cards for $200. There is no telling whether it's a good deal or not. I wouldn't go as far as calling the noob a scammer.

It's true that many people are abusing the ridicule rule to pick on noobs. What it has done is cutting down posts by noob on T/A forum. I would think the ridicule should stop the moment where a mod posted on the thread. I think by that time everyone got the point already. Instead, more people decided to post, and therefore provoking more responses from the noob.

The general feeling is that people with more refs feel they are superior and therefore earn the right to invoke the ridicule rule on noobs.

quote:

---

that right there is taken from the rules forum directly, annotated of course. It is quite apparent that this thread fits that description.

It is laughable and anyone stupid enough to bite on it needs to seek mental help.

I'm sorry, but now that I have a hundred refs, I feel that I have earned the privelige to say that...

---

The end result: the noob (who we still don't know is a scammer or not) might decide to leave the site and never come back. Get the point? You have driven out a member of MOTL just because of your suspicions, no proof needed. Now, there's something wrong with that logic. I sure am glad that I already have my 100+ refs and not starting out as a noob.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nstar612:
Looking at this thread, it makes me believe more that the ridicule rule is being used solely to bully new members.

Personally, I find nothing wrong with the person's post.

---

First of all, his story is contradictory and full of holes. They are his friends cards, they are his cards, they are his father's cards. He doesn't know anything about Magic, but looked through the cards and found all of the rares ones. This means he knows what the rares ones (if any) are, and doesn't want to list even the cards that could help his item sell.

quote:

---

He listed the price, the number of cards, and the sending order. He didn't violate any rule. As all of the experienced members pointed out, the thread is missing some key information and therefore isn't likely to get any taker. I find the first two posts hardly qualifies as "nice warnings". The tone of the posts are downright degrading. They failed to explain why a new member should be sending first. They basically commanded the noob to send first. Of course this led the noob to respond back negatively, and therefore opened up the gate for the mob.

---

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the first two posts in the thread. There was no name-calling or harassment. Both expressed at least some interest in the cards, and pointed out that they would not be sending first. This is where a ton of argument seems to stem. I have no problem with people demanding that zero ref members send first, especially when they have quite a few refs themselves. Some people argue that it doesn't work that way, and the buyer sends first on sites such as e-bay. To them I say "this isn't e-bay, and if you want buyers to send first to you with exactly zero refs, peddle your ****ing wares on e-bay."

Obviously it isn't a rule that lower ref member has to send first, but that link in particular reeks of someone trying to make a dishonest buck, either through rip or scam.

quote:

---

Looking at what the noob is selling, he is basically selling a lot of 2700 mystery cards for $200. As absurd as it sounds, this is very similar to repacks. Yes, we all know repacks suck, but does that mean the person cannot sell it on MOTL? The guy is selling 2700 cards for $200. There is no telling whether it's a good deal or not. I wouldn't go as far as calling the noob a scammer.

---

Even in repacks you are told what cards you "could" get. People should use common sense and realize that maybe they will be met with more positive posts if they are helpful and actually supply some information about the product they are selling. Would you go to an electronics store and buy a big box with no labels or pictures that says TV on it? I would hope not...

quote:

---

It's true that many people are abusing the ridicule rule to pick on noobs.

---

I can make random claims based on what I "know" too. You smell like cat pee. It's true.

quote:

---

What it has done is cutting down posts by noob on T/A forum.

---

Cutting down on noobs is not a bad thing. The boards don't need moronic clutter.

quote:

---

The general feeling is that people with more refs feel they are superior and therefore earn the right to invoke the ridicule rule on noobs.

---

This is a trading site. People who have successfully completed many trades are superior in ref ranking than those who registered two days ago. They reserve every right to not trust a person with no references, especially when they have many.

quote:

---

The end result: the noob (who we still don't know is a scammer or not) might decide to leave the site and never come back. Get the point? You have driven out a member of MOTL just because of your suspicions, no proof needed.

---

Damn, I was just going to buy his $200 pile of poo too!

the first 2 posts were by no means harmful or degrading. infact id go as far to say that they were adviceful posts. they were inquiring about the collection. advising that they wont send first. You can read into it and think whatever you want, it doesnt make it true. id say your example above is further proof that being nice doesnt always work.

if that user stays, fine, if he leaves fine, judging by his attitude id rather not have him as part of this community anyways.

its nice that you have 100 refs, your above statement about not being new nowadays implies youre glad you dont have to send first. think about it for a second.

id be fine stopping after a mod posts, but when said user responds with a rather ridiculing post of his own, then how is that any better?

quote:

---

He didn't violate any rule

---

quote:

---

Now, by no means is the noob required to agree to use a 3rd party service or send first to someone with a lot of refs. Just because he doesn't agree to those demands doesn't necessarily label him as a scammer. None of those statements are "cold hard facts". They are common practices, not facts!

---

just like the user in the example talks about how usually the buyer sends first(and others in here have said)
its not a rule nor the cold hard facts, these things work both ways.

quote:

---

Looking at what the noob is selling, he is basically selling a lot of 2700 mystery cards for $200. As absurd as it sounds, this is very similar to repacks. Yes, we all know repacks suck, but does that mean the person cannot sell it on MOTL? The guy is selling 2700 cards for $200. There is no telling whether it's a good deal or not. I wouldn't go as far as calling the noob a scammer.

---

most repack sellers are scammers. seen any repack sales in the ta/s forum lately? its a well know fact,(again, not a rule) that repacks on motl are frowned upon because of scammers.
where the hell is coolio when you need him

quote:

---

It's true that many people are abusing the ridicule rule to pick on noobs.

---

its also true that many scammers use the "buyer sends first" to rip off people, and those are cold hard facts.

quote:

---

Now, by no means is the noob required to agree to use a 3rd party service or send first to someone with a lot of refs. Just because he doesn't agree to those demands doesn't necessarily label him as a scammer. None of those statements are "cold hard facts". They are common practices, not facts!

---

youre right, he doesnt have to. has said "noob" sold this lot yet? nope, then there must be some truth to the statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goas:
Is this really about protecting new members, or is that just the excuse that we're using to exact revenge upon alleged scammers and "stupid" people?

---

wow goas, that one hurt, i consider myself one of the nicer members around here.
thats like me saying you post even if you dont beleive in your argument just for the sake of winning your argument.

__________________
your ubb survivor 10 champion!!
Also the recipient of the invisibility and morality awards.
100% win ratio in ubb mafia
wotc marketplace council member, 3 terms and counting

quote:

---

Originally posted by nstar612:
Looking at this thread, it makes me believe more that the ridicule rule is being used solely to bully new members.

Personally, I find nothing wrong with the person's post.

---

Yikes. Just yikes. I hope to hell you're just playing devil's advocate here and you don't honestly feel there's nothing wrong with that post.

__________________
Mort was already aware that love made you feel hot and cold and cruel and weak, but he hadn't realized that it could make you stupid.

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

Tell you what, I pointed out the thread because I don't like the mob mentality exhibited in that thread. I don't think the poor guy deserved it. Mod, if you are so confident that this guy is a scam and that he is a total moron, then why don't you close the thread or ban the guy? The guy took enough heat already, so why is the thread still open?

There seems to be a lot of references to common sense in most arguments here. If posters are expected to have some common sense, wouldn't you think most buyers would have the common sense to not send first to sellers with 0 refs? Wouldn't people with common sense know not to pay double the price for the same card they can get else where? If they are the ones lacking commen sense, then why don't you let them learn their own lessons?

quote:

---

Originally posted by CPTBOBIX:
utting down on noobs is not a bad thing. The boards don't need moronic clutter.

This is a trading site. People who have successfully completed many trades are superior in ref ranking than those who registered two days ago. They reserve every right to not trust a person with no references, especially when they have many.
[B]

---

Noobs are more valuable to this site than you can imagaine, both for the business and the community. As a business, you want more user and traffic to the website. As for the community, I don't know how lack of growth is good for the community. Noobs will eventually learn the best ways to trade on MOTL.

Refs are solely used to determine how trustworthy a person is. It doesn't imply in anyway that I am superior than you. Just because you have more refs than me, it doesn't mean that I should shut up and listen to what you say. It's my cards and my money. I should be allowed to do whatever I wish within the rules of MOTL.

Yes, there are some "nice posts" in that example. However, there are also more ridicule posts than necessary. The point has been made loud and clear by the mod. The additional posts after just seem excessive.

quote:

---

[B]its also true that many scammers use the "buyer sends first" to rip off people, and those are cold hard facts.

---

Most of the scammer have build up a small amount of refs. Even they know better that not many people will send first to someone with 0 ref. I would like to see if someone can find out just how many people got ripped off by someone with 0 ref.

Think of it this way, I could take the easy road and troll the T/A board for noobs to ridicule. With my amount of refs, I guess I am superior enough to go around making all sort of assumptions without the need to prove any of them. Yes, that would have been the easy thing to do.

i fail to see how you can call that individual a poor guy, are you completely oblivious to his posts? sure he got lashed out at, fairly deserving to imho.
you seem to like to play by the rules as do i, banning this guy would be against the rules. posting on his thread isnt as ive mentioned many times before.

quote:

---

There seems to be a lot of references to common sense in most arguments here. If posters are expected to have some common sense, wouldn't you think most buyers would have the common sense to not send first to sellers with 0 refs? Wouldn't people with common sense know not to pay double the price for the same card they can get else where? If they are the ones lacking commen sense, then why don't you let them learn their own lessons?

---

thats a horrible statement. id rather help someone avoid getting scammed then letting them learn the hard way. you seemed to want this rule in the hw forum, yet you cancel out your own points with comments like the above.

quote:

---

Refs are solely used to determine how trustworthy a person is. It doesn't imply in anyway that I am superior than you. Just because you have more refs than me, it doesn't mean that I should shut up and listen to what you say. It's my cards and my money.

---

um no, sure it has a TON to do with someone being trustworthy, but id be willing to bet that(yes, even in t/a) the majority of threads on motl have something along the lines of "refs determine sending"

quote:

---

. I should be allowed to do whatever I wish within the rules of MOTL.

---

again, so should others

quote:

---

I would like to see if someone can find out just how many people got ripped off by someone with 0 ref.

---

id imagine it would be kinda hard seeing as the culprits have been banned. motl is a very large community, though im sure i can snag a few wotc users to tell you how they were scammed by 0 ref users.

proof proof proof, someone asked for it earlier on in this discussion, but ive yet to see someone awnser my request to post a bit of proof that this rule doesnt work.
id imagine if it didnt have an effect that it would have been taken down by now.

__________________
your ubb survivor 10 champion!!
Also the recipient of the invisibility and morality awards.
100% win ratio in ubb mafia
wotc marketplace council member, 3 terms and counting