My suggestion is that there is a time limit applied to people who appear on BTA but are not placed on confirmed BTA of for example 5 years, 10 years or what ever is deemed appropriate or alternatively when people have prooved themselves honest members of the community (e.g. achieving 50+ or 100+ references).

I've recently lost a trade as a result of the post placed 9 years ago which doesn't seem right to me.

To add some perspective, in the UK if I was found guilty of a driving offence it would only be on my private record for 5 years. On MOTL I have a post on the BTA 9 years old accusing me of bad trading practice after 2 piece of mail were lost in the post and have a perfect record ever since.

I'd be interested to hear how other people feel about this.

Sadly, i think the real issue is that the ref system requires traders to actually ask for their ref to get filled out. We need a place to publicly view bad trading issues, and the BTA forum is all we have atm.

If the site could get an overhaul, i would suggest something like:
Refs : bad refs, (late send, poor packaging, etc) would disappear after X years.
BTA post : big issue, needed moderation, never disappear.
CBTA : Users banned for ripping/multiple trade problems, never disappear.

__________________
"He fights you not because you have wronged him, but because you are there."

Although I understand this may not be implementable in the short term. My suggestion was that only after a significant period of times posts are removed, so if you were to be posted on the BTA 3 times in a short period of time all 3 would be visible to members of the community. But after several years of good trading practice you would no longer be associated with the BTA unless you have done something wrong.

I don't feel that from my own experience it is fair to be associated with people who try and rip people off for lost mail 9 years after it occurred. I completely understand the need for the BTA and support it fully as it has recently helped me resolve an issue where an impersonator stole over $200 of my money.

If someone is that caught up with a case from 9 years ago, do you really want to deal with that person?

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

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

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
If someone is that caught up with a case from 9 years ago, do you really want to deal with that person?

---

Exactly. What kind of trader brings up "hey you got accused of something 9 years ago, so I don't want to trade with you"? I think just consider it a good thing you didn't have to deal with him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
Exactly. What kind of trader brings up "hey you got accused of something 9 years ago, so I don't want to trade with you"? I think just consider it a good thing you didn't have to deal with him.

On the other hand, I kinda agree with the time limit thing for a different reason. When you google my name, one of the first things that show up is "Bad Trader" and that's not really something I want people to see first when they look me up, whether it's for an interview, a date, or whatever. At the very least maybe people's names could be edited out or something.

---

I actually didn't want to trade with the guy after he brought that up, but I can understand how it would make someone feel uncomfortable when they google you and come across your name/personal details associated with ripping/bad trading.

If a member has been posted on the BTA as a bad trader and not a ripper and is not posted again within 5 years I don't see the need for personal details to be kept public.

I would understand if someone was banned for repeated bad trading over a short period of time, but would someone be banned for bad trading in 2006 and then being posted on the BTA 7 years later? if the answer is no, then what other need is there for personal details to be made publicly available for that length of time?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
On the other hand, I kinda agree with the time limit thing for a different reason. When you google my name, one of the first things that show up is "Bad Trader" and that's not really something I want people to see first when they look me up, whether it's for an interview, a date, or whatever. At the very least maybe people's names could be edited out or something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chaos Orb:
I would understand if someone was banned for repeated bad trading over a short period of time, but would someone be banned for bad trading in 2006 and then being posted on the BTA 7 years later? if the answer is no, then what other need is there for personal details to be made publicly available for that length of time?

EDIT: I'd also like to note that I have absolutely no objection to the data being held privately by MOTL beyond that period if required.

---

While it's unlikely that someone would be banned for a second bad trading warning, the previous case absolutely will be kept in mind when we handle the new case, particularly if there is anything unusual going on.

When considering whether to prune certain BTA cases do keep in mind that it can also be a useful reference for who not to trade with or to be careful of because they POSTED cases that shouldn't have been there.

That being said, I have an idea in mind if it's determined that we want to do something like this. I can't say for sure that it can even be done, but it's possible that certain BTA cases (general guidelines for this would need to be worked out, and a way to restore some if need be later) could be archived into a mod-only-viewable forum for our use, but be hidden from the general membership and internet search engines.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

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

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
When considering whether to prune certain BTA cases do keep in mind that it can also be a useful reference for who not to trade with or to be careful of because they POSTED cases that shouldn't have been there.[/B]

---

I agree with you on this, sometimes it is useful not only to know who has been placed on BTA, but also who is likely to place people on the BTA for poorly thought out reasons. I thought that a solution that would require moderators to "prune" which posts stay and go would add to their time and workload that may be better spent doing other things hence the time limit approach.

quote:

---

That being said, I have an idea in mind if it's determined that we want to do something like this. I can't say for sure that it can even be done, but it's possible that certain BTA cases (general guidelines for this would need to be worked out, and a way to restore some if need be later) could be archived into a mod-only-viewable forum for our use, but be hidden from the general membership and internet search engines.[/B]

---

I actually think this would be a really good idea. Personally I have no problem with the moderators having access to as much information as you guys require from past and present to make informed decisions and/or even restoring old posts should you feel it is necessary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
While it's unlikely that someone would be banned for a second bad trading warning, the previous case absolutely will be kept in mind when we handle the new case, particularly if there is anything unusual going on.

When considering whether to prune certain BTA cases do keep in mind that it can also be a useful reference for who not to trade with or to be careful of because they POSTED cases that shouldn't have been there.

That being said, I have an idea in mind if it's determined that we want to do something like this. I can't say for sure that it can even be done, but it's possible that certain BTA cases (general guidelines for this would need to be worked out, and a way to restore some if need be later) could be archived into a mod-only-viewable forum for our use, but be hidden from the general membership and internet search engines.

---

I also like the idea of arching them into a mod-only viewable forum.

I made a mistake 5+ years ago when i disagreed if sending order had been agreed upon and took my lumps bt i know what i did was wrong and have corrected the way i go about things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
hidden from internet search engines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
So...

---

Buttons.

Thanks,
Jazaray

__________________
A Plastered Dragon Original Limerick:
There was a nice lassie named Jaz
Many wished to have what she has,
A delicate face,
A soft warm embrace,
And a whole lot of bedroom pizzazz.

WeedIan: Jazaray is like MOTL's Mom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SDPlaneswalker:
It's illegal to post things like that publicly about someone without proof. It is called Slander. If you guys posted someone's son or daughter's name that could be even worse You guys should be careful with that sort of stuff.

Just sayin...

---

The founder of the site is a full-fledged lawyer. I think he knows what he's doing.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

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

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SDPlaneswalker:
It's illegal to post things like that publicly about someone without proof. It is called Slander. If you guys posted someone's son or daughter's name that could be even worse You guys should be careful with that sort of stuff.

Just sayin...

---

First of all, I would question whether slander or libel is the appropriate term. I think it's libel. I could be wrong. Secondly, that's why BTA posters have to have this stuff called "evidence." Have you heard of it? That's the stuff that leads to proof, which is attained when the postee can't dispute the evidence, or when the evidence can be disputed, which also happens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
First of all, I would question whether slander or libel is the appropriate term. I think it's libel.

---

Slander is spoken, Libel is written, you are correct.

Thanks,
Jazaray

__________________
A Plastered Dragon Original Limerick:
There was a nice lassie named Jaz
Many wished to have what she has,
A delicate face,
A soft warm embrace,
And a whole lot of bedroom pizzazz.

WeedIan: Jazaray is like MOTL's Mom.

http://classic.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/017876.html

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

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

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
Discussion of this has been moved to General Discussion to get more eyes on it.

http://classic.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/017876.html

---