Quote:
Originally Posted by WebSlave
Point of the matter is that no matter who paid for a membership or sponsorship, whether they were the worst of the worst, according to Board of Inquiry standards, I would still be obligated to give them a positive Trader's Rating regardless. To not do so would then put me in the position of a judge, and have to choose who gets a good rating and who does not based on third party information posted in one or more BOI threads.
|
I totally understand and agree with the concept of avoiding liability due to the 'judge' issue. Though, in this case, the payment was refunded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebSlave
What could possibly go wrong with something this easy and apparently a win-win for everyone?
|
Going into it, the promotion
did seem like a
great idea, and then the issue with Farr occurred.
The risk in doing nothing (with only the promotion part of the ratings) post Farr is that readers may see it as a way for skunks to buy perfume (or actually be misled by the sweet scent). They may possibly then discount the actual ratings part of the trader rating program which I think is a valuable tool.
Or they may investigate to see
why each rating was given, and may discount only the promotion ratings as perfume instead of seeing the original intent which was to honor those who help this site.
Or maybe I'm overthinking all this and the ratings may pass unnoticed.