Suggestion: Delete all ads from banned members.

Some recent classifieds ads have shown that some members aren't very adept at interpreting even the most blatantly obvious context clues. Apparently, having a Mod point out that a seller is banned and has used stolen pictures just isn't enough to dissuade some people from pursuing a transaction. While I'm not a huge fan of putting supreme effort into saving people from themselves, allowing the ads to remain posted after the seller has been banned often keeps the door open for them to scam unsuspecting members, since ads often have contact information that doesn't require anyone to actually be logged into Fauna to see and use it.

While I suppose it could be seen as dancing on the line of playing judge and jury, I'd spin it to be a simple matter of killing several birds with one stone: freeing up some bandwidth; removing the capacity to scam; not offering free advertising to those who aren't currently welcome on this site, etc. Since there are countless generic pics to be had from a simple Google search and countless fake names to choose from, it just doesn't seem like there would be any real benefit to leaving the ads there as possible future reference points.

Dan, mod team is currently discussing. thank you

Had a feeling that that may have been the case. Figured it wouldn't hurt to open the idea up to public debate and possibly add a bit of momentum.

I will probably be in the minority here.

My opinions.

Depending on the type of ad and why a member was banned would play heavy on the decision to delete. Also, many banned members aren't banned indefinitely. So a blanket delete all ban members ads wouldn't be feasible. Also not really helpful to those that are in current transactions with the person.

Really depends on if the person is a obvious overseas scammer or a member that was banned for a rules violation.

Bandwidth wouldn't necessarily be saved because we might still store them just not in public view.

My thoughts differ for one main reason. I believe it is almost always important to have more information than less.


As with your example,

Apparently, having a Mod point out that a seller is banned and has used stolen pictures just isn't enough to dissuade some people from pursuing a transaction.

Even with a moderator stating the user has been banned, that the name or location isn't correct, the pictures aren't theirs or straight-out the person is posting from Nigeria, some will still ignore it. What could anyone every do to help those people? Delete the ads? What about those that would take head of the information posted or could really use it?

So those unsuspecting that have contacted the person before the user is banned or anything pointed out aren't going to be helped by simply deleting the ad.

Deleting it isn't going to help us identify them in the future so we still need the information to cross check. Those that were scammed would benefit from us having the ad available to post on the BOI.

If the ad is simple gone then the resources we have to help provide any evidence of someone being wronged would disappear as well.

Saving bandwidth wouldn't happen by blocking the public view.

Blocking the public view would not share with others that may just be getting ready to send funds to the person that something is wrong.

I think it is more important to get the information available to be seen as fast as possible then deleting it. Regardless if it is banning the member for a rules violation, posting that the user is using pictures that aren't his or if they are posting from overseas.

I don't believe simply deleting it to protect the few who can't read is a better direction to go than informing others that can.

There is so much information in ads that can be very valuable if they are completely removed, it's a loss.

Many shill accounts for members have been linked to bogus accounts because we still had the information from their ads pretending to be someone else. Many regurgitate the same information that could be linked to their original accounts.

I think its a benefit to keep much of the information available.

I know if I was working a deal with someone I would be more appreciative that the information I might need is posted where I could maybe find it. I might not even know if the ad was simply deleted.

It's possible, I might not even know a BOI thread was started in the middle of my transaction, comments were made on the ad or that the member was banned if we were contacting each other with just email by that point. I have a greater chance of finding out and acting on the information then the ad simply vanishing.

Let's say we deleted a questionable ad or even a downright obvious scammer ad right away. A month later on this forum or somewhere on the net that person starts a new account. They use the same email address they used in the ad removed. A buyer doing is best to research searches the email and finds nothing.

Let's say that ad was kept and someone posted the pictures are stolen and the buyer is scamming.

I would rather that information was there for the buyer searching than the challenged soul who still wants to buy from the person after the warnings where posted in that very ad.

I think you're citing some justifications that, even if they ended up being the case, wouldn't outweigh the benefits of simply not leaving the ad in place. For those who do regurgitate their information, I think there are probably at least a roughly equal amount who muster just enough sense to spend a few minutes in creating a brand new email account and Google-ing up some new pics. Be that as it may, if the ads are simply soft-deleted, they'd still be there for the moderation staff to cross-reference, should the need arise. Which means that more information is ultimately still available. Are soft-deleted ads still as searchable to Mods as those that are in public view?

For those who've been banned for simple rule violations, they'd be free to re-post their ads when their ban expires, so there's no real point in differentiating between the two scenarios. For those people, maybe the hassle of having to write up new ads will be just a bit more incentive to try to stay between the lines. If a buyer is currently in negotiations with someone who's banned, it sucks that they may not get what they want if they don't have alternate contact info for the seller, but the lost sale is still more incentive for that seller to do better in the future. Only deleting ads from those who are perceived to be scammers seems to be going against the site's policy of not directly involving themselves as judges, so it appears that not differentiating between them is the best way to maintain that sense of neutrality. Potential bandwidth savings were thrown in as nothing more than an added bonus; not really worth being made into an arguing point.

I don't see that leaving the obvious scammer ads up would benefit those who are currently in the process of being bent over. If they've already sent money, despite being warned that there's real potential to be scammed, being able to still see the unheeded warning doesn't seem like it'd be of much help to them. Even if the ad's allowed to stay and there's an alternate contact method that they hadn't already used, shooting off a desperate email has a proven track record of being almost universally ineffective for convincing a scammer to suddenly sprout a conscience.

At the point where money's been sent for an animal that hasn't been received, it becomes BOI fodder, where they'd be free to post whatever relevant information that they have on the scammer - in the forum where those who are inclined to do research are most likely to seek out such information; on the BOI - where protocol dictates said information belongs. Perhaps the investigating moderator could choose to spend a few minutes to post an "INFO" thread to call attention to the situation, as their SOP. A bit more time-consuming? Sure. Worth the extra effort? I think so.

At the very root of the issue, I think it can be simplified to a "needs of the many" type of situation. Protect the masses who may end up falling prey, instead of employing questionable half-measures that aren't likely to be of any real benefit to those who already are victims.

That's all I got.

At the very root of the issue, I think it can be simplified to a "needs of the many" type of situation. Protect the masses who may end up falling prey, instead of employing questionable half-measures that aren't likely to be of any real benefit to those who already are victims.

And that's where my position differs.

The need of the many is to have the most information available not hiding information to protect the few that ignore it.

I wouldn't consider a moderator posting in the ad a half-measure. I think most people can read and comprehend.

I don't see that leaving the obvious scammer ads up would benefit those who are currently in the process of being bent over.

I do if they haven't sent the funds yet. That information then becomes extremely valuable. I didn't reach that conclusion by speculation. It is from past events here.

Be that as it may, if the ads are simply soft-deleted, they'd still be there for the moderation staff to cross-reference, should the need arise. Which means that more information is ultimately still available. Are soft-deleted ads still as searchable to Mods as those that are in public view?

Yes they are but the few of us having access is not the best use of the information, IMHO. The ability of the whole membership having greater access to content would be superior in my opinion.

I see both sides of this issue.

While Dan, has made some great points, who in the end does it actually benefit?

I believe that if the ads from obvious scammers are deleted, they will just make new accounts & post new ads, feeling that they will not be caught, as their past ads have been deleted ... no lingering proof.


Also, if someone cannot read and insists on contacting/buying something from a banned member/scammer, there is not much one can do for them. They will have to learn the hard way that, reading is important; as is following advice from mods and other members.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

At the very root of the issue, I think it can be simplified to a "needs of the many" type of situation. Protect the masses who may end up falling prey, instead of employing questionable half-measures that aren't likely to be of any real benefit to those who already are victims.

Well, I've got a bit of a different slant on this. Seriously, how much effort SHOULD we put into trying to save someone from their own poor decisions? WHY should we feel obligated to put ANY effort into that? I have people who will purposely ignore the statements that full names and locations are required at registration. I'm sure a LOT of people purposely use false names and false locations. Seriously, we cannot verify that sort of information, and do not intend to even try. So these people will post on someone's ad and a transaction will result, regardless of this missing info. I guess some people just get so giddy at seeing someone wanting to buy something from them, or someone finds something at such a great deal that their brain just ceases to function. People will send off money or animals to someone even blatantly named "Ima Scammer" without giving it a second thought. So why do we even bother to have it as a requirement? Why should we enforce such rules if many people don't seem to give a flip about them anyway? Does anyone think we really LIKE frittering away our time on this sort of stuff?

I have specifically requested my moderators to not wear judge, jury, or executioner hats here when it comes to identifying alleged scammers. Bonafide spammers, being low hanging fruit, yes, swat them at will with wild abandon. But alleged scammers, honestly, it's just not our job. If one of my mods WANTS to do such a thing, they will do so because they have a personal interest in chasing down such people. It is not an officially sanctioned task here. To have it otherwise would be inferring that everyone who IS able to advertise here is NOT a scammer simply because they ARE evidently being allowed to be here. This would be legally dangerous ground to be treading on that is best avoided. And this doesn't even address the issue of someone being officially labeled as a scammer by a staff member, and it turns out that they really are not. What then? Potential lawsuit time because of defamation of character? Who wants to be responsible for that? Moderators, a show of hands, please.

So as for the "needs of many", sorry, those "many" NEED to do their own homework when considering spending their money. "Protect the masses" from themselves? Thanks, but no thanks. It would be a thankless job to try to rubber baby buggy bumper this site, and certainly it is not anything that I have ever stated that I have volunteered to offer. There are no guarantees expressed nor implied about anyone who attempts to do any business utilizing this site in that endeavor. We may leave some tools laying around that might help people in that regard, if they choose to use them, but pick them up and use them as you see fit. There are no guarantees that those tools will do the job that YOU want them to do. That is the best we are going to offer to you.

Now, specifically about deleting ads posted by someone suspected of being a scammer, well we may or may not. I know I have, in the past, sometimes deleted all ads that were posted by someone who was banned, but it had nothing at all to do with any thought that they might or might not be a scammer. I simply did not want them using this site to advertise their animals. Black and white, not subject to any legal interpretation. Now if a moderator wants to treat ads by someone they have grown to dislike or distrust because of their BELIEF that this person might be somewhat unsavory and a detriment to society in general, and they just do not want them advertising here, then more power to them. But it's certainly not going to be an official requirement, and they are certainly not going to be obligated to undertake such a task, but they DO have the power to do this if they are so inclined. That is a PERSONAL decision that they are allowed to consider undertaking as their time and interest allows. I try to give my moderators a lot of autonomy, which is why I take great care in picking persons for the position. They certainly MAY look out for the "masses" but are in no way, shape, or form, being asked to do that officially. Their job, in a nutshell, is simply to "moderate" by enforcing rules I have put into place with that goal in mind.

Yeah, I know, not everyone is going to like my attitude about this, but heck, get in line behind everyone else who doesn't like one thing or another about something I have done or am doing here.

It would also open up the possibility of being accused of deleting other posts.