A twist to replies on classified ads

It was brought up that sellers should not be permitted to close their classified ads, as that prevents people from posting links on the ads to the sellers' BOI thread(s) in: http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...552284&page=24

There's been a lot of back-and-forth here over the years about whether or not to permit replies to classifieds ads, with replies being re-opened a few months ago for limited purposes. I've found those purposes useful, such as when an animal is misrepresented.

In searching through older Feedback threads I found that Fauna does not ban users for crappy/scammy/thieving business practices, but only for violating the site rules: http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=283253. Caveat emptor. I do agree the policy makes sense.

There's a nice little "BOI?" button on the bottom of every ad posted, but honestly I didn't realize it was there until almost a year after I joined the site. I'll blame my old eyes. The search function is also only on the seller's name and username, not on the business name or other names such as a woman's maiden name, so BOI threads can get missed unless you do a little digging.

My opinion: don't let sellers close their ads. The ability to post replies is useful if an animal is misrepresented, and I think it's particularly needed if there is an ongoing dispute, especially in cases like the first link I posted, where the seller was advertising and selling animals that aren't paid for yet. As a buyer I'd rather not step into that mess.

We've tried it both ways here in the past. No one was happy with whichever way was being tried at the time. So I made the decision to leave it to the discretion of the person posting the ad as to whether THEY choose to have replies or not. All things considered, this seems to be the option with the least amount of people not liking the decision.

Originally Posted by bcr229

My opinion: don't let sellers close their ads. The ability to post replies is useful if an animal is misrepresented, and I think it's particularly needed if there is an ongoing dispute, especially in cases like the first link I posted, where the seller was advertising and selling animals that aren't paid for yet. As a buyer I'd rather not step into that mess.

When I was selling, I always closed my ads...and not because I was worried about somebody posting a link to a BOI thread. I simply didn't want my ads cluttered with comments, offers, or any of the other crap that people feel inclined to post. Way back when, before the current anti-bumping programming, I would use different posts to show pictures of the various animals; and sometimes somebody would sneak in a post while I was loading the next pictures. I would generally delete the ad & start over.
I recognize the validity of your concern; but, if I wasn't able to lock my ads, I likely would have chosen to advertise elsewhere.
As Rich said, making either way the only way would only serve to upset a large portion of the advertising membership.


As far as the suggestion that people "having problems" not be allowed to advertise, that would require us to check every ad, or check every BOI thread to see if the person has ads. Even if that was simplified, it would mean that we would serve as judges to determine validity of the complaints; and have to monitor threads for outcomes...so we'd basically be trying to force people to deal with things as we see fit - often without the benefit of having the complete accurate story. Too many ways to create liability, IMO.

Originally Posted by hhmoore

As far as the suggestion that people "having problems" not be allowed to advertise, that would require us to check every ad, or check every BOI thread to see if the person has ads. Even if that was simplified, it would mean that we would serve as judges to determine validity of the complaints; and have to monitor threads for outcomes...so we'd basically be trying to force people to deal with things as we see fit - often without the benefit of having the complete accurate story. Too many ways to create liability, IMO.

I certainly wouldn't go that far. Having it done manually would be too time-consuming, and there's no easy way to automate it.

Originally Posted by hhmoore

When I was selling, I always closed my ads...and not because I was worried about somebody posting a link to a BOI thread. I simply didn't want my ads cluttered with comments, offers, or any of the other crap that people feel inclined to post.

This is why I began locking ads shortly after I began posting ads on this site. You get people cluttering your ads that do not know the difference between a Galapagos tortoise and a red ear slider and going crazy about it. How much does a meal cost? That strongly depends on the meal, but there are people who feel entitled to whatever for however much they want and want to use people's ads to express that, derailing business and simply being exceedingly rude in the process. Plus underhanded bashing by people who are loyal to competitors has occurred. Not to me in my ads, but I have observed careful casting of doubt by competitive (or perhaps anti-competitive) entities. It occurs as a suggestion. A mild mention that is meant to undermine without the validity of a genuine concern by the person putting that ball in motion. Tiresome...and ugly.

As far as the suggestion that people "having problems" not be allowed to advertise, that would require us to check every ad, or check every BOI thread to see if the person has ads. Even if that was simplified, it would mean that we would serve as judges to determine validity of the complaints; and have to monitor threads for outcomes...so we'd basically be trying to force people to deal with things as we see fit - often without the benefit of having the complete accurate story. Too many ways to create liability, IMO.

Yes. There are the liability angles and also the limits to awareness involved. Few of us are market masters of every nuance of every sub-segment of every segment in this market of fauna, associated supplies, and associated support services. The burden is immense and an error does potentially enormous harm to an honest vendor for which an evaluating party might lack enough knowledge to judge accurately.

For some of us, these things are hobbies. If you have two green anoles that pop out some eggs, you are perpetually in the red when selling those offspring. If you lost privilege to do so, it might not affect you. For others, it puts food on the table, it pays for medical care, and helps fund retirement accounts. It often, at the very least, serves to help partially offset the costs of care for the very animals in a person's collection. Damaging this has real impacts that cause suffering to people and pets alike.

It would be all too easy for people to come together and cooperate in order to orchestrate smear campaigns that act to get a "freeze" placed on a legitimate user's account via manufactured disputes. People will do it to hurt people they compete with. Trolls will do it purely for fun and levying anguish on others. The world has all kinds of people. I would hate to empower those who find joy in inflicting pain on others with enhanced means to bring harm to honest, good, and hard-working people.

The restriction on ad placement when involved in a dispute has more potential, in my mind's eye, for abuse than it does to save anybody. Even if there is a legitimate grievance involved in a dispute, sometimes continuation of business operation legitimately is important in order for a seller to be able to make a harmed buyer whole. In such an instance, cutting off an income stream might only serve to negatively impact both parties and leave less room for resolution rather than more. A cornered animal is more dangerous. A cornered person is likely to be more cutthroat. One can massage soreness to good effect, but not a bleeding wound.