From: Kim Andrews on
Spacker wrote:
> Kim Andrews <bykimbo(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Spacker wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, the neg is back on the seller's account again, minus the comment.
>>> It looks to me like the star ratings he leaves for those listings
>>> aren't removed either.
>> Outrageous.
>>
>>
>> Kimbo xx
>
> But not unexpected.

I must admit to being surprised. It's removal was the truly amazing
thing, but once it had gone I didn't expect to see it back.

Of course, if I'd thought about it, and realised that ebay's only
motivation is protecting themselves from legal challenge, not seeing
fair play for the seller, I'd have been a lot less surprised.


Kimbo xx
--
www.bykimbo.com
From: Road_Hog on

"Kim Andrews" <bykimbo(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6cjperF3gqt99U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> I must admit to being surprised. It's removal was the truly amazing thing,
> but once it had gone I didn't expect to see it back.
>
> Of course, if I'd thought about it, and realised that ebay's only
> motivation is protecting themselves from legal challenge, not seeing fair
> play for the seller, I'd have been a lot less surprised.
>
>
> Kimbo xx
> --
> www.bykimbo.com

Yeah, this is an extract from a posting on the ps forum this week,

"I thought I'd try the defamation form out, went to a solicitor, swore the
oath, sent to ebay, by fax and hard copy, solicitor charged a fiver ( about
the same as Square Trade did, except it took an hour of my time, solicitor
apalled at the new eBay system), in less than a week,case found in my
favour, comments removed, but the neg score stays (who thought that up?)."

Seems like ebay remove the words in case they can be sued at a later date,
but do not bother to change anything else, once they're in the clear as far
as court action.

Such a nice touch, we're (ebay) in the clear now, we're not worried about
the neg & low dsrs given to the seller.



From: Kim Andrews on
Road_Hog wrote:
>
> Such a nice touch, we're (ebay) in the clear now, we're not worried about
> the neg & low dsrs given to the seller.

As Spacker points out, low DSRs can increase your fees, which benefits
ebay's coffers. I'm not a great one for conspiracy theories, and am
usually very anti-black-helicopters, but this is too clear to deny, IMO.


Kimbo xx
--
www.bykimbo.com
From: Kim Andrews on
Spacker wrote:

>
> They all are if you ignore your preconceptions and look at them
> rationally. One day I will convince Rolly as well.

Oh, don't get carried away... I still think you're bonkers. But even the
hopelessly paranoid don't have to be wrong *all* of the time. ;o)


Kimbo xx
--
www.bykimbo.com
From: Peter Parry on
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:18:50 +0100, Kim Andrews <bykimbo(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Unfortunately, despite your proviso at the start (snipped for brevity)
>you lack of knowledge of the specific *is* relevant here.

I don't doubt that (hence the proviso). It doesn't affect the way
they would have reached any decision.

> Not
>merely tautilogical but clearly derranged, and any even semi-sentient
>being would realise that in this case *and in any similar situatio* that
>the buyer's complaint was not based on a realistic assessment of the
>deal (which he, in any case, prevented from going ahead). There is
>absolutely no way that leaving the score is the right thing to do, or
>has even the slightest whisper of justification.

Whether or not eBay chose to remove this and similar _ratings_ is a
commercial judgment which is most likely to be based upon the overall
cost of policing such disputes rather than dear old Spackers
imaginative ideas for generating a few cents here and there. Their
starting point appears to be that in general they don't want to get
involved in complaints of unfairness unless one of a few fairly
non-judgemental rules are broken. Their cost and liability for not
getting involved is negligible. I am not saying this is fair, merely
that it is an understandable commercial decision.

For the comments things are different. They have little choice _but_
to be involved and quite quickly as their potential liability for
failing to take immediate action is large. Their response to PC was
far more likely to have been automatic and triggered by a standing
procedure which would be set off by his independent complaint of
defamatory content than by any perception of his value as a customer.
Once he (or anyone) has complained eBay have lost the "innocent
publication" defence which is all they have. If the complaint comes
from an un-involved third party rather than one of the contestants
it's going to be taken much more seriously as it is proof
"publication" (that at least one person other than the defamer and
defamed has read the defamatory statement) has happened.