+1 to that. Anyone who posts FLAKERS WILL RECEIVE NEGATIVE FEEDBACK is not worth my time or attention dealing with.

Leaving a negative trade rating for flaking is misrepresenting the person receiving the feedback. Something as serious as scamming or failing to deliver, are equal to the one same negative trade rating point as flaking. I'd much rather deal with a flaker than a scammer, negative trade rating should be for serious, crime-worthy infractions only.

It's a 180 deg change. Like I said I was told when I suggested this that sellers could leave feedback for what ever reason even if no trade/deal ever happened or was agreed on.

I'm still basing this off an old precedence set by HonestJohn back when he'd owned the forum and first enacted the rating system. If something's changed since then, I'm not aware of it. But at the time, HoJo said that unless a TRADE actually took place, then there was nothing to rate. It made sense to me.

I certainly will not go against the wishes of the admins of this site, but I do have a bit of a different opinion regarding this issue.

Here is an example:

A person is selling an item. Another member contacts him by PM and asks several questions. Eventually a price is agreed upon and the buyer says he will purchase the item for the agreed upon price. Now the buyer flakes.

Illusion's position is that there never was a transaction, so there can be no feedback on a transaction that does not exist. I see his point that hundreds or even thousands of times this happens with online buyers. My point is that a deal has taken place. The buyer committed to buy, but did not follow through with his responsibilities. To me,this warrants negative feedback.

An example where negative feedback is not appropriate is for lowballers. If I am selling an item for $100 and someone offers me $15, then I can ignore it or even tell the offerer "no". This is not a reason to apply negative feedback.

That is what I thought when I asked about it after HoJo left. I was surprised but dropped it. Just glad it's posted up now thank you.

Technically there has been no deal so far. No money has changed hands. I consider everything up until money is exchanged just offers and counter offers. But I do see your point. Its aggravating when you thing your item is going to a new home and then suddenly the seller bails on you. It helps to be pessimistic when selling sometimes :(

this is where you get into verbal or written contract law. has a payment occurred? maybe not.
but saying OK i will buy this item for that price. is a written contract, and at that point i would say a deal has been made.
I'm honestly not sure where i sit on this. i agree that some people have gotten unjust negative feedbacks, but i think once someone commits to buy a deal has been made.
this can also work both ways, if a seller agrees to sell you an item, they can not change their mind.

edit: not wanting to be argumentative, or imply the rules are wrong, just giving my opinion.

Sorry I just finished a contract law course... Technically its not a contract unless money is exchanged. Other wise anything leading up to the contract is call "puffs" or pre contractual statements. And since there is no contract technically there are no obligations on either party. How does this apply to our rep system? Well it applies because its basically your reputation on the line when you screw someone over by flaking. Unfortunately it seems our rep system is the only method of reprisal for such behavior.

How's this: what if flaker feedback is restricted ONLY to a neutral rating? It does not impact the sellers score, as a trade never took place, but it can alert other sellers to behaviour patterns.

Or for fun, get rid of the PMs and go back to when you could reply in the classifieds. Then the whole exchange would be in the clear for all to see including flakes.

Of course that would mean the self appointed moderators of good taste and fair pricing would swoop in on those threads again too.

When I buy or sell something I do hit the view all posts just to see what kind of person I've got on the line on top of the trader rating.

Ive feel that the neutral rating is actually a fair compromis, it allows people to report flakers without affecting score. Hmm maybe an ammendment to the rules could be in the works.

Still its pretty sad that our members feel its okay to act dickish to eachother. Me thinks perhaps we can make the work "flaker" highlighted in red every time it comes up on the forum.

Where's ma stuffs Illusion? I'll give you a negative feedback right now! :P

On the serious note, I concur 100%.

Feedback is left because a "deal" went good or bad, not because your upset. Stick to your guns while selling, or buying. And be firm and fair all the time. And there is nothing wrong with asking the seller questions about the product. If you don't want to politely answer the questions, then don't. I'll bet they'll buy elsewhere though.

I used to have a problem with people flaking out on deals, which is a piss off, especially if I had other interested people whom I turned down because I was waiting on someone and then are no longer interested when I contact them again.

Now my rule is, first one pays get's it. I don't hold anything for anybody unless you want to pay a non-refundable deposit. You flake out, you lose your deposit. Simple as that. Since then, have not had a problem.

I agree 100%
I think this is how it should work out...
Neutral:
-Promised to buy and ask for hold which back out or never reply back after a weeks
-Item receive with damage not mentioned or item missing (small stuff worth less than 5% of the transaction)
-Item receive with damage exceed 10% of transaction and it took over 2 weeks to have a response and a fix (not compromise)
Negative:
-Item was never shipped
-Item was missing item or damage value over 10% of transaction
-Item receive damage with value less than 10% but never reply back when condition is issued.