Quote from: Cpt. Meow on April 29, 2012, 05:51 pmanarcho, I don't know if you've read the entire thread but I assume you haven't, or else you'd refrained from leaving this this kind of snarky comment at the end. I know it probably affects only a minority of vendors here on SR - however, a very important one - since this is the major playing field for scammers. As an honest small time vendor I was just utterly surprised and confused about this new policy and with this thread I stated my experience with it: - This policy was introduced without any prior announcement to the vendors involved (is this common practice?) - When customers who placed orders asked me what was going on, I asked Vendor Support, and they lied to me saying that this was supposedly a 'glitch' in the system; to make matters worse, someone else got a similar response from SR Support. Only after several requests after a few days the change was acknowledged. SR is only capable of surviving by the professionalism, trust and integrity of it's admins and community. What happened in this - admittedly small - case sadly weakens my faith in the overall integrity of the SR project. And btw, I'm perfectly capable of incorporating an additional 3 day waiting period in my small SR business, but let me reiterate my point which you seem to have missed: - What is this 3-day waiting period intent to achieve in terms of preventing customers from being scammed by the common scammer practices? It's a start, agreed, but ultimately, it does next to nothing! (for reasons mentioned further above in this thread) Here's a suggestion from a buyers point of view (and as apparently practiced by TFM in a similar way): I don't know about the average shipping time worldwide for a parcel, but should the new finalize policy not at least be adjusted to this average time frame for all vendors <35? It would require only a small change in code to adjust the finalize period to something around 7-10 days. At least this change would make sense. I'd like to know what other experienced SR members think about this. It would be great to have an intelligent discussion, thanks CheersA proven vendor should be able to adjust his business model as he sees fit. The majority of seller scams are on accounts with less than 100 legit transactions. Forcing escrow on 100 transactions would be ideal, and auto-banning any vendor attempting to force FE before then has my full support.I've been doing this on SR for almost a year. I didn't start even offering out of escrow until after I had 100 transactions under my belt, because in my mind it was disrespectful to both the buyers and the owners of the site. You might find my comment "snarky", but the fact of the matter is I have watched buyers bleed over 100k to scammers in my time here. That directly affects me, because the good buyers eventually throw up their hands in despair and move back to the street to source. It drives loyalty down and directly takes from buyers who could be purchasing from me and feeding my family, and getting a guarantee that their package is on its way.Not to mention that every scam completely violates the NAP and takes a shit on the type of morality that allows for human progress. It's backward-ass, I-am-missing-my-balls activity, and I want to see it stomped out. If a seller is coming on here to make a career of it, they had damned well better be able to accommodate working within the escrow system or there is no place for them here.Yes, SR should be communicating changes made to the site (for the most part - we are also talking about security here, so sometimes the "surprise!" method is the only way to go), and if you have a problem with their methodology, take it up with them. Do I support the actual changes? Hell, yes. I want them more stringent. Vendors can make a fuck-pile of money on here and should have to bleed a bit and prove they have the balls to be honest businessmen before the leash comes off. Do I agree with how the changes were implemented? No, but that's also none of my business because I don't own or partner in the site, and I didn't see any disclaimer guaranteeing lead-time to any changes in policy or terms or infrastructure. That's DPR's game, and he can do what he pleases with it. If he does well by the vendors, he will be rewarded with more products being offered and more sales, if his choices are poor, people will bail. That's how markets work.