Silk Road forums
Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: Festivalia on May 19, 2013, 01:21 pm
-
:-X [REDACTED]
-
Then perhaps the site admin should shorten the time from an order being marked "in transit" to the time the "resolve" button becomes available. At least for US domestic orders(which most of the scams have been), 10 days is a long time... no good vendor(even with delays) gets it to me in less than 5 days. If it's taking longer than that, clearly there's an issue.
Fest
I agree, Festivalia, but it takes time to complete an investigation - accounts are suspended whilst this takes place - and the potential for a situation to arise whereby a vendor is suspended, money is returned to buyers, but then the vendor is found not to have broken any rules and it was all a result of something out of their control (postal issues etc.), leaving them with no product and no money is simply too high, and that can't be allowed to occur. The decision to suspend a vendor's account is not taken lightly and for that decision to be made it requires the strongest indications that something that violates the terms of the Seller contract is indeed occurring.
The majority of these scams - virtually all of them, in fact - would be prevented if buyers took Silk Road's advice and did not Finalise Early. This would most certainly lead to decreased investigation times, and thus the possibility of being able to release buyer funds back to them much sooner as the investigation would be completed in a much shorter time-frame.
I should point out, though, that I'm certainly not belittling the situation; it frustrates all of us when vendors scam buyers, but due-diligence and personal responsibility are needed to prevent these scams from being able to get off the ground in the first place. You're a huge asset here, helping to root out scammers, and I commend you for the time you put in to doing that, but we - as a community - cannot allow the decision to suspend a vendor account in a free-market economy to be made on a whim. If we do that, we abandon the principles of the free-market and in abandoning those principles we abandon any hope of securing personal freedom, losing it to the venomous claws of market regulation.
Libertas
-
I also think the resolve period should be shorter for domestic orders. I also think we are talking about two different things when we are talking about suspending an account and resolution. As in the calimeds case, when everyone who stayed in escrow received a message from the vendor saying he won't send the item until you finalize, there really is nothing to investigate. I understand allowing time to pass for items that may or may not be in transit, but when the vendor himself states he is not sending the item, it should not take 10 days for the buyer to ask for resolution and then more time for SR to investigate. He is basically using the system against the buyer. I am not desperate although my clients need their meds, I have other means. But for somebody who can't afford to wait that long, it's almost worth the fool's hope to finalize and pray that the item is sent.
As for suspension/termination of account, I agree that it should be a thorough process. I feel for the buyers who FE and there will always be those that do so hoping for free or faster shipping, cheaper prices, etc.. No matter how many times and how many people tell others not to FE, there are buyers who will always take the risk. It's human nature. Just my 2 cents
-
There's a difference between *allowing* vendors to ask for FE and actually *supporting / encouraging* that practice. SR allows vendors to request it, but obviously SR doesn't encourage it or support it.
-
Okay, so this brings up a good question. If SR does not support FE, why are vendors w/ 35+ transactions 'allowed' to ask for it? Seems contradictory.
I feel that this just gets put on the buyer every time with a "if you just don't FE, you won't get scammed" ...
All vendors previous to this policy being brought in were permitted to ask buyers to FE. In an attempt to fight scams, DPR decided to implement a 35+ transactions, 1 month+ vending period limit before that restriction was removed. Keep in mind that this is, first and foremost, a free-market marketplace - I would imagine DPR did not want to put such a restriction in place as it goes against free-market ideals, but did so anyway to protect buyers from unscrupulous scammers starting accounts and scamming from the get-go. Other factors that do not infringe on the free-market were also brought in, such as buyer feedback weight determining a vendor's feeback, and the vendor bond.
Secondly, it IS on the buyer. They have a choice to make whether to FE or not. Personal responsibility is required if one wishes to partake in transactions in an unregulated free market. If people lack personal responsibility, and get scammed as a result of literally giving their money away, then that is their own failing. Finalising Early is akin to approaching a complete stranger on the street and asking them for a product, giving your money to them after they promise to go around the corner and come back in a couple of minutes with the product you wanted, and actually expecting them to deliver on that promise.
It all boils down to personal responsibility - that is the crux of the matter. If people did not FE then they could not get scammed by FE'ing!
If I have an order in with a vendor who is banned 2 days later, but SR makes me wait 8 more days before I can get my order into resolution to get my money back, then you might as well be endorsing the scam. That's how it feels on the buyer end, especially when the default response is always so simply, "Don't FE, problem solved." -Correct me if I'm wrong, this is essentially what you told another user in this thread, correct?
I have explained the reason for this in one of my previous posts above:
http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=159668.msg1143856#msg1143856
I agree, Festivalia, but it takes time to complete an investigation - accounts are suspended whilst this takes place - and the potential for a situation to arise whereby a vendor is suspended, money is returned to buyers, but then the vendor is found not to have broken any rules and it was all a result of something out of their control (postal issues etc.), leaving them with no product and no money is simply too high, and that can't be allowed to occur. The decision to suspend a vendor's account is not taken lightly and for that decision to be made it requires the strongest indications that something that violates the terms of the Seller contract is indeed occurring.
And no, I have never simply stated "Don't FE, problem solved", nor anything along those lines. If a buyer complains that they have been scammed by FE'ing, I direct them to the SR Wiki Buyer's Guide and F.A.Q. sections where it tells them that it is recommended that they stay within the safety of escrow until they receive their product and are 100% satisfied with it. I also advise them never to FE for any vendor, regardless of that vendors feedback or reputation.
Imo... don't tell vendors they can ask for FE. Problem solved.
This would involve regulating the market, and we cannot abandon the principles of the free-market simply because some buyers choose not to exercise restraint, do their due diligence nor accept the fact that they have to employ a modicum of personal responsibility when it comes to Finalising an order before they receive it. The very meaning of the word 'Finalised' means that something is complete - if the deal has not been completed, then there is no reason to finalise.
Or if there were some kind of Tracking/DCN field in the Orders menu, where a vendor could input DCN/Tracking for pending/in-transit orders ahead of time, enabling the Finalization button -leaving it up to the buyer to Finalize Early in THAT circumstance, knowing 'something' is on the way. This would also likely eliminate a lot of plain old bad vendors...
A scamming vendor could simply send out an empty package (or perhaps even send a small quantity when the buyer has paid for a large quantity) and provide the DCN / Tracking number in the field provided. The buyer would then likely Finalise (the same people that FE already, but likely more as well) once they see that the vendor has provided that - obviously presuming that all is well and their product is on its way. This would actually greatly increase the amount of time that a vendor could remain scamming as they could do this whilst the empty packages are in the mail, then employ delay tactics to continue pulling off the same scam for much longer than they are able to get away with it now.
If such a feature had already been employed here and was used in the manner I have described above (as it most certainly would be by many scammers), you would be calling for its removal with even more vigour than you are calling for its inclusion.
At the end of the day, it is completely up to the buyer to decide whether they will finalise their order or not. Nobody but the person themselves can be held responsible for their own actions.
Libertas
-
I've always been concerned about the empty package. I record from when I get the package until it opened and it's contents revealed. Haven't had any problems yet, but if it were to happen I can provide video evidence to resolution. Just a thought for others.
-
First, I appreciate the detailed responses. Personally, I understand that with a free market such as the Silk Road, regulation would infringe on the very definition of the phrase. But technically, so do vendor fees, and escrow... or any protection at all. The simplest answer is that there is no simple answer in this case.
All we are trying to do is stir up some much needed conversation on this topic; the 'Silk Road as a Corporation versus Silk Road as a Free Marketplace' debate...
Not at all - the issues that you brought up are certainly something that is worth dedicating time to discussing. I'll ask DPR if he/she would mind terribly if I split this into its own topic from the following post onwards:
http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=159668.msg1143824#msg1143824
In response to the rest of your previous post:
I can see how it would be risky to release funds back to a buyer while you have a vendor under investigation if it turns out it's not a fault of the vendors; as both a buyer and vendor I know both sides of the marketplace here very well. But, again, for domestic orders with priority+postage paid, there should be no unresolved "postal issues" 7 days from the time of an order being marked in transit. Let alone 5.
Silk Road currently has this 'regulation' set as 10 days on ALL orders, domestic AND international.
So, if we're talking about International orders... we know that customs can take upwards of 3 weeks to investigate and release international mail/parcels. So, are you saying the time from an international order being marked in-transit to it being able to be taken to resolve should be extended to protect them from this very same unfortunate twist of events? Or does the Silk Road simply not support/endorse international orders?
The way the system works for international orders isn't a problem as both buyer and vendor can request an extension to the due-date. Most buyers and vendors will go with a request for an extension on an international order before requesting a refund, and if a refund is requested then the administrator will likely extend it for a number of days first given the fact that it is international. This resolves the vast majority of any issues that might be brought up resulting from the very occasional package that spends longer than a few days in customs. I'm not based in the US myself, and out of all the international orders I've made in my 18 months+ here I have never experienced a package being delayed by more than 4 days in customs. Christmas and New Year's can double or even triple that, but most people understand that a higher volume of mail at that time will cause delays.
Every answer brings a new question. You claim this is a free market but it is clearly regulated... to an extent.
Just enough to cause issues that raise questions about why -if you're going to regulate it at all, would you not truly regulate it?
Silk Road is essentially a free market, with as little done to infringe on that as possible in order to provide the protection necessary for both buyer and vendor to allow and ensure successful transactions, which in turn allow and ensure that Silk Road grows. Why introduce "true regulation" into something when the very minor infringements that are currently in place are more than sufficient to 99% of the problems that crop up? Regulation strangles markets, to the detriment of both goods & services providers and consumers.
My idea about the Tracking Label Input was to open the Finalize button, NOT to be some kind of forced-Finalization in exchange. If you think about it, any vendor who does NOT use tracking has opened themselves up to being scammed. Just like any buyer who FE's has opened themselves up to be scammed. I still think my idea is a valid, and useful one. Despite it having an undesired "regulatory" effect in a partially regulated "free market" that actually costs us money to use.
I understand that, and my response to it was that when people see that a vendor has provided a tracking number that they would most likely finalise regardless. The people that would do that are the same people that are FE'ing already, and it would likely encourage more people to do so if they are under the impression that their order is on the way. Your idea does certainly have merit, but in my opinion the potential benefits are greatly outweighed by the problems that implementing such a system would introduce.
Not taking any jabs at anyone, and I'm not one of those "DPR IS A BILLIONAIRE WTF?!" types... I'm just saying that this is something that can be done, in code, to add a safety buffer to the ordering process in general. It's worth considering. :-\
Every piece of code that is added to the site opens up a potential security vulnerability that may be exploited. Any new code that is to be introduced must be absolutely bulletproof, and I believe that that may be one of the reasons why new features to the main site (and the code that makes them possible) seem few and far between. Rest assured though that constant work is going on behind the scenes to harden the site against attack from the many adversaries that would like to see it shut down.
Libertas
EDIT: Topic split from the original thread.