Conduct on Audiogon

I have been visiting this site for around a year. During that time I have generally agreed with the decisions made by the Audiogon staff - with a few exceptions. However, their response to this thread concerns me. While I understand that Audiogon exists to make money and that that will at times put them at odds with posters in these forums, their current stance makes me wonder about the integrity of their rating system.

If Bink's statement of the sequence of events is accurate there was no misunderstanding or miscommunication. The seller agreed to his offer and later decided to sell to someone else. Giving ten minutes to reply via email is ridiculous. I am disappointed in Audiogon's response and their stance on this matter.

Clearly, the rating system is worse than meaningless, it is misleading. Yes, there can be misunderstandings with respect to classified ads. But Audiogon has a responsibility, as the host of such ads, to investigate possibilities of abuse *before* posting responses. Audiogon, I hope you are reading this.

Bink, I think that the problem was around the word IF in the offer. It was not a firm offer unless the seller agreed to certain criteria. In my opinion, this needed additional confirmation and acknowledgement to complete. The 10 minute time limit is what is unacceptable. In a reasonable exchange, there would have been one email agreeing and one more from you acknowledging. Another point to consider is that there are a lot of flakes that make "offers" and never follow through, leaving sellers stuck. So this person may have had a bad experience and is still trying to figure out where common ground is.
Like Sean said, consider yourself lucky that this is all that happened. Best of luck in future ventures.
AJ

Mac, i have to applaud your response. While i agree with you in principle, Audiogon has to draw the line somewhere as to what constitutes a "deal" or "transaction". Otherwise, i could post negative feedback about you for literally ANYTHING and it would be my word against yours. For example, if you did not cut me a "better deal" on an item that you were trying to sell, i could post that you are "uncooperative, hard to get along with, someone to avoid", etc... See what i mean ??? So long as everyone follows the basic guidelines and leaves feedback by the same agreed upon standards, everyone knows EXACTLY ( or as close as possible ) as to what took place.

Like any other "rules" or "guidelines", there are always loopholes and those that find ways to exploit them. Audiogon is working to "fill in the gaps" in terms of transactions and feedback, but it will not be an overnight thing. As always, Audiogon is ALWAYS open to good ideas and member feedback, so if you or anybody else has something positive to ad to the website, feel free to start a CONSTRUCTIVE thread on the subject or email them directly.

I have suggested previously, and still believe, that each item listed should receive an "item number". Transactional feedback could only be made with that item number used as a reference. Right now, there is REALLY no way to know who is leaving honest feedback and who is stacking the deck. With the "reference number method",the seller would have at least had to pay to post an ad in order to get an item number and there would be some way to cross-reference the feedback to the specific item that was listed. Make sense ??? Sean
>

Boy thanks for all the responses in such a short period of time. With a couple of exceptions (unfortunately including the one from Audiogon) that fact that others were equally as troubled sure makes me feel better about using this site - it's just going to take time to find the straight shooters. I think Macm nailed it, and I am pretty troubled by the Audiogon response in that it indicates a "verifiable agreement had not been reached" as either no payment had been sent or the product had not been shipped. I am no lawyer, but I have spent enough time with lawyers to be confident that an agreement can be reached (both written and verbally) prior to payment for or shipment of of the product. Under the proposed Audiogon guidelines an individual could agree to purchase something via money order, then spend the next several days looking for a better deal before sending payment. If they find a better deal take it, drop the first deal, and have no risk of bad feedback. There are obviously a multitude of scenarios that can create problems under these existing criteria. I can assure you I have a sequence of time-stamped e-mails that would constitute a "verifiable agreement" by almost any standard. I came to this site assuming the feedback system was an effective form of self-policeing (policing?). Seems like there is still some work left to turn this into a reliable system. The good news is they are focused on it. I thought I was doing the users of this site a favor by giving this guy negative feedback to alert others to be careful when dealing with him. Question now is whether under the current rules of the game I am obligated to go back to Audiogon and request that they remove this negative feedback - I think this is the case based on the Audiogon commentary above.

The problem with your "offer" Bink was that it apparently did not include your proposal for acceptable methods of payment (or if it did propose a method of payment - the Seller "countered" your proposal by specifying very limited acceptable methods to either pay pal or a money order. Accordingly, the Seller did not accept your offer - he modified it by introducing additional material terms to your proposal. Although you may have been agreed on price - you had no binding contract with the Seller unless and until you confirmed that you were willing to accept his proposed payment terms. Granted the time limit he put you under to reply seems a bit harsh - if he has an acceptable deal pending I am sure he wants to close it ASAP. I would suggest to you that in the future - you be very cetain to include ALL material terms in a proposed offer, including shipping and method of payment. I have done many deals on audiogon and payment terms are extremely important to me. I have and well continue to reject offers that have unacceptable payment terms - even if the price is OK.