Problematic Vendors
 

Why do we allow problematic vendors back on our forum?

They come back under the guise of another "company"/name. Most of these companies are not state recognized corporations or business entity .

I don't know how many "Motorsports" companies have joined this forum in the last 3 months. It appears there is no vetting process in place.

As long as the vendor pays, everything else doesn't matter.

Any insight is welcome.

We have been talking about this behind the scenes and I could not agree more. Bad practices, bad support, shady details (easily unraveled when scratching the surface), dig deeper and and makes you want to vomit.

Something needs to be done.

I agree. But I don't think this forum would have very many supporting vendors left if we are really gong to do this right.

Money talks. It seems like money allows you to get away with a lot on this forum.

I would rather have 2-3 reliable vendors than 50 POS ones. Dunno maybe it's just me....

:iagree:

I agree 100%

What would you propose the site owner to do, to offset any lost revenew?

At this point I'm honestly not against banner ads.

+1

If they can't deal honestly with integrity then they should :gtfo2:

come on now. How bout just buy from the vendors you know are legit beforehand. That way, we keep the shady *** vendors money AND keep them relegated to the vendor forum section. More money, no banner ads. It's basically free money and containment all at the same time.

:iagree:

edit: Could require secretary of state checks to make sure they are legit companies. It's all public records and would be a 3 min. search.

The reason these type of vendors continue to plague forum(s) is because there will always be ignorant people sending them money, if not from our forum, then another.

To think they will disappear is a naive statement. Its not going to happen without enforecment of some kind of rules.

If rules are already being followed then they need to be revised.

It's an Internet forum.


Tapatalk & such etc

Thats what I'm saying, why would we want to change anything? look at it like this.
1. Vendor pays to be on forum.
2 Every intelligent user knows not to buy from them.
3. There is a special place for vendors on this forum, which essentially means there is a section basically dedicated to advertising.
4. The above means there are no banner ads.
5. Once/If bad vendors get smart and move on, another one will take their place, and the cycle of money/containment continues and the forum stays banner free.
6. Bad vendors keep the forum free for those of us that dont want to/cant pay fees. Like advertising videos before your video on youtube, they suck but they keep it free. Indeed money talks.

Look I get it, bad vendors are about the worst thing to come from the internet, but if we can keep their advertising money and then not give them any business on top of it, I see it as a win/win. Let the other forums deal with the bad vendors. All it takes is a quick google search to find if a vendor is legit or not. As an above poster said, its all public record. Just use your head and let the bad vendors waste their money here, its the easiest way to "stick it to em".

How deep...

Not when the posts and threads are erased.

Just saying...

I haven't been here as long as some of you, but I don't see a problem.

Are there any specific companies we should look out for?

Why don't we have the mods set-up a vendor rating and feedback system?

We should have that for private sellers as well.

So because you can't pay or don't want to pay to be a member, I have to suffer? Gee thanks! Look I understand where you are coming from to a point, but it's mute to me. I'm also a little offended that you want all the benefits of this forum and don't contribute.

I love the idea of a trader rating system, but it could also be abused. I think a little further research on the moderators part in vendor selection would go a long way.

Edit:AK is responsible for the vendors not any of the mods sorry frost :tiphat:

Maybe that's the point? No disrespect to all the guys that have been around longer than me, like yourself, and don't agree, but I think you're just making stuff up.

The idea to put vendors into a sandbox and keep ads out I think is brilliant. Folks just need to tap into a bit of personal responsibility before sending someone cash. Not a bad deal imo.

Jamaica got fired from UAM for stealing money and other fraudulent activity. He is back under guise of LCR.

Where is the vetting of these vendors?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Making it up? You are insulting many people on here. You are one of the many gullible on this site.

It is what it is.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

isn't it about time you let that go? were you personally involved or something?

Yes actually. Does that add any credibility?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

it does. it's alway better to talk from personal experience.

otherwise it looks petty.

What happened anyway?

Look I had good dealings with Andrew so I can not speak out of my terms.

What I can say to you is this:

We are all peers on this forum some of us like family. If you or a family member has something stolen would you just let it go? Would you ever want that person that done you wrong back in your home, or family members home? Doubt it...

W.o.W may stir the pot but he has helped many people that have been done wrong of this forum, so even if he wasn't effected I can understand his resentment and so should you.

and how would some of us new members know that?

maybe a thread about issues with vendors would be a better outlet.

Threads are made and deleted.

Never seen so much push back when trying to do right thing.

You getting a better idea.



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Haha! Your profile lists "Lawyer", which implies excellent comprehension skills. So I know you understood what I wrote.

Which makes your misalinged response pure Ad hominem.

:inoutroflpuke:

i've only read through one of them before it was deleted.

maybe we can get one of the mods to chime in. Are the mods here pretty transparant?

Look at my prior post. :eek:

Wasn't my argument or an insult.

So.....:sly:



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

I saw your posts.

Not sure who you were arguing with.

That said, my perception is that having a vendor sandbox that keeps ads out, and expecting folks to excercise personal responsibility before sending money, promotes the opposite of gullability.

It's pretty easy to do your homework and figure out who not to send your money to.

Take away all the B.S about your sandbox theory and paranoia of an ad banner (which was just an example of being at my wits end) and keep it simple. By simple I mean when there is a known issue remove it, and don't let it back.

Also ads can be put up just as quickly by not having enough paying members like yourself.

You tell me? You went to Wiki and brought up ad hominem so you assumed I was arguing with you.

So vendor burns people, gets fired and is allowed back as another vendor should be par for the course here?

How can be make informed decisions when identities are hidden or just plain made up? Some of the vendors don't register with any of their states as business or corporations. How do you expect members to make any sort of reasonable decision about a potential vendor with their money?

Glad I saw this info before this thread got deleted
Thanks for the heads up

The rating system suggested seems like a pretty good idea (preserves history). Probably cost-prohibitive.

For the two guys I somehow pissed off. Well, not intentional. I just don't agree with you. Nothing personal.

I hate you. :bowrofl:


This is how things get figured out. Civil conversation...somewhat civil.
:tiphat:

Sorry if I seemed pissed off, not at all, just frustrated. As W.O.W mentioned just trying to help and falling on deaf ears.

Haha! Touché.

:tiphat:

Haha I can laugh at that. Fired from UAM? No actual proff of that. You have something out for UAM or Mike. Stealing money? You shouldn't talk unless ou have facts.. Your a lawyer you should know that.

Yours just behind the scenes and believes what everyone types an actually don't see that while picture only what you want to believe. It really doesn't get you know we're. You don't have facts but assumptions.

Fraud? What fraud? Yes I take money and continue to be on the forum? Do you see a banned status? You talk about people vendors being banned and come back being vendors? Have your looked at other companes like ******* You should have your facts. It would really help your argument .