I would suggest that the whole matter boils down to the fact that someone shouldn't be forced to just swallow a dishonest listing that they paid for with the understanding that they'd be getting what they asked for. Reasonable expectations on condition are one thing (a nice looking case without grime or tears; a manual with pages intact; a playable game that doesn't look like a substitute floor buffer; necessary accessories), but when one of the big ticket items is missing that you've requested, it's unfair to the honest user to just 'take it'. Little to no punishment exists to curb this behavior, and any actions to bring it to light are a positive step towards addressing the issue head on.
Left unchecked, people can just 'earn' points on games that they were unwilling to take care of by jumping over other honest traders (yes, it's not only the buyer that gets screwed, but the other DO listers that had the integrity to HONESTLY list their game), and scam the system. This is only a baby step above listing games you don't have, only to spend the InstaPoints you'll get on matchup, as essentially you're listing components you don't have. The problem is while the former situation is quickly shut down, the latter is left running amuck. Time to stop this crap in its tracks so that EVERYONE on Goozex can trade with even more confidence.
Possible solutions?
Leave negative for an incomplete game. Apparently I'm not alone on that mindset, but I'll be happy to be the face of the movement. Read to the letter, you're NOT getting the correct game, as their are multiple tiers of condition to request. Deviation from that would suggest you received....something different.
Too harsh? Keep neutral, but allow the buyer a choice to send the offensive title back, or receive a refund of some fixed amount (I think DTP himself wrote up something along those lines). While 200 points may please someone just fine when they request DO, another user expected FP for 200 points, and has not gotten everything they asked for, therefore, shouldn't be obligated to pay full price. A choice to take the loss with a small refund or just absolve yourself of the trade entirely with a cancelation would be a fine measure. Both would ensure that potential abusers would not be guarenteed full points, if any at all, ideally curbing the practice right there (lest they want to waste a bundle in shipping costs).
Other solutions the community is pretty good at coming up with. Leaving the situation alone only allows for further disappointment in the Goozex system, and abuse by less honest characters. Surely the community could come up with something to remedy this fact, though I presume that most forum regulars here are only victims of this practice, rather than users of it, so if the issue hasn't hit them personally yet, it may not be a pressing one to dwell on. Still, I'd love to see some constructive comments on moving forward with the issue if my more drastic measures are displeasing to you (the community at large).
Join the Goozex Pokerstars Club!
GreenManGaming
I honestly would agree with the negative feedback, mainly cause Full Package to me is Full Package. I don't see how thats hard to understand. I mean, sure there are a lot of people here that say "manuals don't matter" or "this site is for gamers not collectors". Well, manuals matter to me. I like seeing the artwork in it usually just as much as playing the game. Sometimes it has storyline things in it thats not part of the cutscenes or things like that. Plus I don't have internet all the time, so I can't just "look up a walkthrough" at any given time.
Gamer vs collector wise, I'm a gamer way more than I'm a collector. But I don't think thats a matter of you have to be one or the other. But there is a difference in buying something thats listed as a complete full package if its listed as such, or not. You can go to gamestop and get a game used, and it could have a manual or not. But, they don't advertise it as full package now do they? No. If goozex wants to word that differently and change the listing to where its not as misleading in terms of what you are expecting.
i just recently got a ps3 game with jus the case and disc :( , it was missing the cover page art and the manual booklet...is it correct to just give a RED bad feedback? or its neutral only?
thanks
TenTonHammer23: I honestly would agree with the negative feedback, mainly cause Full Package to me is Full Package. I don't see how thats hard to understand. I mean, sure there are a lot of people here that say "manuals don't matter" or "this site is for gamers not collectors". Well, manuals matter to me. I like seeing the artwork in it usually just as much as playing the game. Sometimes it has storyline things in it thats not part of the cutscenes or things like that. Plus I don't have internet all the time, so I can't just "look up a walkthrough" at any given time. Gamer vs collector wise, I'm a gamer way more than I'm a collector. But I don't think thats a matter of you have to be one or the other. But there is a difference in buying something thats listed as a complete full package if its listed as such, or not. You can go to gamestop and get a game used, and it could have a manual or not. But, they don't advertise it as full package now do they? No. If goozex wants to word that differently and change the listing to where its not as misleading in terms of what you are expecting.
You are correct. It's not hard to understand that Full Package means Full Package. It's also not hard to understand the way the feedback system works. Goozex has specifically set up this specific instance to be NEUTRAL feedback. No matter what you or anyone else thinks it SHOULD be, this situation calls for neutral feedback, according to the feedback guidelines. As stated earlier, not following these guidelines constitutes feedback abuse. It has nothing to do with being a gamer or collector, it's the simple fact that it's how the system is set up. If you don't like it, email Goozex, don't just do whatever you want.
Indeed. If we question the ineffective feedback, there will be many traders unable to hock their incomplete games as full, much to their detriment. Who wants to cause hurt feelings? Not I! I'll just accept half of what I asked for, lest these traders become depressed from the loss of their latest scam avenue; not to mention that depression treatment raises national medical costs! Double fail with fighting back!
We'd best stay the course and continue to allow for such dishonesty at the expense of honest Goozers. Who really wants feedback to expose and punish dishonest traders anyways? Ludicrous.
Kenny007: Indeed. If we question the ineffective feedback, there will be many traders unable to hock their incomplete games as full, much to their detriment. Who wants to cause hurt feelings? Not I! I'll just accept half of what I asked for, lest these traders become depressed from the loss of their latest scam avenue; not to mention that depression treatment raises national medical costs! Double fail with fighting back! We'd best stay the course and continue to allow for such dishonesty at the expense of honest Goozers. Who really wants feedback to expose and punish dishonest traders anyways? Ludicrous.
You seem to have trouble grasping the concept that no one is debating whether or not it's right to send less than FP when listing as FP. No it's not right and it probably deserves negative feedback. However, it currently isn't set up as negative feedback. But as wrong as it is to list as FP and send less, it's just as wrong to leave negative feedback when you're not supposed to according to the rules of the site. You keep saying the same thing over and over again about how wrong it is to list FP and send less. Yeah everyone agrees with that, but that's not the issue. The issue is that no one is really above the system so until they change the rules you should probably just follow them.
....... *sigh*
Kudos to the OP for his success nonetheless, a model for things to come.
Kenny007: ....... *sigh* Kudos to the OP for his success nonetheless, a model for things to come.
Yes OP, kudos to you for cheating the system and getting away with it! If that's a model for things to come I don't want to be a part of it. Just out of curiosity, what reason did you leave for negative OP? Let's see...
- You didn't receive an unplayable disc so you couldn't leave that one
- You didn't receive a broken disc so you couldn't leave that one
- You DID receive the game, so you couldn't leave that one
- You didn't receive the wrong GAME, so you couldn't leave that one (you may not have received FP, but you did receive the correct GAME)
- I'm assuming the disc you received wasn't pirated or illegal
Well that's all the options and I can't find one that you could leave without being dishonest. So I guess the precedent has been set.....It's not okay to lie about having the FP, but it IS okay to lie when leaving feedback as long as it suits you.
Kenny, I've been reading these boards a while now, and I seem to agree with just about everything you usually have to say, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think we both believe that offering FP and not sending is wrong, but I don't agree with breaking the rules to try and change things.
dustin25ship: Kenny007: ....... *sigh* Kudos to the OP for his success nonetheless, a model for things to come. Yes OP, kudos to you for cheating the system and getting away with it! If that's a model for things to come I don't want to be a part of it. Just out of curiosity, what reason did you leave for negative OP? Let's see... - You didn't receive an unplayable disc so you couldn't leave that one - You didn't receive a broken disc so you couldn't leave that one - You DID receive the game, so you couldn't leave that one - You didn't receive the wrong GAME, so you couldn't leave that one (you may not have received FP, but you did receive the correct GAME) - I'm assuming the disc you received wasn't pirated or illegal Well that's all the options and I can't find one that you could leave without being dishonest. So I guess the precedent has been set.....It's not okay to lie about having the FP, but it IS okay to lie when leaving feedback as long as it suits you. Kenny, I've been reading these boards a while now, and I seem to agree with just about everything you usually have to say, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think we both believe that offering FP and not sending is wrong, but I don't agree with breaking the rules to try and change things.
I've never eluded to the fact that it's the best option, but currently the only aggressive option in which to fight back. I also called for additional suggestions a few posts back if you think this sort of effort is too much, but I think its about time it become warranted, rather than continue to allow this trading abuse to happen, which holds far more weight than any form of feedback left.
And I still think, though a stretch, didn't receive the game is the most arguable negative option. It's kind of like choosing a car that could either be red, green or blue. You pay $10,000 for the blue one, but they send you green. For all you care, you didn't get the correct car. Conditions are enough to differentiate the game in my mind, and doing anything to strike back is better than nothing.
Kenny007:I've never eluded to
Kenny007:I also called for additional suggestions
Kenny007:And I still think, though a stretch, didn't receive the game is the most arguable negative option. It's kind of like choosing a car that could either be red, green or blue. You pay $10,000 for the blue one, but they send you green. For all you care, you didn't get the correct car. Conditions are enough to differentiate the game in my mind, and doing anything to strike back is better than nothing.
dtp11: Kenny007:I also called for additional suggestionsWhat was wrong with my suggestion for people to send an email to Goozex explaining their feelings and providing a link to this thread? Or maybe start a new thread with a poll! Or start a petition somehow!
I'm game for an email campaign/useless poll. Keep your eyes peeled for one coming shortly.
Kenny007:And I still think, though a stretch, didn't receive the game is the most arguable negative option. It's kind of like choosing a car that could either be red, green or blue. You pay $10,000 for the blue one, but they send you green. For all you care, you didn't get the correct car. Conditions are enough to differentiate the game in my mind, and doing anything to strike back is better than nothing.No, this would be more like you missing the spare tire or the vehicle operators manual. Same car, just missing something. Not enough missing to get $10,000 back (negative) saying it's the wrong car, is it?
Everywhere else in the goods world for retail or trade, if you don't get what you want, you're entitled to compensation; generally in the form of a return, which should be emulated here.
Kenny007:Everywhere else in the goods world for retail or trade, if you don't get what you want, you're entitled to compensation; generally in the form of a return, which should be emulated here.
Writing a review stating that the company said the manual would be with it and it wasn't, and giving them a slightly bad score with a small penalty/partial refund (i.e. 50 points) would be acceptable.
I'm all for harsh penalties in life, especially when the current penalties are too lenient. But I think taking things in gradual steps is the way to go in this case - not going full-out right away with pretty much the harshest penalty, next to a site ban! I think if the 50-point refund and the -15 feedback score turns out not to be enough, then it should be changed to a harsher penalty, like a percentage refund (rounded to the nearest 50 points) or something. For example, it could be changed to a -20 feedback score and a 15% refund for a missing manual (or whatever). So for a 700-point game, you would get 100 points back, for a 1000-point game, 150 points back, and 450-point games and under would remain at 50-point refunds. Just an idea, but anyways… my main point in all of this is that you shouldn’t take matters into your own hands by abusing the feedback system to prove a point. Nicely asking for harsher penalties is the way to go. You catch more bees with honey than vinegar.
p.s. another thought I had was maybe having the penalties get harsher for multiple offenses. For example, if you do it once, it’s a warning with a 50-point reduction and -15 feedback score. Do it again and it’s a 50-point reduction and a -20 score. Do it a third time and it’s a 50-point reduction and a -25 score and so on until say the fifth or sixth offense where it would be a temporary site ban or something like that. This all could use some tweaking probably, but you get the idea.
In the car example, I picked the color, rather than something trivial like the manual, as it's a bigger ticket item, and the manual doesn't hold the same weight for a car as it does a video game. A case and manual could make up something like 30-50% of the games worth (depends on how much you want to value the game), so it's deduction is quite a hit against its total worth. Conversely, a car's manual holds little weight against the value of the vehicle, probably less than 1% of its worth. Getting the wrong color would warrant a return.
However, I do like both the tiered refund and tiered punishment ideas...especially the tiered punishment for those users that just cant send a game out right (or at all, this could surely apply to other facets of troublesome behavior). I posted the poll already, and eluded to the point reductions in the second option, with room for elaboration. I do think that option could work though, despite my thinking it should be negative.
Kenny007:eluded
Kenny007:In the car example, I picked the color, rather than something trivial like the manual, as it's a bigger ticket item, and the manual doesn't hold the same weight for a car as it does a video game. A case and manual could make up something like 30-50% of the games worth (depends on how much you want to value the game), so it's deduction is quite a hit against its total worth. Conversely, a car's manual holds little weight against the value of the vehicle, probably less than 1% of its worth. Getting the wrong color would warrant a return.
Kenny007:However, I do like both the tiered refund and tiered punishment ideas...especially the tiered punishment for those users that just cant send a game out right (or at all, this could surely apply to other facets of troublesome behavior).