Adam, I respectfully disagree.

[james2002]

It happened through SEDO, not dnforum.

If we banned every member that had any issue through all the domaining sites we would have very few members.

I myself would also be banned.

-=DCG=-

Nice one.

 

[eeedc]

other member and admitted 100% he was at fault, he manned up.


-=DCG=-

I would not call it "manning up" until he either lived up to his agreement or agreed OR paid the victim agreed-on compensation.

Not that I see the decision not to ban him as unreasonable. It could have gone either way.

It does seem rather damaging to anyone trying to sell at actions and to the entire auction process to have people blow up the auction with fake bids, outbidding any real bidders.

 

[Onward]

To me, if the issue took place outside the forum, my sole reponsibility is to make sure the community is aware of it.... and they are.

-=DCG=-

You have his information and ====>>>> SEDO <<<==== advised you that you could take legal action, so do it through the courts.

-=DCG=-

Unless I am missing something - This is only 1 piece of it. A non paying sedo bidder is something that happens everyday - if this was the only thing that happened - there would be nothing else to this. IMO - the much more egregious part of it is the scam portion of it through PM on DNF - the scam portion of it did not take place on sedo - just the non paying bidder portion.

Frankly, if legal action was taken...more than just Sedo would get subpoenaed here...the DNF PM history would also be on the list.

Not that my opinion matters one way or the other, but I maintain that people do deserve second chances. One act does not sum up their entire being - so Adam's decision to not Ban this member most likely is a really good decision....but...I think "manning up" would be for the offending member to let the forum know that this was an isolated incident and pay for the auction he won. That would be manning up....maybe he has done this....we don't know because we have not heard from him.

 

[MAllie]

It happened through SEDO, not dnforum.

If we banned every member that had any issue through all the domaining sites we would have very few members.

I myself would also be banned.-=DCG=-

This post surprises me horribly. Because DNForum has thousands of members, it means that there are thousands of domainers on here who have been involved in less than worthy dealings. I can accept the idea of a few bad apples, but not so many. As someone who has recently suffered from a bad bid on Sedo (and refused out of what some see as a misplaced sense of honour to publicise the name of the member involved), I would like to think that I belong to a website whose administration will take care of its business insofar as it is able to.

The second reason for my dismay is the administrator's sounding rather proud of his having had such an issue himself. I am reminded strongly of the words of the appeal judge in the case of the Guildford Four in Britain many years ago. He said that the men could not have been unjustly convicted because to find that they had meant that the police and the whole justice system was wrong. Logic that was flawed at best and did irreparable damage to the reputation of the police and judiciary in the UK.

 

[A D]

second reason for my dismay is the administrator's sounding rather proud of his having had such an issue himself.

Hardly something I am proud of, disgusted and haunted by it for the last 9 years.

It was nothing like this situation.

I agreed to buy a name and then backed out and it still bothers me to this day.

-=DCG=-

 

[dn-101]

And since when do the Irish subscribe to the British legal system?

 

[A D]

There are bound to be deals that go bad, that's why we have a feedback system.

People should use it more.

I have had MANY respected members get negative feedback because one deal went south, should they all be banned?

-=DCG=-

 

[TheLegendaryJP]

There are bound to be deals that go bad, that's why we have a feedback system.

People should use it more.

I have had MANY respected members get negative feedback because one deal went south, should they all be banned?

-=DCG=-

I sometimes wonder if we all read the same things...

This NOT a deal gone bad, this is fraud and intentional bidding to cause harm in hopes of securing the name cheaper, plain and simple. A deal gone bad, hardly!

 

[A D]

this is fraud and intentional bidding to cause harm in hopes of securing the name cheaper

The name was bid up to $3,100 on Sedo, the winning buyer did not pay on Sedo. Sedo sent the seller the info to pursue the transaction through legal channels.

-=DCG=-

 

[MAllie]

Hardly something I am proud of, disgusted and haunted by it for the last 9 years.

It was nothing like this situation.

I agreed to buy a name and then backed out and it still bothers me to this day.

-=DCG=-

I do understand, Adam. We are all human and none of us has been mistake-free in our life. But, as you say, your error was nothing like this. So you can see that this is more serious?

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ----------

And since when do the Irish subscribe to the British legal system?

When in Britain they have to, obviously.

 

[A D]

So you can see that this is more serious?

I do agree that this was a really, weasly, shitty thing to do.

-=DCG=-

 

[TheLegendaryJP]

The name was bid up to $3,100 on Sedo, the winning buyer did not pay on Sedo. Sedo sent the seller the info to pursue the transaction through legal channels.

-=DCG=-

It kicked off at dnf though Adam.

If this person wasnt a member and joined stating he did these things would we welcome his membership. Its even worse when you consider he is a member and knows better but its clearly how he operates.

 

[Biggie]

If we banned every member that had any issue through all the domaining sites we would have very few members.


-=DCG=-

so number of members is more important than integrity of membership?

remember the recent "best domain forum poll"?

3rd place went to a forum with 300 active and got 12% of the vote

so when it comes down to volume vs integrity

i'd rather have a few mf's i can trust, than a dn gang full of scumbags, weasels, conmen, comwomen, scam artists, pyramid builders, data theives, etc.


guess since i haven't had a deal go south yet, i can't sympathize


so, if i **** any of you "intentionally" in the future, either here on dnf or someother venue....

please give me a pass, cuz i got no vaseline for your ass

 

[DN BROKER]

It happened through SEDO, not dnforum.

If we banned every member that had any issue through all the domaining sites we would have very few members.

I myself would also be banned.

-=DCG=-

LOL - Adam is right. Move on people.

 

[A D]

so number of members is more important than integrity of membership?

No, that's not how I feel.
=================================

My guess is the guy will abandon his existing account and sign up under a new username.

9.9 /10 times that's what happens when someone gets caught or banned and then there is no trail.

They signup through a proxy.

-=DCG=-

 

[stevo]

The offending member should honor his bid of $3100 and be done with it. It is a nice name and he obviously had designs for it. I would rather have him here on his current username where he can reinforce his willingness to play within the rules in the open. Pay for the auction and offer a public apology. Move on.

 

[linkdomain]

Some of you guys better be squeaky clean if you are going to try to ruin people here.

why don't you let him take some responsibility.

 

[David G]

...If we banned every member that had any issue through all the domaining sites we would have very few members. I myself would also be banned. -=DCG=-

Me too!

 

[Provider]

what you guys are talking about? what happened?

 

[jaydub]

Sent you a PM Mike