Deal #23418: Repeated Infractions by The Store Rep despite Discussions with Mods (Deal Republished See First Post)

leiiv on 20/03/2010 - 01:03
Last edited 20/03/2010 - 15:26 by 3 other users

MOD UPDATE - DEAL is now republished with any voter comment edited out - just to play safe. Mods will discuss this privately and advise affected parties if any further action needed. All comments by all have been noted and thank you. Your opinions do count. As mods we are trying to do the fair thing. BUT we may not always get it right - stay tuned. Ozpete

BTW if you are new to the thread you might want to read all the comments first before jumping it. Its complicated emotional in some cases, but many of the "issues' have some resolution and clarification by all and the mod comments below dont give all the sides for you to consider…

Original start follows

What does it mean by the "infractions"? Will the mods care to explain a bit more about it?
I just saw that page a few minutes ago, and then it suddenly gone. I can't understand why it needs to be censored though..
I am not a logitechshop or BC fanboy, but I just feel something is not right somehow.

mod - **to summarize what happened … and remember, mods are using VOLUNTEER time **

BargainCrypt has been in trouble on this site before. Scotty keeps letting BargainCrypt back, thinking that BargainCrypt will learn from his previous errors where he's tried to mislead the mods or the members of OzBargain.

BargainCrypt was NOT supposed to ask for votes. It's actually in the guidelines for shops. Do NOT ask for votes. BargainCrypt decided to flout that

Scotty decided to let it slide and reminded BargainCrypt not to ask for voting; just talk about your deals

BargainCrypt, for some reason, decided to ask again, knowing full well that would probably get him and his shop put in the bin … AGAIN

BargainCrypt (BC) then contacted Livert and told Livert that OzBargain had kicked BargainCrypt and Logitechshop off the site.

Livert then posted this thread and proceded to attack the mods and also whip up some of the members into a fury

It is regrettable that I thought I was showing some politeness or respect to the store by leaving their deal as unpublished for "repeated infractions by rep despite being asked not to"

It is regrettable that BC didn't share the full story with Livert

It is not known why BC decided to try and get kicked off, when BC is in the middle of offering a number of deals and has hinted that there may be more good deals

That said, if you want to contact BC, you should be able to reach BC at the store to find out:
- what new deals there are
- why BC wanted to try and get kicked off
- why BC risked sending Livert on a disruptive quest to cause trouble for OzBargain and it's members

But at least this time, you'll have a bit more information when you deal with BC than when people thought they'd try and deal with the mods, below.

Note: Mods are volunteers. We are looking at our OWN computers, in our own homes or surfing in NetCafes. The time we give up is in addition to time we spend with our families, friends, doing chores, going out to have some fun, hobbies, work, projects etc.

As such, we haven't had time to try and search the Logitechshop threads for sockpuppets. This has been a matter of consternation for a time.

It should be noted that I accidentally found a sockpuppet in here, trying to whip people up against the mods and to support BargainCrypt. Whether the sockpuppet voted in deals is another question. Whether there are more sockpuppets is another question again.

Anyways, now that the missing details are out, we hope people can understand that:
- BargainCrypt decided to try and get kicked off for whatever reason
- There are some serious issues to do with manipulation, going on here
- You are not being stopped from getting bargains … you can deal with BargainCrypt directly.

MOD Edit (davo): Mods first responce is here: http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/23422#comment-174365

Site Discussion

Related Stores

LogitechShop
LogitechShop

closed Comments

  • life is a little cr… on 20/03/2010 - 02:22

    sure is powerrevolution :(

  • Davo1111 on 20/03/2010 - 02:40
    +3

    ok, calm down all.

    The moderator (foundit) that unpublished has gone offline. It will all be explained in the morning. Due to dodgy internet, ive missed out on the banhammer fun, so i'm not 100% sure what the deal is. I'll let you know asap

    • Livert on 20/03/2010 - 03:19

      He did reply to me via PM immediately after the event and I referred him to this post directly. I didn't know at the time that he was the mod responsible for unpublishing the deal. The fact that he totally ignored this tonight doesn't reflect very well on him as a mod.

      As for the comments I made regarding Scotty before I would like to apologise. It would be good to know though what he thinks about the whole situation or whether my suspicions are true.

      • Davo1111 on 20/03/2010 - 04:02
        +2

        fair enough livert, i understand what you mean. I'll find out what the go is first thing tomorrow.

        on a seperate note (unrelated to your post) - i feel the moderators do their best in keeping this place as transparent as possible. I dont really think there is a huge gap between moderators and the general users of the ozb community - thats my opinion, perhaps im biased? Ive been on plenty of forums, and i feel this would have the smallest gap between mods/users….

        Anyway, if anyone disagrees and wants to point out any particular incident please let me know. http://www.ozbargain.com.au/user/14721/contact My email is there if you want a more "secure" method of contacting me, or just fill out the form. If you want it to be anonymous just let me know :)

        Sleep well all
        Davo

        • Livert on 20/03/2010 - 04:06

          Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it and look forward to continuing this tomorrow.

          I just find it ridiculous to penalise and then ban any user before allowing them to explain themselves.

        • leiiv on 20/03/2010 - 14:24

          Davo1111: "I dont really think there is a huge gap between moderators and the general users of the ozb community"

          I agree with you.

  • Davo1111 on 20/03/2010 - 02:50

    @ray_earth - “A bit of transparency from the mods would be nice.”.
    Sure, As soon as Foundit comes online, he will fill us in. As I have not been online all afternoon, I cant really comment.

    @Power_Evolution - “This is just like what Communist did….China, Vietnam, etc…”
    LOL, comeon dude. I feel this place is pretty transparent…. isn't it? when has their been a coverup…?

    • SomeGuyOnOzB on 20/03/2010 - 04:40
      +3

      • mods are putting in voluntary hours

      • I don't get my mail updated instantly

      • I wasn't ignoring anyone's mail. After I replied instantly I checked a few times for a reply before closing it.

      • I am not normally awake at this hour

      Okay, who thinks the actual deals offered are good? Heaps of people? Okay

      Did Bargaincrypt need to ask for votes? No. They were great deals.

      Was Bargaincrypt allowed to ask for votes in the first place? No
      Was Bargaincrypt reminded not to ask for votes? Yes.

      After all that, Bargaincrypt thought he would keep on asking for votes. Bargaincrypt's been in trouble before for other things. He/she knows we bin people for trying to mislead or manipulate the people.

      Why did Bargaincrypt do something he knew would get him and his store probably banned? Why did he try to deny you, more in this series of bargains

      Note: It's not Bargaincrypt's first set of offenses. That's probably one thing that isn't as visible as some of you might like.

      Note: Other sellers have come to the mods and asked if they could do things in the grey area or against the guidelines and we've talked with them before they tried something.

  • SomeGuyOnOzB on 20/03/2010 - 05:16

    If you want sellers to ask for votes and that to be okay, you could start up a thread.

    Imagine commercials might appear in emails, newsletters or magazines asking people to vote on their deal to get the next big great deal. Only, it turns out that many of them don't offer great deals. Soon you have a site full of things voted on … maybe from audiences from one tv show or another, and magazines … then it'd be full of highly voted posts that you consider aren't deals. 1 cent off soap (but the next deal will be great) $10 off $1400 graphics software (but you should see the deal we have coming up for you …)

    That is the floodgate that you open if you allow sellers to ask for voting.

    So, what do you want?

    You want Bargaincrypt to offer great deals here.

    Bargaincrypt could offer great deals here (before he/she got himself/herself kicked off … again).

    Why can't Bargaincrypt offer the great deals without asking for 200 votes to get the next deal?

    If he/she has a great deal, he/she could offer it and with the following he already garnered, get a good vote, that reflects how much you guys like the actual offer (not how much you want him/her to offer a great deal). If it's a great deal from him/her, it should get a great vote and excellent visibility.

    When the next deal comes out, vote on that and then you can see how good the deals are before you even visit to vote.

    I still don't know why Bargaincrypt decided to see if he would get himself and the store kicked off OzBargain again …

    Note: since I stayed up writing this, I might not be back in a few days but the other mods can pick it up.

    It is bugging me, why did he get himself kicked off.

    He's done stuff before and knew we kicked him off. We even asked him not to do it again and he didn't have to. He was up to 43 votes so he would get front page exposure. He's gotten an all time record, even if it doesn't really reflect just how good the deal was. It's not like he isn't getting the business and he has a massive following … albeit interested in the deals if not how well he does.

    (Some of you commented in his deal but didn't vote positive!)

  • SomeGuyOnOzB on 20/03/2010 - 05:20

    How do you go about getting great deals from BargainCrypt?

    Well, you have the store's details :) Contact the people direct! Tell them you've supported their shop loyally. Get them to maybe offer a special newsletter or something.

    If they could offer such great deals on OzBargain, surely they can offer the deals direct to y'all :) Maybe even run some polls on their site (what do we all want next, etc)

    But your options for dealing with Bargaincrypt aren't closed :) Good luck and have fun with it

    Note: I don't endorse or the opposite for the store. That's entirely up to yourselves to take all due care that comes with Internet shopping.

  • djones145 on 20/03/2010 - 08:09

    free advertising, gotta play within the rules if ya want this!
    guy he'll have to create a whirlpool topic/fourm

    or his own forum, thats free in some place

    as for those complain to mods about BC
    u should have a quick check of the voter's in the top topic

    i had a quick run through them, quite a few created on the day or day after the deal to vote on that (and a few others on the front page)

    hard to say whether it was the rep or others who wanted to get over 300 votes so that he could offer more deals

    thats the problem
    asking for more votes
    cause sockpuppeting (i.e. making the deal better than it is!)

  • AntMan76 on 20/03/2010 - 08:40
    +1

    I can't see why any post of his that asked for votes couldn't have been unpublished. BC may have got the point eventually.

    Is there any evidence that BC asking for more votes actually resulted in more votes? Or were the votes placed on the merit of the deal? We won't ever know. (yes i know the simple act of asking is against the rules, but see my solution above)

    I think this could have been handled better.

    • djones145 on 20/03/2010 - 08:46

      prolly handled poorly but check the old mouse and headphones deal
      u'll see alot of new people voting for his deal, created on those days

    • pais on 20/03/2010 - 13:32

      From what I can gather, many have been edited.. Having said that, he's been explicitly asked to discontinue the practice and he completely ignored it. What more can really be done to handle it "better" than that??

  • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2010 - 09:08

    I think we should all just hold fire at the moment. There are a number of mods here and as foundit has mentioned we are doing this on our own time.

    Unfortunately the situation with BC and Logicshop, is that hey have pushed this site to a new level, with tactics not seen here before.

    Not all discussions about this site have been expressed here. There is the talk to the mods section, where poeple can discuss issues privately with mods, and concerns have been raised. We try to balance those.

    As mods we have been remiss in this case by not getting together and deciding on a consistent and understandable code of behaviour for postings that we can now communicate to the community. Again we are volunteers and its not always possible for us to "meet" at the same time to discuss.

    So please let us do that now. I have asked Scotty to make some calls on what we do.

    BC got over enthusiastic with calls for votes and pressure on a member to reverse a vote. We have had discussions with him on the latter issue and he has apologised for this and agreed its not to happen again. Likewise he has agreed to temper his comments back to other members.

    But the canvassing of votes is still an issue with the mods, and we haven't yet discussed this. ie . is it allowed, and so on. There is a an urgent call for us to all discuss this

    So please your opinions on this will be helpful.

    BUT lets not go down the name calling and attacking path. Lets be civil and we'll work this out to all of our benefits. Thanks

    • AntMan76 on 20/03/2010 - 09:10

      Yeah I noticed that there was mention that he was advised that it was wrong to ask for a neg to be revoked, but where was the discussion about asking for votes? Or was this done privately?

      • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2010 - 09:58

        all talk with mod posts are private - between mods and those posting in the thread

  • Mikinoz on 20/03/2010 - 09:15

    Wow i cant i take one night off the comp and i miss all this

  • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2010 - 09:58

    UPDATE - DEAL is now republished with any voter comment edited out - just to play safe. Mods will discuss this privately and advise affected parties if any further action needed. All comments by all have been noted and thank you. Your opinions do count. As mods we are trying to do the afir thing. BUT we may not always get it right - stay tuned.

  • Livert on 20/03/2010 - 10:04
    +2

    I have read everything here. I will now list my opinions on the different subjects discussed. But before that I would like to make it clear that I am not a sockpuppet as some have accused me. I repeat. These are my opinions and mine alone.

    1. The use of bargains to garner more votes for even more bargains promotes more activity from users here to generate more buzz (and sales) doesn't bother me. There are obviously many here who don't mind playing this game as it really does result with more deals being released. The proportion of votes generated this way probably isn't huge anyway. People who do not like this tactic can choose to ignore it if they want to. They can even choose to negative vote the deal if they feel this is wrong. We already know how BC feels about negative votes so this will not go unnoticed. If most of you disagree on this then fine. I'm sure BC has got the message and will not repeat this offence. By the way, I have yet to find this being listed in the rules as being wrong to begin with. Someone please lead me to it and if it doesn't exist, then it can be said that BC was following the rules all along.

    2. The punishment handed down last night was overboard. Just delete BC's post with a public warning probably would have been a better way to handle it. He was obviously excited last night and may have accidentally said what he did without considering the repercussions. Also, other users would have noted the warning and this likely would have affected their decision to give a positive vote.

    3. I agree that sockpuppeting is wrong. I'm not sure how this is being monitored (probably IP tracing?) but it should should be a simple task to create a script to immediately alarm the mods here when it happens. I have seen on plenty of occasions when this happens and a store gets banned very soon after a deal is posted. Has there been any evidence of sockpuppeting on Logitechshop deals?

    • Mikinoz on 20/03/2010 - 10:11
      +2

      Let BC fight his own battles Livert, if you didnt have something to gain why are you fighting to so hard, as stated above.

      How much logitech stuff can you actually buy ?? sooner or later you should have enough speakers, keyboards etc to keep both hands occupied.

      It as if you really want to influence the mods decision. i made the call you are a sock puppet because that was the evidence at hand, you may not be, but it doesnt bode well for you independance from logitechshop when you are anserewing for them.

      Its scotty's site , he empowers the mods (selected users) to make the call and then they discuss it, what part of that isnt fair ?

      Also sockpuppeting is a broader issue than ip tracing and is not such a simple task its more evidence based from what i have seen here.

      • Livert on 20/03/2010 - 10:31

        A few things drive me. It may be just me but I will never let someone who has been unjustly treated not go unnoticed. Not if I can help it. Heck, BC himself can't even post anything here to defend himself. Yes, the deals themselves do make me want more. I'm also after the 5500 like many others. I also enjoy watching the performance of posts I make but I play by the rules as best I can (yet at times, although rarely, get accused of spamming/sockpuppetting).

        EDIT: It's also draining to trying defend myself from personal attacks by you on other threads.

        • Mikinoz on 20/03/2010 - 13:36
          +1

          There has been no personal attacks by me , so stop whining

          Also in other posts you have mentioned with the help of ozbargain & and the community etc it has helped BC & logitech Shop, although in this post you are just arguing with the ozbargain mods , what gives with that ?

        • pais on 20/03/2010 - 13:52
          +1

          I'd venture to say it's a little unfair on the moderators to be calling this unjust. I've outlined this below, but I'll repeat it again (you've posted your opinions quite frequently in this thread, and it's hard to keep track of what I have/haven't replied to):

          There are rules. You don't break them, especially if you've specifically been singled out before and asked not to repeat said offense. It's really not hard to understand! If he had an issue with this rule, he/you/anyone can create a discussion thread and users (you/me/Mikinoz/anyone) can respond and voice their opinion to change the rule. There's nothing unjust here.

          It looks like the moderators will potentially reconsider the rule, but it's fairly hard to actually write a black/white rule around this without calling out spam from other vendors. BC's bargains have been good, yep, but if we allow him to start posting these "vote for fully sick deal x" then we're essentially saying "yep, everyone's welcome". We need a line somewhere, don't we?

    • pais on 20/03/2010 - 13:37

      To be fair:

      2 - I've seen this posted before — 'mods should go through and edit all of his posts.' Yeah, sure. but he does post an awful lot though, and moderators are merely volunteers of the site (much like every other community). You cannot expect them to spend a lot of time reversing his comments, when he's been (as outlined by foundit on numerous occasions now) explicitly asked not to do something. He continued to do it. That's the cut and dry reason for him being punished. The argument for/against "asking for votes" to garner support is obviously an issue that scotty & the mods are quite open to discuss - for the future. Everyone's giving the mods a fairly unreasonable hard time for this; for enforcing rules that have already been in place. If you don't like a rule, you don't break it, you request for it to be amended. That's the logical approach to it, no?

  • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2010 - 10:34

    Like everything here. we have to have standards. I have just spend all morning on this and another point about negative voting. One user being upset about a negative vote, which frankly i agree may not have been fair, but its in the guidelines. ie Not fundamentally wrong. And a clear understanding of why the vote was made.

    WE have rules because of past transgressions and yes Livert negative votes can express displeasure, but really is that the way we want to go? Then negative votes are used to change habits that one member doesn't like.

    One member wanted to vote down all of a vendors deal, because it was for old men. While valid under the guidelines, does it meet the true test of being fair? We'd have to have pages of "legislation" to cover commonsense. So we draw a line and have to live with that line.

    I cant (and wont) comment on another mod's view other than say its a preference for mods to discuss, before we take action. But sometimes it's not possible. Also we as mod's (I have been guilty) can get somethings wrong.

    A 3am deal taken off and restarted 6 hours latter isn't a great impact. Other than in this case BC agian takes it too personally and if he's removed deals in reaction to that its a pity.

    We have worked to keep Logictech on board I like their deals, although as Mikinoz says I can only have so many keyboards etc. But BC needs to chill as I have told him before. There is sensitivity on all sides from the past. And not just this last few weeks. So treading softly is wise. Lets not cut off nose etc.

    • Livert on 20/03/2010 - 10:44

      There has been a new deal posted on twitter but I can’t edit the post to add it. Any chance you could reverse this? I won’t change your bit on the voting issue.

  • Elephant on 20/03/2010 - 10:55
    +2

    I appreciate the effort and time that mods volunteer on all my favorite sites (ozbargain being one of them).

    It's good to get the other side of the story. Thanks foundit.

    It's just unfortunate that there were a fair few of us last night who were looking through the bargains when the plug got pulled. That dissapointment combined with it being late at night and seemingly little explanation at the time I think helped fuel the fire.

  • Livert on 20/03/2010 - 11:15
    +1

    Oh, also wanted to clarify something.

    Foundit's comments: "quote: BargainCrypt (BC) then contacted Livert and told Livert that OzBargain had kicked BargainCrypt and Logitechshop off the site.

    Livert then posted this thread and proceded to attack the mods and also whip up some of the members into a fury" end quote.

    This is untrue. leiiv started the thread and led me to it. I was only contacted by BC approximately 1 hour into the discussion. There was no instruction to "whip members into a fury". You can consider some of my comments to be attacks. They were never intended to be.

    EDIT: Alright. I'm gonna lay low for a while while this flies over. It is Saturday after all and I've got plans for the day. I still don't appreciate though, being accused of things that are untrue. Especially being accused of sockpuppeting in the title of my own post.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2010 - 11:35
      +1

      I think Foundit in the heat of the night misread leiiv as livert, but thats only supposition

  • moo on 20/03/2010 - 12:55
    +1

    A deal posted directly by a rep actually would indirectly influence/control the balance of the site. Basically BC knows that by offering these prices (which he has control over), votes and community could be manipulated, especially if all the deals are published collectively within a certain timing.

    Livert, you may not realise it, but if you look through all your comments, you come across as a very strong supporter for BC and it seems you would do anything to 'support' his ways (whether it is right or wrong). He has indirectly manipulated you by posting deals in his comments (eg. baiting) and you took the bait to get some glory (eg. being top user). If he would have consolidated his deals and posted it all himself (whilst not asking for Votes!), things may not have gotten so out of hand.

    Also do a search on the word 'accounting', it will show that some of the posts have shown that posting the 'top' deal will get the poster the Quicken package. Now lets compare 2 different scenarios:

    1. User finds a deal (outside of OzBargain), thinks it is a good deal and hence posted it on OzBargain to share with other OzBargainers.

                           VS

    2. Rep posts deals in his comments, reader goes "Ah, good deal, I'm going to start a new post!"

    Which one is more deserving of the prize? (noting that both deals are good deals in its own right)

  • Livert on 20/03/2010 - 13:18

    Some good points there. Moo, you can have the Quicken package or any other prizes any of my future posts may earn. I'm not interested in them and that's not the reason I choose to publish deals. The reason I do it is already explained in my reply to Mikinoz above.

    I am a strong supporter of BC as he has been having a hard time with all these limitations placed on him. Most of which are for no good reason IMO. Put too many restrictions on the guy and we will stop providing the great deals from Logitechshop. That's not to say that I agree with him on all the issues. An example: As I have mentioned before, I did not think it was good form of him to do what he did to get Mikinoz's -ve vote reversed on a previous deal (whether that vote was justified is a different matter).

    Comparing the 2 different scenarios you illustrated, why even compare how a deal makes it to the front page? If it does, it's a good deal and whoever posts it (however they choose to source their information) deserves the prize.

    • moo on 20/03/2010 - 13:24

      he has been having a hard time with all these limitations placed on him. Most of which are for no good reason IMO.

      These 'limitations' are site rules. OzBargain is a free service for sites to promote their deals, but ultimately the deals are reflected on the price within their shopping cart. How can a free service be a limitation, given that it is just another avenue to advertise the specials? I think you are taking this site for granted and somehow thinks that the site should be structured to revolve around BC.

    • moo on 20/03/2010 - 13:34

      Some good points there. Moo, you can have the Quicken package or any other prizes any of my future posts may earn. I’m not interested in them and that’s not the reason I choose to publish deals. The reason I do it is already explained in my reply to Mikinoz above.

      I think you are completely missing the point, still being clouded by the whole issue. The point I am trying to get at, is the competitiveness of the deals. I am sure you will agree that you have been spoon fed the deals by BC (you even admitted that you have gotten it from his comments). Comparing it with a deal where someone has found deal elsewhere and hence would like to share it with the community, the first one is sorta like 'double dipping' and twice the glory for BC (due to extra exposure). Which one is more deserving of the 'prize'?

      Look I don't doubt your intentions, I am sure you are doing it for a good cause, but try to be objective and see where I'm coming from.

    • pais on 20/03/2010 - 13:44

      I am a strong supporter of BC as he has been having a hard time with all these limitations placed on him

      These limitations are not placed on him; they're placed on sellers. The idea being that this is to stop OzBargain from become OzFreeAdvertisement. I'm also not really sure what you mean by these "limitations" — is it asking for votes? I mean, really, if you're having a hard time not asking for votes… Then there's something wrong. It's quite easy not to ask for votes. I'd like to hear more about these limitations that you think are being unfairly imposed.

  • life is a little cr… on 20/03/2010 - 13:30
    +1

    The fact is BC is a Salesman selling his products. He has provided amazing deals to the ozbargain community.

    As a salesman it is second nature for them to encourage people to become active in the sales process. I personally dont see anything wrong with him encouring people to vote, as everyone is an individual and will choose to vote if they want to. We have seen on ozbargain before many people dont vote on good deals as the amount of click thrus havent been reflected in the votes.

    AS BC has advised when a vote reaches x amount he will release a new deal, to me this a normal sales tatic and does create an atmosphere, it makes ozbargain very interactive. I have actually enjoyed the interactiveness of BC deals and it shows that he really is trying to listen to what his customers want. Maybe this behaviour has crossed the line but I dont see many of the users complaining, I see them begging for more bargains.

    I hope that the mods and BC can come to some common ground and it wont affect the fun of the deals.

    • pais on 20/03/2010 - 13:46

      I hope that the mods and BC can come to some common ground and it wont affect the fun of the deals.

      From what I gather, this is exactly what the staff are trying to establish. A few ground rules, without being too imposing.

      Many of the opinions here border on attack - at a moderator enforcing pre-established rules, no less. The staff here are actually remarkably transparent and open to change, as opposed to most other communities I visit.

      :)

      • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2010 - 14:45

        we have common ground now, you're spot on there.

  • andy19363 on 20/03/2010 - 13:46
    +2

    I can't for the life of me even see the reason for this thread…..forums are not a democracy. Mods and admins make and act on decisions….99% of the time they are good ones. They don't need to justify those decisions….especially in 'public'. If people don't like those decisions, they can vote with their feet - no one is forced to be here. Listening to whinings of "yeah but whyyy?" reminds me of my kids.
    This current pattern of offering deals if certain criteria are met, also reminds me of the playground "Do you want a lolly?……say please……. say pretty please….then you can have it", etc etc.
    If you can do a deal….do it! If you can't….don't.
    These tactics might be fine for the gullibles who believe their inane comments are driving pricing policy, but I suspect many of us just want to cut to the chase…."what's the deal?"….."great price, I'll buy one" = win win….customer happy, business happy.
    Retailers should be bowing and kissing the feet of each mod and admin in here……a ready stock of customers, (many of whom live and breathe the term 'impulse buy'), for free! Where else could that happen? Retailers wishing to get up close and personal with their customers should set up a facebook page…..

    • leiiv on 20/03/2010 - 14:43

      I feel pity for your kids with such an autocracy attitude. It's true that forums are not democracy, but it is also civilised to have a discussion and explanation to understand each other more.

      • andy19363 on 20/03/2010 - 15:15

        I feel pity for your kids with such an autocracy attitude.

        it's called setting and maintaining boundaries, done with discussion, negotiation and love.
        Lots of threads in here discussing how the site runs and what 'boundaries' are developed and agreed to.
        This thread and others are personalised and relate to someone breaking those boundaries…despite agreeing to comply with those boundaries when signing up. As I'm sure you are aware, the key to good parenting is consistency…if a rule is broken, then a consequence is applied….bleating "whhyyyy" should not affect that consequence, or every rule/consequence will appear negotiable.
        It may be that tomorrow, the rule might be examined again, and re-negotiated, but not at the time of applying a consequence

  • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2010 - 14:43
    +1

    all above have good points. The "boss" has looked at the deal and Scotty is ok with it. There have been errors made on all sides - calling out wrong people, and not fully considering everyones comments. Also the site rules are not all that clear on some of the points raised, so we have to make it clearer.

    Mods have made mistakes - and I'm one of them.

    I have relearnt the old adage, that not everyone is out to screw things up, they can make mistakes. The benefit of the doubt is a good policy. Its also hard for us to forgive some of the past behaviours when they look like appearing again. Again a mistake to do this.

    Everyone here can have an opinion and its healthy. If we shut those down we will pay the price. And that's on both sides.

    The post is back up and we'll define the rules better so everyone can understand them - until the next misunderstanding LOL

  • leiiv on 20/03/2010 - 15:03
    +1

    Correction to mod update above:
    "Livert then posted this thread and proceded to attack the mods and also whip up some of the members into a fury"

    I am the one that post this thread, not Livert. I am not Livert nor have any connection with him or BC. I am in the middle of viewing that page, and then it's suddenly gone with very little explanation, while I feel that there wan nothing wrong with that deal. So I decided to ask in this forum for some more explanation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    I feel like being accused attacking the mods and manipulate some members, which is very disappointing.

    I also don't buy the argument that one or two person can manipulate some members of this community to go up against the mods. Its just like defence statement to make one appear righteous, while what happen actually is just a different perspective or point of view between us. In the end, we can use quantitative measurement to decide whether to vote up or against a deal, just check the price compared to other competitors!

    I personally don't support the tactic used by BC that promise more deals if more people give vote. It should be the other way around: give us your deals, and the votes will flow out based on that deal. But what I think is that instead of banning BC, we should educate the members(ourselves) instead.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2010 - 15:13
      +1

      leiiv As I mentioned to Livert, I think foundit misread the name. Also a lot of water has passed under the bridge and there's a lot to learn from this - we all need to relax move on and realise mistakes have been made at all turns - no that's not to justify them. And I don't think everyone is going to read all the points raised by everyone, so its probably too late to get everything "correct". And already people are jumping in at the top and adding comments without seeing the end results here.

      And BC or the Logitechshop isn't banned. And BC has been very wise and kept quiet and we have resolved the issue to some extent. That's to his credit

      I personally think this thread should be locked and a new one started if there are some outstanding issues, but it's your thread so I wont do that unless you agree. I did soem changes at the top to put your original points before foundit's comments as that makes more sense to see what your raised first. cheers

      • Livert on 20/03/2010 - 15:19

        Yeah. I'm gonna end it in this thread with this post. Extremely tiring. Looking forward to the new guidelines.

      • leiiv on 21/03/2010 - 10:38

        I agree to close the thread. Thank you for all the mods for the time to answer my question.

  • cacbm on 20/03/2010 - 16:25
    +2

    I know it's pretty much got nothing to do with the situation that occurred but I think it'll be easier if BC just poses his deals instead of having Livert relaying his messages/deals.

    I appreciate what Livert has done and I understand that he doesn't do it for any ulterior reasons (eg. Quicken program). However, I still fail to see why there needs to be another person relaying BC's messages/deals and updates link etc.

    Now I know how BC was briefly banned last night but that's besides the point, plus I understand that the ban has been lifted.

    • kelea on 20/03/2010 - 17:57
      +1

      Agree with you mate - I don't see why BC can't post the bargains himself as a rep. In fact, the upside is that any updates to links etc will be done faster as BC will be doing it him/herself.

      • Graphire on 21/03/2010 - 08:22

        im pretty sure the reason why livert does it is because BC has his hands full communicating with his bosses, getting the deals approved, letting the website guys know to put up the new deals, and going back to help out with the packing himself.

        It also sounds like he's on his blackberry while on the job, not particularly the fastest way to get the deals out to people hungry for logitech gear :P having someone else looking for the new links and updating them takes a load off BC i'm sure, and sounds like he appreciates the help

        • whichtyler on 21/03/2010 - 19:50

          If you read the posting guidelines there is a rule which states that reps can only post 2 deals per week, mainly to stop the site from being flooded.

  • leiiv on 21/03/2010 - 10:40

    Ok, case is closed guys. Is there anyway for the thread starter to close the thread?

  • scotty on 21/03/2010 - 21:15
    +3

    Thread closed.

    • Unpublished deals have now been republished.
    • LogitechShop/bargaincrypt are welcomed to post at OzBargain, but Store Rep rules should apply, and
      • Store reps should not ask for votes
      • Store reps should not ask other users to post deals on their behalf
    • I (scotty) have communicated with bargaincrypt on his conduct at OzBargain.
    • Please do not abuse the moderators. They are helping the community as volunteers. They have their own lives, jobs and families to take care of.

    Thanks.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join