Donation reversal

[onriver]

not at all - I naively hope there should be a way of differentiating between the majority of the forum members who do give a damn and those, whether commercial or not, who don't care long term about the nucs they are passing on. If this forum can provide a gatekeeping role for sellers then that can only be useful for all of us

 

[region2]

It's a For Sale section FFS - who cares who is doing the selling be it a small beekeeper covering his/her costs or someone doing it as a business. If they start selling from the discussion area then that will need moderating but otherwise they are covered by the laws of the land which protect both buyer and seller. Take the money and consider the For Sale section as a 'value-added' for the Forum that attracts the users over the other forums...

R2

 

[oliver90owner]

It's a For Sale section FFS

I happen to access the forum via the 'new posts'.

A few, I can ignore. If there are multiples (and there would be - see epay for the evidence of that) it is just not acceptable for an 'advert-free' forum. The unacceptance has already been provided on a previous poll - so we don't need to go there again.

This is simply a case of a commercial seller trying it on, knowing, full well, the rules. A blatant attempt to subvert the forum and achieve an unwanted situation regarding sales and advertising. The warnings have been given previously and if this one is simply 'swept under the carpet' there will be more and more of a similar ilk. Time for a stand and to set an example. None better than a typical obvious stirrer who is trying to get their way at the expense of the forum rules and previous decisions on this.

 

[dpearce4]

This is simply a case of a commercial seller trying it on, knowing, full well, the rules. A blatant attempt to subvert the forum and achieve an unwanted situation regarding sales and advertising. The warnings have been given previously and if this one is simply 'swept under the carpet' there will be more and more of a similar ilk. Time for a stand and to set an example. None better than a typical obvious stirrer who is trying to get their way at the expense of the forum rules and previous decisions on this.

Problem with this is would taking a stand and setting an example be a good defence in court. we all know you have to pay a fee for the forsale section and as he/she hasnt been allowed to post then that fee must be returned. it is not a donation we all know that.

im sure the court costs would be so much more than the £15 if he/she decided to take it that far and win (and due to this thread a president has been set about it being a fee). Admin would end up well out of pocket on this one.

I think its time to close the poll and thread and just return the money and make the decision about commercial posts some other way that will hopefully met in the middle ground.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

I think its time to close the poll and thread and just return the money and make the decision about commercial posts some other way that will hopefully met in the middle ground.

We've made the decision in a previous thread no commercial advertising - but someone just keeps on trying to resurrect the argument - pay him back ban him and let's move on - getting cheesed off now

 

[oliver90owner]

we all know you have to pay a fee for the forsale section

A fee may be returnable, a donation is not. Subtle difference. Donations can be made by any individual - sellers or not. This type of argument simply clouds the underlying issue - they knew what they were doing and went ahead with their attempt to subvert the forum rules - premeditated, I would not wonder; they should expect to accept the consequences of their actions.

After all, the final decision of exclusion from the site rests with Admin. We do not need it to be called a 'ban'. Summary removal, or a permanent suspension of posting 'permission' would do nicely. Different way to go, same result (a bit like beekeeping, eh?)

RAB

 

[mbc]

I (and many others I'm sure) could gain a reasonable amount of custom by dropping seemingly innocuous posts about nuc availability etc., I(we) dont on principle as the forum runs truer without such nonsense.
If people step out of line I think Admin is doing us all a favour by slapping a wrist here or there.

 

[nonstandard]

I don't think we need to ban them, after all as a 'commercial' they should have a wealth of experience that they can pass on.

It would appear the the argument has now spread to social media here is a comment posted on FB and Twitter.

http://t.co/TvIRDwXy becoming a farce, moderators that are happy to trade via the forum but slamming third parties who offers bits for sale

Beekeeping Forum
beekeepingforum.co.uk

 

[newportbuzz]

hey knew what they were doing and went ahead with their attempt to subvert the forum rules - premeditated, I would not wonder; they should expect to accept the consequences of their actions.

RAB

can you prove that?

 

[oliver90owner]

Well, I read other fora and some are not just sponsored but actually originated, and run, by a supplier.

While there are clearly limits as to pushing third party products, the fora do not prevent the discussion of any particular topic.

That is similar to the case here and, further, any scurrilous accusations towards the moderators is, I believe, a pathetic attempt to undermine them and divert the issue away from this one blatant individual (and a few others who would be hot on his/her heels, if successful - followed then by an 'avalanche' or 'free for all').

I tell cold callers that if and when I need a service I might call them, but probably not, if they persistently annoy me by interrupting my time for their advertising. It would be different if I called them for a service, n'est pas?

There is no argument against any individual responding to a message on the forum (maybe a plea for equipment or livestock) by PM. It is unstoppable (a different ISP and join as a 'silent' member gives access to the membership for PMs by even banned ISPs) but it does prevent the potential ever-invading sell, sell, sell, advertising appearing on the message boards.

It also means they have to be reading the forum - which may not be the case for the simple advertisers, so another subtle and quite effective way of keeping out the spam merchants.

 

[oliver90owner]

can you prove that?

I don't need to - just make a complete, instead of a selective, quote, thank you very much.

Get real. A member since 2008. Rules are clear. A commercial enterprise.

As I said: quote 'I would not wonder' Please read, and understand it all, before jumping in.

 

[Polyanwood]

I think I want to change my vote....from time we agreed no commercial influence or transactions to be allowed on the the forum. He knew full well. I think the talk of legal action against the forum is completely spurious. I want to say ban him and keep his money now.

 

[nonstandard]

I think any counter claims against the forum moderators are totally unfounded.

I contacted one of them via a PM earlier in the season and am still awaiting a reply so they can hardly be accused of pushing their wares through the forum can they.

 

[VEG]

Maybe the easiest way is to stop all sales on the forum altogether. Can it be proved either way for instance I could well be a commercial seller I may have 100's of hives but only list 8, I may be selling all manner of stuff by pm and not making any so called "donation" in money terms to the forum.
The way I see it is the forum is half way there anyway as it has the beekeeping directory, why not let people place their ads in there for a fee, this will keep it off the forum and will help to fund the forum, with no ads on the actual forum.

 

[Black Comb]

There are no claims against the forum moderators. However, HM is oft mentioned on here (by members) as supplying v good hives or queens or nucs. Surely this is against the spirit of "no commercialism and no advertising"? It is not a scurrilous attempt to divert the discussion away from the main issue. It is relevant to this discussion, and seems to confirm my suspicions of a degree of hypocrisy in the moderation. Another example was the banning of links to Dave Cushman's site just because RP took it over (thankfully now rescinded).

Also, as I said earlier, the poll is skewed - no fifth option - i.e. keep his money and let him sell some nucs. After all an obligatory donation is not a donation at all, it is a fee. I have no idea who this "commercial" (sorry to use such a terrible word on this forum) member is. I did not see the thread and do not look at nucs for sale so I have no axe to grind.

I am a member of another "hobbyist" forum which allows advertising via it's classified section, allows links, has more members than on here and copes with 2 moderators. It's also far more polite than this forum but that's for another day.

 

[fox403]

Got a feeling admin wishes never stuck the tread up lol

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk 2

 

[nelletap]

The donation is just that and therefore there is no obligation to return it. However, not doing so could generate more than £15 worth of nuisance / bad press as it were.

I am sure there will be loads of examples (if we knew of them) of someone who donates and then has a problem - eg losing job, having car stolen and it is galling that those people do not try and claim back their money as they will stand by the fact that when given it was a donation. They deserve their money back more than this person so does handing it back create a precedent? It is one of those situations where there is no really satisfactory outcome.
Tricia

 

[BeeJayBee]

In other places, if you have to pay something in order to access a service, it's called a fee. You can only advertise things for sale on this site if you "make a donation", it isn't voluntary, it's compulsory.

Your right.

I think we need to change the wording from "donation" to "fee" for sellers placing adverts.

That's the easy bit

Trouble is the time it takes up to moderate commercial sellers.

But aren't administration costs the reason for the fee?

A couple of years back we had one commercial seller with over 500 links on the forum.

It's very cheap to get a few Indian kids to make forum accounts and post good feedback as buyers from a company,they can use a proxy to register accounts from around the world,the only way to stop it is with hours and hours of moderation.

And how do we draw a line ?
Should we take money from one company while not letting others advertise,do we take money from Bayer ect for hive products ?

No thanks...

With respect, I think this is moving the goalposts, and changing nature of the discussion.

You originally asked about one particular seller who gave some money so they could advertise something they wanted to sell. Their advert was withdrawn, so they asked for a refund. In that instance I think it's unreasonable, and possibly against a gentleman's agreement, or an understood 'contract', for the money to be retained.

Others have a different opinion of what you should do, and in the end the decision is yours to make, and only yours.

If you are going to keep the 'for sale/wanted' forum section then you, and probably Hivemaker (as Moderator), are the only ones who can work out how to deal with what you refer to as 'commercial' sellers. You need to clearly define what you mean as 'commercial' for a start, and then work out how you can separate or distinguish them from people who sell regularly sell bees or bee-related things (including services, or courses), and who maybe also have a website where they advertise their wares.

Then you have to think about people who would like to sell something once in a blue moon because it's surplus to their requirements.

Perhaps, ultimately, it might be better to charge for an entry in the directory or auction, and only allow truly casual sellers to advertise within the main body of the forum. But that won't stop people communicating via personal messaging, but worrying about that leads to nightmares and paranoia.

 

[Luminos]

It would be different if I called them for a service, n'est pas?

Pedant here
N'est-ce pas

 

[region2]

There are no claims against the forum moderators. However, HM is oft mentioned on here (by members) as supplying v good hives or queens or nucs. Surely this is against the spirit of "no commercialism and no advertising"? It is not a scurrilous attempt to divert the discussion away from the main issue. It is relevant to this discussion, and seems to confirm my suspicions of a degree of hypocrisy in the moderation. Another example was the banning of links to Dave Cushman's site just because RP took it over (thankfully now rescinded).

Also, as I said earlier, the poll is skewed - no fifth option - i.e. keep his money and let him sell some nucs. After all an obligatory donation is not a donation at all, it is a fee. I have no idea who this "commercial" (sorry to use such a terrible word on this forum) member is. I did not see the thread and do not look at nucs for sale so I have no axe to grind.

I am a member of another "hobbyist" forum which allows advertising via it's classified section, allows links, has more members than on here and copes with 2 moderators. It's also far more polite than this forum but that's for another day.

Hear hear.

R2
ps. Bought Roger Patterson's book the other day - not bad!