Adam, I respectfully disagree.

[TheLegendaryJP]

Adam, I seen the ruling on the King.net member and have to disagree, respectfully of course. The other thread was closed so I couldnt post this.

The issue I take is this, while ultimately the sedo deal was not a deal that fell through here, A) It started here B)The commnuity is in danger as long as he remains and C)I left namepros.com for the EXACT principal, had them close my account completely a year ago.


I do not feel comforted knowing someone who is a scum bag is allowed to remain simply because it wasn't done here, we should be more concerned not with where it happened but with where that member is allowed to continue to operate ( remember it stared here! ).

Just my opinion but for the greater good is my thinking. We wouldnt allow molesters or murderers etc to sleep over our home simply because there offense wasn't at our house. Drastic comparison I know but just making a point.

[biggedon]

i don't know what the outcome was, but....


what about copycats who may try the same thing?




when shit like that is used as a tool to undermine a sellers auction


just asking...

[Onward]

It appears to me that portions of this were perpetrated and enabled through DNF...so I do not think it is only a sedo deal (IMO). (IMO) The non-paying bidder was sedo's deal and they gave up the bidder info. The seemingly fraudulent portions (or at least underhanded portions) were done through PM here in this community. All we know is what the last OP put out and without at least hearing from the other side...well...there is only one conclusion - that a scam was attempted to be put into action using DNF.

Another thing we may not know if that may Adam or mods heard from the other side and that factored into their decision.

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

what about copycats who may try the same thing?




when shit like that is used as a tool to undermine a sellers auction


just asking...

Excellent point as well.

[Gerry]

"Just a lot of embarrassment, embarrassed to be part of group of domainers who would do this to their fellow man."
~Mother Eva, Domaindom Saint~

[linkdomain]

i'm not suprised the "king" would do this. a transaction of ours went bad here i would never deal with him again. i should have left negative feedback so other might have been protected.

i see, unfortunately i was correct in my toughts about this domainer. i think he should be banned.

[Banned: dn-101]

Folks!
Everybody!
Take it easy!
Deals tend to go bad. Very often.
But we're not trading crack or heroin here. We're trading domain names.
There is no reason to shoot anybody. Just like there is no reason to ban anybody for a deal gone bad. How'bout a negative feedback?

[Adam Dicker]

Adam, I seen the ruling on the King.net member and have to disagree, respectfully of course. The other thread was closed so I couldnt post this.

The thread was closed only because the OP asked it to be closed.
I respect everyone's opinion but in this case it is between two domainers that both happen to be members. -- and it was a sedo transaction.

Another thing we may not know if that may Adam or mods heard from the other side and that factored into their decision.

You are correct, what you didn't see was he apologized to me and the other member and admitted 100% he was at fault, he manned up.

I accept that and realize we are all humans and once in a while we all do something dumb we wish we could take back, I believe in making sure the communitity is aware of it but I also believe in second chances.
Those who have been around here a long time know that this is not new, I believe in second chances.

-=DCG=-

[nam6641]

i'm not suprised the "king" would do this. a transaction of ours went bad here i would never deal with him again. i should have left negative feedback so other might have been protected.

i see, unfortunately i was correct in my toughts about this domainer. i think he should be banned.

Seems like this isn't the first time this guy had shady dealing practices.

Folks!
Everybody!
Take it easy!
Deals tend to go bad. Very often.
But we're not trading crack or heroin here. We're trading domain names.
There is no reason to shoot anybody. Just like there is no reason to ban anybody for a deal gone bad. How'bout a negative feedback?

You need to read original thread, deal didn't 'go bad', it was an underhanded attempt to buy a domain through shill bidding so no one else could buy it, and then offering a lower payment.



The only reason he manned up was because he was caught so flatfoot there was no room for denial. It is easy to man up when you have no other options. It shouldn't be looked at as a positive for him when admitting something after the fact.


If he wanted to do the honorable thing and be a man he would have offered to pay his bid of $3,100. That is manning up. Confessing when your hand are red is not an act to be rewarded.

And now that a 2nd DNForum member came forward and said he had this member ruin a deal that they had I would hope you would reconsider since now it is not an isolated incident. Or will he be allowed to apologize every time he screws someone over and keep his stellar account here and try to scam other people?

It harms my trust in DNForum to know that DNForum won't ban scammers accounts. By not banning you are only enticing scammers to come on here because they get free passes. But I guess if it is only a scam or two every few years that is acceptable? Should be a zero tolerance policy.

And per the DNForum rules:

32. Any member found liable for click fraud or any other form of fraudulent or deceiving activity will immediately be terminated from DNForum.

Not sure how shill bidding (regardless whether it happened here or elsewhere) is not considered fraud and deceiving. And his offer of $2000 was made to me here through PM and through email, and that offer was deceiving to say the least. Rules should be updated if they are not going to be enforced.

[David G]

...I accept that and realize we are all humans and once in a while we all do something dumb we wish we could take back, I believe in making sure the communitity is aware of it but I also believe in second chances. Those who have been around here a long time know that this is not new, I believe in second chances...-=DCG=-

Unfortunately, some other forum owners are not like that, i.e. being banned at the DBR forum for one mistake seems to be a lifetime sentence from what I can tell.

[Adam Dicker]

name6641,

I won't debate this any longer with you after this post.

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

-=DCG=-

[GUA]

Disagree with the outcome. Completely ridiculous. He said sorry, so the seller $2,000 loss is now not important..? pft

[hawkeye]

Seems like this isn't the first time this guy had shady dealing practices.



You need to read original thread, deal didn't 'go bad', it was an underhanded attempt to buy a domain through shill bidding so no one else could buy it, and then offering a lower payment.



The only reason he manned up was because he was caught so flatfoot there was no room for denial. It is easy to man up when you have no other options. It shouldn't be looked at as a positive for him when admitting something after the fact.


If he wanted to do the honorable thing and be a man he would have offered to pay his bid of $3,100. That is manning up. Confessing when your hand are red is not an act to be rewarded.

And now that a 2nd DNForum member came forward and said he had this member ruin a deal that they had I would hope you would reconsider since now it is not an isolated incident. Or will he be allowed to apologize every time he screws someone over and keep his stellar account here and try to scam other people?

It harms my trust in DNForum to know that DNForum won't ban scammers accounts. By not banning you are only enticing scammers to come on here because they get free passes. But I guess if it is only a scam or two every few years that is acceptable? Should be a zero tolerance policy.

And per the DNForum rules:

32. Any member found liable for click fraud or any other form of fraudulent or deceiving activity will immediately be terminated from DNForum.

Not sure how shill bidding (regardless whether it happened here or elsewhere) is not considered fraud and deceiving. And his offer of $2000 was made to me here through PM and through email, and that offer was deceiving to say the least. Rules should be updated if they are not going to be enforced.

Word up, 100%.

And, as #32 seems to be a 'discretionary' call, perhaps it should be removed from the list.

[Adam Dicker]

Disagree with the outcome. Completely ridiculous. He said sorry, so the seller $2,000 loss is now not important..? pft

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=-

[Gerry]

It harms my trust in DNForum to know that DNForum won't ban scammers accounts.

Although DNF may have been used as a contact mechanism between you two, I think people are trying to view this at a microscopic level.

This is domaining. It is the most lucrative and unregulated business in the world. Period.

It's hard for me to imagine blaming DNF for this. Take a look at sedo - who does nothing to prevent shill bidding, non-payment, etc. Then, when the deal goes bad (even though they facilitated the sale) they simply tell you to deal with it. There is no money to be made by sedo having to enforce their own rules and prosecute the offenders.


Look at the most active threads on this forum lately - Party A f*cks over Party B.

This is domaining. This is the industry - unregulated, unenforceable, uncaring.


Hell, I was kicked off of NP for something I posted on another forum about an annoying little piece of human parasite named Jeff.


I am not taking sides here, but...the question should be: where does the enforcement begin and end for any forum?

[Adam Dicker]

the question should be: where does the enforcement begin and end for any forum?

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=-

[TheLegendaryJP]

Im sorry Adam but this statement of since it didnt ultimately happen here ( eventhough we know it started here ) is one that has holes.

You have a rightfully so banned members we caught stealing domains and peddling them on other forums, for example. We have banned members who scammed funds from people via paypal and email that the relations first started here. Why this case is different I do not see, the rules leave room for judgement calls, imo I still think it's odd all of a sudden we have such a memebr allowed to roam and do business here.

I don't even care if the op forgave him, its now public knowledge and affects us all.

[GUA]

The point is not where it took place, but what happened.

This guy is a liar and a cheat. I don't want to have to search the forum for the username of every person I deal with just to check if there is a horror story thread about them.

Yes, you want to maximize members, but you are suggesting the way to achieve that is by having crap members?

[DomainsInc]

you gotta wonder though, how many other times has this guy possibly done this before and who will he do it to next? the whole thing seemed pretty ochestrated so its doubtful it was a one time 'mistake'.

[GUA]

Can we at least have a subforum entitled "Deals with respectable people, with whom you'd actually want to deal" ?

[biggedon]

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=-

if the issue was first conspired on this forum and actively conducted on sedo and thru pm's on this forum, is your sole responsibility still to just make the community aware?

to only see it as occuring "outside" of dnf may be shortsighted, because were it not for dnf, they may never have made contact

thus, dnf becomes one of the platforms used to initiate either a successful, or failed transaction.


my points are not meant to force you to side in any way, they are just counter points to how you see it.


imo...