Tired of the cat and mouse game with (mostly) new unverified and unverifiable vendors, many of whom turn out to be scammers?
Would you like to see a simple tweak to avoid the worst of them?
My idea is for new unverified and unverifiable vendors to pay a security deposit as well as their rent, just as one would have to do when renting any other Real Estate – because that’s what they are doing, renting space to set up shop and sell in order to make money.
This is a bit long, but please read on ...
For context - There are many threads in the Back Lists on this forum. That’s a hell of a lot of scammers members (et al) have had to navigate and lost money to. There’s also been a spate of scammers blacklisted recently and more in the pipeline already.
The way we get new vendors right now (AFAIK) is a new vendor is proposed or proposes themselves to access the members here and sell their wares on DBG, where they stand to make a lot of money – let’s not be coy about that, those who work at it and do it right make a lot of money.
They pay DBG rent to open up shop/a thread, but they currently don’t pay a security deposit in the event they damage the place and do a runner - rip us off basically, that causes unnecessary negativity that everybody then has to endure the effects of - you can't relax with thieves among us or coming and going at will.
The trouble is usually nobody knows anything about these new unverified vendors, they could be just another scammer, and the way I’ve seen some members ‘greet’ some new vendors lately it shows how suspicious and hostile we have become, and the writing is on the wall – fix it or fail. I think there’s an easy fix, at least to keep the worst of vendors who are really scammers out.
Currently the way we verify a new untested vendor is through members receiving and reviewing (often free) samples. But this can take a lot of time and free samples don’t have the same value to verification as actual orders – anybody could buy enough to send out as samples but have no stock or intention to fill orders, and just take the money, based only on reviews of samples. Only by members making and receiving ‘actual’ orders in a mostly trouble-free fashion can a vendor be said to be verified.
I propose to eliminate the ‘samples’ phase and go straight to actual orders, or at least straight to ‘sample’ orders. There’s just one problem with that, members don’t want to risk their money on a new unverified vendor, especially when we don’t even know if they have anything to sell – we are that suspicious after so many have been scammed of so much for so long. There’s no more trust to go around.
Here’s my simple idea again, for members to avoid the worst of the vendors or scammers, and @Admin are looking into the viability of it.
New unverified and unverifiable vendors should pay a proportionate security deposit, to be used to refund any member’s losses (to that vendor) if the vendor fails to deliver the goods.
The idea is to squeeze the worse with penalty (or just the prospect of losing their deposit) and incentivize the better with reward (by putting more business their way).
Simple, it would keep the scammers out, mostly, and encourage better vendors who would be more inclined to set up shop here. Members could make orders free of the worry of loss many can’t afford and admin would have less angst to deal with. Some would-be vendors would be against it of course, some good new vendors would be put off, but I believe things would settle down nicely once the scheme got under way and word got out and we would begin to see a better class of new vendor, simply because the security deposit they pay would almost guarantee better service on their part, and members wouldn’t have to be so suspicious or even hostile towards new vendors any more.
So what do you think?
Should new unverified vendors pay a security deposit in the event they fail to deliver the goods so members can get immediately on with making ‘actual (small to begin with) orders’ and be refunded from the security deposit if the vendor fails to deliver?
You are welcome to pull the idea apart and see if it works. There may be consequences I haven't seen yet. And no doubt it could do with filling in.
What are your thoughts on this?
Would you like to see a simple tweak to avoid the worst of them?
My idea is for new unverified and unverifiable vendors to pay a security deposit as well as their rent, just as one would have to do when renting any other Real Estate – because that’s what they are doing, renting space to set up shop and sell in order to make money.
This is a bit long, but please read on ...
For context - There are many threads in the Back Lists on this forum. That’s a hell of a lot of scammers members (et al) have had to navigate and lost money to. There’s also been a spate of scammers blacklisted recently and more in the pipeline already.
The way we get new vendors right now (AFAIK) is a new vendor is proposed or proposes themselves to access the members here and sell their wares on DBG, where they stand to make a lot of money – let’s not be coy about that, those who work at it and do it right make a lot of money.
They pay DBG rent to open up shop/a thread, but they currently don’t pay a security deposit in the event they damage the place and do a runner - rip us off basically, that causes unnecessary negativity that everybody then has to endure the effects of - you can't relax with thieves among us or coming and going at will.
The trouble is usually nobody knows anything about these new unverified vendors, they could be just another scammer, and the way I’ve seen some members ‘greet’ some new vendors lately it shows how suspicious and hostile we have become, and the writing is on the wall – fix it or fail. I think there’s an easy fix, at least to keep the worst of vendors who are really scammers out.
Currently the way we verify a new untested vendor is through members receiving and reviewing (often free) samples. But this can take a lot of time and free samples don’t have the same value to verification as actual orders – anybody could buy enough to send out as samples but have no stock or intention to fill orders, and just take the money, based only on reviews of samples. Only by members making and receiving ‘actual’ orders in a mostly trouble-free fashion can a vendor be said to be verified.
I propose to eliminate the ‘samples’ phase and go straight to actual orders, or at least straight to ‘sample’ orders. There’s just one problem with that, members don’t want to risk their money on a new unverified vendor, especially when we don’t even know if they have anything to sell – we are that suspicious after so many have been scammed of so much for so long. There’s no more trust to go around.
Here’s my simple idea again, for members to avoid the worst of the vendors or scammers, and @Admin are looking into the viability of it.
New unverified and unverifiable vendors should pay a proportionate security deposit, to be used to refund any member’s losses (to that vendor) if the vendor fails to deliver the goods.
The idea is to squeeze the worse with penalty (or just the prospect of losing their deposit) and incentivize the better with reward (by putting more business their way).
Simple, it would keep the scammers out, mostly, and encourage better vendors who would be more inclined to set up shop here. Members could make orders free of the worry of loss many can’t afford and admin would have less angst to deal with. Some would-be vendors would be against it of course, some good new vendors would be put off, but I believe things would settle down nicely once the scheme got under way and word got out and we would begin to see a better class of new vendor, simply because the security deposit they pay would almost guarantee better service on their part, and members wouldn’t have to be so suspicious or even hostile towards new vendors any more.
So what do you think?
Should new unverified vendors pay a security deposit in the event they fail to deliver the goods so members can get immediately on with making ‘actual (small to begin with) orders’ and be refunded from the security deposit if the vendor fails to deliver?
You are welcome to pull the idea apart and see if it works. There may be consequences I haven't seen yet. And no doubt it could do with filling in.
What are your thoughts on this?
. It's hard taking a leap of faith in new vendors to just be conned . I know I have for over a two grand but my concern is how to set a price on security deposit cause for me I need product that cost at a minimum 2 grand but someone else can have a minimum of 200 so if it's more donors looking for what I'm looking for 10k really wouldn't cover it so maybe it could be for unverified vendors if you take the leap of faith half your money is insured that way sorta helps cover a two week basis but here i feel is another problem, how do you manage the cut off point on money being insured for said vendor? Seems like that would be hard to monitor and apply. Just my thoughts but I agree people like HighRC or RCBoss or chemcabinet have all conned me for money . The latter two did good business then screwed me months later. All I met on here .
