+- Hack Forums (https://hackforums.net)
+-- Forum: Marketplace (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=105)
+--- Forum: Bazaar (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=450)
+---- Forum: Marketplace Discussions (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=163)
+---- Thread: [Advice Needed] Legal to make a "sellers blacklist"? (/showthread.php?tid=5635022)
Legal to make a "sellers blacklist"? - hopeforme - May 29, 2017
Hi,
I noticed that ebook scam sellers usually are multiple scammers/ sell multiple scam products.
Leaving a negative rep on them "dwc" may not be enough. Plus, selling bad ebooks is not "technically" scamming; if they don't have a DD up they won't be in the deal disputes database.
For example, Enterprise sells bustascam ebooks, which he got called out for, but apart from that he also sells other stuff. But I think once his morals are corrupted, all his products are called into question.
So is it legal on HF to make a list of people who had bad reviews, like all of those who have bad reviews from Mr Reviewer on one list, etc...
Will we be reported or repkilled by Omni or stuff like that? I know that happens.
* - SUI-3183372 - May 29, 2017
It can be considered libel/slander if you're defaming someone without proper evidence to support it. So if you want to make a list, make sure there is indisputable evidence to support your claims. Don't just add people that, in your opinion, are bad apples.
A very long time ago I used to run this list on my past account and it was eventually stickied by Omni, but that is because all claims were supported by evidence that was indisputable. If you did the same and simply based decisions off of opinion and/or tried to make your own calls/rules, then it'd likely get you into trouble.
* - Younis Khan - May 30, 2017
Yeah, I think if you were to run it the way the dude above did, and you had absolute 100% proof that the person shouldn't be trusted, then you should put them on your list. Maybe make a "graylist" instead? A list for people that you really should deal with caution, where you have some proof but not undeniable proof.