[spiral]

So I want to know if this is against the rules.

For example a seller has a deal dispute open, and then requests the dispute to be closed to start working with the buyer. Is this allowed? I've seen a seller doing this to a noobie member who didn't realize once its closed, its closed.

Cheers

[BTC]

Definitely very wrong. Not sure about whether it's specifically against the rules but certainly shady practices.

[spiral]

Definitely very wrong. Not sure about whether it's specifically against the rules but certainly shady practices.

Yeah I know, I don't think it is against the rules, but I definitely think it should be.

[BTC]

Yeah I know, I don't think it is against the rules, but I definitely think it should be.

I agree with you fully. If it's not, it should be. Although at the same time the buyer should take the time to learn the contract system before making purchases from users on the site. So I see both sides to it, I guess you could say. Like of course the seller is at fault for shady practices, but the buyer is also at fault for not understanding the contract system.

[spiral]

I agree with you fully. If it's not, it should be. Although at the same time the buyer should take the time to learn the contract system before making purchases from users on the site. So I see both sides to it, I guess you could say. Like of course the seller is at fault for shady practices, but the buyer is also at fault for not understanding the contract system.

Yeah, fault on both sides, but the seller knows the buyer will want to get it resolved and most likely will do what they want, and after that they have got what they want and suddenly no longer care.

[Charger]

That’s abusing the contract system. No different than doing a deal without a contract and then opening a contract after.

[Game]

This looks like simple abuse of the system. I think it should definitely be against the rules.

Yes, both parties should know better but some people are gullible as fuck and won’t realise until it’s too late.

[iNviZ]

That’s abusing the contract system. No different than doing a deal without a contract and then opening a contract after.

Exactly, this is going against the Contract. No different then dealing without a contract. Contract abuse.

[James Burnham]

A new member fell victim to that type of scam. He had messaged me about it hoping I could help, but all I could do was wish him good luck. It's an abuse of course.

[Cooligan]

It's extremely sketchy of the seller to do something like this, and in most cases it seems like it would result in the seller then saying "Oh well the disputed contract is now closed so unfortunately there's nothing I can do" and going by HF's contract policies once the disputed contract is in fact closed, nothing else can be done after that.

So if that's the case for you, do NOT agree to close the disputed contract until you get exactly what it is you're supposed to get.

[TCP]

The seller has no rights to blackmail the buyer like that, it's an abuse that should be bannable

[Anzee]

It's extremely sketchy of the seller to do something like this, and in most cases it seems like it would result in the seller then saying "Oh well the disputed contract is now closed so unfortunately there's nothing I can do" and going by HF's contract policies once the disputed contract is in fact closed, nothing else can be done after that.

So if that's the case for you, do NOT agree to close the disputed contract until you get exactly what it is you're supposed to get.

I disagree.

There is no rule stating that once a Contract is completed and a Deal Dispute closed that you aren't allowed to complain about a service. In fact, in Help Doc #35, Marketplace Violations, rule 13 strictly defends the rights of a Contracted member in all phases of a Contract.

13. Sales trashing - discouraging a sale without proper reason or pointing to the thread of competitor product/service; Customers (that have an Active/Completed/Disputed Contract with the vendor) posting negative reviews is not a violation and should not be reported as such. Users abusing this option will be sanctioned.

This member could discourage sales with proper reason, point to his thread, post a negative review and they will be protected from a marketplace violation.

With solid evidence of the seller demanding that a buyer engage in a Contract violation, even if the buyer agreed to those terms, a seller should still be held accountable for that violation. They're just taking advantage of the Contract system in a state of infancy. Most, if not all, Contract violations are subject to account closure.

Help Doc #35, Marketplace Violations, has two rules, with one already worded in such a way where I would consider it encompassing this particular issue already, which should be expanded to see a seller suffer an account closure for this type of activity:

3. Anyone caught in fake Contract schemes for vouches and B-Ratings will be closed.
7. Anyone refusing to use the Contracts system in a deal on HF is subject to an account closure.

This two rules could be expanded to:

3. Anyone caught in fake Contract schemes for vouches and B-Ratings or to avoid a Deal Dispute will be closed.
7. Anyone refusing to use the Contracts system in the intended manner in a deal on HF is subject to an account closure.

I hope no one falls for this type of Contract fraud. It's dishonest practice indicative of a faulty product or service.

[spiral]

I disagree.

There is no rule stating that once a Contract is completed and a Deal Dispute closed that you aren't allowed to complain about a service. In fact, in Help Doc #35, Marketplace Violations, rule 13 strictly defends the rights of a Contracted member in all phases of a Contract.

13. Sales trashing - discouraging a sale without proper reason or pointing to the thread of competitor product/service; Customers (that have an Active/Completed/Disputed Contract with the vendor) posting negative reviews is not a violation and should not be reported as such. Users abusing this option will be sanctioned.

This member could discourage sales with proper reason, point to his thread, post a negative review and they will be protected from a marketplace violation.

With solid evidence of the seller demanding that a buyer engage in a Contract violation, even if the buyer agreed to those terms, a seller should still be held accountable for that violation. They're just taking advantage of the Contract system in a state of infancy. Most, if not all, Contract violations are subject to account closure.

Help Doc #35, Marketplace Violations, has two rules, with one already worded in such a way where I would consider it encompassing this particular issue already, which should be expanded to see a seller suffer an account closure for this type of activity:

3. Anyone caught in fake Contract schemes for vouches and B-Ratings will be closed.
7. Anyone refusing to use the Contracts system in a deal on HF is subject to an account closure.

This two rules could be expanded to:

3. Anyone caught in fake Contract schemes for vouches and B-Ratings or to avoid a Deal Dispute will be closed.
7. Anyone refusing to use the Contracts system in the intended manner in a deal on HF is subject to an account closure.

I hope no one falls for this type of Contract fraud. It's dishonest practice indicative of a faulty product or service.

A negative review on a thread will get buried, a deal dispute open against a user will show on their profile.

[Anzee]

A negative review on a thread will get buried, a deal dispute open against a user will show on their profile.

I agree that an active deal dispute is stronger than a negative review but the rule doesn't specify just a negative review on a thread. It's relates to any type of post, including a community alert, which I think is fitting for this situation. I also agree that a seller should be closed for engaging in this practice.

[duck]

most of the time this ends up in scam.
if you mark it as solve, you lose all your liability or ability whatever to get in dispute again, just close the thread until resolved but don't mark it as solved.
its bad idea.