No, it's common sense in my perspective. My reasoning is as follows: If you receive an invalid/false iTrader when no transaction takes place, understandably you would be mad and think it's B.S. Obviously you'd want to get it removed, because it's no legitimate and will possibly hurt your chances in future purchases and/or sales. Leaving a retaliatory iTrader is doing the same thing they did to you. Ever since Pre-School, what have they professed an endless number of times? Just because someone else did it doesn't mean it's O.K. and that you can do it back. You're being just as bad as them, leaving an iTrader for a transaction that never took place. -When he's left a fake iTrader, you're technically in the green, and deserve it to be revoked. -When you level out the playing field by leaving another fake iTrader against the guy in retaliation, you're now out of your safe zone, and have nothing to stand on because you've already gotten your "satisfaction" of sorts. It's an endless discussion on how iTrader could be moderated. Lets not get into it right now.
For exactly the reason you posted it is NOT common sense. Common sense dictates that you do not do something because you KNOW it is the wrong thing to do. If you don't KNOW something then this is a lack of knowledge, not common sense. I use the same analogy again about not walking in front of a moving bus. Another way of thinking about this is that if you knew it was raining outside, you would put a coat on. If it was sunny when you went out then got caught in the rain, this is not through common sense, it is because you didn't know it was going to rain! My leaving negative for him was because at the time, I didn't even know there was a report option - and we can't know everything because even Shawn wasn't sure if there was a way to leave your own comments for a trade, which you can. We all learnt something in that thread. And the reason I didn't even think there was an option was because of other threads where people have been told itrader is unmoderated. Hell, that was the first reply I got from a mod! It is all well and good being sanctimonious and righteous about something when you know the answer. If you do, trying to belittle others or say that you should know something is not constructive or conducive to finding a solution. And without wishing to sound rude, these boards are for discussion, people should have a voice without another forum user saying lets not get into it. And don't get me wrong, I know my negative will not be removed, but that doesn't mean I will be quiet about it because by Shawns own admission, it is broken and can't be fixed - this is because it is nothing more than a plug-in and open to abuse due to constraints within the system. Discuss away!
It's still considered common sense to me that if you don't like what someone did to you -- don't do it back to them then expect it to be dealt with. Youre commiting the same "crime" as them by leaving it in retaliation.
I agree with bk871. It's only Common sense. If someone leaves you a negative iTrade then he/she has committed a crime (DP crime ). And if you do the same thing to him then you also commit the same.
Oh come on - look up the definition of common sense... You are using it in totally the wrong context! The "crime", as it is now being called, is in abuse of the negative system. No trade took place yet someone I had no dealing with still left me a negative. That's the abuse. Now, for those who have decided to try and jump on the bandwagon and have their say, I will spell this out in very simple terms, as that seems to be what is required. Someone left me negative - someone I hadn't dealt with. That is where the abuse happened. I left a negative for them to explain what had happened. At this time I was unaware that if I did nothing, then it could get removed. The reason I was unaware of this is because there is nowhere in the rules where it states what to do in these circumstances. This seems to be knowledge that is passed down. I had also read and had been told by others that itrader was unmoderated. This isn't true either (after being told it was the case by a mod) So, there you have it. Something I was unaware of because it is not explained anywhere was the reason the itrader was not removed. That, my friends, is not anything to do with common sense. I urge you to look that phrase it up and stop using it out of context because it shows a lack of understanding. Some of those posting on here would be as annoyed as I am about this if they were in the same situation - but they aren't so they feel a need to offer no actual argument at all and just repeat the same out-of-context phrase... Sheesh!
Put it this way then. One simple sentence, no, i'm not "threatening" you, I am just using it as an example. In our society today, if you murder someone related to me, does it justify me murdering someone related to you? Think about it, and give me a one word answer, yes or no. You'll probably say "that's a completely different scenario" but in a sense, it possesses the same idea, and it should easily get my point across.
If we are going to go to extremes, then the discussion has no further to go. And no, your point makes no sense because you know that murder is wrong. You know that there are going to be harsh penalties for that. It is NOTHING like not understanding an unwritten forum rule. If stupid comments like that are where this is going, expect no further input from me!
Haha, what a childish response. I'm not going to the extremes, it's simply being used to state: If you did something to me, does it justify me doing the same thing to you? Like this example better? If I stole $5 out of your wallet, and you did the same to me, the playing field is leveled out. Thus, no one owes either one anything. Since I stole from you and you stole from me, we are 'equal'. But if I stole $5 from you, and if you didn't steal it back, the issue would be mediated by the police and I could most probably be arrested. Compare it to the following: If a person leaves you negative iTrader falsely, and you do the same thing to them, the playing field is even. No one 'owes' anything to each other. Since they left you -iT and you did the same thing back, you are 'equal'. But if the person left you a false -iT and if you did not retaliate and do the same thing back to them, the issue would be mediated by DigitalPoint/Shawn/Whomever and the person would be infracted.
OK you are clearly here for nothing other than an argument so I shall leave you to it. I have no time to waste on those who don't know how to draw real life comparisons. As for childish responses... I wasn't the one talking about murder - go figure!
"If we are going to go to extremes, then the discussion has no further to go." I was using it as an example, calm down. I changed my example to a 'real life comparison', yet you still have no response to it. I'm not here for an argument. You only have 1 point to stand up in your favor, yet you keep coming back.
I think you have been explained things atleast 50 time by now in multiple threads but you still don't get it. On top of that you are so ungrateful then you call names and hurl insults at those trying to explain simple logic to you. If you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand a simple thing then you should see a doctor. If you do it soon enough then you might avoid getting locked up in a mental asylum.
@iNET My second example makes the most sense, and if you still cant compare apples to apples, then that's your fault. @Helvetii