× General discussion

Be prepared, be very prepared - make sure accounts are in credit

1 week 20 hours ago #7173 by Viv Hill

Paddy Delaney wrote: If they are one in a million we can deal with that ...should it arise ...even if we have to buy the 20% back from whoever purchased (whatever the price) ...but as it is one in a million scenario it will be OK to deal with ...we will always do the right thing but we cannot prejudice system because of a one in a million scenario that we can deal with as it is rare



I feel better about it after reading your explanations Paddy and I think that's fair enough.
Looks like people will get plenty of warning, and for a genuine case it can be looked into.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Anita:Technical Support

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7165 by Whatsup
We are in this business to make money, money makes more money. Without money there no business. Pay up or lose out. There no free lunches.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7152 by Paddy Delaney
Essentially we have a starting point where we have to adopt a utilitarian approach to measure the best outcome of the decision we have taken - does the good outway the bad ...then we can say we have a good rule

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7150 by Paddy Delaney
Simple maths if we find that we have an issue with the fact that after 7 alerts over 21 days the Member failed to do anything and a few days later (even year later complained) that they have been unfairly prejudiced by the rule and they substantiate their reasoning (onus on them to argue the case) and they and countless others have valid arguments of being prejudiced., we will change the rule then....

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7148 by Kapil Arn
what is Ur 1 in a million assumption based on ?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7147 by Paddy Delaney
If it happens often and they are all genuine situations, we will relook at it then because clearly it is not working

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7146 by Paddy Delaney
If they are one in a million we can deal with that ...should it arise ...even if we have to buy the 20% back from whoever purchased (whatever the price) ...but as it is one in a million scenario it will be OK to deal with ...we will always do the right thing but we cannot prejudice system because of a one in a million scenario that we can deal with as it is rare

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7145 by Kapil Arn
so then what abt to people who ( as I said , could be a million different reasons ) didnt get any of the warning notices ?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Barbarella

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7143 by Paddy Delaney
So in summary, trying to cover the 0.00001% scenario we prejudice the 99.99999% opportunity

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7142 by Paddy Delaney
We then fall into the dilemma (that started this whole debate) that we are an unknown entity saying to anyone looking to sell something that we will find buyers for them and it costs nothing if we cannot find a buyer ... they say OK then they have nothing to lose and they will give it a go.... they load a product, and when they click on 'make live' - based on your suggestion we willthen say ok noweput money into the account to cover the charge when we do...many will see this as paying in case we sell and decide not to list ... The way we are running it ...to the make the process seamless and not stopping the process is we perform the service and they owe is 10 pennies (less a penny in their Frega account we have possibly given to them because revenue sharing... we then say please pay ... two things will occur (1) They are happy we have done the service and proved that we so what we said and they will more than likely feel obliged to meet their side of thedeal and cover thecost and have some extra in for thge future. (2) We give them an option to pay nothing at all and lose 20% of the money we were going to give them in the future ... this leaves them thinking, good grief what is going on here, there are some interesting things happening ..I should take this more seriously ....it is their call what to do but human nature will take over and we have lifted the interest levels....

If there is ANYONE aggrieved after 7 warnings (once every 3 days during the 7 and 14-day further period) that we have done them a dirty and they do nothing after 7 warmings then they are to b;ame not us and we put them in blue light and wish them all the best .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7141 by Kapil Arn
I think the easiest and cleanest way to solve this problem will be to simply not give credit..
Give traders and members plenty of info that no funds no deal.
It will be a big inconvenience if they cant do a deal because of insufficient funds, so they will be careful in future not to let that happen again.
If we take 20 % of all future income because of maybe 10c od, that could mean 1000s of dollars. Totally unreasonable !
And there can be a million genuine reasons why somebody might not have any access for 3 weeks.
Having to sort out all these genuine exceptions would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Plus once my 20% has been sold to other members it is impossible to get it back. Even though the punished member might have been for example in a coma for 4 weeks and completely unaware.
If that happened, that member would be mighty pissed off. And rightly so. It would not be good publicity for a company that purports to have a heart and do things with compassion

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7140 by Kapil Arn
I still dont like it. A better , more benevolent way has to be found.
Im sure if we put our collective creativity togeder, we can come up with something better

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7123 by wayne kemp

Dave Cato wrote:

Anita:Technical Support wrote: Re: We can set a rule that after 7 days 20% is forfeited and we will not on-sell the derived income to those Members with accumulated funds for 14 days, giving them 14 additional days to rectify failing which it is gone ...we can balance, forfeit and then 14 days to recify ...more than this will cause an issue - compromise

Yes... I believe this is reasonable compromise.

i agree too ,this is a business ,and uncleared funds dont work for our sharing model .so payup if you want a payout .14 days is reasonable ,and if its a legitimate financial reason ,you are right ,a p2p cause could help .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7110 by Dave Cato

Anita:Technical Support wrote: Re: We can set a rule that after 7 days 20% is forfeited and we will not on-sell the derived income to those Members with accumulated funds for 14 days, giving them 14 additional days to rectify failing which it is gone ...we can balance, forfeit and then 14 days to recify ...more than this will cause an issue - compromise

Yes... I believe this is reasonable compromise.

The following user(s) said Thank You: Barbarella

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7108 by Paddy Delaney
Well done
The following user(s) said Thank You: Barbarella

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7106 by Barbarella
I have bought 20 of them now.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7103 by Paddy Delaney
Yes and send them alert every 3 days (21 days in total = 7 emailed Alerts)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Anita:Technical Support

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7102 by Anita:Technical Support
Re: We can set a rule that after 7 days 20% is forfeited and we will not on-sell the derived income to those Members with accumulated funds for 14 days, giving them 14 additional days to rectify failing which it is gone ...we can balance, forfeit and then 14 days to recify ...more than this will cause an issue - compromise

I believe this is reasonable

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7100 by Paddy Delaney
Yes, sorry correct!

Please Log in to join the conversation.

1 week 1 day ago #7099 by Prosperitywithpurpose

Paddy Delaney wrote: Good morning Barbara

I would recommend RealStew Number Links syndication


You mean “RealStew Purchase Numbers”?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Barbarella

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 4.965 seconds

Translate

Login

Events

December 2017
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31