TM to traders: Stop pestering our CW team

Irrational behaviour and incomprehensible decisions 101 - this is the place. If they're really silly, you could win a chocolate fish.* (* Highly unlikely and they're only virtual chocolate fish)

Post Reply
User avatar
Googlybear
Members
Posts: 2108
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:51 am
Location: Auckland

TM to traders: Stop pestering our CW team

Post by Googlybear » Wed May 20, 2015 5:28 pm

Image

Is this a new `feature`?
I`ve never encountered it before

User avatar
digidog
Site Admin
Posts: 15014
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 2:25 am
First Name: Alfie
Location: Otago
Contact:

Re: TM to traders: Stop pestering our CW team

Post by digidog » Thu May 21, 2015 12:04 am

You must be joking!

When TM rely so heavily on the goodwill of traders to report scams, limiting their ability to do so is shocking!

And "go back and try again" is a stupid suggestion when it's a process guaranteed to fail.

User avatar
Foggyone
Site Admin
Posts: 9880
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:16 pm
First Name: Peter
Location: Lower Hutt
Contact:

Re: TM to traders: Stop pestering our CW team

Post by Foggyone » Thu May 21, 2015 7:45 pm

I wonder how many is the maximum.

I can see this for a serial complainer (think serial litigant Graham McCready.) but to block out someone knowledgeable about a product is just daft.
Google, the answer to so many questions!
-----------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Googlybear
Members
Posts: 2108
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:51 am
Location: Auckland

Re: TM to traders: Stop pestering our CW team

Post by Googlybear » Fri May 22, 2015 7:40 pm

Foggyone wrote:I wonder how many is the maximum.
I was not counting but i sure it would not have not been more than ten
I could understand TM limiting members you just CW dozens of times for the sake of it but around 10 for all traders is crazy.

Almost all the auctions i CW`ed were removed or altered by TM so that should be taken into account by the system when deciding when you have reached any limit.

It is possible that there has always been a higher limit (50 maybe) and a hiccup caused the error to appear prematuraly

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests