Just following up on the conundrum you mentioned in the video. It presents a real dilemma in balancing out free market principles with an ethos or code of conduct you might hope for in a community like DFS. I have to admit I am bringing a bias with the specific re-lister in this situation. Some time ago, this individual made what I consider a highly inappropriate and corrosive statement on another member's BST listing, without any apparent interaction or history with that seller. I used the Report option to flag that comment, and many others verbalized their distaste for his statement at that time. I was disappointed that his post was allowed to remain on the BST listing thread for quite some time. Although I just went back to find that listing, and I see the comment was removed, along with the other comments associated with it.
At the moment of reading his earlier negative comment, I knew that I would never purchase from, or sell an item to, that individual. If he was willing to say something like that, in that part of the forum, I would not trust him to be honest or fair on either side of a BST transaction in the future. The reason I bring up all of this history is that "social proof" is the best way to highlight activities that might run counter to the culture or spirit of a platform like DFS. One of the first things I do is review historical posts from members I have never purchased or sold to (depending on the related BST). And I don't just use the buyer feedback. And in one instance, I declined to engage on a BST listing based on that search.
But not everyone has the time for that or will stumble upon every interaction. I do wonder if another approach for this specific situation could be helpful. Could there be a forum guideline that requires the individual to disclose if the item was purchased from an earlier listing, the associated price from that, and link to the listing? I also think it would be reasonable to place a time window on that, only requiring if it was purchased within the previous Y days. And while that is relying on self reporting, there is now some forum guideline to lean on if others note a seller did not disclose the history of the item (and they can now send a note to a moderator or in the listing itself). And it would also allow those considering a purchase whether it was reasonable, in their minds, given a price markup. To me this strikes a balance between allowing two individuals to complete a transaction if they choose to, but allow others to see if this person has a history of flipping. And in turn, members could choose not to sell to, or purchase from, that person, based on their own moral compass.
![[Image: K8d25ek.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/K8d25ek.jpeg)
