This is where you can give your opinions on this type of post
http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/38301
and how this is best handled in the future, rather than in the post itself.
Warning - the opinions are to be kept on topic. Attack the argument but not the person. Those off topic (eg attacks on person will be deleted and if too personal or sustained could earn a temporary ban)
MOD edit - to clarify where the mods are currently on this one, check this post out.
Although not really a 'hack', sorta off-topic though
i have been noticing that there are rage-neggers here on ozbargain
for no reason they just target on one specific person, from what i see this one person negged all of jv's post on the BD deal, not sure why though
of course, due to the fact that it was only -1(because of a one person stance) i upvoted him to a neutral.
now back to topic
If you don’t agree with the hack, then don’t do it, and try and avoid jumping on that high horse. If the “victim” of the hack is really going to suffer from it, then they will just cancel the transactions, simple. Its no different to a genuine pricing error and we’ve all seen plenty of those.
+1
if you don't want anything to do with the 'hack' don't do it, don't cooperate with it simply as that
If it hurts the website (book depository) and leads to an increase in prices, that hurts me, even though I have deliberately chosen not to take part in the hack. The 7-11 hack is a promotion where the free slurpees will be given away regardless, with book depository it is actually causing the company to lose money, losses which will be passed onto consumers.
There are also companies which would rather honour purchases (howsoever obtained) than face the bad publicity and potential lost customers from cancelling orders. I think it is wrong to take advantage of this.
You are paying more anyway. So the only ones that are going to get hit with higher costs are those in the UK, or wherever its cheaper.
Or they'll work out a way to better enforce the geographical cost difference with a price increase to cover the revenue lost due to this hack.
or plug the hole - by stopping cards that are not uk based, so the issue is resolved with technology. They can do that right now if they wanted to. Now no Hack and no moral outrage.
Just like 7/11 now puts the cups behind the counter
One point everyone misses is that MAYBE they get a rebate back from the book publisher, if the sale is made in the UK, so they are not that concerned as it costs them nothing.
A book made and sold in the UK costs the same to produce whether sold locally or not. The real point is that the publishers (not the retailer) are trying to protect their local pricing in places like Australia AND we are not the only ones that have this issue.
I think someone said, a person in England can say, buy a book as a gift and ship it to someone in Australia for one price. (Alternatively an Australian can pay their friend in England to do the transaction)
An Australian can buy the same book and ship it to themselves at a higher price.
Standard business practice. Unless the Book Depository is say, trying to get a foot hold in the British market and is undercutting it's transactions there … then the UK price will likely factor in a profit, surely?
In which case, the UK transactions (along with an agreement to ship stuff anywhere in the world) will most likely be making a profit.
It's just that, they could be making more profit, doing the same transaction, by claiming there's a different price for the exact same transaction … just because you are from a different country.
I get that people feel the Book Depository has done them a great service and I have no plans to use this method of getting a better (and most likely still profitable) price from them, but I think those who are objecting to this, might be treating themselves as second class citizens or might not realize what's really going on here.
"might be treating themselves as second class citizens or might not realize what’s really going on here."
transfer pricing happens all the time in any international businesses, thats how businesses operates, and doesn't necessary mean that businesses want to treat a particular group of people as 2nd class.
Look at dell, there are plenty of price differences in the .com and .com.au domain… it doesn't mean US citizens are 1st class nor it means AU citizens are being ripped off by the AU government in terms of taxes and custom fees either. That's… just how the world is?
by choosing not to buy is one thing, but hacking cookies to circumvent the system has crossed the line, but you know what? I don't care if people get a few $s off, what I am pissed with, is the long term consequences.
Business will react, and in ways that will make matters worse:
BSA and all the stupid online activation/licensing of microsoft/BSA applications now existed because groups of people in the past thought it's nice hack too.
Yeah, sorry about that. That was going over the top.
It's like Steam sort of. They've got US, UK and Aus markets and the same game can be 3 different prices despite being electronic downloads.
Prices aren't consistently higher for one country over another; it's a mish mash, and I think someone earlier said for their book the pricing was actually the same.
///
But can one really blame individuals for looking out for themselves?
If the company sets up pricing structures where they will get different profits from different groups, then people are simply reacting to it. If the company reacts to that, it is the choice of people in the company, what they do next. Do they want there to be say, the same profit derived from all?
What has the company itself done, to hurt it's long term reputation, by looking like it's trying to get a higher profit off some people in the world?
… I'm not really advocating anything in regards to using or not using this method, to try and get oneself a better price.
But I do think that the company has played it's own role in this situation and the company would expect customers to try and get themselves the best deals they can.
It will be interesting to see what the company's next move is, but I wouldn't blame the people looking out for themselves. I wouldn't blame. The company set up it's own game for people to play, we'll see if they want to change the rules and/or if they want to explain why there are different prices for what looks like the exact same transaction.
no worries.
yes, it's pricing models is similar to steam, though i think BD > Steam, purely because if you order a AUD1.90 book or a 15kg collection, they still send it to you free delivery. That's why I thought it's nice of them to adhere to their current 'free delivery' model.
It's sometimes funny to see in a big picture, that some people want to pay communist price for their products, while wanting to live in a capitalist economy.
… most of our products are from China … most people and businesses want Communist prices :P
But yeah, I guess this business has done a lot to generate a lot of good will and … they (and their supporters) can definitely be very happy to see how much good will is out there. :)
Transfer pricing is sooo different, its for products in the country, these books are not here they are being shipped from the same warehouse. DelL Australia has local costs that they need to add, BD doesn't have those. Maybe a few cents because someone has to add a Customs declaration slip…
That's what I like about 365games/ozgameshop. The prices differ between the two, with which one is higher changing by the day, but you can choose which one you want to purchase from. The savvy buyer can avoid higher prices, and it's completely legit.
You just have to look at the bigger picture. If businesses are allowed to maximise their profit by operating internationally, then to be fair, the consumers must also be allowed to seek the lowest price internationally. That's the principle of capitalism, not communism! Communist price would mean that the price is set not based on supply/demand and competition, but on other things.
If an international business sells the same product for $10 in US and $20 in AU, would it be wrong for you to go to US and buy the product? Of course in the "real-world" going to US will cost you more, and that's the very reason that businesses can take advantage of it. They can ship products cheaper than we can get individually. But assume that you have an ability to teleport instantly, are you being unethical to buy the product from US? Are you being unethical if you buy a bulk and then sell them here cheaply? In the case of online store, there is no need to "teleport". That would be the proper analogy of cookie hack, if it were to happen in the "real-world".
Out of curiosity, as BD will already have a clue about this as many people (i confess including myself) have done it with success, don't you think they would already know that it is already happened, although if this is not the case, as mentioned before 'zzz'
zzz 6 hours 46 min ago
just notified book depository of the hack :)
what if BD decided that they were okay with it as only about 10%(a rough estimate) knew about this offer and USED it.
From their point, they could allow it based on the facts that:
1) Business that attracts heaps of customers will attract sponsorship deals with other business and/or higher revenue through ads(google adsense)
thus leading to
2) As business with customers MAY be more important than little/no profit, would you rather have the 10% of the people who use it to actually use it and buy things from their store, or would they rather have business with them(with them using the so called 'hack') in order to gain ad revenue
I think it'd be nice if Book Depository came out with an explanation of why they are charging different prices for the exact same transactions.
Currency conversion is only going to be 0-5% at worst. Do they have to pay different taxes for Australian customers and/or book keeping?
I don't know, but maybe they could tell people, if there is a good reason for it.
i don't think businesses will be willing to divulge their trade secrets of how to keep their postage low.
no offence intended , but the likes of nyer/hardly aren't even upfront with their markups and overheads to the local consumers, expecting an overseas based business to explain here, is too rich.
True.
I guess I'm just hearing people showing their loyalty … and they do get good prices from Book Depository, but for some reason the company would be prepared to charge them less if they had friends in Britain.
shrug
reply to foundit (think i hit the 5-reply limit) :D
just to clarify my stance, i've only bought from BD once, am hardly what you call a loyal fan. ;) my online purchases can be described as 1-inch deep but a mile wide… i use quite a lot of different sites for my purchases…
seriously, good online businesses with decent business practices are hard to come by, and hacks like these isn't going to encourage, and it's not until recently i start to feel that bargain hunters deserved to be 'burnt' by bad service/products/websites.
can't wait to see all the many variations of BOTD.com (book of the day) sites in future with crappy service and deliveries coming up.
edit: it won't matter if they have friends in britian or not. it's just pointless arguing an excuse thought up to justify a means to an end.
What makes an argument pointless or not? In a debate, all arguments are used to justify something. If we started saying other people's argument is pointless without addressing the logic/idea/principle itself, then we're just forcing our own POV. Just like religion.
This is a discussion about our actions……the actions of retailers are somewhat irrelevant to how we behave….
We are responsible for our behaviour….."the retailers made me do it" is a cop out
Reply to andy19363:
It IS a discussion about our action. Whether the hack should be prohibited or not. And the argument is that the hack is equivalent by having a friend in UK.
again….not really relevant to debate what it's equivalent to.
The question is…… is what's being done, deceptive?
HACK!
HACK NO.142: When you get an offer like "1 in 6 cereal boxes contains the free gift", weigh the boxes on the scales in the fruit & veg section of the supermarket, the heavier ones contain the gifts, and you'll win every time :)
;)
i used to do that :/
I don't think that would work?
Don't they use averages on stuff like that, so one box might be 501g, one might be 503g etc. You might have to weigh quite a few to find out unless the prize is heavy.
edit: actually just weighing a disc now, it looks like it would work as the disc is much more heavy then I thought
Too bad they don't put anything good in them these days.
just depends how heavy the prize is.
From a manufacturing POV, they can't go "under" the amount written on the box, and they dont want to go too far over (they lose money). So depending on the product you can easily expect it to be within 5 grams of the net weight.
It definitely works :) I remember doing it with CoCo Pops and the weight difference was around 25g, so the min. weight on the box was, say, 750g and the actual weight of those with the gifts was, say, around 775-780g. I was surprised how precise the weights were. It was something like a watch.
HACK NO163: For GAMES: This one is HUGE! :)
Buy a pricematched game at EB Games (eg using OzBargain & http://palgn.com.au/17969/australian-gaming-bargains-13-01-1… ), put the receipt inside the case, & play it for up to 7 days (much longer at Christmas).
Exchange for a different game.
Repeat the cycle until you run out of games to play.
At the end of the cycle get your money back.
Result: play as many games as you like for FREE.
(My 11 year old has done this the last 6 months, initially by accident rather than design, and has played a couple of dozen games for the price of around 3! :) )
I have not yet seen any good arguments from those who oppose the BD hack to these logic:
1. You can ask a friend/family in the UK to buy the books you want from Book depository and arrange to send them to you in Australia. Result: you pay cheaper price. Is this ethically/morally questionable? In my point of view, BD is the one that conducts unethically business practice.
2. The cookie hack is essentially works just like point 1 above, but eliminating the need to bother your mate. Think of this like having a "virtual friend" over there.
Based on my observation, it seems like the opponents of hacks are so militant/aggressive. While the negative votes on the deal itself is relatively low, the votes on comments is very active.
Would it be possible to add more options to the user preferences, where the default would be to hide all the deals marked as "hack"? This way, those who oppose hacks will not be bothered again, and hopefully, will not engage in a crusade war forcing their POV to the other side.
well if friends in the UK can buy them for the same price then i'm fine with it.
"will not engage in a crusade war forcing their POV to the other side."
freedom of speech mate, people can say what they want - you don't have to agree with me, and i don't care as long as it's not a personal attack.
1) The problem is selective buying, where some prices are cheaper in uk, some in aust…
2) Australia IP pays X price, UK IP pays Y price, not too difficult to understand really. Also, out of sudden, every man and his dog has a 'mate' in UK… if its ATO and declaring that you have a virtual baby for the baby bonus.. if it's not because of the fear of any repercussions, then would you go for this hack as well? ;)
also, there is a thin line between a ethically and an illegal hack.
when there are people complaining that businesses are 'not honest', when consumers themselves are full of it. lol
Interesting point is that if they live in the UK they have to pay 20% VAT, so can someone explain
The thread has gone so far off topic its a talkfest with no direction, which helps those with get personal issues off their chest and helps us moderators zip
VAT doesn't apply to books.
VAT also doesn't apply to stuff being shipped directly out of the UK.
What the equivalent of the BD hack is… is getting your friend in the UK to put it in their online shopping cart, select AU as the shipping address, and complete the order, shipping it directly to you in AU.
This case is about ecommerce, between business and consumer, and I don't see any resemblance with your analogy of ATO and virtual baby. It is in a business interest to obtain more profit and the customer interest to get cheaper price. If a business can employs geographical pricing by taking advantage of globalisation, then why do we as consumer suddenly become unethical by taking advantage of the same thing?
From my point of view, illegal hacks consist of breaking into someone else's server, obtaining access to the system, and rewriting the information on the server to you advantage. For example, you hack the BD server to change their price or order for free. That would be equivalent to stealing or changing the price tag in physical store.
In the world of ecommerce, it is a rule of thumb that client side cannot be trusted, hence all the validation must be performed in the server. BD must have known this, but decided to rely on cookies to adjust the pricing. Why? I think because it is the only way of doing it without letting know their buyers up front that they are discriminating the price!
Btw, are you saying that you are going to neg "hack" deals, even if they were to be made hidden from you (by preferences)?
But thats assuming that your two points are the main points on this topic. BD would assume that a certain number of people would buy books from the UK & ship to Aus, so they are willing to take a hit on that but if a significant number of people started exploiting the cookie thing then that would obviously take a much higher hit than they are cool with. Shipping medium/large/huge books is expensive. The profit margin on books isnt big, so who knows how far you're eroding that profit margin - to zero or less in some instances?
On BD being unethical, it's naive to think that shipping isn't factored into the price. The formula is pretty basic:
cost of goods (cost of the book & other overheads like staffing, rent, electricity etc)
+ shipping
+ profit margin
They say its free shipping because (a) people love hearing "free", often irrationally so, people would rather buy something with free shipping than buy the same item with normal shipping but with a discount than ends up a lower total price than the free shipping offer (Example of this from a well respected US university- http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=144…). Amazon dramatically increased sales using this psychological quirk (tho this only applies for its US mainland sales which do get free shipping), & presumably (b) it makes it much easier to see the total cost of the book & thus an easier & more pleasant shopping experience - certainly something I appreciate.
I assume the main reason the price is less for UK customers because its far cheaper to ship within the UK than it is to ship internationally.
I don't think that the price is less for UK customers only because its far cheaper to ship within the UK. As mentioned by others, sometimes the price difference can reach 50%. Also, there is practically no price difference on all of the pre-order books.
"I assume the main reason the price is less for UK customers because its far cheaper to ship within the UK than it is to ship internationally."
Even there there's ambiguity, though.
I presumed the same thing, but more i look through their sites (proxied and non-proxied), the more it seems that that's not the full story (or perhaps not the story at all? - i dont know).
Many/most bestsellers are priced higher for Aus than UK, but they seem to be priced more than mere shipping would logically add - some $5 books on proxy are closer to $12 on non proxy. A basket of a dozen could cost as much as $60 more non-proxied than proxied ($50 versus $110). That's not hyperbole, either, you can go through and quite easily pull out a dozen from their bestseller list right now for checkout at those numbers.
And further confusing it, there are books that go the other way to. For example Emily Bronte Poems (9780679447252) is $12.81 (US) from non-proxied co.uk site, versus $17.78 (US) from proxied co.uk.
If it's purely about shipping, it doesn't follow - in any obvious circumstances - that any book should be, not only cheaper, but significantly cheaper through the Australian front door than it is to send to local UK residents.
dunno if this has been mentioned (i read the other one, but not this one) but would the same now apply to say asos.co.uk with their new "FREE SHIPPING"?
currently at work, but will definitely check once i get home. im guessing they pull the same trick. if anyone is awake maybe theyd like to give it a go.
To the BD discussions is it fair to go to a Bricks and Mortar store and get advice look at a book, then go online to buy? Similar argument about abusing a system…. (My God hope Gerry doesn't read this LOL)
Is it also fair to download the pirated ebook to have a look inside, and then to actually buy the book?
if the system ALLOWS UK people to send books to Australia with "free shipping", its not a hack that an aussie logging into a UK proxy to buy the book and send it to Australia
they allow UK people to buy and send to australia as a gift, and still get the cheaper price.
the system allows aussies to log into the uk site, pay and send to australia and not charge extra
not a hack, just system issues, which they could fix or reverse i guess
I would see this as taking a bit of a hit profit-wise in order to build their market with UK customers.
is it posible to use an australia credit card?
cause i know with american sites, one way to protect against this is to limit it to only amrican cedit cards with amercian billing addresses (for the credit acard)
So I use the proxy rather than use the telephone (10c untimed with Mynetfone) and ring my niece so she orders it for me. I reimburse her.
Yes one is "legit" based on some of the more vocal arguments here, the other is a crime of massive proportions. But riffling thru cups at 7/11 is ok as I am thirsty.
Hey I know a Hack where you can save $2.50 to $4 on the bridge toll - use a proxy - the Gladesville bridge, then drive back home northbound for free.
The ethics issue deepens
The ethics issue deepens
lol yeah, if you encourage others to stop using the toll bridge in favor of the cheaper options, then in the future they won't build us any more… umm… toll bridges?
A little off topic
Maybe they will just sell the Gladesville bridge to protect the AAA rating and private industry can then impose a toll. ;-0
This is in NSW and they are writing all the new rules.. well at least to March when maybe we'll write a new rule ;-)
Same thing with the Sydney Harbour Bridge as well, going to the city via the bridge costs money - going from the city side over is free.
I'm finding this very interesting on the whole… I see the merit of saying that with limited promotions where the same number of items are available whether or not hacks are used and thus hacks are fine in this case.. but I also see the whole point of abusing the promotion.. I really don't know whether this is ethical or not. Both limited promotion hacks and BD hack currently circulating here. But keep discussing it in a friendly and constructive manner and I'll keep reading :)
I think if the hacks are technically legal, then there's not really any reason to kick up a big fuss, but at the same time ethics become a problem. If you don't think a hack is ethical then don't use it. If you don't care then go ahead. If you're not sure then you're in the same boat as me :)
[User] Ed: With limited promotions, I think it really defeats the whole purpose of the promotion if you use hacks to your advantage. With the whole BD thing I think what they're doing is erring on unethical but hopefully their reasons are sound (covering slightly larger shipping cost or whatever) I don't think that using hacks that are also erring on unethical rectifies the situation, but I think something also needs to change on their end. Even if all they do is changing the "free shipping" to "free shipping * " and then put some sort of disclaimer about increasing charges based on country.
hmmmmm someone on behalf of book depository just signed up to ozbargain, i hope they add their 2 cents.
great to see their side/opinion of this
see how it goes.
Since the thread is locked, how are they going to give comment?
i placed a link on the top of the deal - pointing to discussion here. :)
(did that a few days ago)
I hacked it.. Ordered 8 books.. so estatic since these books cost aprox 65% more at the cheapest rate in AUS..
e.g.
Mens health Big book of exercises = $39 rrp , i got it for $15
Better than steroids - RRP = $66 - i got it for $23
Tim Winton's Breath - RRP $29 - I got it for $7
etc..
bloody good find
My boyfriend managed to pick up the last Mens Health Big Book of exercises at his work for $5 the other day ;-) $15 is still a good price though. Its a good book!
I think that it is fine. We get a yummy deal and the shop doesn't lose anything because it was to be won anyway.
Hacked. Got "Room" and " Let the right one in" for the price of one..
Defining a "hack" versus "hacking"…
IMO a hack is just taking advantage of a loophole (BD) or business policy (price matching) or visible identification (cadbury & slurpee). A hack is not the same as hacking.
Should hacks be allowed on Ozbargain?
IMO yes. Everyone can debate the pros & cons for the business, public & Ozbargainers, and then everyone can make their own individual decision whether to use the hack or not.
Should Ozbargain and its members have hacks displayed publicly on the front page?
IMO no. Consequences of hacks going viral could be detrimental to the site - one example being if an effected site decides to boycott Ozbargain. Hacks should only be able to be seen by Ozbargain members.
+1 to everything you said
Hacks should only be able to be seen by Ozbargain members.
as for that, there should be pre-requisites (set by mods) so that new members(that could potentially be the business being affected) are prevented from knowing this is happening, also, there should be a 'thing' so that members who do not want to view hacks do not need to know about it, as it is clear that some members are frustrated that these 'hacks' are here on Ozbargain
A bargain tag/category filter would definitely be a good thing, not only just for members disliking seeing hacks. But as for preventing new members from seeing hacks, that is taking it a bit too extreme. There's nothing to hide right, these are hacks, not hacking. If the business joins up to learn and "fix" their loophole, then that's their right just as it is their right too to reject and cancel your order.
but lets take it to the extreme and discuss the idea 'blatant stealing because certain items dont have security censors on them". Technically its "taking advantage of a loophole", but we all know its not morally/ethically right
By ‘blatant stealing because certain items dont have security censors on them” are you referring to the example of BD and editing of cookies?
I was just referring to stealing in general, and finding that middle ground between "theft" and "bargain finding".
To me blatant stealing would be "hacking" into the secure system db and "buying" a $100 item for $10 (to attempt to be not so obvious as $1 or even $0 lols).
I guess it is a grey line for BD because it could be said that people are not changing the price tag per se as has been used as an analogy, but they are hiding their true physical location to be able to get a cheaper price. Sure it can be said their prices are already cheaper than most other book stores, but then why is it wrong to want the even cheaper price if available to be legally purchased in some way? Are we saying that it is not a legal purchase because Oz people paid the UK price, and not the more expensive Oz price?
Loopholes are loopholes, just like taxation loopholes, and if critical enough they will be closed down ASAP. The BD loophole doesn't seem to be that critical, because it seems to have been around since about May 2010. I'm assuming they have known about it for a while now lols, yet they haven't rejected/cancelled peoples orders…
Hacks should only be able to be seen by Ozbargain members.
Very easy to do, particularly if they're in a "hacking" section of the forums.
If we are to differentiate between "hacks" and "hacking" whereby hacking is the illegal act of hacking into a system through various means, then I would definitely avoid calling it a "hacking" section =)
"morally contentious deals"?
If posts in a "hacks" section are going to be kept or deleted based on morality, I think it is better to not even allow any hacks at all to be posted in Ozbargain at all. Because who is going to judge how moral/immoral a hack is? Let there be debate of the pros & cons and let people get on their soap boxes BUT for Ozb members to avoid any personal attacks of course. Ozb members can then make their own mind up whether a hack is too unethical to follow through with.
I think "hacks" will always be contentious, just as price matching is also contentious, and it is actually up to:
"just as price matching is also contentious"
Why does price matching is contentious? The consequences of price matching should be known and realised by the retailers before they decided to go with it. Businesses can't just taking all the good stuff without accepting the bad side of it.
"the consumer (ie. Ozbargain member) to decide if it is against their ethics"
And we can decide by giving our positive vote. We don't need the negative vote given on the ground that it is morally/ethically questionable. If you don't agree, just don't vote.
Sorry should have explained my pov about price matching as actually being bad for smaller business competitors. I agree it is good for us consumers lol.
This is a reply to leiiv (as its too deep to allow qouting):
"“the consumer (ie. Ozbargain member) to decide if it is against their ethics”
And we can decide by giving our positive vote. We don’t need the negative vote given on the ground that it is morally/ethically questionable. If you don’t agree, just don’t vote."
People should be able to vote negative, this website is just geared for positive vote stacking (heck for a while even negative voting wasn't even shown). Negative votes are WAY more important then postive gun machining voting by members going overboard.
jbk, I think it is not the price matching per se that is bad for the smaller competitors, rather the bigger business itself. Even if price matching is banned, the super powerful corporation will still find one way or another to crush their competitors.
But I agree, it is contentious if we're talking about the competing small business.
Blah Blah, I am not saying to disallow negative, but (as in the guideline) it has to be used sparingly. Negative votes can also be "gun machining voting by members going overboard".
I agree with points 1 and 2 but not 3. I don't see the need to censor this information from guest users. If a merchant decides to boycott OzB, so be it. It's their loss.
On point 2, I fully agree. No point trying to stuff morality down the throats of users. If there are more positive votes than negs, the majority has spoken and therefore the post should remain.
I actually do not really know how the negative votes work. Is the effect of [-] votes determined by a certain threshold or by the proportion of [+] and [-] votes? If more [+] votes than [-] votes, will the post remains or be hidden? will there be any consequences to the poster (such as penalty box)?
From the wiki:
IF a poster gets more than two negative votes the system, locks them out of posting again for 5 days
If the rule above is still valid, it only needs 2 jerks to punish a poster, and not even one million other people can save it by giving a [+] (without the involvement of mods or voting the comment).
I believe it is fairer to also consider the proportion of [+] and [-] votes. For example, a deal with 100 positives but only 10 negatives should remain valid and the poster should not be punished. The BD hack deal and its poster should not be punished just because some people disagree by the reason of morality.
My point is, the "majority rules" principle can not work well if negative votes have more "power" than the positive votes. It's just the nature of humans to utilise whatever power they have in their hand.
Well just before you typed:
"leiiv 10 hours 56 min ago ¶
“just as price matching is also contentious”
Why does price matching is contentious? The consequences of price matching should be known and realised by the retailers before they decided to go with it. Businesses can’t just taking all the good stuff without accepting the bad side of it.
“the consumer (ie. Ozbargain member) to decide if it is against their ethics”
And we can decide by giving our positive vote. We don’t need the negative vote given on the ground that it is morally/ethically questionable. If you don’t agree, just don’t vote." so YOUR AGAINST negative voting on "morally/ethically" grounds and now you state you don't even know how it works but are happy to say people shouldn't vote negative.
Ozbargain is allowing cheating and the mod even approved it (by saying it (the Slurpee 100% winner so not a competition).
Disgusting integrity shown by that mod and mods in some other deals/comments.
Blah Blah, I just want to clarify if the voting system still works as it is stated in the wiki, which I assume it does.
A lot of other people disagree with you, and would prefer cheating is allowed. Why should your POV rules them all? Obviously in OzBargain scotty is the king that has the last say. But since he's not an authoritarian by listening to the member's feedback (which I assume), then who should he follow?
If there are more positive votes than negs, the majority has spoken and therefore the post should remain.
mmm in the past mods have removed duplicate neg votes. Perhaps "hacks" need a poll at the start (scotty has developed this addin for ozb, but hasnt released it publicly)
Duplicate neg votes? You mean with multiple accounts?
Yeah I can see what you mean. My next thought then is what if someone posts something that is obviously and most definitely over the line - e.g. a link to a site with script which lets you hack into a site. Sure it might get taken down pretty quickly, but the public exposure is still there?
I'd hope that if something like that is posted, users will neg it pretty quickly reducing it's uptime. I certainly would.
IMO mods should only intervene when the "hack" is in clear violation of Australian law.
As mods we are also discussing this, and many of the points of view reflected here are also reflected by the points of view the Mods have.
Just so everyone understands. We are listening, we are considering. While we have raised points here, many times that is to get discussion going and help us get a better understanding.
Anything we do will probably upset someone. There is no clear simple answer. Also there are limits to the system we have to use, which may mean we come up with a temporary position while the system gets changed.
And then one persons hack is another's fraud. To use another term its also a loophole. In tax matters Accountants make a living discovering these. Tax minimisation its called, vs Tax avoidance. It takes Court decisions to sometimes differentiate the two, so we as mods are to make a decision without the wisdom that the courts have.
What seems clear is at least we need to have a system that allows these, but doesn't offend others. Majority rules doesn't mean at all costs. This is a community, we can tolerate and encourage minority positions. Otherwise given what gets the highest votes means a very limited bargain set, that appeals to domino eating coke drinking technologically minded, book readers.
This would also mean we have to have a way to truly judge opinions, voting isn't that good. Apart from limitations already discussed above, there is a 30 day rule against negative voting by new members. And how do we stop campaigns by someone with a particular bent.
So we are relying on comments made here. When we question a comment we are in effect raising issues about implementation. eg Stop all Hacks, raises issue of what is a Hack. So don't see a Mods comments as be necessarily anti or taking a specific position, its helping us clarify things. Personally I have changed my mind about certain things and become more aware of alternatives through these postings.
We wont acknowledge all ideas and points of view as these might change and we are trying to be open. But we are considering all points of view
"ozpete on 25/01/2011 - 03:12 ¶
…
The thread has gone so far off topic its a talkfest with no direction, which helps those with get personal issues off their chest and helps us moderators zip"
&
"ozpete 2 hours 45 min ago ¶
As mods we are also discussing this, and many of the points of view reflected here are also reflected by the points of view the Mods have.
Just so everyone understands. We are listening, we are considering. While we have raised points here, many times that is to get discussion going and help us get a better understanding."
I don't think you are listening properly, you tell people its a talkfest and with no direction.
Well maybe you could keep that in context of the part of the discussion when I made that comment.
I guess I maybe should have said the words Subthread rather than thread. And since then rather than discussions on the merits of BD hacking or not, its become more general.
And as well I have been summing up all the mods viewpoints not my own and I did say I had changed my views after reading stuff here and the mods discussions.
However it's nice to see people reading and absorbing the discussion.
Blah blah, the mods should not only listen to one side of the story. Keep an open mind.
1) If the hack has been discovered, then publishing it on a forum is availing it to more people - as opposed to a small number of (typically staff) who benefit. At least, if I know of a hack from a forum, then I know it's loaded.
2) Hacks are advertising - this leads to an increase in potential profit for the business over time. (Some hacks could be leaks, or red herrings.)
3) Businesses should structure or execute their promotions more carefully - if a hack is exploited that subverts the purpose of the promotion (whether it disadvantages the business or the customers) then that is the responsibility of the business; a failure of business administration.
I'm pleased to see consideration and discussion of ethics.
Unfortunately, we live in an unsporting, unethical and anti-competitive society. The structures and customs of business are not oriented for co-operation, compassion or discovery — politics, religion, sport and education are already completely eclipsed and corrupted by the unbridled and unjustified power of feudalist imperatives from both undisciplined minds and multinationals.
@jbk Hmm, interesting. Thanks
…Chomsky, eh? — I might have known. Foucault should be in there, too.
My point of view is that OzBargain should stick to its spirit, which is a place where members can share bargains that they found. It should not become an ethic/moral police or judge by banning a non-illegal deal. Note that scotty's policy is to listen to any company's request that wished for any deal related to their business to be taken down. That should be enough to address the ethic/moral issue.
Having said that, it would be better if we can add some controversial categories that can be filtered out by default.
To conclude: don't be a judge!
@ozpete
yeah maybe the term HACK should be replaced with "Cost Minimisation" ala your Tax avoidance/minimisation. - Good call.
Tax avoidance is immoral, tax minimisation is something we all do. The morality is the same if you replace the word "Tax" with the word "Cost", and this is OzBargain not OzMoralGuidanceFromRandomPeopleOnTheInternet after all.
Tax avoidance is immoral
Illegal is the term you're looking for dude! ;)
tax minimisation is something we all do.
Another extremely grey area, also very subject to individual ethical constraints. Yes we all want to minimise our tax burden, but some companies and individuals are happy to write things off that others would feel morally bound to declare/omit!
Yeah we all know tax avoidance is illegal, thats the whole point. But its only illegal once a particular act is reclassified as "tax avoidance" in law.
We all use various methods to minimise our tax, anyone who says they don't is probably just trolling. And on the other hand the govt are always looking to close any loopholes to maximise their tax take.
Just because a particular loophole/method gets closed doesn't automatically change the morality involved, it just changes the legality. And just because some people only have access to limited tax minimisation methods, doesn't change the concept or outcome one bit.
So I suggest all those on their moral high horse consider the tax avoidance/minimisation example brought up by Ozpete before judging anyone.
My view is simple.
Manipulating (read "hacking") the system (read: cookies) is like you manipulating, say, 4c petrol discount barcode to scan, eg, 5c.
It's plain wrong.
No, it's plain subjective.
I'm not sure you read the first line of his post. It's his view that it's plain wrong. Your comment is redundant.
Yes, I understood that completely. I'm not sure either of you get my point though; most of the comments here are redundant…individuality makes this entire debate moot.
Simply declaring one's own unflinching morality brings nothing new to the table, it's just sermonising!
In that case you're just bad at expressing yourself.
If you understood the point completely and could express yourself effectively you wouldn't have used "No" at the start. You could have used True or Yes - acknowledging that it's his view and then making your point that it was uselessly subjective.
But you didn't. You said No. The No means that either you were saying it wasn't his view which is silly or you were simply addressing the last sentence, ignoring the context of the first sentence and being redundant.
I agree that there's little point to the thread, the post isn't going to be removed… but that's not what this reply was about. It was a specific rebuke to a specific post with no implication whatsoever as to the redundancy of the conversation. You might be able to infer the implication that it's just sermonising, but you'd have to be a mind reader.
Huh, WTF are you smoking dude…I'll take a quarter ounce! :p
In that case you’re just bad at expressing yourself
After reading your latest comment tantryl, I'm thinking Pot>>Kettle>>Black! No need to be so verbose, you've convoluted things ridiculously; frankly, I've got no idea what you're on about this time, nor do I really care. Peace, out! ;)
I was forced to be verbose 'cause you can't simply say "Yeah, I can see how it looked like I said that, I didn't mean it".
I doubt if they would ban it, they can simply put in checks to stop it happening. And really lets not get too parochial, the hack probably works for many others in other countries as well. BTW just because someone disagrees with your comment doesnt mean they agree with the concept.