Can Non-Paying Agencies Be Banned From ProZ?
Thread poster: Rowan Morrell
| I see it a bit differently: || Jul 18, 2002 |
Look at it the other way: once you ban a fishy agency from proz (and I suppose you have in mind to erase them completely, not leaving any information), how would members then know they are fishy when being aproached personally by such agencies, not through the site? I partly agree with you if there is a possibility (technically) to leave the bad ratings on the site for information and to ensure at the same time that these agencies can not use the bidding system anymore. But, nevertheless, I have a bad feeling about it even in this case: shouldn\'t it be up to everyone of us to decide whether we would like to work for an agency or not and to make sure we know whom we get into with? I personally 100% dislike the idea of shifting this responsibility to the proz site staff as well as I do not like the feature which disables me to receive mailings on jobs the price of which is out of the range I entered at the site. I like to use the site as a means of communication but do not wish to be administered, morally influenced or personally limited by the staff in any way. My duty was to pay 100 bucks which I did, their duty is to run the site propely, that\'s it.
Please, all of you, feel free to let me know your point of view.
As I can recall, we had this issue already about 1/2 year ago or so, BTW.
[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-07-18 07:44 ]
| || || |
| | Egmont
Local time: 20:35
Afrikaans to Spanish
| I agree anyway || Jul 18, 2002 |
It is enough!
| | Rowan Morrell
Local time: 07:35
French to English
| Reply to Steffen || Jul 18, 2002 |
Thank you for sharing your views, Steffen. You raise some interesting points, which I will endeavour to respond to here.
Let me go back to the eBay analogy. On that site, the feedback records of members who are kicked off are still visible for all to see. So an agency\'s feedback could still be visible after it gets banned, but there could be an extra note saying that the agency has been banned from ProZ.
Another possibility might be to create a \"blacklist\" which an agency would be automatically transferred to (complete with all its feedback) if it gets banned. This blacklist could be a component of the Blue Board, and would be available to all members.
Members should certainly take every step they can to find out about an agency, such as studying the Blue Board or joining a list like TCR. But not everyone may do this until it\'s too late, and I think banning agencies that employ unethical practices would send a strong statement from ProZ that ill-treating translators won\'t be tolerated.
You say: \"I like to use the site as a means of communication but do not wish to be administered, morally influenced or personally limited by the staff in any way.\"
But doesn\'t this happen anyway, when members are disciplined for e.g. flaming on the forums? And staff can edit or delete messages with inappropriate content. Is this kind of action not a form of administration and personal limitation by the staff? Presumably you have no problem with that. Ergo, why not extend some of the staff\'s powers over individual translators to agencies as well?
It is true that ProZ staff cannot assume responsibility for what goes on between an agency and a translator. It is also true that whenever you accept work from an agency, it\'s at your own risk. However, I believe that if an agency is clearly crooked, as evidenced by a large number of negative reviews and so forth, ProZ staff can at least prevent the agency from contacting its members through ProZ. It cannot prevent the agency contacting translators through other means. But if an agency is banned from ProZ for unethical practices, that in itself serves as a warning to other translators, and also gives notice to all agencies that ProZ is one place at least where ripping off translators won\'t be accepted or tolerated.
| || || |
| Totally agree with Mats, Marijke and Kathi || Jul 18, 2002 |
This is what I tried to make clear: Banning should not mean to erase all information on a banned agency, but keeping their \"track record\" on the Blueboard, maybe with an appropriate statement. Otherwise, helpful information will be lost and we achieve the opposite of our initial goal.
And of course, the administration through the moderators is kind of limitation, but it was our choice to register or not with proz. And, so far, in general, I am fine with it, it has not yet got too heavy, although sometimes it is just boring to get reminded like in the kindergarden that \"you shouldn\'t say so\". I take full responsibility for what I point out and do not like other people interfering and telling me what to do or not. But, at least, they were appointed to do so. And don\'t I have the opportunity to reply to them or, should it become totally unbearable, just to unregister? IMO, a system that\'s nearly perfect and pretty liberal.