[Resolved] accused a vendor of a fake COA. i was wrong. correcting the record.
Short report. accused a vendor of a fake COA. i was wrong. correcting the record. Dates and lane below.
Group buys concentrate custody, payment and communication in one person with no structure behind it. That is not an accusation about anyone — it is a description of the risk shape.
Ask for the batch-specific certificate before payment. Any operation with a quality system behind it can produce one; the request costs you nothing and it filters hard.
The directory deliberately separates "we have nothing on this name" from "this went badly". Collapsing the two is how boards like this generate false certainty.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Never name an individual. The sidebar rule exists because the cost of being wrong falls on a person and the benefit of being right falls on nobody in particular.
Why this board insists on dates and documents rather than names.
A report that says "X is a scam" is unfalsifiable and unactionable. A report that says "ordered on this date, paid this way, asked for a batch document on this date, received this reply, nothing since" can be checked, corroborated, or corrected by somebody with a different experience.
The second kind has repeatedly turned out to be a shipping problem, a payment window, or a misread email. The first kind never turns into anything except an argument, and when it is wrong the cost falls on somebody real.
Careful. What you are describing is a delayed shipment, and this board should not turn that into an accusation without more.
the pattern repeats because it works, not because people are stupid
the pattern repeats because it works, not because people are stupid
isabela_guerrero has the group-buy risk right — it is structural, not a judgement about anybody in particular.
Do you have anything in writing from before the payment?
Push back: "nobody has tested them" is a fact about this board, not a fact about the company. Say the first one.
Right, and the group-buy structure is the underrated risk here. One person holds everything and there is no recourse designed in.
Removed — names an individual. That rule has no exceptions here, including when the account turns out to be accurate.
Cloned storefronts copy assets, layout and testimonial text. What they cannot easily copy is a batch-specific document that ties to a lot you can then have tested independently.
Cosigning the domain check. Character by character, every time, and paste it rather than typing it.
a domain registered last month with a decade of testimonials is the whole tell
ask for a batch-specific document before you send anything
[deleted]
Not convinced. A payment window that closed is a payment window, not evidence of intent.
Correction: that domain is one character different from the one you posted, which is rather the point of this thread.
Agreed on the no-names rule. It protects the board and it protects people who turn out to be wrong.
no batch number, no date, no method — that is the pattern, not one detail
Hangzhou Meite Bio gets named here constantly and there is nothing verifiable on file either way
Yes — describe the sequence of events with dates. That is a report. Adjectives are not.
pressure to decide today is the oldest signal there is
never accuse an individual, describe what happened to you
a cloned storefront copies the design, never the documentation
What did the storefront say the lead time was?
if the price is impossible, the material is the thing being economised on
Disagree with naming anyone on that basis. One person’s bad month is not a pattern and the sidebar exists for this exact reason.
- 1Right, and the group-buy structure is the underrated risk here. One person…10 comments in this branch · started by u/scam_taxonomy
- 2no batch number, no date, no method — that is the pattern, not one detail8 comments in this branch · started by u/nikhil_lindqvist