FlytrapCare Carnivorous Plant Forums

I am not going to take a stance on who is wrong/right yet, but if the seller was known in the CP community, you could forward the email to Matt proving that it was someone reputable.
I understand this is a very frustrating incident and I'm sorry both of you are going through this.
I would like to eventually learn who was in the right in this case. If you don't feel comfortable releasing his name without permission, could I ask that you ask him for it? I'm sure that he'd understand.

I'm not wanting to get involved on that level - being a judge - nor am I assigning blame or pointing fingers. I'm just trying to be sure that people are aware that, even in a small hobby niche like carnivorous plants, there are people out there who will take advantage of others. Bottom line is to be cautious, that's all.

Chipi3s wrote:I find it disrespectful for you to disregard my request to be removed from the thread.

If it were a clear case of a personal attack or someone spreading misinformation, I would have deleted the thread immediately.

But the evidence presented in original post is compelling. It shows images from two different eBay auctions, for two different products, both using a photo of the same plant. I still haven't heard an explanation about that fact that explains why. And using a label that isn't the correct one for the particular plant also seems very odd and a sure recipe for mislabeled plants.

Additionally, most of your responses to this thread have been quite defensive. I understand feeling attacked and wanting to defend yourself, but the best way to do that is present a coherent explanation of the questions raised in the original post. To this point, I haven't heard one. In my opinion, there is clearly something odd going on here that hasn't been explained.

At this point the thread doesn't violate any forum rules and I do like the overall point that it makes. I'm sorry that you were the example used, and it sounds like that may have been personally motivated, but I don't see any reason to delete the thread.

Calm down. If you didn’t do anything wrong, what for get so worked up over this?

The thread starter assumed that you were trying to scam although he/she also attempted to...ironically. And you defended yourself with evidences, I am sure many people would believe in your integrity.

Chipi3s wrote:As I stated above, The tag in the picture was not the tag I received with the plant. I received this plant simply labeled as "Nepenthes Hamata".

I went online to find which clone best resembled the one I have. Hence why I labeled my auction details as "Possibly clone 4". The buyer was completely aware they are getting a random Hamata and no guarantees on which one.

Soon later I removed the auction because the original owner told me which clone it was. I then from there took another picture and re-listed it with a new picture and details explaining its a BE CLONE.

Am I missing anything? Also as I stated you are more then welcome to contact the Ebayer I purchased the plant from. I do hope this was detailed enough and put any doubts to rest.

That's very clear. I hadn't seen the information presented in such a manner up to this point, at least not in a way that I could understand it.

I don't think you're missing anything and, for what it's worth, I believe everything you wrote above.

Chip, at this point it's pretty obvious that you're innocent here, at least from what you've posted so far. I think anyone reading this will understand that. I certainly do.

katya_dog1 wrote:Chip, at this point it's pretty obvious that you're innocent here, at least from what you've posted so far. I think anyone reading this will understand that. I certainly do.

Agreed!

I just find it childish that you and BrunoL would post a bunch of negative reviews on each other's profile.

Benurmanii wrote:I just find it childish that you and BrunoL would post a bunch of negative reviews on each other's profile.

LMAO chips placed TEN negative reviews LOL

Chipi3s wrote: Am I missing anything? Also as I stated you are more then welcome to contact the Ebayer I purchased the plant from. I do hope this was detailed enough and put any doubts to rest.

This post does indeed provide explanation, but I'm still do not fully understand.
If I may, I'd like to ask a few questions to put my doubts to rest.

What I do not yet comprehend is, in the following posts, you mentioned that you previously received a response from the seller from which you purchased the N. hamata.
1st post – “SECONDLY the post clearly says "possibly clone 4" I have contacted the original owner who sold me it and it is in fact Borneo clone.”
4th post – “…why I labeled it at "POSSIBLY CLONE 4" then later contacted the person who sold me it and was told "Borneo Exotics clone".”
But yet, in your 5th post, you state “He finally got back to me”.
So, why wasn’t the first email you received posted? Why do you say “He finally got back to me” even though he got back to you previously?
“Soon later I removed the auction because the original owner told me which clone it was. I then from there took another picture and re-listed it with a new picture and details explaining its a BE CLONE.”
But…according to the statement from the 5th post, the seller did not contact you until a month (from January 23rd to February 22nd –the date of the 5th post) after you posted the hamata as a BE clone.
Also, I do not understand the statement “I went online to find which clone best resembled the one I have. Hence why I labeled my auction details as "Possibly clone 4". The buyer was completely aware they are getting a random Hamata and no guarantees on which one.”
From what I can tell, all the N. hamatas from Andreas Wistuba differ only with regards to genetics. I see no difference in leaf morphology and also, there are no pitchers on it, making it difficult to distinguish from a series of 4 clones. Furthermore, where in the original auction does it state that the buyer would be getting a “random hamata”? If I were a potential buyer, new to the hobby, I would consider it a“clone 4”. Then, I would receive it, continue to call it “clone 4, possibly trade/clone it, and there is another misidentified plant circulating in cultivation.
May I ask from where you received the plant? You keep mentioning that we can "contact the seller", but yet we are currently unaware of who he/she is.

Benurmanii wrote:I just find it childish that you and BrunoL would post a bunch of negative reviews on each other's profile.

Indeed, Benurmanii, I do find my behavior and that of Chipi3s quite "childish" as you say. Emotions were certainly running high in this thread and it seems to have brought on some irrational decisions. When I first received a message at 12:31 (Feb. 23), stating that I have been given negative feedback, I was in complete indignation, shock and disbelief. Dwelling on emotions that I should not have dwelled on, I subsequently returned with a negative feedback on his account. From 3:00 to 3:01, Chipi3s proceeded to lash out at my feedback using 9 negative feedbacks, with no comment, and at 3:13, placed the final negative feedback with the comment "Sold me a fake plant". I understand that my response must have agitated him, but there was no reason for him to add negative feedback in the first place (and especially the other 9). I don't see how this thread calls for the addition of feedback. Nor do I find any of the NF justified, especially the final one. I traded a N. edwardsiana with this user, and its identification is completely legitimate. I still have held on to the paperwork of my recently led Wistuba group order and, unless Wistuba now sells fake plants, I can prove, with pictures, paperwork and witnesses who participated in the group order that the N. edwardsiana I traded is correctly identified.

Leathal_Traps wrote: LMAO chips placed TEN negative reviews LOL

Leathal_Traps, although it may have been amusing for you to watch my feedback be absolutely destroyed, lowered to a -3 (43%), making me the "worst user" in the entire forum, I did not find any amusement. I've toiled to earn that feedback and I find it offensive that you "laugh your *** off" at the expense of my feedback. Not only that, but it is impossible to restore that feedback, so several years from now, I'll still have it.
Although Chipi3s has also received negative feedback (and I regret having done so, as it was as Benurmanni mentioned, "extremely childish" and not justified), it was nowhere near as destructive.

If the negative feedback can't be removed, perhaps BrunoL can give you 9 more negative reviews.

Then you two can call it even-steven.

In the feedback comments, BrunoL can say it isn't really negative feedback.

Then link to this thread for a full explanation.


- - - - -
My grow list with pics: http://www.flytrapcare.com/phpBB3/viewt ... 73#p222104


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chipi3s wrote:

Alvin 415 wrote:If the negative feedback can't be removed, perhaps BrunoL can give you 9 more negative reviews.

Then you two can call it even-steven.

In the feedback comments, BrunoL can say it isn't really negative feedback.

Then link to this thread for a full explanation.


- - - - -
My grow list with pics: http://www.flytrapcare.com/phpBB3/viewt ... 73#p222104


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or we could do positive reviews^

That's an even better idea.


- - - - -
My grow list with pics: http://www.flytrapcare.com/phpBB3/viewt ... 73#p222104


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alvin 415 wrote:

Chipi3s wrote:

Alvin 415 wrote:If the negative feedback can't be removed, perhaps BrunoL can give you 9 more negative reviews.

Then you two can call it even-steven.

In the feedback comments, BrunoL can say it isn't really negative feedback.

Then link to this thread for a full explanation.


- - - - -
My grow list with pics: http://www.flytrapcare.com/phpBB3/viewt ... 73#p222104


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or we could do positive reviews^

That's an even better idea.


- - - - -
My grow list with pics: http://www.flytrapcare.com/phpBB3/viewt ... 73#p222104


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think we're missing the point of feedback here. Feedback is a tool, available to everybody on the forum in order that they may observe the experiences of that member with others. Messing with feedback is certainly not a good idea, and I find flaws in both of those possibilities. Firstly, if we went with your original idea, Alvin, that would not solve anything other than copy the Hammurabi code (break my bone, therefore, law dictates that I should break yours). Then what? Be the two worst users on the forum?
Chipi3s' idea also does not work out much. If we both gave each other positive feedback, the negative would still exist. So, even if the percentage is fixed, it'll never be the same.

I suggest that we wait for Matt to explain the possibilities. If there is no way to repair it, then I'd leave it be.

However, the feedback dilemma is derailing from the original topic.

Chipi3s wrote:

Benurmanii wrote:I just find it childish that you and BrunoL would post a bunch of negative reviews on each other's profile.

EDIT- Bruno
-I don't have the original email from the owner. I had no reason to keep it at the time. Hence why I had to reach out to get another response from him.
-when I said "soon later reposted" your over examining what I wrote, i don't recall the exact date I re-listed the auction.
sorry Bruno for everything. I hope we can move past this.
I'm laughing right now because we did get carried away with the negative feedback.LOL @ Leathal traps.
I was trying to remove mine but couldn't find a way. Maybe Matt might be able to adjust it. I hope everyone is having a nice day

:p

Still, not an answer to perhaps the most important question in the thread. Who was the seller? Perhaps, as you suggested three times, we may contact him. You said he was on eBay and had a rather high reputation, though for other things.

I didn't find it amusing that your reputation was destroyed, I was amused by the fact that someone would be childish enough to do something like that. Hopefully and admin can do something about it to fix it, but even if that is not possible, anyone who checks your reviews would see that that all the negative ones originate from a single user who is purposely trying to harm your reputation.

With permission, I have been allowed to post this one last piece of new evidence that might provide an answer to the "seller" question and, perhaps, to the entire situation.

I, along with another forum member, have identified the possible seller of Chipi3s'* N. hamata. His account name, on eBay, is lina_lima_bean_a and we found a picture of a N. hamata that he sold on December 8th, 2015 that is identical, with regards to leaf morphology and placement, to Chipi3s'* N. hamata. Shown below are Chipi3s' *hamata (first 2 photos) and lina_lima_bean_a's N. hamata (remaining photos). Provided here is a link to the auction: http://www.ebay.com/itm/nepenthes-hamat ... 7675.l2557
In the description of the auction, lina_lima_bean_a clearly states that the N. hamata is a Wistuba clone. Following that auction's discovery, I messaged the seller on Feb. 21st, asking whether or not the it was indeed from Wistuba (the message also asks if he “will have any other N. hamata or N. macrophylla for sale in the near future”, since I find him to be quite a shady character and he might have not responded if the message was not beneficial to him in any way.), and he responded on Feb. 23rd. His response is displayed below, as well as my message. He clearly states that the N. hamata is Wistuba. *Username changed to R1file, March 6th, 2016