PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[mikenyc]

Not to play devils advocate, but if there is only one member who is upset with the 30 day rule wouldn't it behoove that member and really any member who disagrees with any aspect of the guidelines to specify any differing rules in their individual sales thread.

 

It's like Federal guidelines, which are basically the starting point, usually more lax, and then State guidelines, usually more stringent, that build upon the Federal.

 

So you can't violate any board rules, but you must adhere to any further stipulations the seller imposes if you buy from their sales thread. If you feel seller is being unreasonable then vote with your wallet and don't buy anything.

 

This feels like it is becoming contentious for no reason. Please try to remember that these boards are enjoyment for some and not just a business opportunity.

[seanfingh]

 

Bomber-bob,

 

I won't take the bait, but it was enticing.

 

Hugs and rainbows,

 

-Sean.

[DR.X]

Hugs and rainbows,

 

 

My first good laugh of the day.Thanks!

 

DR.X

[Bomber-Bob]

Not to play devils advocate, but if there is only one member who is upset with the 30 day rule wouldn't it behoove that member and really any member who disagrees with any aspect of the guidelines to specify any differing rules in their individual sales thread.

 

It's like Federal guidelines, which are basically the starting point, usually more lax, and then State guidelines, usually more stringent, that build upon the Federal.

 

So you can't violate any board rules, but you must adhere to any further stipulations the seller imposes if you buy from their sales thread. If you feel seller is being unreasonable then vote with your wallet and don't buy anything.

 

This feels like it is becoming contentious for no reason. Please try to remember that these boards are enjoyment for some and not just a business opportunity.

 

Mike,assuming you are refering to me as upset by the 30 day rule, I am not.

I never even asked or suggested the number of days be changed. I just asked for some help with slow shipping incidents and Pov suggested 14 days would address it. Remember, you encouraged me not to back down ().

Regarding your suggestion of a seller specifying his own rules in his sales thread is fine by me but it wouldn't help me as a buyer with shipping issues. Maybe it doesn't happen to others but I would think the general populace would desire timely shipping. My only desire is something that will help and encourage timely shipping.

Edited July 9, 2011 by bomber-bob

[mikenyc]

At least you a have sense of humor Bob ::

 

On these boards if the seller is new or has no track record of sales than I don't think a PM asking for the shipping time is inappropriate.

 

If it's a known seller, who rather spend time modeling banana hammocks for instance than shipping in a timely manner, you know you are going to get the books, although it my take a fortnight.

 

I also believe that no matter how encompassing the guidelines get there will still be situations that fall out of their purview. In those unique situations use caution, or come up with a prearranged plan with the seller.

 

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

I'm a veteran.

 

I post when I choose wake up in time to post.

 

xoxo

 

greggy

 

 

Fixed

[Bomber-Bob]

If it's a known seller, who rather spend time modeling banana hammocks for instance than shipping in a timely manner, you know you are going to get the books, although it my take a fortnight.

 

 

I think I know that seller !

[Bosco685]

If it's a known seller, who rather spend time modeling banana hammocks for instance than shipping in a timely manner, you know you are going to get the books, although it my take a fortnight.

 

 

I think I know that seller !

 

[Bosco685]

FOR LORD HIGH PROTECTOR POV:

 

Well, it looks like Visa chargebacks are allowed up to 120 days to start the process, depending on the scenario. Then, you have 45 days within which to file the necessary paperwork as a merchant to prove it was an authorized transaction or not.

 

Card Present = brick-and-mortar transactions where the card can be inspected, and proof requested.

 

Card-Not-Present = Online or MOTO (Mail Order/Telephone Order).

[greggy]

I'm a veteran.

 

I post when I choose wake up in time to post.

 

xoxo

 

greggy

 

 

Fixed

It's your birthday

[PovertyRow]

Thanks Lord High Reseacher Bosco. 120 days is great to know!

[PovertyRow]

Good work Michael, it all looks good to me except this part:

 

d) If reasonable additional expenses are incurred the accuser may include them as part of the resolution. The validity of "reasonable additional expenses" may be subject to discussion.

 

I really don't think is warranted or necessary.

 

 

 

If it's a high ticket item and the guy has to pay a lawyer a c-note or three to write a letter to help get the book or cash back it would be both necessary and warranted, no?

 

If someone runs you through the ringer and you've got long distance calls, travel, legal or other reasonable expense then I think it's unreasonable to expect the harmed party to swallow it.

 

Another example:

 

Buyer pays via check.

Seller waits for check to clear.

The check bounces.

Seller is charged a fee from their bank for depositing the bad check

 

I would consider this a reasonable additional expense to be included in final resolution.

.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the examples, but this is first and foremost a community. I'd say spurn the , and move along. The vast bulk of transactions here are for relatively small amounts. Defaults on larger items will have to pursue other remedies anyhoo. Being on our Probation List is not going pull blood from a stone.

 

I think item 2d is the last major point of contention, then a poll can be made to vote on the PL Rules.

 

WHat do you all think?

[thirdgreenham]

You could include it on your poll, but I don't really think it's necessary.

 

Andy

[PovertyRow]

I know this is dragging on. I have been abed the past couple of days but feeling better. Anyway, here is the Rules to consider and a poll.

 

 

 

HOS and Probation List Rules

 

1) The 30-Day Rule

a) If a transaction between board members is not completed within 30 days, the offended party may submit the offender's name for inclusion to the HOS/Probation List (hereafter called the PL)

 

b) If the transaction is agreed on by both parties to take longer than 30 days - for example, a transaction involving time payments over a longer time, the 30 day clock begins from the time the agreed upon conditions were violated.

 

c) The 30-day rule is suspended if the accused refuses to complete the transaction or if the transaction cannot be completed due to, for example, the item being sold to someone else.

 

d) A Transaction between board members is not confined to the CGC Message Boards. Any transaction between forum members, regardless of the venue, is eligible for inclusion in the PL.

 

2) Notification on the Probation Discussion Thread

a) After the 30 Day Rule is fulfilled, the accuser will send a PM to the accused informing them the issue is being submitted to the Probation Discussion Thread for their inclusion in the PL. This should be a new PM and not part of an existing PM chain.

 

b) After the PM is sent the accuser may submit the accused for inclusion in the PL via the Probation Discussion Thread.

 

c) The accuser should outline as completely as possible the circumstances surrounding the transaction in dispute. Where possible include hyperlinks to board transactions and contact attempts along with dates.

 

d) If reasonable additional expenses are incurred the accuser may include them as part of the resolution. The validity of "reasonable additional expenses" may be subject to discussion.

 

e) If completing the transaction is no longer possible, the accuser may outline a proposed path to resolution.

 

3) Being Placed On The PL

a) After a 72-hour waiting period, if the accused does not respond they will be placed on the PL.

 

b) If the accused responds in the Probation Discussion Thread and it is determined the conditions of the transaction was not met, they will be added to the PL.

 

c) If the accused is not available during that 72-hour period and is placed on the PL, they are free to later respond in the Probation Discussion Thread and present their side.

 

d) If the accused has not responded in the Probation Discussion Thread but continues to post on the boards, a reply can be made informing them they are being considered for placement on the PL.

 

4) Removal From The PL

a) If the accuser requests the accused be removed form the PL, the accused will be removed.

 

b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

c) If multiple accusers are involved, and full restitution is satisfactorily made to all accusers, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

5) Probation List versus Hall Of Shame

a) The Probation List is for transactions that have not been fulfilled as promised.

 

b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender.

 

c) The Hall Of Shame candidate is subject to all of the above rules.

 

d) Inclusion in the Hall Of Shame must be decided by a poll.

 

e) Removal from the Hall Of Shame must be decided by a poll.

 

 

[mrwoogieman]

My issues, again, revolve around 2b and 4b-c. I would limit the restitution to the cost of the book plus shipping, or in the case where the book was resold for a loss, the difference in the realized price plus shipping.

 

Many cans of worms will be opened and dissected trying to get a consensus on what are reasonable costs and what are not reasonable costs. For example, we could have a buyer assert that he lost a sure re-sell because the seller didn't complete the transaction (timely or at all) and as a result the re-sell opportunity was lost to the buyer.

 

If it must be that way, perhaps an asterisk next to the name on the PL could signify that the Listee offered restitution that was not acceptable to the Listor, thereby blocking removal from the PL. Or will it be majority rules on a board vote for what is the reasonable restitution in each transaction?

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

So, Dekeuk's read my PM, it's been a week, no response. PL?

[DWL]

I voted "no, needs more discussion" because of one minor point, section 1c.

 

I think the text in 1c needs to be changed. I would recommend the text read: "1c The 30 day rule is suspended if the accused refuses to complete the transaction."

 

We should consider omitting the text "... or if the transaction cannot be completed due to, for example, the item being sold to someone else".

 

Unless I am mistaken, the seller should not be selling the book(s) to anyone else until the 30 day period is met and exceeded. Indeed, selling a book or books to someone else before the 30 days are up after you have agreed to sell them to someone would, in itself, be worthy of being placed on the probation list.

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

Other than this minor point, everything else on the list looks fine to me.

[mschmidt]

I voted "no, needs more discussion" because of one minor point, section 1c.

 

I think the text in 1c needs to be changed. I would recommend the text read: "1c The 30 day rule is suspended if the accused refuses to complete the transaction."

 

We should consider omitting the text "... or if the transaction cannot be completed due to, for example, the item being sold to someone else".

 

Unless I am mistaken, the seller should not be selling the book(s) to anyone else until the 30 day period is met and exceeded. Indeed, selling a book or books to someone else before the 30 days are up after you have agreed to sell them to someone would, in itself, be worthy of being placed on the probation list.

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

Other than this minor point, everything else on the list looks fine to me.

 

The point of that paragraph is to give you two specific examples where the 30 day waiting period is waived, and a person can be outed in the Probation Discussion thread immediately - I think it's fine as is :shrug:

[mikenyc]

You remember when you were in class during college, and as you were leaving there was always that person who insisted on raising their hand, and then everyone was forced to endure further torture.

 

Please no more objections. They are perfect and pretty. (thumbs u

 

Let's vote!

[bababooey]

So, Dekeuk's read my PM, it's been a week, no response. PL?

Just because....

Oh, by the way....

 

Since the rules now apply to ANY transaction regardless of venue, I'd like to nominate Dekuekelare or whatever his name is.

 

In Jan, 2009, he won a Batman #428 CGC 9.8 from me on ebay for $405. I shipped the book out to him via Free Media Mail (his choice.) When he received the book, he complained about the CGC grade, in particular that they had graded it a 9.8 with a tiny loose (not detached) chip in the BRC, common on these books. He claimed it had been damaged after the fact. I assured him that I knew exactly what he was talking about, that it was, in fact, NOT damaged, but that if he wasn't happy with CGC's grade, he should send it back. On the off chance that it WAS damaged (though what he was describing was not), it was fully insured, as always.

 

Instead of paying for return shipping, as he should have done, he took the book and the box it was shipped in back to the post office several days later (4 or 6, it's recorded somewhere else on these boards) and, in contravention to USPS regulations, "refused" the box so he could send it back for free. USPS regulations state that an item must be UNOPENED to qualify for refusal.

 

The box then got lost in the USPS system. Obviously, the USPS doesn't care much for Refused Media Mail.

 

After it had been lost in the mail for a month, "Dekeuk" wrote me and threatened me, stating that if I didn't pay him back his money...despite me having clearly NOT received the item back yet...he would file a Paypal claim...and that is precisely what he did. To date, that remains my first, last, and only charge-back EVER intitiated against me in 11+ years with Paypal. I have never in my life heard of a company refunding someone before they received the product back. Paypal ripped the money out of my account, and I was forced to cover it...even though, again, I had not received the item back, and proper protocol is to wait and file an insurance claim against loss.

 

He didn't like CGC's grading, which has nothing to do with me. He couldn't be bothered to pay for return shipping. He broke USPS regulations in returning the book. He filed a Paypal claim against me, even though it was HIS fault the book hadn't shown up back to me.

 

It eventually showed up a couple months down the road, but the damage had been long done. I had been timing the market, and after 3-4 more months, the value of the book had nearly halved, so I was only able to get $250 out of it. The subsequent buyer was quite pleased with the book and its grade.

 

In my mind, "Dekeuk" still owes me the difference, especially for the grief and damage to my Paypal reputation he put me through.

 

Dekeuk was later involved in an investment scheme on these boards, and disappeared entirely when called on it.

I vote no only because you probably still have 10 to 15 copies of Batman 428 that are already graded or that you are waiting to submit so regardless of what happened to the "market" during this particular transaction (no funds lost/book returned) not sure if I could see the justification as you being "wronged".

I think this is someone many would like to avoid but I don't think it's a PL situation.