PROBATION DISCUSSIONS

21 21

Personally, it annoys me when having to "beg" for a payment or refund, but I am very flexible and understanding as well so it seems to balance out for me. It seems like the refund should have been given once he knew that he could not acquire the books to send. So it took from 09/05 to 09/16 to get your money back? And only after your attempts to contact him? Maybe disclosure in the beginning as to not having the books in hand would have been honest. Seems like poor customer service and integrity. Worthy of the Probation List? Maybe not IMO since you did get your money back, but I would just not buy from him again.

The added time by allowing time payments is irrelevant. The seller was apparently quite willing to wait for the payments and did not seem to ask for extra compensation.

 

Has the buyer refused to pay?

 

In the end the buyer did say they didn't want it(after reading several PM's but not responding to them)...which was understandable not being able to pay in the situation. But think the lack of communication and taking the time to read the message and just disregard it. Like Bio-rupp stated that if a seller asks if they still want the book, and plan to make payments etc, after little to no attempt has been made to make payments/communicate with the seller then the time should be started.

 

Sorry, don't make it down here too often.

 

In regards to the Spider-Dan situation: He wasn't even talking about probation when he started the thread. He wanted to know when he could re-list his book without violating any Board Rules.

"Probation" is part of the "board rules", so even if he didn't mention it specifically by name, it is included by implication.

Truthfully, the 30 day waiting thing was brought up because people do not always list a payment schedule in the listings. If there is no payment schedule in the deal then the 30 day waiting period was thought to be beyond fair. Repeat, if no payment schedule was mentioned in the deal, to be fair to the buyer, 30 days was considered more than enough time to scrape up the cash & get it to the seller.

 

Spider-Dan did have a pay schedule with his buyer. When it was not met, the contract was broken & he should be free to do as he needs to. If my daughter breaks her arm & in a panic I need to raise $800 I would list a book & say the payment must be received by midnight. If payment is not received then I should be free to re list the book the next day to get the funds I need. I should not have to deal with any of the probation committee coming into my thread & telling me that if I want to stay in the good graces of the board I need to give the insufficiently_thoughtful_person buyer another 30 days.

 

It's common sense.

Sure, it's common sense when a seller specifies a payment requirement shorter than the standard 30 days. Unfortunately, that isn't the case here.

If someone is ok to wait 90 days, there's really no reason they shouldn't be ok with 120 days, barring some very unusual circumstances.

Since the guidelines aren't hidden, everyone should take them into consideration when buying and selling. If less than 30 days is an absolute must (like, for example, "MUST PAY IN 3 HOURS OR DEAL IS VOID"), that should be stated upfront, with the appropriate disclaimer ("IF NOT PAID IN 3 HOURS, ITEM WILL BE RE-OFFERED") and anyone not following through should absolutely be eligible for the PL immediately after such a circumstance. But when there is a time payment agreement that extends beyond the "unstated" 30 day requirement, then yes, 30 additional days past the agreed upon deadline is reasonable.

After all, if the 30 day rule doesn't apply to time payments scheduled longer than 30 days, what is the point of having it? A seller who accepts time payments understands that they are not going to be paid right away anyways, but the buyer forfeits the grace afforded the 30 day rule? So, if the buyer agrees to pay in 6 weeks, which they have budgeted for, but then something relatively disastrous happens that wipes out that budget in week 5, too bad, so sad, make with the dough? They don't have the same 30 days to "scrape together the cash" afforded the guy who did NOT ask for time payments in the first place...? Keeping in mind that the buyer not being able to come up with the cash upfront is the very reason he asked for...and the seller AGREED TO...time payments...?

That's common sense...? :shrug:

The 30 day rule is to allow buyers to remain in the good graces of the board. Nothing more, nothing less. It should be afforded everyone, whether payment is due and payable today, or in 6 months, barring "PAYMENT MUST BE REC'D BY XX" (shorter than 30 day) type situations, which must be stated upfront.

There's no need to sarcastically mischaracterize the situation just because you don't agree with other people. There is no "probation committee." Each and every member of these boards is free and welcome to discuss, and move to change, any aspect of the Probation List that they want. If you want to change them, feel free. Most persuasive argument wins.

He asked a question, he was given an answer. And, which fact you neglected, the only person who could put Dan on the PL and "out of the board's good graces" is his buyer. If his buyer chose not to, nobody else could, either.

30 days is 30 days

 

Not always.

 

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

 

This is still problematic. If I sell someone an item, and on the 33rd day after , I decide to not allow them the 30 days to make good and sell it to someone else, I can immediately put them on the PL list...?

What is the point of 30 days to "make good" if they can't "make good"...?

Refusal, sure, no problem. That's on them, and releases the seller. But there's no point of having 30 days at all if I can sell the item before they get to "make good."

The added time by allowing time payments is irrelevant. The seller was apparently quite willing to wait for the payments and did not seem to ask for extra compensation.

 

Has the buyer refused to pay?

 

In the end the buyer did say they didn't want it(after reading several PM's but not responding to them)...which was understandable not being able to pay in the situation. But think the lack of communication and taking the time to read the message and just disregard it. Like Bio-rupp stated that if a seller asks if they still want the book, and plan to make payments etc, after little to no attempt has been made to make payments/communicate with the seller then the time should be started.

 

Sorry, don't make it down here too often.

 

In regards to the Spider-Dan situation: He wasn't even talking about probation when he started the thread. He wanted to know when he could re-list his book without violating any Board Rules.

 

"Probation" is part of the "board rules", so even if he didn't mention it specifically by name, it is included by implication.

 

Truthfully, the 30 day waiting thing was brought up because people do not always list a payment schedule in the listings. If there is no payment schedule in the deal then the 30 day waiting period was thought to be beyond fair. Repeat, if no payment schedule was mentioned in the deal, to be fair to the buyer, 30 days was considered more than enough time to scrape up the cash & get it to the seller.

 

Spider-Dan did have a pay schedule with his buyer. When it was not met, the contract was broken & he should be free to do as he needs to. If my daughter breaks her arm & in a panic I need to raise $800 I would list a book & say the payment must be received by midnight. If payment is not received then I should be free to re list the book the next day to get the funds I need. I should not have to deal with any of the probation committee coming into my thread & telling me that if I want to stay in the good graces of the board I need to give the insufficiently_thoughtful_person buyer another 30 days.

 

It's common sense.

 

Sure, it's common sense when a seller specifies a payment requirement shorter than the standard 30 days. Unfortunately, that isn't the case here.

 

If someone is ok to wait 90 days, there's really no reason they shouldn't be ok with 120 days, barring some very unusual circumstances.

 

Since the guidelines aren't hidden, everyone should take them into consideration when buying and selling. If less than 30 days is an absolute must (like, for example, "MUST PAY IN 3 HOURS OR DEAL IS VOID"), that should be stated upfront, with the appropriate disclaimer ("IF NOT PAID IN 3 HOURS, ITEM WILL BE RE-OFFERED") and anyone not following through should absolutely be eligible for the PL immediately after such a circumstance. But when there is a time payment agreement that extends beyond the "unstated" 30 day requirement, then yes, 30 additional days past the agreed upon deadline is reasonable.

 

After all, if the 30 day rule doesn't apply to time payments scheduled longer than 30 days, what is the point of having it? A seller who accepts time payments understands that they are not going to be paid right away anyways, but the buyer forfeits the grace afforded the 30 day rule? So, if the buyer agrees to pay in 6 weeks, which they have budgeted for, but then something relatively disastrous happens that wipes out that budget in week 5, too bad, so sad, make with the dough? They don't have the same 30 days to "scrape together the cash" afforded the guy who did NOT ask for time payments in the first place...? Keeping in mind that the buyer not being able to come up with the cash upfront is the very reason he asked for...and the seller AGREED TO...time payments...?

 

That's common sense...? :shrug:

 

The 30 day rule is to allow buyers to remain in the good graces of the board. Nothing more, nothing less. It should be afforded everyone, whether payment is due and payable today, or in 6 months, barring "PAYMENT MUST BE REC'D BY XX" (shorter than 30 day) type situations, which must be stated upfront.

 

There's no need to sarcastically mischaracterize the situation just because you don't agree with other people. There is no "probation committee." Each and every member of these boards is free and welcome to discuss, and move to change, any aspect of the Probation List that they want. If you want to change them, feel free. Most persuasive argument wins.

 

He asked a question, he was given an answer. And, which fact you neglected, the only person who could put Dan on the PL and "out of the board's good graces" is his buyer. If his buyer chose not to, nobody else could, either.

30 day payment is the rule when no other agreement is in place.

If you are saying that someone has to say "the deal is off if..." when making a specific agreement, that seems a bit redundant, at the very least the pary who breeched the original agreement should not be able to take probation action against someone once an agreement is breeched.

I understand your point on grace periods relating to probation but not how it relates to payment agreements If someone says "payment to be received by" it is no different than a time payment agreement with specific dates.

Oh, but in fact, it very much is, IF the time period specified is less than the "gentleman's agreement" of 30 days.

"Payment is to be received by" is not a time payments agreement. Time payments agreements are always specially negotiated between buyer and seller. "Payment is to be received by" applies to everyone, and must be stated upfront to be in effect (or actionable, outside the standard rules.)

"Payment is to be received by" is always less than the 30 day time period (otherwise it would be redundant), while time payment agreements are always more than the 30 day time period (otherwise they would be unnecessary.)

The 30 day clock starts when the agreement is violated, not when it is contracted. The clock cannot be retroactively started at Day 1 simply because the buyer violated the agreement.

Personally, it annoys me when having to "beg" for a payment or refund, but I am very flexible and understanding as well so it seems to balance out for me. It seems like the refund should have been given once he knew that he could not acquire the books to send. So it took from 09/05 to 09/16 to get your money back? And only after your attempts to contact him? Maybe disclosure in the beginning as to not having the books in hand would have been honest. Seems like poor customer service and integrity. Worthy of the Probation List? Maybe not IMO since you did get your money back, but I would just not buy from him again.

I agree with the preceding opinions. It is annoying to buy someone who does not possess the books and fails to notify you promptly. After no responses to email, he did give a refund after I got him on the phone. So, maybe he does not deserve the probation list this time.

This is the kind of problem that can occur when buying from a newbie forumite. Maybe they should not be allowed to sell for 100 posts or a minimum time period.

Just a reply in general.

First, the PL/HOS Rules aren't really the "board rules". They are just that, the PL/HOS Rules. It is not required to put someone on the PL. Implementing them is at the discretion of the buyer/seller. It is not a mandatory process.

Second, there is a lot of subconscious "buyer-centricity" when discussing the PL. It is equally applicable to buyers and sellers.

Third, the rule "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." was intended to cover buyers and sellers. If someone buys a book and starts to proceed with the payment, but the seller just decides to sell the book to someone else that would be a seller violation. Also, please note the use of "for example". Trying to cover every possible scenario would result in a list longer than the PL/HOS Rules itself.

As rightly pointed out, the PL/HOS rules can be changed and/or clarified. I have no personal stake in defending the existing rules. The creation was a community effort. I assumed and also posted that after the List was implemented, some modifications may be needed. In light of this Architect has agreed that if there are changes I can make the updated list available to him and he will replace the old with the new.

Just a reply in general.

 

First, the PL/HOS Rules aren't really the "board rules". They are just that, the PL/HOS Rules. It is not required to put someone on the PL. Implementing them is at the discretion of the buyer/seller. It is not a mandatory process.

Hence my continued and consistent efforts to point out that no one is bound to do any of it. No one has to put anyone on it, and nobody has to abide by it. Nobody is bound by anyone, or anything, except the GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (and if someone reading this doesn't understand what this means, hit the link.)

If someone ends up on the list, there is absolutely nothing (except other sellers, and then only for that particular seller's items) stopping them from both buying and selling.

It's true what they say...speak confidently and people will consistently accuse you of trying to "impose" your beliefs on them, when, in fact, their very own arguments could be the ones persuasive enough to convince a consensus. Would they, then, be guilty of trying to "impose" their ideas on everyone else?

However...I will, again, disagree with you about them being part of "the board rules." They may not be "official", but they serve in a de facto capacity as such. "The reality makes the rule." Notice how many people are forbidden to buy if they are "on the list."

Third, the rule "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." was intended to cover buyers and sellers. If someone buys a book and starts to proceed with the payment, but the seller just decides to sell the book to someone else that would be a seller violation. Also, please note the use of "for example". Trying to cover every possible scenario would result in a list longer than the PL/HOS Rules itself.

Wasn't trying to cover "any possible scenario." Simply pointing out that the "for example" is, at best, unclear, and at worst, faulty.

Just a reply in general.

 

First, the PL/HOS Rules aren't really the "board rules". They are just that, the PL/HOS Rules. It is not required to put someone on the PL. Implementing them is at the discretion of the buyer/seller. It is not a mandatory process.

 

Hence my continued and consistent efforts to point out that no one is bound to do any of it. No one has to put anyone on it, and nobody has to abide by it. Nobody is bound by anyone, or anything, except the GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (and if someone reading this doesn't understand what this means, hit the link.)

 

If someone ends up on the list, there is absolutely nothing (except other sellers, and then only for that particular seller's items) stopping them from both buying and selling.

 

It's true what they say...speak confidently and people will consistently accuse you of trying to "impose" your beliefs on them, when, in fact, their very own arguments could be the ones persuasive enough to convince a consensus. Would they, then, be guilty of trying to "impose" their ideas on everyone else?

 

 

However...I will, again, disagree with you about them being part of "the board rules." They may not be "official", but they serve in a de facto capacity as such. "The reality makes the rule." Notice how many people are forbidden to buy if they are "on the list."

I am not in disagreement - not exactly the same as being "in agreement", but we are, if not on the same paragraph, at least on the same page.

I feel it IS important that folks understand that implementing the PL/HOS is indeed at their discretion. While the rules were agreed on by majority vote, this is a case where even majority vote has no say. Individuals are free to include or exclude Probatees (Probatees?) and it is important that is understood.

I do agree that speaking confidently can sound like imposing one's views. The whole PL/HOS thing is an area where confident expression combined with clear yet flexible thinking is necessary.

Purchase of a book falls through -

 

I made an offer on a Sgt Fury 2 that I saw on the boards from a Newbie with 9 posts. He accepted my offer and I paid him on Sept. 5.

 

On 9/13 I emailed him. No response. So I called him after a couple of days. He said that he was selling for another person, the books were not in his possession, and that the book cannot be found. He refunded my money on Sept. 16.

 

I am wondering if he should be put on this probation list

 

Other opinions anyone?

I would at least out the dude, so those that care can simply ignore him.

Purchase of a book falls through -

 

I made an offer on a Sgt Fury 2 that I saw on the boards from a Newbie with 9 posts. He accepted my offer and I paid him on Sept. 5.

 

On 9/13 I emailed him. No response. So I called him after a couple of days. He said that he was selling for another person, the books were not in his possession, and that the book cannot be found. He refunded my money on Sept. 16.

 

I am wondering if he should be put on this probation list

 

Other opinions anyone?

 

I would at least out the dude, so those that care can simply ignore him.

It would be good to give the seller a chance to explain his side. Who knows? They may be a reasonable person who is upset this happened. Or they may be a doofus who doesn't care.

Just outing someone and then people ignoring them without even giving them a chance to explain is not the best approach.

If you don't think the seller is PL worthy you can alternatively bring it up in the FORUM SELLING GENERAL DISCUSSION area here:

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1976814#Post1976814

The seller did some things wrong and some things right. We were all noobs here at some point. I say give them a chance to explain.

Uh, how would he know he's even being discussed?

Who knows? They may be a reasonable person who is upset this happened.

With all due respect Michael, the selling of items you don't have in hand should be a practice that's frowned upon. It's a slippery slope . . .

Uh, how would he know he's even being discussed?

If only there were a way to send some kind of confidential message to someone on the boards .

Who knows? They may be a reasonable person who is upset this happened.

 

With all due respect Michael, the selling of items you don't have in hand should be a practice that's frowned upon. It's a slippery slope . . .

I do agree with you, David. One problem with selling books in another's possession is that it makes it very difficult to insure the book is being offered on the FORUM ONLY. For all we know the owner holding onto the book may well be marketing elsewhere.

The Selling Guidelines are here:

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1460472#Post1460472

It should be easy to cover this scenario specifically and include them there.

Here is some information for those of you that sell on the boards.

Concerning User 70'S-HORROR-MAG

I invoiced via pm, 70'S-HORROR-MAG for items that 70'S-HORROR-MAG wanted in my August sales thread on 8/22.

On 8/27 I received a pm stating that 70'S-HORROR-MAG would pay for the items by Tuesday 8/30.

Repeated pm's from me since 8/30 have been unread and 70'S-HORROR-MAG has not posted on the boards since 8/11.

Here is some information for those of you that sell on the boards.

 

Concerning User 70'S-HORROR-MAG

 

I invoiced via pm, 70'S-HORROR-MAG for items that 70'S-HORROR-MAG wanted in my August sales thread on 8/22.

 

On 8/27 I received a pm stating that 70'S-HORROR-MAG would pay for the items by Tuesday 8/30.

 

Repeated pm's from me since 8/30 have been unread and 70'S-HORROR-MAG has not posted on the boards since 8/11.

......

I'd like to nominate a board member for the probation list. Board member is Tyson, real name Tyson Dorsch of Canada.

Tyson posted the take it on two books from my sales thread on 9/2. I invoiced him on 9/5. I heard back from him on Friday 9/9, when he told me he needed to free up some funds in his account and that he'd pay on Monday 9/12.

That was the last I've heard from him. He's not posted on the board since he posted the take it in my thread. All PM's during the 30 days since invoice have went unanswered.

I PM'd at the thirty day mark letting him know my intention to sell the books elsewhere and nominate him to the prob list in 72 hours.

Time is up. :smirk:

PM sent

Hey Tyson, heads-up that I've just posted your nomination to the prob list in the prob discussion thread. If you're still around, please take any discussion regarding this transaction there. Gratzi.