PROBATION DISCUSSIONS

21 21

So, are you guys having a war with names being added to the PL, then being deleted, and then being added back?

I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of this particular seller but at what point is it just too late for a buyer to bring up an issue.

I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of this particular seller but at what point is it just too late for a buyer to bring up an issue.

I think that we can all agree that this kinda exposed a hole in the PL/HoS rules as well, or maybe even in the sales rules themselves. We require payment options, grade and/or scan, and price. Maybe this brings to light that the sales rules, not just the PL/HoS rules, need a requirement that a return policy should also be required in a sales listing unless it is an "as-is" sale.

But on the PL/HoS side, I'd say that a year is at the edge (on one side or the other) of the as-of-yet undefined limits.

Absent a rule establishing a time-limit for the PL/HoS, wouldn't we have to simply default to the sales thread's return policy time-frame? And in this case, as that didn't have an established return policy, shouldn't it be therefore open-ended? I mean, return policies and everything else are cover-your- territory for sellers. The seller didn't cover theirs. Sucks, but true.

And that's even with ignoring the whole "avoiding communication with the seller", Read + Delete e-mail practices, prior bad behavior with sales brought to light recently, etc.

I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of this particular seller but at what point is it just too late for a buyer to bring up an issue.

 

I think that we can all agree that this kinda exposed a hole in the PL/HoS rules as well, or maybe even in the sales rules themselves. We require payment options, grade and/or scan, and price. Maybe this brings to light that the sales rules, not just the PL/HoS rules, need a requirement that a return policy should also be required in a sales listing unless it is an "as-is" sale.

 

But on the PL/HoS side, I'd say that a year is at the edge (on one side or the other) of the as-of-yet undefined limits.

 

Absent a rule establishing a time-limit for the PL/HoS, wouldn't we have to simply default to the sales thread's return policy time-frame? And in this case, as that didn't have an established return policy, shouldn't it be therefore open-ended? I mean, return policies and everything else are cover-your- territory for sellers. The seller didn't cover theirs. Sucks, but true.

 

And that's even with ignoring the whole "avoiding communication with the seller", Read + Delete e-mail practices, prior bad behavior with sales brought to light recently, etc.

I see it as the exact opposite - if a seller doesn't specify a returns policy, I'm assuming the item is sold "as is" and will buy/bid accordingly.

We're going to rule this place to death.

That's certainly a valid interpretation. However, that's kinda the definition of "cover your ". Risk mitigation. Not covering your with a return policy leaves sellers open to any number of interpretations of what a buyer might believe it to be. Creating unnecessary risk for the seller.

Your interpretation is subjective to you. So is an interpretation that "no stated return policy = lifetime guarantee for any reason even if the book ends up worth a nickel 5 years from now & I paid $300 for it today & can return it to recoup my poor investment" could be to someone else. Or anywhere in between.

A stated policy, however removes the subjectivity & turns a subjective issue into an objective issue where the seller & the buyer know, for absolute certain, what, if any, return options there are before it's even potentially needed down the line.

We're going to rule this place to death.

That's certainly a valid interpretation. However, that's kinda the definition of "cover your ". Risk mitigation. Not covering your with a return policy leaves sellers open to any number of interpretations of what a buyer might believe it to be. Creating unnecessary risk for the seller.

Not really, though.

It's the logical interpretation - if I go to an online store and they don't have a returns policy listed, I'll assume they don't have a returns policy and I'm SOL if there's an issue with my order. This might preclude me from buying from said store - or it might not, depending on what I feel to be the risk/reward ratio.

As was posted earlier, stores are not legally mandated to actually have a returns policy.

No, it's a logical interpretation to YOU & completely subjective. I personally do not see a lack of return policy as a definitive statement of "as-is, no returns". I see it as a "returns aren't defined so maybe I should ask about returns before I buy so that I can know what I'm getting into here?" . Because it's undefined & therefore unknown.

And yet another person may see it as "well, they said normal board rules apply at the top & didn't cover returns & most other people seem to have an X-day window for returns, so that's normal board rules".

And yet another might see it as "I can gamble because they didn't say they WON'T take it back if it doesn't look as good in-hand as it does on the smudged screen of my tiny phone or if it sinks like a brick in value 2 weeks from now".

None of them are objectively wrong because there's no evidence at the moment to prove any of them wrong. Or right. And that makes it a pretty subjective issue. Whereas a defined policy makes for an objective statement where there is only 1 logical interpretation.

And in the case you posed, while you might be SOL on making the return, the also don't has no protection of being able to point to a "look, it was stated right here where I said you can't return anything & you didn't read it " from the PR standpoint. And that's what the PL is really... a PR thread of who to and not to do business with because they're shady or have been shady in certain situations. I'd consider a retailer that wasn't even willing to state "you can't return your purchase" to me before I made the purchase as pretty shady. It might cost me a couple bucks to find it out, but I'd let others know "oh that place won't even admit until after you've made your purchase that you can't return it" and try to let others know not do deal with them either because I don't want them to have to lose money to learn the same lesson on that particular retailer. And isn't that the purpose of the PL here, right? To tell others so they don't get screwed over as well?

Could we move this discussion to the other thread? Arch was nice enough to make it so we could just use it

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8667940&gonew=1#UNREAD

We're going to rule this place to death.

Indeed.

No, it's a logical interpretation to YOU & completely subjective. I personally do not see a lack of return policy as a definitive statement of "as-is, no returns". I see it as a "returns aren't defined so maybe I should ask about returns before I buy so that I can know what I'm getting into here?" . Because it's undefined & therefore unknown.

 

And yet another person may see it as "well, they said normal board rules apply at the top & didn't cover returns & most other people seem to have an X-day window for returns, so that's normal board rules".

 

And yet another might see it as "I can gamble because they didn't say they WON'T take it back if it doesn't look as good in-hand as it does on the smudged screen of my tiny phone or if it sinks like a brick in value 2 weeks from now".

 

None of them are objectively wrong because there's no evidence at the moment to prove any of them wrong. Or right. And that makes it a pretty subjective issue. Whereas a defined policy makes for an objective statement where there is only 1 logical interpretation.

 

And in the case you posed, while you might be SOL on making the return, the also don't has no protection of being able to point to a "look, it was stated right here where I said you can't return anything & you didn't read it " from the PR standpoint. And that's what the PL is really... a PR thread of who to and not to do business with because they're shady or have been shady in certain situations. I'd consider a retailer that wasn't even willing to state "you can't return your purchase" to me before I made the purchase as pretty shady. It might cost me a couple bucks to find it out, but I'd let others know "oh that place won't even admit until after you've made your purchase that you can't return it" and try to let others know not do deal with them either because I don't want them to have to lose money to learn the same lesson on that particular retailer. And isn't that the purpose of the PL here, right? To tell others so they don't get screwed over as well?

When purchasing online you, as the buyer, make certain logical assumptions in regards to your purchase. You assume that the seller is going to ship you your item even barring a specific notice from the seller saying "yes, I will ship the item to you". You assume that what you're going to receive is what you purchased even though the seller doesn't have a huge banner saying "you will receive the item you purchased". You do not expect a seller to have a 30-day money back period unless it's explicitly written out that they do.

Can you honestly tell me that if you don't see a specific returns policy on a website you automatically assume the seller will take the item back, no questions asked, 5 years from now when you finally get around to opening the box?

No, what you assume is that a) the seller doesn't accept returns or b) you should investigate further to see what the seller's return policy is before buying anything. You, as the buyer, take responsibility for your purchase which is the crux of the point that I'm trying to make.

If I see a sales thread from a brand-new seller with postage-sized, blurred photos of books, no references and no mention of a return policy, that is a huge warning sign to me. If I'm absolutely dying to buy from this seller, it's in my own best interest to investigate further before committing to a purchase. If I can't be bothered to do so, well, that's kinda my own fault.

I don't see anything inherently shady in having a "no returns policy" - there are plenty of sellers here who explicitly state they won't take returns on CGC'ed books, for instance. It's just another piece of information that allows me to decide whether to purchase from a specific seller.

No, it's a logical interpretation to YOU & completely subjective. I personally do not see a lack of return policy as a definitive statement of "as-is, no returns". I see it as a "returns aren't defined so maybe I should ask about returns before I buy so that I can know what I'm getting into here?" . Because it's undefined & therefore unknown.

 

And yet another person may see it as "well, they said normal board rules apply at the top & didn't cover returns & most other people seem to have an X-day window for returns, so that's normal board rules".

 

And yet another might see it as "I can gamble because they didn't say they WON'T take it back if it doesn't look as good in-hand as it does on the smudged screen of my tiny phone or if it sinks like a brick in value 2 weeks from now".

 

None of them are objectively wrong because there's no evidence at the moment to prove any of them wrong. Or right. And that makes it a pretty subjective issue. Whereas a defined policy makes for an objective statement where there is only 1 logical interpretation.

 

And in the case you posed, while you might be SOL on making the return, the also don't has no protection of being able to point to a "look, it was stated right here where I said you can't return anything & you didn't read it " from the PR standpoint. And that's what the PL is really... a PR thread of who to and not to do business with because they're shady or have been shady in certain situations. I'd consider a retailer that wasn't even willing to state "you can't return your purchase" to me before I made the purchase as pretty shady. It might cost me a couple bucks to find it out, but I'd let others know "oh that place won't even admit until after you've made your purchase that you can't return it" and try to let others know not do deal with them either because I don't want them to have to lose money to learn the same lesson on that particular retailer. And isn't that the purpose of the PL here, right? To tell others so they don't get screwed over as well?

 

When purchasing online you, as the buyer, make certain logical assumptions in regards to your purchase. You assume that the seller is going to ship you your item even barring a specific notice from the seller saying "yes, I will ship the item to you". You assume that what you're going to receive is what you purchased even though the seller doesn't have a huge banner saying "you will receive the item you purchased". You do not expect a seller to have a 30-day money back period unless it's explicitly written out that they do.

 

Can you honestly tell me that if you don't see a specific returns policy on a website you automatically assume the seller will take the item back, no questions asked, 5 years from now when you finally get around to opening the box?

 

No, what you assume is that a) the seller doesn't accept returns or b) you should investigate further to see what the seller's return policy is before buying anything. You, as the buyer, take responsibility for your purchase which is the crux of the point that I'm trying to make.

 

If I see a sales thread from a brand-new seller with postage-sized, blurred photos of books, no references and no mention of a return policy, that is a huge warning sign to me. If I'm absolutely dying to buy from this seller, it's in my own best interest to investigate further before committing to a purchase. If I can't be bothered to do so, well, that's kinda my own fault.

 

I don't see anything inherently shady in having a "no returns policy" - there are plenty of sellers here who explicitly state they won't take returns on CGC'ed books, for instance. It's just another piece of information that allows me to decide whether to purchase from a specific seller.

I'm pretty sure Rupp didn't buy any pointed cruxes. I believe it was a comic book.

We're going to rule this place to death.

 

 

 

This post gets 4 stars.

We're going to rule this place to death.

 

 

 

 

This post gets 4 stars.

Your seal of approval is the only one that matters to me.

You heard that right Greggy!

We're going to rule this place to death.

 

 

 

 

This post gets 4 stars.

 

 

Your seal of approval is the only one that matters to me.

 

You heard that right Greggy!

"We apologise again for the fault in the

subtitles. Those responsible for sacking

the people who have just been sacked,

have been sacked."

No, it's a logical interpretation to YOU & completely subjective. I personally do not see a lack of return policy as a definitive statement of "as-is, no returns". I see it as a "returns aren't defined so maybe I should ask about returns before I buy so that I can know what I'm getting into here?" . Because it's undefined & therefore unknown.

 

And yet another person may see it as "well, they said normal board rules apply at the top & didn't cover returns & most other people seem to have an X-day window for returns, so that's normal board rules".

 

And yet another might see it as "I can gamble because they didn't say they WON'T take it back if it doesn't look as good in-hand as it does on the smudged screen of my tiny phone or if it sinks like a brick in value 2 weeks from now".

 

None of them are objectively wrong because there's no evidence at the moment to prove any of them wrong. Or right. And that makes it a pretty subjective issue. Whereas a defined policy makes for an objective statement where there is only 1 logical interpretation.

 

And in the case you posed, while you might be SOL on making the return, the also don't has no protection of being able to point to a "look, it was stated right here where I said you can't return anything & you didn't read it " from the PR standpoint. And that's what the PL is really... a PR thread of who to and not to do business with because they're shady or have been shady in certain situations. I'd consider a retailer that wasn't even willing to state "you can't return your purchase" to me before I made the purchase as pretty shady. It might cost me a couple bucks to find it out, but I'd let others know "oh that place won't even admit until after you've made your purchase that you can't return it" and try to let others know not do deal with them either because I don't want them to have to lose money to learn the same lesson on that particular retailer. And isn't that the purpose of the PL here, right? To tell others so they don't get screwed over as well?

 

When purchasing online you, as the buyer, make certain logical assumptions in regards to your purchase. You assume that the seller is going to ship you your item even barring a specific notice from the seller saying "yes, I will ship the item to you". You assume that what you're going to receive is what you purchased even though the seller doesn't have a huge banner saying "you will receive the item you purchased". You do not expect a seller to have a 30-day money back period unless it's explicitly written out that they do.

 

Can you honestly tell me that if you don't see a specific returns policy on a website you automatically assume the seller will take the item back, no questions asked, 5 years from now when you finally get around to opening the box?

 

No, what you assume is that a) the seller doesn't accept returns or b) you should investigate further to see what the seller's return policy is before buying anything. You, as the buyer, take responsibility for your purchase which is the crux of the point that I'm trying to make.

 

If I see a sales thread from a brand-new seller with postage-sized, blurred photos of books, no references and no mention of a return policy, that is a huge warning sign to me. If I'm absolutely dying to buy from this seller, it's in my own best interest to investigate further before committing to a purchase. If I can't be bothered to do so, well, that's kinda my own fault.

 

I don't see anything inherently shady in having a "no returns policy" - there are plenty of sellers here who explicitly state they won't take returns on CGC'ed books, for instance. It's just another piece of information that allows me to decide whether to purchase from a specific seller.

 

I'm pretty sure Rupp didn't buy any pointed cruxes. I believe it was a comic book.

I rest my case, then

I don't know if this is where I discuss and ask questions of when to put on PL.

Here's the scenario:

Purchased 2 comics on 5/24 (paid that day)

Arrived 6/1 DAMAGED in shipping, I provided photos of damaged box and comics

Seller agreed to refund

Item sent back 6/16 due to member being out of town due to a family emergency

Returned Item received on 6/18

Seller refunded 1/2 the money on 6/20 and said he would send the rest of the money in 1 week by either paypal or by check.

I have not received nor heard from the seller since 6/20. He has not checked his messages as well.

Does the 30 day period start from 6/20 or from the original sell date?

I don't know if this is where I discuss and ask questions of when to put on PL.

 

Here's the scenario:

 

Purchased 2 comics on 5/24 (paid that day)

Arrived 6/1 DAMAGED in shipping, I provided photos of damaged box and comics

 

Seller agreed to refund

 

Item sent back 6/16 due to member being out of town due to a family emergency

Returned Item received on 6/18

 

Seller refunded 1/2 the money on 6/20 and said he would send the rest of the money in 1 week by either paypal or by check.

 

I have not received nor heard from the seller since 6/20. He has not checked his messages as well.

 

Does the 30 day period start from 6/20 or from the original sell date?

i'd be tempted to say clock re-set on 6/18

Starts from the 20th, when the agreement was made. Would have been the 18th if not for agreeing to a half and half refund on the 20th.