mikenyc

So just to be clear, this is how that went down after a few days of discussion where the 10 or so people who commented were split on whether or not there was a violation A runs away instead of trying to make amends. The 72 Hour period is up, right? Oceanavekid needs to be added to the PL right? Jay... A runs away instead of trying to make amends. The 72 Hour period is up, right? Oceanavekid needs to be added to the PL right? Jay... It has been 72hrs, this is the nomination: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7658964#Post7658964

What rule was that?

There should also be a minimum number of participants required to make a nomination poll valid.

I would like to address the 2 parts I put in bold. First the validity of a nomination requires full adherence to the rules. Saying " there is no need to discuss the validity of the nomination UNLESS (per rule Rule 3B) the nominee responds" is patently wrong. There have been MANY nominations that did not go through because they were not valid based on the rules. One does not just make a PL nomination and it is automatically valid. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. Second, simply because someone replies to the PL nomination does not get them removed from the list. Saying " his statement was/is that the thread was closed and he was moving the books to eBay. Ok, fine. Taking his statement at face value, he should now be removed from the PL" makes no sense, especially combined with the acknowledgement that "his original addition was (and is) still valid under board rules". It is up to the person making the PL nomination to request removal as stated in rule 4: 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. I have re-added oceanavekid to the PL List and put it to Jawn: Do you want oceanavekid on or off the list? Has it been determined that ocean violated any rules? It seems that there was no agreement that he did. I certainly don't think he did and there needs to be some standards brought back to prevent members who feel slighted from creating a list that is unmanageable and lacks any relevancy.

Any seller that sends a message like this would never get my business. The buyer was Italian,was he not? The olive oil comment was real classy.

Agreed. But if he doesn't - Probation List? Why not? If people are placed on the list for not completing a transaction, when there is no real loss, then why would someone who overcharges and actually causes a real loss not be a candidate?

It's like renting a limo and a bicycle picks you up. They can both get you to your destination but riding the handlebars isn't what you paid for.

There is way too much debate here. If the buyer is overcharged on shipping, whether or not it was sent first class or priority, he should get a refund. Plain and simple. What was the shipping quote and what was the shipping cost? If there is more than a few dollars discrepancy the seller should refund the difference.

Hope all is well my friend!

1) Thread was inactive for 8 days. 2) Buyer inquired about book, and was told TWICE that it was being kept. 3) Buyer got angry and put BIN in thread, even after being told the books were not available. 4) Book was listed on eBay. 5) Ocean pizzed and moaned when nominated for PL. It was actually 6 days 5 1/2 hours dormant. 8:44 PM CST on April 24...to 3:14 AM CST on May 1. Not that it makes much difference but if you are recapping we should probably correct that part. Also, it should be noted that if we are placing weight on the seller's claim that it wasn't for sale because he was "holding on to it" then weight should be placed on the seller then posting it for sale on Ebay the same day Jawn said he'd take in the thread. Basically, it was for sale and him saying he was "holding on to it" was inaccurate (to be kind). That statement turned out to be untrue. If that statement was inaccurate by the seller, it places every statement before and after that he's made regarding this incident into question. Chris you are a pretty reasonable person, what do you think about this nomination? Should Ocean have been added to the PL because he refused to honor a sale in a thread that had been inactive for 6 days? Frankly, I have to go back and reread the posts from when it happened to make sure I didn't miss anything. My impression is the seller was less than forthright and transparent with his assertions and intentions to keep/hold onto the book. To be honest, that may color my opinions. His actions is discussing a potential purchase with Jawn just before Jawn posted the (the same evening) may point to the thread still being open but I have to check the timeline and posts again for myself. His discussion of the book and discussing price with Jawn just a few hours before Jawn took it in the thread seem to books still being for sale and thus the thread still being open. Those PMs just before Jawn takes the book in the thread eliminate the 6 1/2 day time lapse for me. Ocean could have said "Oh that thread's dead, not for sale" but he didn't, he hemmed and hawed and said he was going to post scans, and then openly seemed to be negotiating. His claim of "I may hold onto it" must be read as a negotiating ploy given his almost immediate listing of the book on Ebay. There aren't too many other complimentary ways to read what he said and then what he immediately did in contradiction of what was said. Without that PM discussion just before the in the thread I would not have an issue with absolving Ocean. It's the ploys and comments and statements (and contradictions) that seemed to demonstrate the thread was still filled with books he was trying to move and willing to discuss moving. If he wasn't he should have simply said "Not For Sale". It's a gray area but his subsequent actions and contradictions make me less inclined to come down on his side when he could have handled this so much better and with so much more forthrightness. Whether underhanded, or shady, or being used as a sales tactic, he wrote in two PM's that he was keeping the book after which the buyer posts a as if they had a discussion and agreed on terms or price. The seller shouldn't be obligated to sell simply because the buyer had blinders on and ignored the seller's comments about keeping the book. If you want to argue that not writing closed in a sales thread or relisting a book on Ebay is bad form I'm all for that, but PL worthy? Seems like a stretch. It does seem stretchy, I agree. The point was, he was willing to negotiate the same day that the person posted the take it in the thread. The 6 days get eliminated as the seller was willing to entertain buyers up to that point. While I can see your point of view, in looking at the posted PM's the seller was not very clear if the thread was dead (books being held) and was clearly willing to sell for the right price. He said exactly "probably just going to hold onto it until I take pics" after which he negotiated and entertained Jawn's offer and then said, exactly, "Think I am just going to hold onto it" while rejecting that offer. The immediate Ebay listing tells me that the comments about keeping it were, in fact, simply for negotiation which tells me the the books in the thread were actually still for sale at the time he was speaking to Jawn. The fact that he immediately (same day) put them up on Ebay is where the bad form and destruction of credibility come from. Makes it hard to side with him with all these words and actions going against him. There were several ways to end that conversation with Jawn and that thread so that this could not have happened. The tip toe soft shoe B.S. routine led to some honest confusion. The seller isn't 100% blameless. That's where the gray area comes in, but I get what you're saying. Somewhere along the line "bad form" and lying in a PM have to have consequences...hard to say if this was the right place for it. It's now my Birthday, just let me win.

1) Thread was inactive for 8 days. 2) Buyer inquired about book, and was told TWICE that it was being kept. 3) Buyer got angry and put BIN in thread, even after being told the books were not available. 4) Book was listed on eBay. 5) Ocean pizzed and moaned when nominated for PL. It was actually 6 days 5 1/2 hours dormant. 8:44 PM CST on April 24...to 3:14 AM CST on May 1. Not that it makes much difference but if you are recapping we should probably correct that part. Also, it should be noted that if we are placing weight on the seller's claim that it wasn't for sale because he was "holding on to it" then weight should be placed on the seller then posting it for sale on Ebay the same day Jawn said he'd take in the thread. Basically, it was for sale and him saying he was "holding on to it" was inaccurate (to be kind). That statement turned out to be untrue. If that statement was inaccurate by the seller, it places every statement before and after that he's made regarding this incident into question. Chris you are a pretty reasonable person, what do you think about this nomination? Should Ocean have been added to the PL because he refused to honor a sale in a thread that had been inactive for 6 days? Frankly, I have to go back and reread the posts from when it happened to make sure I didn't miss anything. My impression is the seller was less than forthright and transparent with his assertions and intentions to keep/hold onto the book. To be honest, that may color my opinions. His actions is discussing a potential purchase with Jawn just before Jawn posted the (the same evening) may point to the thread still being open but I have to check the timeline and posts again for myself. His discussion of the book and discussing price with Jawn just a few hours before Jawn took it in the thread seem to books still being for sale and thus the thread still being open. Those PMs just before Jawn takes the book in the thread eliminate the 6 1/2 day time lapse for me. Ocean could have said "Oh that thread's dead, not for sale" but he didn't, he hemmed and hawed and said he was going to post scans, and then openly seemed to be negotiating. His claim of "I may hold onto it" must be read as a negotiating ploy given his almost immediate listing of the book on Ebay. There aren't too many other complimentary ways to read what he said and then what he immediately did in contradiction of what was said. Without that PM discussion just before the in the thread I would not have an issue with absolving Ocean. It's the ploys and comments and statements (and contradictions) that seemed to demonstrate the thread was still filled with books he was trying to move and willing to discuss moving. If he wasn't he should have simply said "Not For Sale". It's a gray area but his subsequent actions and contradictions make me less inclined to come down on his side when he could have handled this so much better and with so much more forthrightness. Whether underhanded, or shady, or being used as a sales tactic, he wrote in two PM's that he was keeping the book after which the buyer posts a as if they had a discussion and agreed on terms or price. The seller shouldn't be obligated to sell simply because the buyer had blinders on and ignored the seller's comments about keeping the book. If you want to argue that not writing closed in a sales thread or relisting a book on Ebay is bad form I'm all for that, but PL worthy? Seems like a stretch.

You're too sweet Sharon, I'll be the obnoxious side of our New York Yin and Yang.

When everything filtered through POV there was order. Now someone nominates someone else, while there are already three different random nominations being debated arbitrarily. Then suddenly the person is added to the list. There is no rhyme or reason and based off of the ocean kid nomination things have turned into the hurt feelings list. Every time someone feels slighted or disrespected it isn't a reason to add someone to the PL, if that was the case there would be about three members who wouldn't be on it. It's become a joke and if there is any chance of people actually respecting the process there needs to be some serious changes.

This is what I read. So where is the definitive keeping of the book? For realz? The guy suggested twice that he was going to keep the book. If the buyer perceived it differently by the sellers syntax, tough titties. I'm still not understanding where the transgression was? Was he not literal enough? Honestly this is ridiculous. Ok. So where does the obligation to follow through with start? If this is ridiculous then where is the line. Nobody seems to be able to even try and answer this. Allow me. The seller is only obligated to sell the book when they agree to a . Sellers put twenty reasons why they won't sell to someone so by a buyer simply posting a does not a sale make. Now in this case that didn't even happen. The buyer asked a question which was answered by a I'm going to keep the book. Then he made a lower offer than the asking price that the seller responded again with I'm going to keep the book. Then the buyer simply states I'll take it, ignoring the two times the seller stated he was keeping the book. You're arguing for clarification for a situation that didn't occur.

He didn't tell the buyer he didn't want to sell. He hinted he may not want to sell. Some would say he was bartering. (thumbs u Didn't the person nominating him post the PM exchange where he states I'm going to keep the book and the buyer just plowed forward? Mike, here is the PM convo. The grey area is the "probably" and "think I'm going to" but never closing the thread over 6 hours later despite posting in other threads. He had time to close the thread - he didn't. Books were still for sale. With all due respect, who cares? The seller is not beholden to anyone to close the thread if they change their mind. The guy states twice that he is going to keep the book. The deeper reading into his choice of words or failure to close the thread means zero. He did nothing wrong.

This is what I read. So where is the definitive keeping of the book? For realz? The guy suggested twice that he was going to keep the book. If the buyer perceived it differently by the sellers syntax, tough titties. I'm still not understanding where the transgression was? Was he not literal enough? Honestly this is ridiculous.

This is what I read.

He didn't tell the buyer he didn't want to sell. He hinted he may not want to sell. Some would say he was bartering. (thumbs u Didn't the person nominating him post the PM exchange where he states I'm going to keep the book and the buyer just plowed forward?

Can someone explain why ocean kid is on the PL. From reading it seemed he told the buyer twice he didn't want to sell the book. Why is he on the list? I'm not being facetious I'm just wondering what I missed.

This should act as a warning for those who buy mystery boxes. The sellers of mystery boxes are trying to unload bulk in a cost effective manner. Individually the books might be worth a few bucks each bringing the overall value well above the price they are being offered at, but really they are just a large quantity of mediocre books being sold quickly. The buyer under the allure of buying something valued well above the price they would purchase the mystery box for believes that they are getting a bargain. They have no power to control the contents and shouldn't assume that they will be satisfied even if the overall value is higher than the purchase price. The problem is compounded when the seller offers 1 uber prize to randomly be inserted into one of the boxes. In reality the relatively high probability of having the prize in your box acts as a further enticement. Don't buy a mystery box and then be surprised when you're unhappy with the outcome. It's like ordering a random meal at a restaurant, that's guaranteed to be expensive. How could you possibly know if you'll be satisfied simply because it's perceived value is higher than the cost to aquire it. If I wanted to pay for other people's junk I would collect DC..........it's just a joke heathens.

I'll pose this question for a possible answer. A member bought a book of mine over two months ago. He sent payment without including shipping. He lives in Canada which I wasn't aware of until after receiving payment and also which I clearly explained in the thread would be at cost. I PM'd him and he never responded. I sent an email to his paypal address which was bounced back as being invalid. I have his book packaged in my office and would even eat the shipping but he hasn't responded and I can't contact him, so I don't want the risk of it going to Canada and disappearing. I'm past the refund time so I was going to just send him a payment for the money, but again he hasn't been on the boards since and doesn't have a working email attached to his paypal. Do I hold the book indefinitely? Do I send payment to him for the same amount and assume he gets it? If I sell the book will there be an issue if he eventually returns to the boards and says I never completed the transaction? Thoughts?

I could resist no longer and I preordered the DD statue. I was hooked after COI posted all the Conan and Pubisher detail shots. Also, for such a small monthly payment over six months I was basically forced into buying it.

I thought Arch banned mystery box threads. My bad, it's raffles.

I trust your judgment. You would certainly be the local stupidity expert. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not the movie with Joseph Cotton. It's always the same fools on the anti-Kav bandwagon. What a circle jerk. In my book whoever has to hurl insults first has lost the argument. A fool, hardly. But I'll paypal you $50.00 to stop your worthless, endless babbling for 24 hours. You have a deal ddkaviraj@aol.com :: You post too much.

You mean to say stigma, you shouldn't post so much.