miraclemet

Part of my new goal of having SS from all of the living legends. First goal: Mr Infantino on a replica of Flash Annual #1 (bought this sight unseen off eBay and had the seller ship it right to the signing sight-unseen, so Im happy it got a 9.6)

From the recent Desert Wind Legends event. Happy with my 9.6, considering I had to move fast, buy direct from eBay and then have the seller ship to DWC directly... could have been much worse. I'm still hesitant to have real SA books get signed, so this Flash Annual #1 Replica was a nice middle ground. Also it looks like Carmine is just doing his last name now for sigs?

alas, information updates (which I think would include price changes) aren't considered bumps.

CAL finding loopholes So the rule he's closest to kind of breaking is: "Threads may be bumped three times total AND only ONE FULL DAY AFTER falling off of the front page. This does not include "sold" notices, or truly useful informational updates. Note: we CAN tell the difference between a real update and a fake bump-update. Tread that line at your own risk. If you're spam bumping, "lawyering" the rules will not save you." TECHNICALLY he's compliant. CAL is changing the price of a book, so that's not considered a "bump" (it would be considered a useful information update).... the mods will have to decide whether to address it or not, since they are the ones who make the call. If it was a book with a price that was closer to the market, and he was "bumping" the listing by dropping the price every day, would it still be a problem? Another parallel would be if I listed a book closer to GPA, but was constantly bumping my thread by dropping the book price by $1 each time. but its a slippery slope since part of the loophole has to do with pricing the book so out of scope with the market, since everyone agrees the buyer gets to decide what price to list their books at... its the use of a reverse auction as a bumping tool that needs some sort of rule around it.

jrob well said and welcome. I agree the 24 limit (if thats the sellers term) is tough. But if a seller is hot to sell, I'd expect to see an instant PM/Invoice following a in a thread, and if you were on to post the then doing the paypal should be easy enough since you're already online...

I've seen people include that sales are at their discretion (in other words the seller can decide not to sell it to a potential buyer). You could be general like that. Or you could be specific that anyone with fewer than X number of posts must communicate an via PMs with references provided (ebay, other sales sites), and that you have the right to reject a purchase offer from a new user, and leave a book on the market. Have people done this before? (your scenario of an just to get a competing book off the market that never gets consumated cause its a shill account while the "real" user sells the same book to a real buyer while yours sits off the market. I would hope...

Yes I agree too, 3 days is a really tight time frame, and a bit ridiculous to expect all to be able to accomplish since this is (for some) just a part time hobby, and as we all know many of us (though not all) have lives outside of comics/comic forums. I agree the reasonable middle ground is that the seller can relist a book once his term date has passed and fear not the probation list, but does that also free the original buyer from any possible PL nomination? And does merely relisting it cancel the prior obligation, or would it require the book to actually sell? [i would assume relisting, since that is more cut and dried]

I take one day off... and look at the Probation thread! Such entertainment to get thru... The original question from @nocutename was "How long do we currently have to wait for payment?" The terms of the purchase did not specify timing at the time of purchase (either in the PMs or in the sale thread). There are no default timelines for transactions to be completed. Nothing is stated in the Usage Guidelines . Where there is a timing component listed is in the Probation Rules. So essentially a transaction can take any amount of time, but after 30 days the seller can nominate for PL if there's been no payment, and similarly the buyer can PL nominate if the deal hits 30 days without the books being shipped (granted the interpretation of "completed" can go a few different ways between book shipped, book received, etc, but I like to use shipped since that's the last thing that the seller has under his/her full control). So again back to @nocutename's original question "How long do we currently have to wait for payment?" In function, the seller technically has up to 30 days to pay you before they could be nominated for PL (yes in reality that means if s/he takes the full 30 to pay, there's no way for the transaction to be completed in 30 days, but that's about the only way to read the rule without dipping into the huge variable of shipping time/USPS problems etc). To the bigger question of can sellers dictate non 30 day payment requirements. The answer has to be yes. In function there have been plenty of sales with more prescriptive requirements than the forum dictates. Whether that's Paypal fees, shipping dictum (priory boxed only), or payment timings. There have been numerous "I need some cash fast to pay for a book/pay for bills, payment needed in 3 days", and if you commit to a purchase in that thread, you are buying based on those rules, and should be held to them. As people have pointed out, this is a part time hobby to many, so they may state a purchase intent, and not be back to the boards for days (or the following weekend), thus violating the specific sales thread purchase agreement. But if they were so gung-ho to buy, shouldn't they be ready to pay, same time? Its tough, I see both sides, but I think the sellers have a right to set the terms of their sales (at the time of posting, and in the same public way as they are posting the sale itself), and the buyer gets to decide if s/he wants to purchase in a thread and abide by those rules. The question then is, if we were to amend the Probation rule with the language about transactions having 30 days to complete "unless otherwise stated in the specific sales thread requirements" does that mean that for the "3 day payment" threads the buyer could immediately be nominated at the end of the 3 days? I would venture to say yes. Again back to the OPs case, since those terms were not specified in the thread the buyer has the standard 30 day window.

Maybe a little, but the responses you are getting is making it a worse problem than just selling a book on ebay and here. Also its a bit of an unusual case considering there were competing completed deals (in essence). 99% of the time when someone lists a book here that's on ebay they de-list it on ebay and the problem becomes moot.

Like have a boardie purchase a book from another ebayer, seems he sold his copy on ebay, while listing it here too? come on, you seriously think I meant to apply that statement to everything? In context surely you understand that I meant that Weekend has the right to set his sale rules (ie a minimum purchase amount) Listing a book that was also on ebay is a big no-no of course. Making it right in a very round about way is also a mess, and not the way to do things.(We buy here so we can AVOID ebay!) He should have cancelled the ebay sale, or said the one book was no longer available, and sold it as intended her on the boards.

Dont worry you are just the flavor of the moment, the Probation Thread will long outlive your botched transaction. Side point, and Weekend gets to do what he wants, but has anyone else seen a "minimum" requirement in sales threads here? Cause I dont remember seeing any, and that includes some peoples $1/book threads.... Again, Weekend gets to do what he wants, its his thread... I just think most buyers here arent thinking "minimums" when they start buying (and there's nothing saying he wasnt going to buy more.... and was waiting to see what else was offered in the thread)

and SPB I agree, the point of the PL is to make the community aware of those who dont live up to their part of the marketplace agreements, so the spirit of the PL would mean anyone not fulfilling time payments could end up on the PL, regardless of any built in non-refundable amount.

in this case they didnt fulfill the initial contract, even to the extent of the down payment, so yes they'd be in violation of the agreement terms.

I agree. If a non-refundable deposit is in place to protect the seller from the buyer backing out, and they back out - the seller is compensated, and the buyer shouldn't have to be on the PL. Yeah, the buyer has made in inconvenient, but the seller is compensated for holding the books. And if a seller doesn't feel that 5% was enough to hang onto the books for three months, increase it to 15% non-refundable. I think they are two separate issues. The buyer has not paid what they were supposed to pay, period. If you allow a down payment to be enough to keep them off the list, then you open whole new cans of worms. For example. I had someone who was supposed to pay 20% down, they paid about 3% and I never heard from them. What if someone pays a down-payment and then a small part of what is owed...usually people make payment plans. If the person does not comply with the payment plan, would you want to deal with them? Or would you want to know that they have NOT complied, so you can avoid another payment plan disaster with them? I understand your point SPB, and that's how the PL has always seemed to work (anyone backing out of a transaction goes on the PL unless it is made right). Part of my rationale is that the seller is baking in the "made right" part of the transaction by having a non-refundable deposit/penalty for non-payment. I just think the rules should be clear that anyone backing out of a deal is still subject to possible PL regardless of any built in deposit/penalty conditions of the time payments.

I agree. If a non-refundable deposit is in place to protect the seller from the buyer backing out, and they back out - the seller is compensated, and the buyer shouldn't have to be on the PL. Yeah, the buyer has made in inconvenient, but the seller is compensated for holding the books. And if a seller doesn't feel that 5% was enough to hang onto the books for three months, increase it to 15% non-refundable. Yeah thats my thought too... now if the guy tries to do some non-delivery paypal shenanagins to try to get the deposit back... to the LIST!

That's 3 days after sending a separate PM to the buyer/seller. Mike, I'd just send him the separate PM, wait the 3 days (unless you sent one already) and move on. The 3 days is fair so that he knows it's over. It's nice of you not to nominate him, but he deserves to be on that list. Here's what I always wondered about with time payments vs Probation List. I enter into a contract to buy a book, say for $1000 with a $100 non-refundable deposit, and the balance due in 90 days. I pay the $100 deposit, and then do not make good on the remainder of the balance within the 90 days per the agreement. The seller gets to keep the $100 bucks (as agreed it being a non-refundable deposit), but in doing so haven't we both held up the contract in a sense? The non-refundable deposit is like saying in the contract "if I dont pay off the book, this $100 is not refunded" So the seller is agreeing to the posibility of the book not being paid off, and the $100 penalty being the off-set for that outcome. So as long as the seller gets the $100, then why should the buyer go on the Probation list? S/He fulfilled the contract, just not the best possible outcome of the contract. (In other words, time payments with built in penalties allow for two possible contractual fulfillments: Full payment, or non-payment with a monetary penalty). What are peoples thoughts? That sounds logical....and fair, however, I do not want to deal with buyers like this and the list is a way to check and remember them for what happened. I guess my point is, if the transaction is completed via the terms of the condition (where one of the possible outcomes is nonpayment with the seller keeping the deposit) can the non-buyer still be nominated for the probation list?

That's 3 days after sending a separate PM to the buyer/seller. Mike, I'd just send him the separate PM, wait the 3 days (unless you sent one already) and move on. The 3 days is fair so that he knows it's over. It's nice of you not to nominate him, but he deserves to be on that list. Here's what I always wondered about with time payments vs Probation List. I enter into a contract to buy a book, say for $1000 with a $100 non-refundable deposit, and the balance due in 90 days. I pay the $100 deposit, and then do not make good on the remainder of the balance within the 90 days per the agreement. The seller gets to keep the $100 bucks (as agreed it being a non-refundable deposit), but in doing so haven't we both held up the contract in a sense? The non-refundable deposit is like saying in the contract "if I dont pay off the book, this $100 is not refunded" So the seller is agreeing to the posibility of the book not being paid off, and the $100 penalty being the off-set for that outcome. So as long as the seller gets the $100, then why should the buyer go on the Probation list? S/He fulfilled the contract, just not the best possible outcome of the contract. (In other words, time payments with built in penalties allow for two possible contractual fulfillments: Full payment, or non-payment with a monetary penalty). What are peoples thoughts?

Well it's your call here. I think you are within your right to cancel the transaction, keep the non-refundable deposit (if that's what it was called) and relist/sell the books. Here's where I think it's your call. If he's been responsive up to this point, and has continually stated that he would pay by 3/3, maybe give him the chance to respond. 3/3 was a Sunday. Maybe he got swamped at work, maybe he got sick. If he has been responsive and agreeable up till now, maybe give him thru the weekend to respond. If he's been problematic, evasive or difficult enough that your radar was already expecting this deal to fall thru, cut bait. By the terms of the agreement you are within your right.

Rules of a transaction and Rules of the Probation List are two different things. For this transaction only you should be able to cancel the deal as of 3/3 when he violated the terms of payment. You should also be able to keep the deposit if that was part of the terms (if it was described as a non-refundable depost). You should be able to relist the books since the deal is dead. You arent looking to put him on the PL correct? Just looking to confirm that you can move on?

well they both have 5/92 release dates. (Malibu Sun #13 and Spawn #1) so since it was Image's "preview" magazine isnt it the same as those selling Preview Magazines as "first appearances" of Walking Dead, Saga, etc....

I actually think thats pretty logical. Want to keep the "modern" hotness confined to its own thread, so comics from the 80s/90s/2000s dont get overrun by Con threads and hot books (everything from #1s popping to shorted day of releases). you've got my support on it!

per the CGC mods they "believe this product is allowed to be sold" and "please stop notifying the moderators" so nevermind... Continue selling unlicensed art that the original artists make no revenue from. You'd think our community would be above that sort of creator slight... topic dropped.

artists doing sketches has always been an nod and a wink allowance by the publishers at cons and elsewhere as long as the images arent mass marketed. so no its not about the sketches

I still don't get why selling valid digital codes is against the rules from CGC, but selling unlicensed (ie bootleg) items is perfectly acceptable. What's the difference?

Will trade any of these for anything Green Lantern related (CGCed)