miraclemet

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)

...here's a thought... if you spend two weeks telling someone you are waiting for more Priority Boxes from USPS before shipping out a package... you should probably use a priority box when you finally get around to shipping the book. (and no I'm not naming names, cause it just isn't worth it)

Is that a Gryffindor tie? Nice catch, I didnt even notice. The Morning Glories school uniform is a solid maroon tie.. Eisma might be a Potter reader..

Two wraparound covers came in the mail today. Both are SS, one is a sketch... And I really like this Eisma not to sexy Emma Frost putting the voodoo on Casey from Morning Glories.

Two wraparound covers came in the mail today. Both are SS, one is a sketch... And I really like this Eisma not to sexy Emma Frost putting the voodoo on Casey from Morning Glories.

So here's my plan. 1. find out the bank that Ditko banks at. 2. Take a job at the bank 3. stalk his account and wait for him to submit a check, or have a check returned that he wrote. 4. take the checks, quit the job, become a legend. Check and mate.

I dont think you are understanding what I am driving for. Sure there are exceptions, but you start from the standard otherwise every order is a unique one off leaving every customer guessing as to what to expect. All Im pushing for is an outline of what items need to be addressed in each Sig/Sketch Op so that buyers know what they are getting into from the outset. Many facilitators already do this in some fashion, but by having a standard and being uniform we ensure that all Ops start with the same baseline of information. Similarly a stated expectation protects the Facilitator from crazy post-purchase requests from the buyer (or at least gives the facilitator the freedom to say no and point back to the Ops stated deliverables). My goal is a process that protects both sides, or at least makes for an up-front set of expectations for both parties.

Hear you on these, and thank you for accepting the process as it stands. No process is perfect, but it functions decently to help maintain the overall community here. Good countermeasure on #3 so that the issue does not re-occur in the future. What is the higher standard? Are you referring to the CGC standard (I dont know what it is, so I dont know what it is higher than). I do think a standard needs to be stated and adhered to over in the Signature Room forum for the Event Ops. And while you are correct there are many facilitators, not all facilitators have access to the same Cons and same artists, so its not as simple (sometimes) as just taking ones business elsewhere.

All fair points Joey. 1. I think the facilitators (and the customers who pay for the sketches) are at the mercy of the artist, so it is tough to push requirements regarding payment. Many artists have gotten screwed doing work on spec and never getting a paycheck (or spending lots of their own time running after customers, publishers, etc to get paid). So I understand their hesitancy to take on work with out upfront payment. Customers get to decide if they are ok with that or not (Jim Lee wants upfront? No one complains cause they are desperate for a sketch, No-name artist wants upfront? Complaints) 2. I do think Facilitator communication should be a stated standard and be PL worthy if a facilitator is not meeting the stated expectation. If a facilitator says "there will be no updates on status until all books are returned, I will not respond to PMs" then the expectation is set, and the buyers can decide if thats ok for their money, and if not, they can not participate. To me the point is we need to tell Facilitators what expectations need to be set: Payment options Timelines for shipping once the artist is done with the book Communication standards

You are right Branget: 3) Being 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. and then subsequently: 4) Removal From The PL b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, the accused will be removed from the PL.

I've opened a thread over in the Signature Forum here. I've asked if there are any documented SS Op standards that Facilitators are all held to or should be held to (a'la our simple marketplace rules). We'll see what that gets... maybe I'm poking a bee hive... maybe I'll never be able to get a book signed via a facilitator again... we'll see....

Does this happen? I've never seen someone post an in a SS op offering and have it rescinded by the facilitator, but maybe it happens behind the scenes so the facilitator doesnt get in trouble for favoritism? I could understand a facilitator turning down an from someone in the past who did not pay on time, but to me this sounds like a simple application of the Probation list, and the SS facilitators should just use the nomination/resolution process and then have a rule in their op that anyone who's been nominated by them for the PL due to non-payment is not eligible. Otherwise anyones should be good. Now if we are talking about non-Events (i.e. sig facilitation at a con, sketch pickup/submission etc) I could see how someone would not want to lose the good graces of the facilitator for future help with submissions, but again it sounds like if a facilitator was caught turning down a customer (for any reason other than previous payment problems), CGC would not be happy about that....