Number 6

This is the foundation of my earlier comments about pursuit of the PL being a "hard- line" to take in this situation. I was never arguing that buyers should be held to lower standards, in general. I believe buyers should go above and beyond to honor their commitments, just as sellers should. I'm just in the camp that thinks there was some misunderstanding here, which I tend to give benefit of the doubt on... Isn't the objective of the PL to work out problem transactions, including ones of miscommunication? And again, where is the requirement that there be "sinister or malicious intent" in order for PL nomination to be valid? No. O.k., I'm out.

This is the foundation of my earlier comments about pursuit of the PL being a "hard- line" to take in this situation. I was never arguing that buyers should be held to lower standards, in general. I believe buyers should go above and beyond to honor their commitments, just as sellers should. I'm just in the camp that thinks there was some misunderstanding here, which I tend to give benefit of the doubt on... Isn't the objective of the PL to work out problem transactions, including ones of miscommunication? And again, where is the requirement that there be "sinister or malicious intent" in order for PL nomination to be valid?

Like I said - I'd have to see the initial PM exchange. Did bcc say he was or was not familiar with shipping packages to the UK? bcc: Sure, $450 works, but I can't cover shipping costs. I haven't shipped a lot of things overseas, but I've heard it's expensive. I can cover $20 but I'm worried it could be much more: even $40 - $60. Xela: No worries, I've bought from numerous people and it's always cost me around $25. ......... Completed deal with clear and specific terms? Yes/no? Communication was clearly lacking on both sides because when the terms did became clear: bcc: I just got back from USPS (or looked online). I was told it's going to be $63 shipped. PayPal me and I'll have it shipped. Xela: Woh! Why so much? Like I said, I was thinking it was $25? bcc: You're responsible for insurance. If you want to forgo insurance, I can ship the book cheaper, but you're on the hook if it gets lost. Xela: thanks, but I'll respectfully pass. Probation List worthy? I agree that the PMs haven't been shown so we can't know for sure. Our comments are based solely on bcc's overview of the exchange. However, the part in bold is something that you're inserting in the time frame at a point where - according to bcc - that statement hadn't been made yet. I agree that IF Xela made that statement at that point it would change things. But according to bcc, he didn't.

I'd have to see the PMs. What if the seller admitted he doesn't have much experience in shipping books to the UK but was concerned it COULD be $50 - $60, but he'd cover the first $20 and the would-be buyer has experience that shipping is $25 so he figured he'd be on the hook for $5. I need to see what was specifically as far as shipping, but it's clear the buyer was not really expecting a $50 - $60. (one tiny piece: shipping was $63 - higher than seller's own estimate). Maybe the discussion regarding insurance and with the additional $3, the buyer felt that the seller was nickel and dimming him and didn't want to deal with it anymore. Bottom line: there is no clear "your total WILL be $450 + $55 shipping" and an At the very first point the buyer was given the total cost, he passed. I don't see it as a done deal. Again, just my opinion for whatever that is worth. Everyone can feel free to add Xela to their list and he probably won't get many response to his WTB threads, but I don't see it as worthy of aaddition to the PL. I think this is a much more persuasive argument. I am inclined to think that no deal has been reached. Seller states that he quoted $50 to $60 shipping and buyer said ok. The buyer has made a commitment and is obligated to complete the transaction unless seller changes the terms. Technically the $63 quote does change the terms and releases the buyer from the contract but it seems silly to have a deal fall apart over $3. COULD be and WILL be are two different statements, no? The buyer obviously has previous experiences with shipping being $25 and presumably incl. insurance costs. The seller never initially quoted him shipping costs. Just a "could be" and that he'd cover the first $20. As soon as he posted definitive shipping costs, the buyer was obviously surprised by the cost and said "pass". There is obvious ambiguity in the actual shipping cost. Look at the line 3 lines above what you have in red. If the buyer is supremely confident that it's going to cost no more than $25, doesn't he have an obligation to clearly state that before he says he'll take it? Especially when the estimate is so much more and is clearly going to be a deal breaker for him?

Then you need to clearly state what your expectations are regarding shipping cost in your WTB thread. And if you're absolutely convinced that it costs no more than $20 to ship from the U.S. to the U.K. then you shouldn't agree to a sale where a seller is estimating a higher rate. And no, you're not being nominated for "payback".

I am sorry but this is a really good point. Both parties need to be willing to compromise if a deal is to be met and the buyer appears to have been more understanding at this point. He had no choice but to back out as that was probably the least foul action he could take. No, it's not really that good of a point The seller was going to chip in $20 towards the cost of shipping - which would cover the added expense of insurance. The seller also offered a couple of shipping rates that were uninsured. Yes, he was clear that there would be no coverage. But since the buyer suggested a shipping rate of $25 - which was also an uninsured rate - he should have been o.k. with that.

Only issue is, insurance is seller's responsibility, not buyer's, unless specifically agreed I would agree with you to an extent except for this: He gave the buyer several alternatives to get the price down. Well, he gave him 3 quotes & told him he was basically screwed if he choose either of the last 2 options. Yes, but the buyer mentioned a previous deal where a board member who had shipped him several slabs for $25. The reality is he would have been "screwed" with that shipping rate. This seller was at least being up front about that fact.

Didn't say that. Did you read (and internalize) this part?: As far as "internalizing" what was said - particularly the part in bold: I get the concept of the return policy catch-22 on dead-beat buyers. Believe me, I've thought about how I would handle a delinquent buyer here on the boards. Between the expense of an immediate return and/or holding on to books indefinitely so the buyer had a way off the list, honestly I don't think I ever would nominate a buyer for the PL. Just put them on my personal list and move on. But that's me. If a transaction meets the criteria for a PL nomination, I don't think it's my place to tell them that their nomination doesn't qualify because I personally wouldn't mess with it, or because I don't think they've experienced enough fiscal 'pain and suffering'.

Didn't say that. Did you read (and internalize) this part?: "harder to come by" is a relative statement Why are they are "harder to come by"? Where did the requirement that there has to be a substantial amount of time waisted and/or potential money lost before it qualifies for the PL come from? And who gets to decide how much is enough? I thought the requirements for qualifying for the PL are the Board buying and selling rules. According to those rules a buyer has an obligation to follow through on a purchase in a timely manner. There's no indication that if there's a certain amount of time invested or money involved that puts the transaction in a different category.

These questions could be asked of any transaction where the buyer claims and then fails to follow through. Why are they more relevant in this situation? So the PL should only apply to wayward sellers?

ChiSoxFan claimed half a dozen books from my sales thread, paid instantly when I sent an invoice and kept in contact with me the whole time. A super easy transaction! I hope we can do business again. Thank you!

Uh-oh. Looks like arambo comics has friends in high places.

Actually, if you care about condition at all, they're probably doing you a favor by blocking the sale. edit to add: I just checked your Feedback Left For Others. You've left zero negatives or neutrals for sellers in the last year. What is his comment about your feedback being "scary as hell" and you "punishing" sellers based on? Seriously, there's much, much better sellers to deal with than arambo comics.

There are other possibilities besides deliberately trying to damage a seller's status. By going outside eBay's return process, the buyer would be forfeiting the Buyer Protection that eBay affords. Maybe he doesn't want to risk giving that up. Perhaps if, as Doohickamabob suggested, he doesn't understand the reasons for your request, it may sound a bit shady to him. I'm not say that it is shady, but it could sound that way to someone who's ignorant of eBay's policies for Top Rated sellers. Honesty, I don't see anything that indicates a deliberately malicious motive. I just sounds like a good repeat customer who now wants to return an item and want's to do it through eBay's return process.

Thanks. Sorry if my question sounded redundant. I'm still relatively new to the SS game. When I first ventured into this forum I saw announcements for sketch ops so I just assumed that was the only opportunity to get a sketch done. So it never occurred to me to ask facilitators about getting a sketch done. It was the thread discussing talents who do sketches that was my ah-ha moment that the sketch ops were probably for the more elaborate stuff.

The thread about the creators who still do sketches got me thinking: If I sent a book to a facilitator to have signed - let's say Neal Adams for example - and I also wanted Neal to do a quick head sketch along with the sig, how would I go about that? Obviously the sketch would be an additional charge.

I understand what you're saying: while the PL serves as a warning, the primary objective of the PL is to get problem transactions completed. Thus, when an offended party proposes a nomination, it's not simply to "get back at someone" but serve as an incentive to get the deal done. So yes, the offended party should have at least a general idea of what would be needed to get the transaction satisfactorily completed. However, there have been some problem transactions were the way forward is not readily clear. Initially, this looked like it could have been one of those transactions - buyer wants the book, seller sold the book and no longer has it. In such cases, I would think the burden of finding a way to move forward would fall on the offender, not the offended. This is why I was nominated. No. You were nominated because you unilaterally broke a deal which had terms that you and the buyer had both agreed upon. So you feel absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to try and make things right with the buyer? I told him I didn't mail the book yet and I would sell it to him, he declined. And why did he decline? He clearly said why: because selling the book to him now would involve doing to someone else what you were going to do to him. What you've done with this transaction is put yourself in the unenviable position of having two buyers who have equal legitimate claim to the same book. If you pull the book back and sell it to the first buyer, you're breaking your agreement with the second buyer. If you go ahead with your deal with the second buyer, you're breaking your agreement with the first buyer. You've claimed that the second buyer would be understanding if you couldn't fulfill your commitment to him. But you also assumed that the first buyer would be understanding about breaking your deal with him - without discussing it with him first. As it turns out, he wasn't. Are you sure your second buyer will be understanding, especially if you haven't discussed it with him yet? And even if he is, should he have to be? He didn't create this situation, you did. Here's a suggestion: In one of your snarky, dismissive responses you mentioned that there are several of these on eBay. Why not buy one of those copies and send it to one of your buyers? That way you can fulfill your commitments to both of your buyers. Of course, you won't make in money on the deal. You might even loose some. But you can chalk that up to a learning experience: don't agree to extended payment terms when what you really need is immediate payment and don't break or alter an agreement without discussing it with the other party first. That's just a suggestion. And since it sounds like the first buyer is dropping the nomination, there's nothing in terms of the Probation process obligating you to come up with a solution. It depends on how much your reputation as a seller on these boards is worth to you.

I understand what you're saying: while the PL serves as a warning, the primary objective of the PL is to get problem transactions completed. Thus, when an offended party proposes a nomination, it's not simply to "get back at someone" but serve as an incentive to get the deal done. So yes, the offended party should have at least a general idea of what would be needed to get the transaction satisfactorily completed. However, there have been some problem transactions were the way forward is not readily clear. Initially, this looked like it could have been one of those transactions - buyer wants the book, seller sold the book and no longer has it. In such cases, I would think the burden of finding a way to move forward would fall on the offender, not the offended. This is why I was nominated. No. You were nominated because you unilaterally broke a deal which had terms that you and the buyer had both agreed upon. So you feel absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to try and make things right with the buyer?

I understand what you're saying: while the PL serves as a warning, the primary objective of the PL is to get problem transactions completed. Thus, when an offended party proposes a nomination, it's not simply to "get back at someone" but serve as an incentive to get the deal done. So yes, the offended party should have at least a general idea of what would be needed to get the transaction satisfactorily completed. However, there have been some problem transactions were the way forward is not readily clear. Initially, this looked like it could have been one of those transactions - buyer wants the book, seller sold the book and no longer has it. In such cases, I would think the burden of finding a way to move forward would fall on the offender, not the offended.

Where in my post did I assert that you were responsible for this transaction? You asked the nominator what the offender could do to get off the list if in fact he were to make it on the Probation List. That question has been asked of nominators more than once. I am unclear as to why it's the nominator's responsibility to figure that out for the offender. Since you asked the question I replied to you.

It sounds like the offended party is going to drop the nomination so this may be beating a dead horse, but I think this needs to be clarified: Committing to a purchase and then failing to pay, and committing to a sale and then unilaterally deciding to sell the book to someone else are essentially the same thing. The dollar amount and/or the rarity of the item is immaterial. The nominator had a legitimate case. I understand that you didn't like the extended payment terms, and you believe that you were somehow coerced into accepting them. But the fact of the matter is you DID agree to them, thus making those terms part of your binding agreement. You can't decide at a later date that the payment terms that you both agreed to no longer suit you and are a justification to break your agreement with buyer, just as a buyer can't later decide he doesn't like the price he committed to with his Take It and refuse to pay. I point this out because I get the impression from your responses that you feel you've done nothing wrong. If that's the case you could find yourself in this position again.

Yes, I responded to your wtb thread while the book was at cgc. You were looking for a 9.8, it came back a 9.6. You still were interested so we agree on a price. Then you advised me you can pay at the end of the month by money order (this was at the beginning of the month). I said to contact me then and if I still have the book, it's yours. Then you gave me a guilt trip on how you waited for me... This and that. I never wanted to wait that long and then wait for money orders at that. But you made me feel bad so I reluctantly agreed. So yes, something came up and i was in a financial bind, some had to sell some books. I apologized to you, but I guess that's not enough. So let's see if you can get me on probation. I'm an active member of this forum and I buy and sell all the time. I'm not some individual_without_enough_empathy who *spoon* people around all the time. I had an unfortunate situation. I'm sorry I couldn't wait to sell you the book. -Steve Why is this funny? So if you're an "active member" you can just blow of a Probation List nomination?

Why is it the responsibility of the offended part to figure out a way for the offender to get of the list when nominating them? The rules are clearly spelled out. If the offender didn't want to be on the Probation List they should have followed the rules. If the offender wants to get off the list, it should be his responsibility to figure out a way to make things right with the offended party.

And what nincompoop said that? I think I remember, but I'll leave it up to Blowie. Sorry, I'm clueless as to what John is talking about. I don't have enough info to hunt this one down. I'm pretty sure it was the Locked Thread Points thread, I remember the above statement being made about cd4ever but I can't remember who said it either.

I have a noob question along these lines: I just had a SS book go to CGC. When it comes back I'm planning on having more signatures added so that means the book will get cracked out at CGC's table by the facilitator. When I first prepped the book I made a couple extra window bags for the book because I knew I'd be re-submitting for more signatures. Is it helpful to the facilitator to send one of these window bags along with the CGC book so he has something to put it into when it gets cracked out?