PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[Bomber-Bob]

Why make constricting policies that will require more board interpretation?

 

30 days from to my longbox. Done and done

 

Now you are adding another layer for something to go awry and not adhere to. Seller ships books in 7 days but they take longer to arrive. Buyer nominates to PL list? Books arrive three days later. We have wasted our time, and no one would agree to it if it was a seasoned seller.

 

Like Sharon said.

 

K.I.S.S.

 

I do appreciate your hard work, and succinct listing of the revised policies, but this is starting to seem like more rules, for the sake of more rules.

 

 

I agree.

 

Me too. I try to ship quickly, but sometimes life gets in the way. Everyone I have ever been tardy to has been understanding. Every time I have had someone be tardy to me, I have been understanding. I would hate to have an untenable 14 day rule mess all that up.

 

Sean, just because you have never had a bad experience with a transaction please don't dismiss the fact that it can happen to others. I'll repeat my scenario that has happened to me, I buy a book and pay immediately. I patiently wait 15 days and hear nothing. After a certain point I am concerned

and have to make a decision to either call my CC company or face a possible PL. Is this fair to me ? I want to play by the rules but I also want my money back.

 

[PovertyRow]

Thanks. Suppose the Guidelines remain as they are.

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1460472#Post1460472

 

After we get these PL Rules finalized and posted, and they get some use, we can then see if the Guidelines need any tweaking.

[PovertyRow]

Waiting 30 days may also preclude him from being able to reverse or contest the charges.

If I wait, say 15ish days, I get no indication the books have been shipped, I call my CC company. By the Board rules I may be eligible for the PL. Not sure if I like that. Sorry.

 

Bob - I bolded the main argument that prompted me to suggest the 14 days thing.(It really wasn't just rules for rules' sake.)

 

I've done some research and the Fair Trade Act specifies this in regard to disputing a charge:

 

send your letter so that it reaches the creditor within 60 days after the first bill containing the error was mailed to you.

 

So it sounds like we are still covered after a 30 day wait.

 

The relevant page is here:

 

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre16.shtm

 

I appreciate this is United States law.

[divad]

Good work Michael, it all looks good to me except this part:

 

d) If reasonable additional expenses are incurred the accuser may include them as part of the resolution. The validity of "reasonable additional expenses" may be subject to discussion.

 

I really don't think is warranted or necessary.

 

 

[comix4fun]

Good work Michael, it all looks good to me except this part:

 

d) If reasonable additional expenses are incurred the accuser may include them as part of the resolution. The validity of "reasonable additional expenses" may be subject to discussion.

 

I really don't think is warranted or necessary.

 

 

 

If it's a high ticket item and the guy has to pay a lawyer a c-note or three to write a letter to help get the book or cash back it would be both necessary and warranted, no?

 

If someone runs you through the ringer and you've got long distance calls, travel, legal or other reasonable expense then I think it's unreasonable to expect the harmed party to swallow it.

[Bio-Rupp]

If its big enough to get a lawyer... I'd go ahead and sue for costs.

[PovertyRow]

Good work Michael, it all looks good to me except this part:

 

d) If reasonable additional expenses are incurred the accuser may include them as part of the resolution. The validity of "reasonable additional expenses" may be subject to discussion.

 

I really don't think is warranted or necessary.

 

 

 

If it's a high ticket item and the guy has to pay a lawyer a c-note or three to write a letter to help get the book or cash back it would be both necessary and warranted, no?

 

If someone runs you through the ringer and you've got long distance calls, travel, legal or other reasonable expense then I think it's unreasonable to expect the harmed party to swallow it.

 

Another example:

 

Buyer pays via check.

Seller waits for check to clear.

The check bounces.

Seller is charged a fee from their bank for depositing the bad check

 

I would consider this a reasonable additional expense to be included in final resolution.

.

[comix4fun]

If its big enough to get a lawyer... I'd go ahead and sue for costs.

 

Good lawyers will tell you to avoid court at all costs if you can work it out.

[Bio-Rupp]

If its big enough to get a lawyer... I'd go ahead and sue for costs.

 

Good lawyers will tell you to avoid court at all costs if you can work it out.

 

Good lawyers

 

[Bosco685]

Good work Michael, it all looks good to me except this part:

 

d) If reasonable additional expenses are incurred the accuser may include them as part of the resolution. The validity of "reasonable additional expenses" may be subject to discussion.

 

I really don't think is warranted or necessary.

 

 

 

If it's a high ticket item and the guy has to pay a lawyer a c-note or three to write a letter to help get the book or cash back it would be both necessary and warranted, no?

 

If someone runs you through the ringer and you've got long distance calls, travel, legal or other reasonable expense then I think it's unreasonable to expect the harmed party to swallow it.

 

Another example:

 

Buyer pays via check.

Seller waits for check to clear.

The check bounces.

Seller is charged a fee from their bank for depositing the bad check

 

I would consider this a reasonable additional expense to be included in final resolution.

 

Very good example where this rule makes sense.

[divad]

Good work Michael, it all looks good to me except this part:

 

d) If reasonable additional expenses are incurred the accuser may include them as part of the resolution. The validity of "reasonable additional expenses" may be subject to discussion.

 

I really don't think is warranted or necessary.

 

 

 

If it's a high ticket item and the guy has to pay a lawyer a c-note or three to write a letter to help get the book or cash back it would be both necessary and warranted, no?

 

If someone runs you through the ringer and you've got long distance calls, travel, legal or other reasonable expense then I think it's unreasonable to expect the harmed party to swallow it.

 

Another example:

 

Buyer pays via check.

Seller waits for check to clear.

The check bounces.

Seller is charged a fee from their bank for depositing the bad check

 

I would consider this a reasonable additional expense to be included in final resolution.

.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the examples, but this is first and foremost a community. I'd say spurn the , and move along. The vast bulk of transactions here are for relatively small amounts. Defaults on larger items will have to pursue other remedies anyhoo. Being on our Probation List is not going pull blood from a stone.

[Green]

Why make constricting policies that will require more board interpretation?

 

30 days from to my longbox. Done and done

 

Now you are adding another layer for something to go awry and not adhere to. Seller ships books in 7 days but they take longer to arrive. Buyer nominates to PL list? Books arrive three days later. We have wasted our time, and no one would agree to it if it was a seasoned seller.

 

Like Sharon said.

 

K.I.S.S.

 

I do appreciate your hard work, and succinct listing of the revised policies, but this is starting to seem like more rules, for the sake of more rules.

 

 

I agree.

 

Me too. I try to ship quickly, but sometimes life gets in the way. Everyone I have ever been tardy to has been understanding. Every time I have had someone be tardy to me, I have been understanding. I would hate to have an untenable 14 day rule mess all that up.

Youre my favorite tardy.

[seanfingh]

Why make constricting policies that will require more board interpretation?

 

30 days from to my longbox. Done and done

 

Now you are adding another layer for something to go awry and not adhere to. Seller ships books in 7 days but they take longer to arrive. Buyer nominates to PL list? Books arrive three days later. We have wasted our time, and no one would agree to it if it was a seasoned seller.

 

Like Sharon said.

 

K.I.S.S.

 

I do appreciate your hard work, and succinct listing of the revised policies, but this is starting to seem like more rules, for the sake of more rules.

 

 

I agree.

 

Me too. I try to ship quickly, but sometimes life gets in the way. Everyone I have ever been tardy to has been understanding. Every time I have had someone be tardy to me, I have been understanding. I would hate to have an untenable 14 day rule mess all that up.

 

Sean, just because you have never had a bad experience with a transaction please don't dismiss the fact that it can happen to others. I'll repeat my scenario that has happened to me, I buy a book and pay immediately. I patiently wait 15 days and hear nothing. After a certain point I am concerned

and have to make a decision to either call my CC company or face a possible PL. Is this fair to me ? I want to play by the rules but I also want my money back.

 

I am not dismissing anything. I am expressing my opinion as to this proposed pay within 7 days ship within 7 days hard and fast rule. I am not a fan. That is my opinion. I don't want anyone to have anything untoward happen to them, but I also don't want to have a draconian 7 day shipping rule crammed where the sun don't shine when there are extenuating circumstances. That type of thing should easily be handled by communication between the parties about what are the expectations of how the transaction will be handled.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I have heard "I am not a fan of imposing your own personal rules on the transaction " PLEASE tell me me when I have never solicited feedback for a change in the existing rules. Yes, I EXPRESS my personal ideas. But I, by no means, am trying to IMPOSE my new rules. Where did that come from? .

 

Unfortunately, there are people who are either overly sensitive, or insecure, or both, who think that anyone speaking forthrighlty and firmly is somehow "imposing" what they believe on others, simply because of the confident and self-assured manner in which they write.

 

If you don't put "in my humblest opinion" after everything you post, bowing and groveling so as to not potentially offend someone, you will be accused of things like "you think that by typing something it becomes gospel."

 

This is not a result of any actual attempt to impose your will on others, as this is self-evidently impossible to do in a message board format, but rather the manifestation of the insecurity of the person making such an accusation.

 

If this applies to you, reader, fix it. It's not that hard. Learn that no one can impose anything on anyone in a discussion on a message board, because everyone (including you) has the ability to post.whatever they want, at any time, within the rules of this board. The only way to "impose" anything is to have a superior argument that is more compelling and convincing...and isn't that, after all, the point...?

 

Stop being so weak willed and insecure.

[seanfingh]

 

The power of RMA compels you . . . the power of RMA compels you . . .

[RockMyAmadeus]

Pov is human and he lost it.

 

I say we kill Pov! I say we hang Pov, THEN we kill him! I say we stomp him! Then we tattoo him! Then we hang him! And THEN we kill him!

 

Pov is CAL...?

 

[Bomber-Bob]

That type of thing should easily be handled by communication between the parties about what are the expectations of how the transaction will be handled.

 

Trust me, I want to agree with you but experience has shown me it is not always that simple. Once, on a Board transaction, I actually called the auction house the Boardie mentioned he got the book from to obtain his phone number as he was not responding to my PM's. FYI, it actually worked !

I surrender but please note I did not specifically ask for 14 days. I am simply asking that the buyer get some more protection from all this. A seller is not out anything if a Buyer does not pay but a buyer is out cash if a seller does not ship. I would be happy if there could be some general shipping guidelines tighter than 30 days + 72 hours. Heck, even a negative feedback thread would help a little. I succumb to the masses.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The power of RMA compels you . . . the power of RMA compels you . . .

 

 

[mikenyc]

That type of thing should easily be handled by communication between the parties about what are the expectations of how the transaction will be handled.

 

Trust me, I want to agree with you but experience has shown me it is not always that simple. Once, on a Board transaction, I actually called the auction house the Boardie mentioned he got the book from to obtain his phone number as he was not responding to my PM's. FYI, it actually worked !

I surrender but please note I did not specifically ask for 14 days. I am simply asking that the buyer get some more protection from all this. A seller is not out anything if a Buyer does not pay but a buyer is out cash if a seller does not ship. I would be happy if there could be some general shipping guidelines tighter than 30 days + 72 hours. Heck, even a negative feedback thread would help a little. I succumb to the masses.

 

Stop being so weak willed and insecure.

[PovertyRow]

I am not dismissing anything. I am expressing my opinion as to this proposed pay within 7 days ship within 7 days hard and fast rule. I am not a fan. That is my opinion. I don't want anyone to have anything untoward happen to them, but I also don't want to have a draconian 7 day shipping rule crammed where the sun don't shine when there are extenuating circumstances. That type of thing should easily be handled by communication between the parties about what are the expectations of how the transaction will be handled.

 

ANY rule is going to be crammed where the sun don't shine. You just won't see it that way if you agree with the rule.

 

I had two reasons, which I gave, and no one mentioned or maybe even saw, for suggesting the 7/7 rule.

 

1) Some thought 30 days was too long.

2) bomber-bob expressed concern about having time to dispute a charge transaction if it went past 30 days.

 

I took the time out to do some research and found the law regarding charge disputes in the USA easily accomodate the 30 day rule. I hope if this is a concern for other countries the citizens there would perform similar research.

 

Seanfingh, if you were trying to be the person coordinating the PL rules, and someone suggested a shorter than 30 day time, and some others agreed, how would you handle that? Would you flat out refuse to consider it because you personally disagreed? Or would you present it for board consideration?