PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 20 20

[Bosco685]

You have his paypal address?

 

Send him the money.

 

That was your obligation.

 

Is it that cut and dry at this point. He pays RMA, and RMA mails the book?

 

I agree there's a lot of chaff around this one.

 

But at the core its a book was supposed to be bought by end of June.

on July 1 the 30 day clock ticks down until he can be nominated for the PL.

Gun was jumped with a PL nomination notice (in my opinion) because there was a request for additional time. Right now I think the buyer is still within his window.

 

(again, Im not saying he did this any which way close to kosher or right, but by the letter of the PL and marketplace rules he's still within his window to complete the transaction)

 

I know RMA's not thrilled with him for reasons both specific to the transaction and to the poor communication. But there's nothing so egregious that the situation should supersede the current marketplace guidelines, I dont think (but hey, I'm easily swayed, correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Got it. Thanks for clarifying. So end of July, do RMA and the buyer need to either complete the transaction or walk away? It feels that way if the buyer has offered to purchase the book, but RMA doesn't want to sell it to him.

 

You can't just insert someone on the PL because you then ended up not liking them due to poor communication skills. Otherwise, our little list would explode.

[revat]

yes the probation list isn't perfect. But I think the point of it is honestly to help agreed upon deals made on these boards GET DONE (or make things right when they don't). IF/WHEN those deals don't/can't get done, the offending parties are listed here as a warning to other prospective buyers/sellers.

 

There is already a TON of confusion, misunderstandings, arguments, etc associated with the probation list and discussion thread. IF this thread included this 'seller/buyer was kind of an D-bag' or 'paid/shipped a few days later than agreed upon' or 'I got overcharged 75 cents for shipping' or 'they didn't package it well but I got the comic in described condition', then the entire cgc boards would be taken over by just the 'Semi Complaint thread (and accompanying arguments)'. CGC doesn't want this, the moderators don't want it, and they don't think the community does either.

[revat]

You have his paypal address?

 

Send him the money.

 

That was your obligation.

 

Is it that cut and dry at this point. He pays RMA, and RMA mails the book?

 

I agree there's a lot of chaff around this one.

 

But at the core its a book was supposed to be bought by end of June.

on July 1 the 30 day clock ticks down until he can be nominated for the PL.

Gun was jumped with a PL nomination notice (in my opinion) because there was a request for additional time. Right now I think the buyer is still within his window.

 

(again, Im not saying he did this any which way close to kosher or right, but by the letter of the PL and marketplace rules he's still within his window to complete the transaction)

 

I know RMA's not thrilled with him for reasons both specific to the transaction and to the poor communication. But there's nothing so egregious that the situation should supersede the current marketplace guidelines, I dont think (but hey, I'm easily swayed, correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Got it. Thanks for clarifying. So end of July, do RMA and the buyer need to either complete the transaction or walk away? It feels that way if the buyer has offered to purchase the book, but RMA doesn't want to sell it to him.

 

You can't just insert someone on the PL because you then ended up not liking them due to poor communication skills. Otherwise, our little list would explode.

 

sounds like RMA has decided to forgo PL proceedings for Kitsune, and not sell him the book. As Kitsune did not pay for the book by the agreed upon time (and well after), RMA appears to be well within his rights to do so.

 

It would appear that as it relates to the PL, there is no other issue at hand regarding the PL and the RMA/Kitsune situation.

 

 

THere's a lot of other stuff about semantics and timing that people can debate as it may relate to hypotheticals for a future occurrence, but it sounds like this one is over.

 

 

[Bosco685]

THere's a lot of other stuff about semantics and timing that people can debate as it may relate to hypotheticals for a future occurrence, but it sounds like this one is over.

 

I had that feeling. But figured I would ask.

[Sqeggs]

Having waded through all this discussion, I'm still not sure I get it. If you PM someone and say something on the order of: "I'm nominating you for the PL because you didn't pay for book X" and the person responds along the lines of "Ok, I'll pay for book X tonight or tomorrow" doesn't the seller have any obligation to complete the transaction? Bearing in remind that the PM and response occurred within 30 days of the buyer posting the take it sign.

 

I would say that if you don't want to deal with someone, don't PM them with what they will surely interpret as a request to pay for a book. If you do PM them and they respond saying they will pay for the book, then complete the deal and sell it to them.

 

 

[Bosco685]

Having waded through all this discussion, I'm still not sure I get it. If you PM someone and say something on the order of: "I'm nominating you for the PL because you didn't pay for book X" and the person responds along the lines of "Ok, I'll pay for book X tonight or tomorrow" doesn't the seller have any obligation to complete the transaction? Bearing in remind that the PM and response occurred within 30 days of the buyer posting the take it sign.

 

I would say that if you don't want to deal with someone, don't PM them with what they will surely interpret as a request to pay for a book. If you do PM them and they respond saying they will pay for the book, then complete the deal and sell it to them.

 

 

That was Bio-Rupp's original concern this morning that was called BS.

 

If you are going to bring up a transaction in a thread meant to resolve transaction issues, then you should be prepared to see the situation all the way through. Otherwise, it can be perceived as playing with the buyer to pay them back for not following through in the first place.

[Park]

Having waded through all this discussion, I'm still not sure I get it. If you PM someone and say something on the order of: "I'm nominating you for the PL because you didn't pay for book X" and the person responds along the lines of "Ok, I'll pay for book X tonight or tomorrow" doesn't the seller have any obligation to complete the transaction? Bearing in remind that the PM and response occurred within 30 days of the buyer posting the take it sign.

 

I would say that if you don't want to deal with someone, don't PM them with what they will surely interpret as a request to pay for a book. If you do PM them and they respond saying they will pay for the book, then complete the deal and sell it to them.

 

 

That was Bio-Rupp's original concern this morning that was called BS.

 

If you are going to bring up a transaction in a thread meant to resolve transaction issues, then you should be prepared to see the situation all the way through. Otherwise, it can be perceived as playing with the buyer to pay them back for not following through in the first place.

 

Please. It was BS.

 

You have both conveniently glanced over the fact that the buyer strung him along for over a month and then when he (the buyer) was called on it, acted like an four year old child.

 

When you leave out those facts, it is BS that you are spinning because you can't leave your personal bias against one of the parties out of it.

[revat]

Having waded through all this discussion, I'm still not sure I get it. If you PM someone and say something on the order of: "I'm nominating you for the PL because you didn't pay for book X" and the person responds along the lines of "Ok, I'll pay for book X tonight or tomorrow" doesn't the seller have any obligation to complete the transaction? Bearing in remind that the PM and response occurred within 30 days of the buyer posting the take it sign.

 

I would say that if you don't want to deal with someone, don't PM them with what they will surely interpret as a request to pay for a book. If you do PM them and they respond saying they will pay for the book, then complete the deal and sell it to them.

 

 

To me it sounds like he still wanted to sell the book to this guy and was using the PL as a mechanism to do so 'at the time'. BUT as a response he got 'attitude' and not payment, but a 'claim that he would pay'. And the buyer had made promises to pay before and not done so. So as a potential seller, he looked at his facts, and decided, "not worth it to sell to this guy based on his bad attitude and seeming inability to pay (after I've been relatively nice and patient), i'm out"

 

Seems ok to me.

 

 

[Bio-Rupp]

Having waded through all this discussion, I'm still not sure I get it. If you PM someone and say something on the order of: "I'm nominating you for the PL because you didn't pay for book X" and the person responds along the lines of "Ok, I'll pay for book X tonight or tomorrow" doesn't the seller have any obligation to complete the transaction? Bearing in remind that the PM and response occurred within 30 days of the buyer posting the take it sign.

 

I would say that if you don't want to deal with someone, don't PM them with what they will surely interpret as a request to pay for a book. If you do PM them and they respond saying they will pay for the book, then complete the deal and sell it to them.

 

 

I believe that's the part that RMA doesn't get.

 

And since he's reading... RMA buddy I gots nothing against you. I had your back in your pre-emoticon only days and you were crazy then.

 

Its nothing against you personally for me to state that you can't threaten use of the PL for not buying something... then pull it away from the buyer when they agree to your terms and try to pay for it.

 

Yes Kitsune drug out the transaction... and you let him. That's technically your fault, but he shouldn't have done it... so I'm saying you were gracious to let him. No one faults you for that and you were gracious to do so.

 

Kitsune probably shouldn't have acted so careless and snubby toward your graciousness... and I think he knows that now.

 

The PL discussion did what it was supposed to do... and weather you acknowledge it or not... it was bringing your transaction to completion (completion meaning you getting paid and he staying in good with the boards).

 

The only one preventing completion of that transaction now is you. It's your choice to sell it to him or not... but Kitsune has fulfilled the necessary requirements brought forth to keep him off the PL and make you whole financially.

 

Why don't you just let the man apologize and give you money. You still have the book... he still wants to buy it.

 

Seems like a win - win.

[Bosco685]

Having waded through all this discussion, I'm still not sure I get it. If you PM someone and say something on the order of: "I'm nominating you for the PL because you didn't pay for book X" and the person responds along the lines of "Ok, I'll pay for book X tonight or tomorrow" doesn't the seller have any obligation to complete the transaction? Bearing in remind that the PM and response occurred within 30 days of the buyer posting the take it sign.

 

I would say that if you don't want to deal with someone, don't PM them with what they will surely interpret as a request to pay for a book. If you do PM them and they respond saying they will pay for the book, then complete the deal and sell it to them.

 

 

That was Bio-Rupp's original concern this morning that was called BS.

 

If you are going to bring up a transaction in a thread meant to resolve transaction issues, then you should be prepared to see the situation all the way through. Otherwise, it can be perceived as playing with the buyer to pay them back for not following through in the first place.

 

Please. It was BS.

 

You have both conveniently glanced over the fact that the buyer strung him along for over a month and then when he (the buyer) was called on it, acted like an four year old child.

 

When you leave out those facts, it is BS that you are spinning because you can't leave your personal bias against one of the parties out of it.

 

Who is bringing personal bias to the conversation here? You can't bring a transaction to a thread meant to resolve an issue, and then be let down when the issue can be resolved.

 

Step back, take a breath, and then come back and read the posts again. RMA informed the buyer he was going on the probation list with no mention of "complete the transaction and this is not an issue", then posted how he was hoping the guy would not come through. So then when the buyer wants to resolve this LIKE IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN HERE, he turns around and doesn't want to complete the transaction.

 

That is just the wildest approach to resolving an outstanding transaction I have ever read. So no worries about bias, where you need to come in and protect your buddy. Those are the facts!

[Dr. Balls]

It's on when Park shows up in the PL thread.

[Bosco685]

It's on when Park shows up in the PL thread.

 

He wants to instigate. I'll come right back with the facts. But he is dead wrong on this one.

 

So instigate away.

 

[Bosco685]

Why don't you just let the man apologize and give you money. You still have the book... he still wants to buy it.

 

Seems like a win - win.

 

That's exactly what should have happened here. Otherwise, why threaten the buyer with the PL and then back out? It doesn't make any sense at all other than to bring his name up on here.

[Bio-Rupp]

It's on when Park shows up in the PL thread.

 

I wish I could read what he's saying but since I have him on ignore ... but I bet it's something like this...

 

"Rupps too sexy for my love

 

Rupps too sexy for my love

 

Rupps going to leave me

 

Rupps too sexy for his shirt"

[RockMyAmadeus]

Having waded through all this discussion, I'm still not sure I get it. If you PM someone and say something on the order of: "I'm nominating you for the PL because you didn't pay for book X" and the person responds along the lines of "Ok, I'll pay for book X tonight or tomorrow" doesn't the seller have any obligation to complete the transaction? Bearing in remind that the PM and response occurred within 30 days of the buyer posting the take it sign.

 

I would say that if you don't want to deal with someone, don't PM them with what they will surely interpret as a request to pay for a book. If you do PM them and they respond saying they will pay for the book, then complete the deal and sell it to them.

 

 

I believe that's the part that RMA doesn't get.

 

And since he's reading... RMA buddy I gots nothing against you. I had your back in your pre-emoticon only days and you were crazy then.

 

Its nothing against you personally for me to state that you can't threaten use of the PL for not buying something... then pull it away from the buyer when they agree to your terms and try to pay for it.

 

Yes Kitsune drug out the transaction... and you let him. That's technically your fault, but he shouldn't have done it... so I'm saying you were gracious to let him. No one faults you for that and you were gracious to do so.

 

Kitsune probably shouldn't have acted so careless and snubby toward your graciousness... and I think he knows that now.

 

The PL discussion did what it was supposed to do... and weather you acknowledge it or not... it was bringing your transaction to completion (completion meaning you getting paid and he staying in good with the boards).

 

The only one preventing completion of that transaction now is you. It's your choice to sell it to him or not... but Kitsune has fulfilled the necessary requirements brought forth to keep him off the PL and make you whole financially.

 

Why don't you just let the man apologize and give you money. You still have the book... he still wants to buy it.

 

Seems like a win - win.

 

Please stop posting to or about me. Your contribution to this specific situation is unwelcome. While you are free to post wherever and whenever you wish, I am requesting that you do not comment to or about me on these boards.

 

Thank you.

[Kitsune]

Why don't you just let the man apologize and give you money. You still have the book... he still wants to buy it.

 

Seems like a win - win.

 

That's exactly what should have happened here. Otherwise, why threaten the buyer with the PL and then back out? It doesn't make any sense at all other than to bring his name up on here.

 

Pretty much as I stated earlier this morning in a reply in this thread about amends by paying him but apparently he wants me to get down like James Brown and suck his coo coo....

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

It's on when Park shows up in the PL thread.

 

He wants to instigate. I'll come right back with the facts. But he is dead wrong on this one.

 

So instigate away.

 

 

So what is the score now? RMA nominates Kitsune, then he suddenly wants to pay, but RMA tells him to pound sand?

[revat]

Why don't you just let the man apologize and give you money. You still have the book... he still wants to buy it.

 

Seems like a win - win.

 

That's exactly what should have happened here. Otherwise, why threaten the buyer with the PL and then back out? It doesn't make any sense at all other than to bring his name up on here.

 

I think the problem is, the buyer did not apologize or give money. He gave snark and a statement that he WOULD pay in the future. If the buyer paid immediately and apologized immediately, I have no doubt the deal would have gone through. Instead the seller is left to believe the word of someone who he no longer trusts and is already frustrated with over a deal that happened more than a month ago. He was already probably on the edge of 'this probably isn't worth it' and was pushed over to 'this definitely isn't worth it'.

 

I can understand that not everyone shares this opinion, but is it that unreasonable to think this is a possibility? Or that some of the rest of us may act in the same fashion? Is it the absolute best and kindest reaction in the history of the world? debatable. But seemingly reasonable and well within his rights.

[Bosco685]

It's on when Park shows up in the PL thread.

 

He wants to instigate. I'll come right back with the facts. But he is dead wrong on this one.

 

So instigate away.

 

 

So what is the score now? RMA nominates Kitsune, then he suddenly wants to pay, but RMA tells him to pound sand?

 

Yes. Which is not the games that should be played in this thread or else people are wasting fellow forumites' time.

 

But if the buyer posted something or conducted themselves in a way previously which leads to concerns they will use a chargeback or some other activity to get over, I can see why a seller would not follow through once this is proven. That type activity has not been shown here.

[Park]

It's on when Park shows up in the PL thread.

 

He wants to instigate. I'll come right back with the facts. But he is dead wrong on this one.

 

So instigate away.

 

 

I am not instigating nor am I sticking up for a buddy. I am pointing out yours and Rupp's hypocrisy.

 

You and Rupp cannot remove your personal bias against RMA. You are oblivious to that fact. If Rupp had a PL issue, I would keep my comments to myself as I know that the possibility of my dislike of him would cloud my judgement.

 

The facts have been laid out and other people are in here confirming what I am saying. RMA asked what the protocol was and asked what he could do. He sent the PM about the PL to kitsune. Kitsune responded like an and RMA wanted to tell him to pound sand because of his attitude. Others have understood this. Why can you and Rupp not?

 

Rupp posts that he was sure RMA's response was not nice intimating that attitude matters. Now that we have seen RMA's response and that Rupp was wrong, how does that affect things? Oh, now attitude doesn't affect things? Unless it is somebody you don't like? Got it.

 

Is the PL a means to warn the community about people that act in bad faith? Or is it just a way to force people to complete transactions? Or is it possibly a bit of both and a lot of gray area that has to be taken on a case by case basis?