PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[vader2001]

RMA has me on ignore?!?

 

 

 

So how do you know if someone has you on ignore?

 

I'm trying to imagine what the threads here will be like, when you guys get old and grey.

 

The threads and their posts would be shorter, they would fall asleep before they finished them.

 

[Hulk44]

Yeah , how do you know when someone has you on ignore.

[sufunk]

Try to send them a pm and if they have you on ignore, it wont allow you to and will tell you that youre on ignore

[miraclemet]

 

This was a pre-sale/flip gone bad when the current owner of the book realized what was occurring. I thought it was a scam at first until Robocard mentioned he was the current owner, and had been contacted by the potential reseller.

 

POV wanted to add presales language in the sales rules & guidelines when he was updating the content. But a group that presells books coming back from CGC were concerned it could impact their transactions and wanted it pulled.

 

So this can be considered one of the more ballsy presales ever, with a $5000 risk tied to it in the end if the initial purchase didn't go through required for the flip.

 

 

Are "presells" sales

 

A) Where someone is selling a book they've submitted to CGC for grading and cant fully guarentee the grade (i.e. you presell it at a 9.8 price, expecting it to come back at 9.8)

 

or

 

B) Someone knows they will get a copy of a book sells it before they are even able to buy it (i.e. Im going to ImageExpo, and I presell the Con-Exclusive of ASM#600 that I intend to buy while Im there)?

 

Again I never deal in this scenario (either as the buyer or the seller) so Im not sure what falls under the catagory of "preselling" when its mentioned.

 

If its the A scenario, I'd think the language is simple enough to specify that you can only sell book that you own (even if that means you bought it but it hasnt arrived/been fulfilled yet).

 

If its B, then the language has to be that any pre-sale has to be explicit (that you dont have posession and this is a presale) and that violation of this rule makes you eligible for the HOS.

[Bosco685]

Are "presells" sales

 

A) Where someone is selling a book they've submitted to CGC for grading and cant fully guarentee the grade (i.e. you presell it at a 9.8 price, expecting it to come back at 9.8)

 

or

 

B) Someone knows they will get a copy of a book sells it before they are even able to buy it (i.e. Im going to ImageExpo, and I presell the Con-Exclusive of ASM#600 that I intend to buy while Im there)?

 

Again I never deal in this scenario (either as the buyer or the seller) so Im not sure what falls under the catagory of "preselling" when its mentioned.

 

If its the A scenario, I'd think the language is simple enough to specify that you can only sell book that you own (even if that means you bought it but it hasnt arrived/been fulfilled yet).

 

If its B, then the language has to be that any pre-sale has to be explicit (that you dont have posession and this is a presale) and that violation of this rule makes you eligible for the HOS.

 

Good points.

 

I think that was part of the mixed situation that led to concerns with adding "presales" to the sales rules. Some presell before the grading is done (I think this is rare), and some presell once they have the grades back from CGC. But lately, the latter may be difficult to achieve if CGC is not giving out grades regularly until the books ship.

[A.Romeo]

How long do I have to wait to nominate Zombizzy for the PL again? For those that remember I had an issue months ago, it was revisited and he made a statement that he would now refund my money. After waiting two weeks after the whole debacle in the thread here, he finally messaged me on July 22nd and said payment would be sent on July 23rd to paypal. It is now the 25th and I still have not received a refund.

 

thanks

[jaybuck43]

I wish you were joking. I would say normal rules apply, PM him that you are nominating him to PL and he has 72 hours to respond here in his defense.

[Bio-Rupp]

I thought he already did all that

[crassus]

I wish you were joking. I would say normal rules apply, PM him that you are nominating him to PL and he has 72 hours to respond here in his defense.

 

I cannot remember clearly, but was he not on the PL and only taken off on the assumption that he was going to pay the refund immediately? If that is the case he can be put back on anytime, I think we have shot past the rules of the first instance, no?

[Bosco685]

I wish you were joking. I would say normal rules apply, PM him that you are nominating him to PL and he has 72 hours to respond here in his defense.

 

I cannot remember clearly, but was he not on the PL and only taken off on the assumption that he was going to pay the refund immediately? If that is the case he can be put back on anytime, I think we have shot past the rules of the first instance, no?

 

Speedy removed him from the PL on 7/7 after some discussion in this thread about a resolution.

[Jimmy Linguini]

I wish you were joking. I would say normal rules apply, PM him that you are nominating him to PL and he has 72 hours to respond here in his defense.

 

I cannot remember clearly, but was he not on the PL and only taken off on the assumption that he was going to pay the refund immediately? If that is the case he can be put back on anytime, I think we have shot past the rules of the first instance, no?

 

Speedy removed him from the PL on 7/7 after some discussion in this thread about a resolution.

 

How does someone get nominated to the HOS and does this case not apply?

[Bosco685]

I wish you were joking. I would say normal rules apply, PM him that you are nominating him to PL and he has 72 hours to respond here in his defense.

 

I cannot remember clearly, but was he not on the PL and only taken off on the assumption that he was going to pay the refund immediately? If that is the case he can be put back on anytime, I think we have shot past the rules of the first instance, no?

 

Speedy removed him from the PL on 7/7 after some discussion in this thread about a resolution.

 

How does someone get nominated to the HOS and does this case not apply?

 

If someone conducted themself in a way that qualifies for HOS recommendation (repeat offender or large-scale situation involving more than one member or other extreme circumstances), you can recommend that person. Then it is up to the community to back that recommendation, take a group vote, and from that vote post them to the HOS.

 

Anyone else have additional recommendations or guidance?

[jaybuck43]

I would use the Rochin test to determine if someone is HoS worthy, their actions have to "shock the conscience" of the boards.

[Jimmy Linguini]

I just wasnt sure if pulling a move was HoS worthy.

[jaybuck43]

I DEFINITELY think its PL worthy, I don't think HoS worthy.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'm trying to imagine what the threads here will be like, when you guys get old and grey.

 

The threads and their posts would be shorter, they would fall asleep before they finished them.

 

 

I don't know if that's really an accuzzzzzzzzzzz........

 

(to 0: )

[EC ed]

I cannot remember clearly, but was he not on the PL and only taken off on the assumption that he was going to pay the refund immediately? If that is the case he can be put back on anytime, I think we have shot past the rules of the first instance, no?

That's not the way I remember it...there were no conditions/assumptions attached to A. Romeo's removal of zombizzy, much to many of our chagrin; A.Romeo started getting frustrated with the whole scenario and the advice he was receiving from the thread and basically said " it, take him off " (with an implicit " you" to many of the boardies who were commenting on the situation) :

4th time I'll say this, Take Zombizzy off the PL, he is a standup guy and offered a $20 refund on a $95 purchase on books that were not as advertised. As a buyer, you are all right, I should eat the loss of $75 for books I never would have purchased in the first place.

 

5th Time Take Zombizzy off the PL

 

6th Time Take zombizzy off the PL.

My posts may seem heated because I am now starting to question some other board members integrity on here now.

Then, based on discussion of the fact that the OP's request to remove was enough per the rules, Speedy-D removed zombizzy (correctly, based on the rules, IMHO):

Okay ... I really thought you should have waited until you got your refund, but asking six times seems like enough to me, so I just removed zombizzy from the Probation List. If I were you, I'd still get the refund, and let us all know if/when it arrives.

 

At that moment, zombizzy was off the PL, contingency free, I believe. I agree with Speedy-D (and others) that A.Romeo should have waited until he actually received his refund before removal, but he didn't. Now, zombizzy has reneged on another transaction, i.e., the offer to send a PayPal payment on 7/23. So, I think the 30 day clock starts over for that transaction...so, A. Romeo can nominate zombizzy to the PL on August 23rd. That extra waiting time is A. Romeo's cost for premature PL removal...we tried to warn him.

 

My

[Iceman399]

I cannot remember clearly, but was he not on the PL and only taken off on the assumption that he was going to pay the refund immediately? If that is the case he can be put back on anytime, I think we have shot past the rules of the first instance, no?

That's not the way I remember it...there were no conditions/assumptions attached to A. Romeo's removal of zombizzy, much to many of our chagrin; A.Romeo started getting frustrated with the whole scenario and the advice he was receiving from the thread and basically said " it, take him off " (with an implicit " you" to many of the boardies who were commenting on the situation) :

4th time I'll say this, Take Zombizzy off the PL, he is a standup guy and offered a $20 refund on a $95 purchase on books that were not as advertised. As a buyer, you are all right, I should eat the loss of $75 for books I never would have purchased in the first place.

 

5th Time Take Zombizzy off the PL

 

6th Time Take zombizzy off the PL.

My posts may seem heated because I am now starting to question some other board members integrity on here now.

Then, based on discussion of the fact that the OP's request to remove was enough per the rules, Speedy-D removed zombizzy (correctly, based on the rules, IMHO):

Okay ... I really thought you should have waited until you got your refund, but asking six times seems like enough to me, so I just removed zombizzy from the Probation List. If I were you, I'd still get the refund, and let us all know if/when it arrives.

 

At that moment, zombizzy was off the PL, contingency free, I believe. I agree with Speedy-D (and others) that A.Romeo should have waited until he actually received his refund before removal, but he didn't. Now, zombizzy has reneged on another transaction, i.e., the offer to send a PayPal payment on 7/23. So, I think the 30 day clock starts over for that transaction...so, A. Romeo can nominate zombizzy to the PL on August 23rd. That extra waiting time is A. Romeo's cost for premature PL removal...we tried to warn him.

 

My

 

Should the 30 days not start from when he said "I will give you a refund" not days later when he says I will actually send it tomorrow?

 

Not that I agree he should be having to wait another x number of days for the initial issue.

 

I think the reason he should have been left on was to prevent transactions from happening between "will give you a refund" and "refund sent"

Edited July 25, 2013 by iceman399

[EC ed]

Now, having stated the technical case in my post just above, it is true that we would all be better off if zombizzy was immediately placed on the PL...so, someone try to find a loophole in my logic...

[EC ed]

Should the 30 days not start from when he said "I will give you a refund" not days later when he says I will actually send it tomorrow?

Nice...I like it! That's some progress, right there...so, we need to figure out the date when he verbally committed to a refund...