PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[bababooey]

Man, how many pages of discussion has been devoted to this now? 30? I've had buyers flake out on me and sellers take FOREVER to ship out a purchased item, and I've not bothered nominating these people to the PL. It's exhausting.

Exactly, a bit of clarity by either party would have avoided this.

 

A clear "no" from the seller - since we all know he wanted more money than the price in his thread OR taking the high road & completing the sale even if you might feel the buyer acted deliberately.

 

A clearer communication from the buyer that doesn't publicly force the seller to do something he told you privately he didn't want to happen (a position the buyer understood) - "if still available, " in the thread is a much more reasonable approach.

 

 

[N/A]

You should read the original discussion. You aren't making any sense.

 

1) Thread was inactive for 8 days.

2) Buyer inquired about book, and was told TWICE that it was being kept.

3) Buyer got angry and put BIN in thread, even after being told the books were not available.

4) Book was listed on eBay.

5) Ocean pizzed and moaned when nominated for PL.

 

 

It was actually 6 days 5 1/2 hours dormant. 8:44 PM CST on April 24...to 3:14 AM CST on May 1.

 

Not that it makes much difference but if you are recapping we should probably correct that part.

 

Also, it should be noted that if we are placing weight on the seller's claim that it wasn't for sale because he was "holding on to it" then weight should be placed on the seller then posting it for sale on Ebay the same day Jawn said he'd take in the thread.

 

Basically, it was for sale and him saying he was "holding on to it" was inaccurate (to be kind). That statement turned out to be untrue.

 

If that statement was inaccurate by the seller, it places every statement before and after that he's made regarding this incident into question.

 

Chris you are a pretty reasonable person, what do you think about this nomination?

 

Should Ocean have been added to the PL because he refused to honor a sale in a thread that had been inactive for 6 days?

 

 

 

Frankly, I have to go back and reread the posts from when it happened to make sure I didn't miss anything.

 

My impression is the seller was less than forthright and transparent with his assertions and intentions to keep/hold onto the book. To be honest, that may color my opinions.

 

His actions is discussing a potential purchase with Jawn just before Jawn posted the (the same evening) may point to the thread still being open but I have to check the timeline and posts again for myself. His discussion of the book and discussing price with Jawn just a few hours before Jawn took it in the thread seem to books still being for sale and thus the thread still being open.

 

Those PMs just before Jawn takes the book in the thread eliminate the 6 1/2 day time lapse for me. Ocean could have said "Oh that thread's dead, not for sale" but he didn't, he hemmed and hawed and said he was going to post scans, and then openly seemed to be negotiating. His claim of "I may hold onto it" must be read as a negotiating ploy given his almost immediate listing of the book on Ebay. There aren't too many other complimentary ways to read what he said and then what he immediately did in contradiction of what was said.

 

Without that PM discussion just before the in the thread I would not have an issue with absolving Ocean. It's the ploys and comments and statements (and contradictions) that seemed to demonstrate the thread was still filled with books he was trying to move and willing to discuss moving. If he wasn't he should have simply said "Not For Sale".

 

It's a gray area but his subsequent actions and contradictions make me less inclined to come down on his side when he could have handled this so much better and with so much more forthrightness.

 

Whether underhanded, or shady, or being used as a sales tactic, he wrote in two PM's that he was keeping the book after which the buyer posts a as if they had a discussion and agreed on terms or price.

 

The seller shouldn't be obligated to sell simply because the buyer had blinders on and ignored the seller's comments about keeping the book. If you want to argue that not writing closed in a sales thread or relisting a book on Ebay is bad form I'm all for that, but PL worthy? Seems like a stretch.

 

 

It does seem stretchy, I agree. The point was, he was willing to negotiate the same day that the person posted the take it in the thread. The 6 days get eliminated as the seller was willing to entertain buyers up to that point.

 

While I can see your point of view, in looking at the posted PM's the seller was not very clear if the thread was dead (books being held) and was clearly willing to sell for the right price. He said exactly "probably just going to hold onto it until I take pics" after which he negotiated and entertained Jawn's offer and then said, exactly, "Think I am just going to hold onto it" while rejecting that offer.

 

The immediate Ebay listing tells me that the comments about keeping it were, in fact, simply for negotiation which tells me the the books in the thread were actually still for sale at the time he was speaking to Jawn.

 

The fact that he immediately (same day) put them up on Ebay is where the bad form and destruction of credibility come from. Makes it hard to side with him with all these words and actions going against him.

 

There were several ways to end that conversation with Jawn and that thread so that this could not have happened. The tip toe soft shoe B.S. routine led to some honest confusion. The seller isn't 100% blameless.

 

That's where the gray area comes in, but I get what you're saying. Somewhere along the line "bad form" and lying in a PM have to have consequences...hard to say if this was the right place for it.

 

It's now my Birthday, just let me win.

 

Now THAT makes sense.

[N/A]

Man, how many pages of discussion has been devoted to this now? 30? I've had buyers flake out on me and sellers take FOREVER to ship out a purchased item, and I've not bothered nominating these people to the PL. It's exhausting.

 

My post count was slipping a little.

[Bio-Rupp]

I will state this again...

 

Those who feel oceanavekid was "negotiating" need to see that jawn's first PM to the 'kid asked him him the book was a direct or newsstand edition.

 

The 'kid's FIRST reply was a response to jawn's question which wasn't about price ... then in the same PM, stating he was going to "hold on to the book".

 

Price hadn't been brought up yet, there was no negotiation the first time oceanavekid said "no" or in his own words "going to keep book" .

 

Oceanavekid's subsequent posts to the buyer seem to be somewhat polite gestures to assure the buyer he was keeping the book.

 

While the words "probably" and "I think" could be argued as misleading or some sort of Jedi negotiation tactic, the statement "I'm going to hold onto the book" seems more important.

 

Again... if the 'kid was using the words "I think" and "probably" as negotiation tactics... then the book would have been sold to jawn, correct? It wasn't sold to jawn, so this coupled with the above should throw negotiation out of the discussion on this one.

 

Unless the 'kid really is a Jedi and he's just sitting back seeing his foreseen plan unfold

 

 

 

[Ryan.]

Seems like if there's this much controversy then there should be no addition of either party to the PL. Better to let 10 guilty men go free than imprison 1 innocent man and all that.

[faster friends]

Seems like if there's this much controversy then there should be no addition of either party to the PL. Better to let 10 guilty men go free than imprison 1 innocent man and all that.

 

+1

[bababooey]

One of the core questions in this PL nomination was "how long an inactive sales thread should be binding on the seller" - in all likelihood I might have supported a PL nomination of oceanavenuekid IF it had been a "takeit" from some random person.

When it comes to PM discussions I guess the lesson is to be clear & just hope that being direct won't offend your potential buyer - our kind are easily butthurt.

 

_________________________________________

 

So leaving behind this particular case with PM's etc...let's focus this poll on any open sales thread that hasn't been closed when a "take it" is posted without any other communication.

 

We can't do base it on page since you can stay on page 1 in mixed for a week, while a three day old thread in copper/moderns might be on page 5.

 

So here's the poll:

 

 

 

[N/A]

I will state this again...

 

Those who feel oceanavekid was "negotiating" need to see that jawn's first PM to the 'kid asked him him the book was a direct or newsstand edition.

 

The 'kid's FIRST reply was a response to jawn's question which wasn't about price ... then in the same PM, stating he was going to "hold on to the book".

 

Price hadn't been brought up yet, there was no negotiation the first time oceanavekid said "no" or in his own words "going to keep book" .

 

Oceanavekid's subsequent posts to the buyer seem to be somewhat polite gestures to assure the buyer he was keeping the book.

 

While the words "probably" and "I think" could be argued as misleading or some sort of Jedi negotiation tactic, the statement "I'm going to hold onto the book" seems more important.

 

Again... if the 'kid was using the words "I think" and "probably" as negotiation tactics... then the book would have been sold to jawn, correct? It wasn't sold to jawn, so this coupled with the above should throw negotiation out of the discussion on this one.

 

Unless the 'kid really is a Jedi and he's just sitting back seeing his foreseen plan unfold

 

 

 

Is this the direct or newsstand edition?

 

Newsstand and I think I priced it too low. I better put it on ebay.

 

 

 

It could have just as easily gone this way. The idea that because Jawn doesn't have the book therefore it wasn't available is backwards logic. It is muc more telling that Ocean never stoppd trying to sell the book. NEVER

 

If the book was always available then it was just the price which using Rupp's logic proves he was negotiating. (thumbs u

[joe_collector]

I guess I'm just confused re: if a buyer nominates a seller for a book that he in an open sales thread and the seller doesn't sell him the book even though the buyer isn't on any sort of list - how does the seller NOT end up on the Probation List?

 

If that's the way the PL list works, then it's totally flawed, as I could put a huge chunk of sellers on the list simply by dredging up old, open threads and putting the BIN on books that are either vastly underpriced compared to current market or were sold off long ago.

[joe_collector]

There's also the issue of looking at the attitude of the offending parties and not the transgression itself.

 

[N/A]

I guess I'm just confused re: if a buyer nominates a seller for a book that he in an open sales thread and the seller doesn't sell him the book even though the buyer isn't on any sort of list - how does the seller NOT end up on the Probation List?

 

If that's the way the PL list works, then it's totally flawed, as I could put a huge chunk of sellers on the list simply by dredging up old, open threads and putting the BIN on books that are either vastly underpriced compared to current market or were sold off long ago.

 

No. The nomination would not be supported. The idea here is that the buyer had communication with the seller about the book the day before taking it. That is not an old thread by anyone's standard.

 

I dislike forcing sellers or buyers to complete a deal but under the agreed forum rules that is the way it is. Given this set of rules Ocean is obligated to sell the book and is rightfully on the PL.

 

If we want to change the rules to allow buyers and sellers an out then I would vote yes but there are repercussions.

[joe_collector]

Should Ocean have been added to the PL because he refused to honor a sale in a thread that had been inactive for 6 days?

 

And after he had told said buyer *twice* that he was holding the books and not selling them via the CGC thread.?

 

You're all jumping on ocean because he acts like a spoon, but that buyer was a vindictive little pinhead who not only ignored the PMs, but nominated the seller to the PL. Unbelieveable this jerkwad gets away scot free.

 

Personally, if one goes on the PL, the other should be right behind him. After reading this chain of events, would any of you want to deal with Jawn in forum or PM sales?

[joe_collector]

Wow, this seems like a grey area, and hence he probably shouldn't have been put on the PL but just warned to properly close his threads in the future.

 

Sort of like in the NFL - Off setting flags; Reply the down.

 

Best Answer Yet!

[joe_collector]

No. The nomination would not be supported.

 

Who cares, as according to Harvey, with no one in charge, there is effectively no way to stop these PL nominations.

 

Otherwise, post the names of those who get an official vote on the PL list.

[HarveySwick]

Joe, you kind of pick and choose what you want to read, huh?

 

I asked a question - I didn't make a statement. And someone answered that question - so there is no "according to Harvey." Go back and read.

[joe_collector]

I asked a question - I didn't make a statement. And someone answered that question - so there is no "according to Harvey." Go back and read.

 

I didn't see anyone disputing it, and my repeated calls for names of the "inner circle" who officially vote on PL noms has also gone unanswered.

[troydivision1]

Re: the PM exchange and OceanAveKid's *implied* intentions...

 

It was always for sale.

That is why it was listed on eBay AFTER he said he would hold on to it (twice) and AFTER the I'll Take It was posted.

Edited June 12, 2014 by umyeahwhatevers

[N/A]

I asked a question - I didn't make a statement. And someone answered that question - so there is no "according to Harvey." Go back and read.

 

I didn't see anyone disputing it, and my repeated calls for names of the "inner circle" who officially vote on PL noms has also gone unanswered.

 

I gave you your answer awhile ago.

[N/A]

No. The nomination would not be supported.

 

Who cares, as according to Harvey, with no one in charge, there is effectively no way to stop these PL nominations.

 

Otherwise, post the names of those who get an official vote on the PL list.

 

There is no vote

There is no vote

There is no vote

 

Just so you can ask again....there is no vote.

[comix4fun]

Man, how many pages of discussion has been devoted to this now? 30? I've had buyers flake out on me and sellers take FOREVER to ship out a purchased item, and I've not bothered nominating these people to the PL. It's exhausting.

Exactly, a bit of clarity by either party would have avoided this.

 

A clear "no" from the seller - since we all know he wanted more money than the price in his thread OR taking the high road & completing the sale even if you might feel the buyer acted deliberately.

 

A clearer communication from the buyer that doesn't publicly force the seller to do something he told you privately he didn't want to happen (a position the buyer understood) - "if still available, " in the thread is a much more reasonable approach.

 

 

 

I agree.