PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[Number 6]

It's great that the PL system is in place to handle these types of issues and maybe I'm wrong but if I am taking an action like submitting someone to the PL then I have an idea on how I would like to have the issue resolved. :shrug:

 

If I'm the offended one, why wouldnt I already have an idea on how I could be made whole?

 

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.

 

 

[HarveySwick]

^ What he said ^

 

Oh, and

[skypinkblu]

It's great that the PL system is in place to handle these types of issues and maybe I'm wrong but if I am taking an action like submitting someone to the PL then I have an idea on how I would like to have the issue resolved. :shrug:

 

If I'm the offended one, why wouldnt I already have an idea on how I could be made whole?

 

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.

 

 

Well said, but my other concern (if I were the buyer) would have been sending a MO after all of this confusion. The Buyer has no protection that way.

[Gem_Mint]

It's great that the PL system is in place to handle these types of issues and maybe I'm wrong but if I am taking an action like submitting someone to the PL then I have an idea on how I would like to have the issue resolved. :shrug:

 

If I'm the offended one, why wouldnt I already have an idea on how I could be made whole?

 

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.

 

 

Well said, but my other concern (if I were the buyer) would have been sending a MO after all of this confusion. The Buyer has no protection that way.

 

Jeez, first I dont sell him the book, then I steal his money.

 

What kinda of monster do you think I am?

[vader2001]

It's great that the PL system is in place to handle these types of issues and maybe I'm wrong but if I am taking an action like submitting someone to the PL then I have an idea on how I would like to have the issue resolved. :shrug:

 

If I'm the offended one, why wouldnt I already have an idea on how I could be made whole?

 

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.

 

 

Well said, but my other concern (if I were the buyer) would have been sending a MO after all of this confusion. The Buyer has no protection that way.

 

Jeez, first I dont sell him the book, then I steal his money.

 

What kinda of monster do you think I am?

 

 

[1Cool]

It's great that the PL system is in place to handle these types of issues and maybe I'm wrong but if I am taking an action like submitting someone to the PL then I have an idea on how I would like to have the issue resolved. :shrug:

 

If I'm the offended one, why wouldnt I already have an idea on how I could be made whole?

 

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.

 

 

Well said, but my other concern (if I were the buyer) would have been sending a MO after all of this confusion. The Buyer has no protection that way.

 

Jeez, first I dont sell him the book, then I steal his money.

 

What kinda of monster do you think I am?

 

Dude - just say you are sorry with some humility and try to make it right. You admitted you pulled a book out from underneath one of your buyers and now you are acting like its no big deal. But for some its a huge deal. The buyer now has to go find another copy and maybe lose some money on the deal which could be seen as unnecessarily costing him money. Let alone his lost time dealing with this. You dealt with this poorly but don't make it worse by being flippant and minimalizing the issue.

[comix4fun]

Tbh, I wouldn't mind if the neg stayed.

 

When I claim a book, I'm ready to pay right then and there.

 

I guess I just expect the same when I'm selling.

 

If you want to buy a book from me. Claim, pay, and ship... 1, 2, 3.

 

I guess I can be a lil impatient.

 

 

Except for the fact that you agreed to the gap of time between 2 and 3.

 

The impatience could have been rectified with communication.

 

When you agreed to the gap in time for payment you bound yourself to follow through and keep your word to the buyer. If you wanted to change the terms you should have had the same respect for him that you would have wanted for yourself in the same situation and asked him if it was ok to sell to someone else or that he try and pay sooner.

 

To alter the terms, unilaterally, and inform him after it's done is not something I believe you would have appreciated if a seller did that to you.

 

I think that's where the disconnect is, poor communication and a lack of transactional empathy.

[wombat]

One step forward, two steps back.

[skypinkblu]

Well said, but my other concern (if I were the buyer) would have been sending a MO after all of this confusion. The Buyer has no protection that way.

 

Jeez, first I dont sell him the book, then I steal his money.

 

What kinda of monster do you think I am?

 

 

 

 

I didn't call you a monster, but when things don't go smoothly, money orders are not an avenue I'd chose. If you change your mind, you have the MO, he has no recourse.

[Gem_Mint]

1Cool I did apologize , profusely.

 

But the witch hunt continues

[comix4fun]

Ok, thanks.

 

I am sorry... I honestly didn't think it was a big deal.

 

To you no, but for me I was expecting it.

 

I'm not gonna fight against another transaction you completed with someone else after the fact to get that comic back.

 

 

It's not worth it. I would rather not send my business your way.

 

 

 

I feel the same way brother.

 

Maybe you can explain to all of us why he's your "brother" in here yet at the same time you choose to call him a "ball-less " on Facebook.

 

 

The #1 rule in that group is no snitching....

 

 

 

Maybe the #1 rule should have been "Don't say anything behind someone's back you wouldn't say to their face."

 

It keeps these embarrassing little revelations from occurring.

[comix4fun]

1Cool I did apologize , profusely.

 

But the witch hunt continues

 

Well, as long as you're taking personal responsibility and not trying to shift the focus to make yourself the victim....hey waitaminutenow....

[Turtle]

Jeez, first I dont sell him the book, then I steal his money.

 

What kinda of monster do you think I am?

One step forward, two steps back.

 

+1

 

Gem_Mint,

 

You're hearing, but you're not listening.

[VintageComics]

But the witch hunt continues

 

It's not a witch hunt. You just keep deflecting from the fact that you did something wrong and trying to blame the other guy (at least partially) for being part of the problem.

 

It's really simple, you messed up. Nobody else did.

[Gem_Mint]

1Cool I did apologize , profusely.

 

But the witch hunt continues

 

Well, as long as you're taking personal responsibility and not trying to shift the focus to make yourself the victim....hey waitaminutenow....

 

haha

 

Guys, in all seriousness. I understand why it was wrong.

 

I am sorry to Voodoo. I should not have agreed to the terms if I didn't want to wait.

 

I should have communicated better before selling the book from underneath him.

 

I am sorry. This has never happened to me before. It won't happen again.

[Turtle]

1Cool I did apologize , profusely.

 

But the witch hunt continues

 

You're not doing yourself any favors.

 

Apologize, tell everyone you're going to do better, and then keep your word. No more snarky comments.

[KPR Comics]

1Cool I did apologize , profusely.

 

But the witch hunt continues

 

Well, as long as you're taking personal responsibility and not trying to shift the focus to make yourself the victim....hey waitaminutenow....

 

haha

 

Guys, in all seriousness. I understand why it was wrong.

 

I am sorry to Voodoo. I should not have agreed to the terms if I didn't want to wait.

 

I should have communicated better before selling the book from underneath him.

 

I am sorry. This has never happened to me before. It won't happen again.

 

Thus ends the saga...

[HarveySwick]

I don't think he's going to get it.

 

He PMed me last night for advice and my thoughts since I asked him and the nominator to remove their comments from the Probation List thread. I tried explaining that he unilaterally cancelled a deal in which he agreed to the conditions without any notice. I advised that he should work out something privately with the buyer and avoid this because he won't end up looking good in the end.

 

He responded with "Thanks for your time" and

 

"Gem_Mint has removed themself from this topic."

 

[Gem_Mint]

I don't think he's going to get it.

 

He PMed me last night for advice and my thoughts since I asked him and the nominator to remove their comments from the Probation List thread. I tried explaining that he unilaterally cancelled a deal in which he agreed to the conditions without any notice. I advised that he should work out something privately with the buyer and avoid this because he won't end up looking good in the end.

 

He responded with "Thanks for your time" and

 

"Gem_Mint has removed themself from this topic."

 

 

What's wrong with that?

 

I closed the PM because the convo was over.

 

You let me know that I was in the wrong and i said...damn.

 

We couldn't work it out. I understand why he wouldn't want to at this point. I wouldn't either.

 

I apologize to him.... I'm sorry. When I first told him what happened I apologized profusely.

[1Cool]

1Cool I did apologize , profusely.

 

But the witch hunt continues

 

Well, as long as you're taking personal responsibility and not trying to shift the focus to make yourself the victim....hey waitaminutenow....

 

haha

 

Guys, in all seriousness. I understand why it was wrong.

 

I am sorry to Voodoo. I should not have agreed to the terms if I didn't want to wait.

 

I should have communicated better before selling the book from underneath him.

 

I am sorry. This has never happened to me before. It won't happen again.

 

Great step. After your previous comments there will be people who will want you to do more but saying sorry is definitely the biggest step. If I was you I'd definitely try to open up the lines of communications with Voodoo and maybe offer him some kind of restitution for your error. Maybe send him some books that equal or exceed the cost difference between the book you would have sold him and the price he ends up paying for the book. It's on you to make it right and saying sorry usually is only the first step especially if the other party feels slighted. Best of luck man.