PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[wombat]

Seller: I think shipping will be in the range of X.

 

Buyer 1: OK. I'll take it.

Buyer 2: Please get back to me with an exact shipping quote and I'll make a decision.

 

One of those sounds like a deal to me. One doesn't.

 

Problem is Xela never stated #2. Where are you getting that from?

 

I initially thought that but realized wombat was using the 2nd as an example of how it could have gone but didn;t.

 

Yes. Just showing if the buyer was really concerned about shipping how he could have responded.

[bcc]

Fair enough.

 

Looks like there was never any wavering on the part of the Xela and he clearly agreed to the terms and said he'd take them.

 

Very stupid on his part to not reply that he had just spent $25 on shipping and inquire about that if he had questions. Looks like you did your part.

 

So he is added to the Probation List...then what? To get off does he just go through with the deal with you?

 

I'm open to whatever you guys decide. I won't complete the deal with him even if that makes all of this moot. I just won't deal with people like that so I'm not sure what is fair?

 

And I apologize for going off on you, I'm a little frustrated and perhaps took it out on you. I thought about send you a PM but I did it in public so I apologize in public.

[EC ed]

At this point, I think the buyer took the bolded passage as the crack in the door to get out, and jumped through it.

 

+1

 

Whether it makes practical sense to go ahead with the PL nomination is another question, but that is the seller's call.

 

+1

 

 

[jaybuck43]

Update the list.

 

Oh I have no problems updating the list. I want to see if Xela will return with anything to add or perhaps seek to close the deal. I am PMing bcc to see what date he sent the PL Discussion PM also to see if 3 days have passed.

 

:shrug: Rule 3B

If the accused responds in the Probation Discussion Thread and it is determined the conditions of the transaction was not met, they will be added to the PL.

 

Doesn't that suspend the 72 hour rule since Xela posted here and refuted nothing?

 

[Shark]

Seller: I think shipping will be in the range of X.

 

Buyer 1: OK. I'll take it.

Buyer 2: Please get back to me with an exact shipping quote and I'll make a decision.

 

One of those sounds like a deal to me. One doesn't.

 

Problem is Xela never stated #2. Where are you getting that from?

 

I initially thought that but realized wombat was using the 2nd as an example of how it could have gone but didn;t.

 

Yes. Just showing if the buyer was really concerned about shipping how he could have responded.

 

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

[bcc]

And maybe take his address off there. (thumbs u

Done and done, thanks for pointing that out.

[HarveySwick]

And I apologize for going off on you, I'm a little frustrated and perhaps took it out on you. I thought about send you a PM but I did it in public so I apologize in public.

 

No problem. Apology accepted.

 

I wasn't trying to make it a personal attack against you. That is why a few times I intentionally chose the words "seller" and "buyer" instead of "bcc" and "Xela".

 

I just wanted to see what was specifically said. Looks like you were clear in your communications and Xela didn't express any concerns or raise any questions with his

 

It appears to have been a completed deal that he backed out of. Now we need to figure out if he does go on the Probation List, how does he get off if you don't want to complete the transaction.

[PovertyRow]

Fair enough.

 

Looks like there was never any wavering on the part of the Xela and he clearly agreed to the terms and said he'd take them.

 

Very stupid on his part to not reply that he had just spent $25 on shipping and inquire about that if he had questions. Looks like you did your part.

 

So he is added to the Probation List...then what? To get off does he just go through with the deal with you?

 

I'm open to whatever you guys decide. I won't complete the deal with him even if that makes all of this moot. I just won't deal with people like that so I'm not sure what is fair?

 

And I apologize for going off on you, I'm a little frustrated and perhaps took it out on you. I thought about send you a PM but I did it in public so I apologize in public.

 

Honestly it is not up to us to decide for a PL nomination. You need to do what you feel about. Go through the PL rules, especially about getting someone off the list once they have been put on. Maybe between the two of you some form of satisfactory conclusion can be reached.

[crassus]

Update the list.

 

Oh I have no problems updating the list. I want to see if Xela will return with anything to add or perhaps seek to close the deal. I am PMing bcc to see what date he sent the PL Discussion PM also to see if 3 days have passed.

 

:shrug: Rule 3B

If the accused responds in the Probation Discussion Thread and it is determined the conditions of the transaction was not met, they will be added to the PL.

 

Doesn't that suspend the 72 hour rule since Xela posted here and refuted nothing?

 

That is my understanding also.

 

My main concern, and I say this with sympathy and appreciation for the seller, is that the PL is not punishment, this has been reaffirmed on several occasions. The PL is to get transactions completed. If the seller will not now sell to the buyer, this must be addressed.

[PovertyRow]

I wasn't trying to make it a personal attack against you.

 

Yes you were!

[HarveySwick]

It's sad how bad communication can end someone up here though.

 

Why didn't Xela just say "You know, that seems high? The last few transactions I've had were around $25 for shipping costs."

 

Or after the actual cost was given: instead of just saying "Ill pass, thanks though Boyd!" why not explain himself apologetically. Explain then that he made a mistake and thought shipping would be $25. Show a little class and humility and own up to his mistake.

 

So many people are flippant and remove themselves without any form of apology or explanation.

[HarveySwick]

I wasn't trying to make it a personal attack against you.

 

Yes you were!

 

[Sqeggs]

How can someone be nominated to the PL for not completing a deal if the nominator states publicly that he is no longer willing to complete the deal with the nominee?

[comix4fun]

IMO there was a deal. For whatever reason the buyer got cold feet and started to look for a way out.

 

Sam

 

I've packaged the books and used the online calculator to estimate the shipping. It comes to $63 for Priority Express International with insurance for $400. If it is different when I get to the post office I'll refund the difference.

 

With me paying $20 of the postage the total will be $493

 

Let me know if that is what you want to do.

 

Paypal is blackcatcomics@austin.rr.com

 

Boyd

 

At this point, I think the buyer took the bolded passage as the crack in the door to get out, and jumped through it.

 

That the seller was willing to consider cheaper options is to me a sufficient show of compromise and good faith to find against the buyer.

 

Whether it makes practical sense to go ahead with the PL nomination is another question, but that is the seller's call.

 

 

In terms of cracks created by the bolded section, the only options it gave him were the cheaper shipping options and not an out card to the entire deal.

 

It's pretty certain that the deal's sealed in these pm's.

[HarveySwick]

How can someone be nominated to the PL for not completing a deal if the nominator states publicly that he is no longer willing to complete the deal with the nominee?

 

It just has to be a satisfactory resolution to the nominator.

 

The same thing would happen if a buyer backed out of a deal, was added to the list, seller sells the book and months later the buyer wants off the list. It's impossible to complete the transaction at that point. The seller and buyer must come up with something that is satisfacotry to the nominator.

[PovertyRow]

I wasn't trying to make it a personal attack against you.

 

Yes you were!

 

 

[jaybuck43]

How can someone be nominated to the PL for not completing a deal if the nominator states publicly that he is no longer willing to complete the deal with the nominee?

 

Because there is no rule that says the only way to nominate to the PL is if they are willing to go through with the deal.

 

Rule 2e) If completing the transaction is no longer possible, the accuser may outline a proposed path to resolution.

 

Completing the transaction is no longer possible because neither the Seller nor the buyer wish to. Seller is free to propose a resolution that will fix this (something as simple as an apology PMed to him for instance)

 

[Sqeggs]

How can someone be nominated to the PL for not completing a deal if the nominator states publicly that he is no longer willing to complete the deal with the nominee?

 

It just has to be a satisfactory resolution to the nominator.

 

The same thing would happen if a buyer backed out of a deal, was added to the list, seller sells the book and months later the buyer wants off the list. It's impossible to complete the transaction at that point. The seller and buyer must come up with something that is satisfacotry to the nominator.

 

Months haven't passed here; this just happened.

 

In my view, this whole case has been screwed up from the get go.

 

I've long felt we need a true fb thread, but that ain't happenin' for various reasons. The PL shouldn't be twisted into a backdoor fb thread.

 

As I understand it, the PL is supposed to be a way to ensure that deals are consummated as agreed to. But in this case the nominator has made it clear multiple times that HE WON'T DO THE DEAL.

 

I'm mystified that no one seems to think that point is important.

 

I get that people think the buyer backed out of a deal. I get that the seller thinks the buyer acted like a jerk.

 

I don't get that the nominator is going to be allowed to put someone on the PL for not completing a deal when THE NOMINATOR SAYS HE WILL NO LONGER DO THE DEAL.

 

 

[Sqeggs]

How can someone be nominated to the PL for not completing a deal if the nominator states publicly that he is no longer willing to complete the deal with the nominee?

 

Because there is no rule that says the only way to nominate to the PL is if they are willing to go through with the deal.

 

Rule 2e) If completing the transaction is no longer possible, the accuser may outline a proposed path to resolution.

 

Completing the transaction is no longer possible because neither the Seller nor the buyer wish to. Seller is free to propose a resolution that will fix this (something as simple as an apology PMed to him for instance)

 

But how can the seller be allowed to rule out completing the deal when he is nominating someone for ... wait for it ... not completing the deal?

[crassus]

How can someone be nominated to the PL for not completing a deal if the nominator states publicly that he is no longer willing to complete the deal with the nominee?

 

Because there is no rule that says the only way to nominate to the PL is if they are willing to go through with the deal.

 

Rule 2e) If completing the transaction is no longer possible, the accuser may outline a proposed path to resolution.

 

Completing the transaction is no longer possible because neither the Seller nor the buyer wish to. Seller is free to propose a resolution that will fix this (something as simple as an apology PMed to him for instance)

 

I think the "may" is properly a "should" outline a proposed path to resolution. Otherwise the PL would indeed become a limitless instrument of abuse.