PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[jimjum12]

I'm here Harvey

 

And the fact that technically the nominated party never came to this thread and presented any argument against the nomination is ignored?

 

If the person nominating has no right to do so then why would there need to be a response?

 

I understand your position and empathize with your take on this. Why not look at it from another angle...

 

I personally feel I have the right to protect my fellow buyers and sellers here. I've dealt with most people active on the boards in one capacity or another via both buying and selling... so I have a vested interest to keep this place safe.

 

No amount of time is going to change the fact that a seller advertised a book with no restoration and the book the buyer received had a completely different cover married to it. We also can't change the fact that one year's worth of PMs concerning this issue were read by the seller and left unanswered and unaddressed.

 

The PL list is basically my only means to protect others concerning questionable transactions. Until Mike contacts me concerning a resolution to this, I would hope the nomination stands because there should be no time frame concerning the protection of others

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

 

 

 

This is not directed at Rupp...... just for the record, a married cover, when done correctly, can be very difficult to detect. I bought a book (with full disclosure) of a married cover book that even Matt Nelson missed on a pre screen. It's nothing to be ashamed of missing and may not "jump out at you". As for the issue of Buyer's Responsibility...... when I'm a buyer, I do NOT expect to be spoon fed creamed peas, have the dribble wiped from my chin, soiled diapers changed, and made to look both ways before crossing the street. After all, these are USED periodicals that we pursue, and a multi million dollar industry exists for sorting out and identifying all the many problems that exist in them. To assume they are problem free and to purchase with that assumption is short sighted and unrealistic. Become an educated buyer before spending big money on raws...... it's really your best defense...... and don't bet the farm on a raw AF 15. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

Edited June 12, 2015 by jimjum12

[N/A]

I'm here Harvey

 

And the fact that technically the nominated party never came to this thread and presented any argument against the nomination is ignored?

 

If the person nominating has no right to do so then why would there need to be a response?

 

I understand your position and empathize with your take on this. Why not look at it from another angle...

 

I personally feel I have the right to protect my fellow buyers and sellers here. I've dealt with most people active on the boards in one capacity or another via both buying and selling... so I have a vested interest to keep this place safe.

 

No amount of time is going to change the fact that a seller advertised a book with no restoration and the book the buyer received had a completely different cover married to it. We also can't change the fact that one year's worth of PMs concerning this issue were read by the seller and left unanswered and unaddressed.

 

The PL list is basically my only means to protect others concerning questionable transactions. Until Mike contacts me concerning a resolution to this, I would hope the nomination stands because there should be no time frame concerning the protection of others

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

 

 

 

This is not directed at Rupp...... just for the record, a married cover, when done correctly, can be very difficult to detect. I bought a book (with full disclosure) of a married cover book that even Matt Nelson missed on a pre screen. It's nothing to be ashamed of missing and may not "jump out at you". As for the issue of Buyer's Responsibility...... when I'm a buyer, I do NOT expect to be spoon fed creamed peas, have the dribble wiped from my chin, soiled diapers changed, and made to look both ways before crossing the street. After all, these are USED periodicals that we pursue, and a multi million dollar industry exists for sorting out and identifying all the many problems that exist in them. To assume they are problem free and to purchase with that assumption is short sighted and unrealistic. Become an educated buyer before spending big money on raws...... it's really your best defense...... and don't bet the farm on a raw AF 15. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

Agreed.

 

As for Rupp's response.....

 

The ending is quite the political answer.

Yes, we should all fight terrorism, safety should always be a concern and protecting children a priority. The blanket is not a catch all.

 

You and I are very similar since we both buy and sell. The protection of the community is for the whole community which means buyers and sellers. Finding the balance is the basis for all these discussions.

 

It seems that if you had asked for a full refund then the nomination would have been denied. It appears everyone agrees that the time has passed for a full refund including yourself so clearly there is a deadline when a transaction is considered complete. Your request is completely reasonable but at which point is it simply too late?

 

The group seems concerned about protecting the sellers who may be trying to scam. I get that but there are also buyers that try to scam. Discussing the extremes is always easy which is why this example is a great opportunity to decide on a timeline. Protecting the community, for me, means upholding the integrity of the tools we use to self police. I see this as opening the door to a bunch of transactions that may degrade the integrity of the PL. Part of providing a safe place to transact is to have a time when the transaction is considered complete no matter the circumstances.

[N/A]

And leaving this to a case by case basis has never worked on these boards that's have seen.

[Dr Chaos]

What if the Board decides 90 days, but a seller expressly states in his sales thread rules that returns are not accepted under any circumstances after 30 days? He could still be nominated to the Probation List of a buyer wanted a return at Day 89?

 

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for anything to help sellers rip off buyers, I'm just trying to play this out and hash out possible scenarios.

 

On ebay sellers say their return policy is a week or 10 days all the time but Paypal buyer protection still gives buyers roughly 60 days to initiate a return / refund.

 

If the board decides that 90 days or even a year is reasonable (especially for undisclosed restoration even if we give the seller benefit of the doubt that it is unintentional) then 90 days would be the limit even if the sales thread states otherwise.

 

If the board decides that it is 90 days or less (should the seller expressly warn buyers that the deadline is absolute) then the seller could dictate the deadline by posting it in the thread.

 

The board could decide to give sellers the loophole to post the deadline in the thread but if the buyers need CGC to help them detect color touch it would be reasonable to give them three months (maybe four) to get the books back from CGC on top of the time to recieve, inspect, and organize their purchases for submission.

 

At the end of the day the Paypal limit (60 days?) seems more than fair if we believe that buyers can be expected to inspect a book and identify problems for themselves (damage, missing pages, color touch, etc.). If we do not believe that the average buyer on these boards can be expected to spot subtle restoration there should be more time allowed for these issues to surface (usually when the books is resubmitted to CGC or resold).

 

While a short deadline (30 days or less) would encourage dishonest sellers to dump their restored books here while feigning ignorance when the restoration is pointed out, a longer deadline (let's say one year) would give the buyer ample time to inspect the book and have it looked over by a third party without leaving the seller to be blindsided by a return on a book they sold years ago due to color touch or some other restoration so subtle that they were unaware of it themselves.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Dr Chaos

[EC ed]

On ebay sellers say their return policy is a week or 10 days all the time but Paypal buyer protection still gives buyers roughly 60 days to initiate a return / refund.

 

If the board decides that 90 days or even a year is reasonable (especially for undisclosed restoration even if we give the seller benefit of the doubt that it is unintentional) then 90 days would be the limit even if the sales thread states otherwise.

 

You all continue to convolute two separate issues. We should not be discussing a mandatory return/refund period...that should be left to each individual seller in his/her individual sales threads. If I want to start a sales thread with an "as-is no return" policy, I should be free to do so, and you should be free to not buy the books in that thread if you don't like it.

 

What we need to stay focused on is the PL statute of limitations discussion...i.e., how long does someone have to initiate a PL claim on a failed transaction. That's a different question, and (I thought) that's the issue that's on the table.

[HarveySwick]

On ebay sellers say their return policy is a week or 10 days all the time but Paypal buyer protection still gives buyers roughly 60 days to initiate a return / refund.

 

If the board decides that 90 days or even a year is reasonable (especially for undisclosed restoration even if we give the seller benefit of the doubt that it is unintentional) then 90 days would be the limit even if the sales thread states otherwise.

 

You all continue to convolute two separate issues. We should not be discussing a mandatory return/refund period...that should be left to each individual seller in his/her individual sales threads. If I want to start a sales thread with an "as-is no return" policy, I should be free to do so, and you should be free to not buy the books in that thread if you don't like it.

 

What we need to stay focused on is the PL statute of limitations discussion...i.e., how long does someone have to initiate a PL claim on a failed transaction. That's a different question, and (I thought) that's the issue that's on the table.

 

(thumbs u

 

Ed's got it.

[EC ed]

In my view, the reason this has become convoluted is that the seller didn't specify a return period.

 

So, that leaves us debating what a reasonable return period should be when one is not specified. That is yet another separate discussion...but that discussion certainly does not suggest that there "should" be a mandatory policy, in general.

[wombat]

On ebay sellers say their return policy is a week or 10 days all the time but Paypal buyer protection still gives buyers roughly 60 days to initiate a return / refund.

 

If the board decides that 90 days or even a year is reasonable (especially for undisclosed restoration even if we give the seller benefit of the doubt that it is unintentional) then 90 days would be the limit even if the sales thread states otherwise.

 

You all continue to convolute two separate issues. We should not be discussing a mandatory return/refund period...that should be left to each individual seller in his/her individual sales threads. If I want to start a sales thread with an "as-is no return" policy, I should be free to do so, and you should be free to not buy the books in that thread if you don't like it.

 

What we need to stay focused on is the PL statute of limitations discussion...i.e., how long does someone have to initiate a PL claim on a failed transaction. That's a different question, and (I thought) that's the issue that's on the table.

 

Agreed. The simplest way I can think about it is this. Someone wants to nominate someone for the PL.

 

First question: Did the transaction happen within a year?

 

If yes, then carry on as usual.

If no, then sorry, the time frame for nominating to the PL has expired.

 

 

 

[Iceman399]

On ebay sellers say their return policy is a week or 10 days all the time but Paypal buyer protection still gives buyers roughly 60 days to initiate a return / refund.

 

If the board decides that 90 days or even a year is reasonable (especially for undisclosed restoration even if we give the seller benefit of the doubt that it is unintentional) then 90 days would be the limit even if the sales thread states otherwise.

 

You all continue to convolute two separate issues. We should not be discussing a mandatory return/refund period...that should be left to each individual seller in his/her individual sales threads. If I want to start a sales thread with an "as-is no return" policy, I should be free to do so, and you should be free to not buy the books in that thread if you don't like it.

 

What we need to stay focused on is the PL statute of limitations discussion...i.e., how long does someone have to initiate a PL claim on a failed transaction. That's a different question, and (I thought) that's the issue that's on the table.

 

Agreed. The simplest way I can think about it is this. Someone wants to nominate someone for the PL.

 

First question: Did the transaction happen within a year?

 

If yes, then carry on as usual.

If no, then sorry, the time frame for nominating to the PL has expired.

 

 

 

Given CGC TAT's a year isn't enough in my opinion. If I buy a book, it typically is 2 weeks before I get the box (it goes to a USA address that I pick up on the spare weekend, normally once a month). If I want to press it and send it to CCS that is 3 months of waiting. Now Econ Slow Track with a Pre-screen (just cause that would be the longest time) and you are looking at 5-6 months for grading. Which means I have about 2 months to find and or have enough books to send down the submission. Just my

[wombat]

Sorry, I just used one year as an example. Didn't mean to imply that was any kind of agreed upon time frame.

[Dr Chaos]

On ebay sellers say their return policy is a week or 10 days all the time but Paypal buyer protection still gives buyers roughly 60 days to initiate a return / refund.

 

If the board decides that 90 days or even a year is reasonable (especially for undisclosed restoration even if we give the seller benefit of the doubt that it is unintentional) then 90 days would be the limit even if the sales thread states otherwise.

 

You all continue to convolute two separate issues. We should not be discussing a mandatory return/refund period...that should be left to each individual seller in his/her individual sales threads. If I want to start a sales thread with an "as-is no return" policy, I should be free to do so, and you should be free to not buy the books in that thread if you don't like it.

 

What we need to stay focused on is the PL statute of limitations discussion...i.e., how long does someone have to initiate a PL claim on a failed transaction. That's a different question, and (I thought) that's the issue that's on the table.

 

I think it is really two flavors of the same ice cream.

 

What we are talking about is how long a seller should be held accountable for a transaction made on these boards.

 

An as is policy involving low priced books may be the one case where the seller is not accountable for restored books (or not). Any other listing with any other policy implies that the books are not restored unless explicitly stated otherwise by the seller.

 

If the seller has passed a restored book (intentionally or not) to a buyer unaware of the restoration the buyer should be able to seek restitution from the seller (return period / policy is only one type of restitution). Clearly the restored book is not what was advertised and is worth far less than a similar unrestored copy of the same book in the same condition (apart from the restoration).

 

The time limit for the buyer to contact the seller and seek restitution is directly related to the time it would take for the buyer (or a third party if necessary) to inspect the book, identify the problem, and contact the seller about it.

 

If a third party is needed to identify the problem and the most commonly used third party (CGC) can take 3-4 months to return a submission, even six months seems like a tight window in these cases. After a buyer has inspected a book and decides that they want to keep it it may take a couple months before they decide to also put together a CGC submission including that book to send it in.

 

The seller is no less wrong 6-12 months later for failing to disclose the restoration. Providing restitution to a buyer 6-12 months after a transaction may be inconvenient but it does not seem to be a huge imposition on the seller considering the harm that the buyer would suffer having to settle for goods worth roughly one third of what the seller promised,

 

A seller ignoring a buyer or telling them to pound sand under these circumstances would be a good candidate for PL.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Dr Chaos

[crassus]

 

The group seems concerned about protecting the sellers who may be trying to scam. I get that but there are also buyers that try to scam. Discussing the extremes is always easy which is why this example is a great opportunity to decide on a timeline. Protecting the community, for me, means upholding the integrity of the tools we use to self police. I see this as opening the door to a bunch of transactions that may degrade the integrity of the PL. Part of providing a safe place to transact is to have a time when the transaction is considered complete no matter the circumstances.

 

Well stated. On this point I agree completely.

[Dr Chaos]

 

The group seems concerned about protecting the sellers who may be trying to scam. I get that but there are also buyers that try to scam. Discussing the extremes is always easy which is why this example is a great opportunity to decide on a timeline. Protecting the community, for me, means upholding the integrity of the tools we use to self police. I see this as opening the door to a bunch of transactions that may degrade the integrity of the PL. Part of providing a safe place to transact is to have a time when the transaction is considered complete no matter the circumstances.

 

Well stated. On this point I agree completely.

 

Sounds reasonable.

[N/A]

On ebay sellers say their return policy is a week or 10 days all the time but Paypal buyer protection still gives buyers roughly 60 days to initiate a return / refund.

 

If the board decides that 90 days or even a year is reasonable (especially for undisclosed restoration even if we give the seller benefit of the doubt that it is unintentional) then 90 days would be the limit even if the sales thread states otherwise.

 

You all continue to convolute two separate issues. We should not be discussing a mandatory return/refund period...that should be left to each individual seller in his/her individual sales threads. If I want to start a sales thread with an "as-is no return" policy, I should be free to do so, and you should be free to not buy the books in that thread if you don't like it.

 

What we need to stay focused on is the PL statute of limitations discussion...i.e., how long does someone have to initiate a PL claim on a failed transaction. That's a different question, and (I thought) that's the issue that's on the table.

 

Agreed. The simplest way I can think about it is this. Someone wants to nominate someone for the PL.

 

First question: Did the transaction happen within a year?

 

If yes, then carry on as usual.

If no, then sorry, the time frame for nominating to the PL has expired.

 

 

 

Given CGC TAT's a year isn't enough in my opinion. If I buy a book, it typically is 2 weeks before I get the box (it goes to a USA address that I pick up on the spare weekend, normally once a month). If I want to press it and send it to CCS that is 3 months of waiting. Now Econ Slow Track with a Pre-screen (just cause that would be the longest time) and you are looking at 5-6 months for grading. Which means I have about 2 months to find and or have enough books to send down the submission. Just my

 

Even with your example, which seems extreme, it appears a year is plenty of time. (thumbs u

[Bio-Rupp]

I'm here Harvey

 

And the fact that technically the nominated party never came to this thread and presented any argument against the nomination is ignored?

 

If the person nominating has no right to do so then why would there need to be a response?

 

I understand your position and empathize with your take on this. Why not look at it from another angle...

 

I personally feel I have the right to protect my fellow buyers and sellers here. I've dealt with most people active on the boards in one capacity or another via both buying and selling... so I have a vested interest to keep this place safe.

 

No amount of time is going to change the fact that a seller advertised a book with no restoration and the book the buyer received had a completely different cover married to it. We also can't change the fact that one year's worth of PMs concerning this issue were read by the seller and left unanswered and unaddressed.

 

The PL list is basically my only means to protect others concerning questionable transactions. Until Mike contacts me concerning a resolution to this, I would hope the nomination stands because there should be no time frame concerning the protection of others

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

 

 

 

This is not directed at Rupp...... just for the record, a married cover, when done correctly, can be very difficult to detect. I bought a book (with full disclosure) of a married cover book that even Matt Nelson missed on a pre screen. It's nothing to be ashamed of missing and may not "jump out at you". As for the issue of Buyer's Responsibility...... when I'm a buyer, I do NOT expect to be spoon fed creamed peas, have the dribble wiped from my chin, soiled diapers changed, and made to look both ways before crossing the street. After all, these are USED periodicals that we pursue, and a multi million dollar industry exists for sorting out and identifying all the many problems that exist in them. To assume they are problem free and to purchase with that assumption is short sighted and unrealistic. Become an educated buyer before spending big money on raws...... it's really your best defense...... and don't bet the farm on a raw AF 15. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

Agreed.

 

As for Rupp's response.....

 

The ending is quite the political answer.

Yes, we should all fight terrorism, safety should always be a concern and protecting children a priority. The blanket is not a catch all.

 

You and I are very similar since we both buy and sell. The protection of the community is for the whole community which means buyers and sellers. Finding the balance is the basis for all these discussions.

 

It seems that if you had asked for a full refund then the nomination would have been denied. It appears everyone agrees that the time has passed for a full refund including yourself so clearly there is a deadline when a transaction is considered complete. Your request is completely reasonable but at which point is it simply too late?

 

The group seems concerned about protecting the sellers who may be trying to scam. I get that but there are also buyers that try to scam. Discussing the extremes is always easy which is why this example is a great opportunity to decide on a timeline. Protecting the community, for me, means upholding the integrity of the tools we use to self police. I see this as opening the door to a bunch of transactions that may degrade the integrity of the PL. Part of providing a safe place to transact is to have a time when the transaction is considered complete no matter the circumstances.

 

Not necessarily "political"... but more to the point.

 

I would have loved to have discussed this with Mike over the course of the year, but he chose to read and ignore each of my PMs on the subject until it was made public. Even then refusing to address the issue.

 

Again no amount of time was going to make this book unrestored after it was explicitly described as not.

 

I take my share of the burden by not asking for a total refund this late in the game. I just feel that some of the burden should be shared by the seller since his description was not accurate to begin with.

 

Still a great discussion

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

And leaving this to a case by case basis has never worked on these boards that's have seen.

 

 

Read this 12 times and the end is giving me a migraine. I should stop reading it.

[N/A]

On ebay sellers say their return policy is a week or 10 days all the time but Paypal buyer protection still gives buyers roughly 60 days to initiate a return / refund.

 

If the board decides that 90 days or even a year is reasonable (especially for undisclosed restoration even if we give the seller benefit of the doubt that it is unintentional) then 90 days would be the limit even if the sales thread states otherwise.

 

You all continue to convolute two separate issues. We should not be discussing a mandatory return/refund period...that should be left to each individual seller in his/her individual sales threads. If I want to start a sales thread with an "as-is no return" policy, I should be free to do so, and you should be free to not buy the books in that thread if you don't like it.

 

What we need to stay focused on is the PL statute of limitations discussion...i.e., how long does someone have to initiate a PL claim on a failed transaction. That's a different question, and (I thought) that's the issue that's on the table.

 

I think it is really two flavors of the same ice cream.

 

What we are talking about is how long a seller should be held accountable for a transaction made on these boards.

 

An as is policy involving low priced books may be the one case where the seller is not accountable for restored books (or not). Any other listing with any other policy implies that the books are not restored unless explicitly stated otherwise by the seller.

 

If the seller has passed a restored book (intentionally or not) to a buyer unaware of the restoration the buyer should be able to seek restitution from the seller (return period / policy is only one type of restitution). Clearly the restored book is not what was advertised and is worth far less than a similar unrestored copy of the same book in the same condition (apart from the restoration).

 

The time limit for the buyer to contact the seller and seek restitution is directly related to the time it would take for the buyer (or a third party if necessary) to inspect the book, identify the problem, and contact the seller about it.

 

If a third party is needed to identify the problem and the most commonly used third party (CGC) can take 3-4 months to return a submission, even six months seems like a tight window in these cases. After a buyer has inspected a book and decides that they want to keep it it may take a couple months before they decide to also put together a CGC submission including that book to send it in.

 

The seller is no less wrong 6-12 months later for failing to disclose the restoration. Providing restitution to a buyer 6-12 months after a transaction may be inconvenient but it does not seem to be a huge imposition on the seller considering the harm that the buyer would suffer having to settle for goods worth roughly one third of what the seller promised,

 

A seller ignoring a buyer or telling them to pound sand under these circumstances would be a good candidate for PL.

 

If a seller states "as is, no returns" then they should be able to do so. Nothing about any book should be assumed. Unless a seller states that it is unrestored then it is not required. The risk/reward of this is usually reflected in the price.

 

It sounds like a year is a very reasonable cut-off for the PL.

[N/A]

And leaving this to a case by case basis has never worked on these boards that's have seen.

 

 

Read this 12 times and the end is giving me a migraine. I should stop reading it.

 

 

It should end "that I've seen". In the words of the great seanfingh "apple autocorrect can drink my milkshake"

[Dr Chaos]

 

If a seller states "as is, no returns" then they should be able to do so. Nothing about any book should be assumed. Unless a seller states that it is unrestored then it is not required. The risk/reward of this is usually reflected in the price.

 

It sounds like a year is a very reasonable cut-off for the PL.

 

I think we are on the same page.

 

Buyer should get one year to notify the seller about the problem. Buyer should then give the seller a chance to make things right and be able to nominate for PL if they can't work it out.

 

If seller is willing to work with the buyer there is no need for the buyer to run to the PL to beat the deadline.

 

If the seller was notified within a year and stalls the buyer "check is in the mail", etc.) they should not be able to avoid PL because the buyer took 13 months to nominate them.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Dr Chaos

[Red84]

Here's a possible rule for the probation list. In disputes arising from missed restoration, book incompleteness, etc a buyer has 3 months to submit the book (from the date of receipt of the book) to a third party grader (this includes an affiliated presser (CCS or CFP) prior to moving the book along to a third party grader. Once the book is submitted within 3 months, the period for PL nomination extends to the discovery of the final grade plus 1 week to communicate the discrepancy to the seller. Any activity outside of these time parameters bars a PL nomination but does not bar a public outing.