PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[HarveySwick]

Are you nominating here for the Probation List?

[mschmidt]

As someone who doesn't sell very much on these forums; I am practically mortified by those who think a full year should be conceived as a time limit for return of a book. I believe a lot of people are confusing a conducted deal for a book and what their intended use for said book is.

 

I have always thought that three months was a tidy amount of time for a buyer to look over a book, have a second opinion if they find something odd and contact the seller with any complaints. What was purchased was a book not the time it takes a seller to find additional books for pressing and submission; that should not even be considered. I do not understand the idea or excuse of "CGC takes a long time to grade" that was never part of any deal struck between buyer and seller.

 

If a buyer wishes to submit a book they are sold to CGC that is solely the choice of the buyer. There are many other companies that can do restoration checks; it seems a point of contention is that everything is based on a buyer who never wants to have any responsibility for a book they purchased at any point in the process of ownership for the lifetime of the book.

 

Well said.

 

If there's a significant amount of $$$ at play if the book comes back restored, that should be enough to light a fire under the *spoon* of the buyer as to getting it checked out by a 3rd party. I personally think a full year is nuts - if the buyer wants to spend 6 months building a CGC pile and then chooses to have the books slabbed in the slowest way possible, they've gone way past the point of a reasonable timeframe.

[Dr Chaos]

 

Well said.

 

If there's a significant amount of $$$ at play if the book comes back restored, that should be enough to light a fire under the *spoon* of the buyer as to getting it checked out by a 3rd party. I personally think a full year is nuts - if the buyer wants to spend 6 months building a CGC pile and then chooses to have the books slabbed in the slowest way possible, they've gone way past the point of a reasonable time frame.

 

One year may be stretching things a bit but it is not as crazy as it sounds. I do agree that there does need to be a limit (even in these cases) but I think we need to consider how long a reasonable buyer with no major reason to distrust the seller would take to bring the book to a third party with the expertise to spot the restoration.

 

Let's say the buyer buys three books for $250. One of them is $125 with undisclosed restoration.

 

Time line looks something like this:

 

Day 1 - Buyer agrees to buy restored book.

Day 4 - Buyer finishes shopping and asks seller for an invoice

Day 6 -Seller sends invoice

Day 7 - Buyer pays

Day 8 - Seller ship books

Day 17 - Delivery attempt one

Day 20 - Weekend is here buyer can finally get to the post office to sign for package (on initial inspection the books look OK to the buyer)

Day 34 - Weekend is here buyer send a stack of books out for pressing (including tainted book

Day 79 - Pressing completed

Day 110 - Buyer brings pressed books to local con for signing and grading

 

At this point we are talking about almost four months, slow track CGC could be another 3-4 months.

 

Once the buyer is aware of the restoration I would hope their first move is to contact the seller and give them a chance to make things right before coming here. That could take at least a week or two if the buyer is reasonable.

 

In this case the buyer bought a book that they felt would benefit from a press and waited a little over a month for an opportunity to get the book signed but really didn't drag their feet that much considering that they bought the book here in good faith and trusted that the seller was doing the right thing.

 

Also in this case, even if the book is accepted for a refund the buyer is out pressing fees, CGC signature series fees, and may have also paid the artist to sign the seller's restored book so their loss has been compounded.

 

Whether we are talking about six months, a year, or some other time frame I do think that undisclosed restoration should be something that the buyer should have more time to address with the seller. Some people buy books they want to get signed, some people have day jobs or families. Not all books are worth getting fast tracked. Let's not put all of the blame / burden on the victim.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Dr Chaos

[miraclemet]

Day 1 - Buyer agrees to buy tainted book.

 

I would never buy a "tainted" book

 

 

oh wait you mean like restored? that's not what I thought you meant...

 

 

[Dr Chaos]

Day 1 - Buyer agrees to buy tainted book.

 

I would never buy a "tainted" book

 

 

oh wait you mean like restored? that's not what I thought you meant...

 

 

Changed it to restored.

[rodan57]

 

One year may be stretching things a bit but it is not as crazy as it sounds. I do agree that there does need to be a limit (even in these cases) but I think we need to consider how long a reasonable buyer with no major reason to distrust the seller would take to bring the book to a third party with the expertise to spot the restoration.

 

Let's say the buyer buys three books for $250. One of them is $125 with undisclosed restoration.

 

Time line looks something like this:

 

Day 1 - Buyer agrees to buy restored book.

Day 4 - Buyer finishes shopping and asks seller for an invoice

Day 6 -Seller sends invoice

Day 7 - Buyer pays

Day 8 - Seller ship books

Day 17 - Delivery attempt one

Day 20 - Weekend is here buyer can finally get to the post office to sign for package (on initial inspection the books look OK to the buyer)

Day 34 - Weekend is here buyer send a stack of books out for pressing (including tainted book

Day 79 - Pressing completed

Day 110 - Buyer brings pressed books to local con for signing and grading

 

At this point we are talking about almost four months, slow track CGC could be another 3-4 months.

 

Once the buyer is aware of the restoration I would hope their first move is to contact the seller and give them a chance to make things right before coming here. That could take at least a week or two if the buyer is reasonable.

 

In this case the buyer bought a book that they felt would benefit from a press and waited a little over a month for an opportunity to get the book signed but really didn't drag their feet that much considering that they bought the book here in good faith and trusted that the seller was doing the right thing.

 

Also in this case, even if the book is accepted for a refund the buyer is out pressing fees, CGC signature series fees, and may have also paid the artist to sign the seller's restored book so their loss has been compounded.

 

Whether we are talking about six months, a year, or some other time frame I do think that undisclosed restoration should be something that the buyer should have more time to address with the seller. Some people buy books they want to get signed, some people have day jobs or families. Not all books are worth getting fast tracked. Let's not put all of the blame / burden on the victim.

 

I would hope a sense of honour would lead a seller to reverse or provide consideration for a dated sale gone badly wrong. But I don't believe that our rules need to provide for a drawn out chain of events.

[Dr Chaos]

 

I would hope a sense of honour would lead a seller to reverse or provide consideration for a dated sale gone badly wrong. But I don't believe that our rules need to provide for a drawn out chain of events.

 

Our rules are for sellers without a sense of honor.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Just so publicly everyone knows since it was brought up here:

 

I'm ashamed to admit this, but in the recent chaos, these packages were left forgotten. These books have been packaged and ready to send for weeks, it just never happened. There is no excuse for that, I am fully responsible.

 

Right after closing this, Bill's daughter broke up with her boyfriend and was left with no where to live and without a vehicle. She moved in with us, and I fixed my old car for her to use. Then two weeks ago, my immediate supervisor was demoted and I was left to suddenly assume all his responsibilities, including extended shifts. These are not excuses, but feel like I owe everyone an explanation for my lapse.

 

I also want to thank Darrel for getting a hold of me and making me aware of what was going on. I apologize to everyone who didn't receive their books as well as to the community as a whole for letting this happen.

 

The books were shipped early this morning. Priority tracking numbers:

 

Sean: 9114 9999 4431 3366 8928 73

Sharon: 9114 9999 4431 3366 8928 66

Brandon: 9114 9999 4431 3366 8928 59

 

Thanks for getting this done Benjamin. (thumbs u

 

You should also post this in the Probation List Discussion thread so everyone who frequents that thread is aware that this has been all straightened out.

[skypinkblu]

Glad you are OK, thanks for mailing the items. (thumbs u

[Benjamin Grimm]

Glad you are OK, thanks for mailing the items. (thumbs u

 

My sincere apologies for the lapse, Sharon, it was entirely my fault.

[Bio-Rupp]

Still no contact from mikeegg and no follow up discussion all weekend long concerning this.

 

I followed the rules to the letter concerning this nomination and I added him to the PL list.

 

Still hoping he contacts me.

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

[Hado]

Is that how this works?

[Bio-Rupp]

Is that how this works?

 

I followed these rules to the letter...

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4949997#Post4949997

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------

HOS and Probation List Rules

The following Probation List Rules are in effect beginning 8/1/2011. Over some period of time these may be modified or expanded.

 

1) The 30-Day Rule

a) If a transaction between board members is not completed within 30 days, the offended party may submit the offender's name for inclusion to the HOS/Probation List (hereafter called the PL)

 

b) If the transaction is agreed on by both parties to take longer than 30 days - for example, a transaction involving time payments over a longer time, the 30 day clock begins from the time the agreed upon conditions were violated.

 

c) The 30-day rule is suspended if the accused refuses to complete the transaction or if the transaction cannot be completed due to, for example, the item being sold to someone else.

 

d) A Transaction between board members is not confined to the CGC Message Boards. Any transaction between forum members, regardless of the venue, is eligible for inclusion in the PL.

 

2) Notification on the Probation Discussion Thread

a) After the 30 Day Rule is fulfilled, the accuser will send a PM to the accused informing them the issue is being submitted to the Probation Discussion Thread for their inclusion in the PL. This should be a new PM and not part of an existing PM chain.

 

b) After the PM is sent the accuser may submit the accused for inclusion in the PL via the Probation Discussion Thread.

 

c) The accuser should outline as completely as possible the circumstances surrounding the transaction in dispute. Where possible include hyperlinks to board transactions and contact attempts along with dates.

 

d) If reasonable additional expenses are incurred the accuser may include them as part of the resolution. The validity of "reasonable additional expenses" may be subject to discussion.

 

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

 

3) Being Placed On The PL

a) After a 72-hour waiting period, if the accused does not respond they will be placed on the PL.

 

b) 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.

 

c) If the accused is not available during that 72-hour period and is placed on the PL, they are free to later respond in the Probation Discussion Thread and present their side.

 

d) If the accused has not responded in the Probation Discussion Thread but continues to post on the boards, a reply can be made informing them they are being considered for placement on the PL.

 

4) Removal From The PL

a) If the accuser requests the accused be removed form the PL, the accused will be removed.

 

b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

c) If multiple accusers are involved, and full restitution is satisfactorily made to all accusers, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

5) Probation List versus Hall Of Shame

a) The Probation List is for transactions that have not been fulfilled as promised.

 

b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender.

 

c) The Hall Of Shame candidate is subject to all of the above rules.

 

d) Inclusion in the Hall Of Shame must be decided by a poll.

 

e) Removal from the Hall Of Shame must be decided by a poll.

[Hado]

True.

 

The nomination followed the rules to the letter, which is why people were discussing it.

 

And while I'm on the side that your request was more than reasonable, there wasn't a concensus, so just adding him to the list seems a little......eh.

[Bio-Rupp]

True.

 

The nomination followed the rules to the letter, which is why people were discussing it.

 

And while I'm on the side that your request was more than reasonable, there wasn't a concensus, so just adding him to the list seems a little......eh.

 

First, I specifically think this...

 

5a) The Probation List is for transactions that have not been fulfilled as promised.

 

...is justification enough. There is no mention of consensus being required for a PL nomination... only to the HOS. I did however wait an additional 5 days (and on top of the year's worth of read but unanswered PMs about the problem) after the initial required 72 hour waiting period for mikeegg to contact me, which he did not.

 

Secondly, The 72 hour rule...

 

3a) After a 72-hour waiting period, if the accused does not respond they will be placed on the PL

 

... was also not followed/performed by the accused, thus according to the rules as written, puts him on the PL.

 

 

I'm all for mikeegg getting on here and us working this out. I hold no ill will towards him and I take my part in the extended time duration of this problem.

 

I state again... had he answered my multiple PMs over the past YEAR regarding this problem instead of reading and ignoring them... then perhaps an amicable solution between us could have been reached.

 

A time frame provision would be fine with me...but the discussion ended with no resolution and here we are left with the posted rules for the PL/HOS list to fall back on.

 

I do feel that time frames should be discussed on a case by case basis. There are too many variables not to consider.

[Bio-Rupp]

That said... I've always been open to discussion and enjoy it concerning these things.

 

Discussions stopped.

[crassus]

True.

 

The nomination followed the rules to the letter, which is why people were discussing it.

 

And while I'm on the side that your request was more than reasonable, there wasn't a concensus, so just adding him to the list seems a little......eh.

 

There were very few objections to Rupp's specific case per se, since the seller had explicitly guaranteed no resto, and there is no existing rule limiting the timeline. It is also the case that no consensus is necessary for a nomination to stand if it is within the rules and on the face of it reasonable. Nobody has questioned that Rupp has been reasonable. I personally can see no reason to block the nomination.

 

There does seem to be a large consensus for the future to make a statute of limitations for nominations to the PL. If the community wants that it should get around to making it so, otherwise the existing rules allow what they allow. Even if the rules were changed tomorrow, its unlikely there would be a consensus to make them retroactive.

 

 

[Hado]

On a weekend.

[N/A]

There was a general consensus that 6 months was too long last time. Until there is a decision about a timeline then why wouldn't the last decision stand?

[N/A]

True.

 

The nomination followed the rules to the letter, which is why people were discussing it.

 

And while I'm on the side that your request was more than reasonable, there wasn't a concensus, so just adding him to the list seems a little......eh.

 

There were very few objections to Rupp's specific case per se, since the seller had explicitly guaranteed no resto, and there is no existing rule limiting the timeline. It is also the case that no consensus is necessary for a nomination to stand if it is within the rules and on the face of it reasonable. Nobody has questioned that Rupp has been reasonable. I personally can see no reason to block the nomination.

 

There does seem to be a large consensus for the future to make a statute of limitations for nominations to the PL. If the community wants that it should get around to making it so, otherwise the existing rules allow what they allow. Even if the rules were changed tomorrow, its unlikely there would be a consensus to make them retroactive.

 

 

There was a prior general consensus that 6 months was too long.