PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[PovertyRow]

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?

 

So where was this? I don't recall being in favor of a 6 month "general consensus".

[PovertyRow]

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.

 

Twice now, Junk Donkey, you have gone in, altered the PL list, and made no notation of WHY the PL list was altered. You just copy/paste the PL list prior to Mikeegg's addition.

 

Every time you do that I will change it back. The rules are as the rules are now. Until there is a new set of rules posted in http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4949997#Post4949997 the rules remain as they are.

 

Rather than trying to circumvent things, take your argument to http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8667940#Post8667940 and try to make a case for changes you want to see. Until they are changed, they remain as is.

[N/A]

You're not the boss POV. Nice to see the hipocracy though. I did not circumvent anything. Apparently we're now making this up as we go along. There was a legitimate, ongoing discussion. The name was added while there was objection which is against the PL nomination process.

[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?

 

So where was this? I don't recall being in favor of a 6 month "general consensus".

 

Which is just.....sad. (thumbs u

[Bio-Rupp]

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?

 

So where was this? I don't recall being in favor of a 6 month "general consensus".

 

Which is just.....sad. (thumbs u

 

Junk, I didn't see this previous discussion as well and probably wouldn't have been in favor of a 6 month time frame unless it had certain provisions either. I also never saw any notation of it in the current, posted HOS/PL rules.

 

Concerning my nomination...

 

My nomination was made on 6/6/15. Well over a week ago.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=80&Number=8655642&Searchpage=2&Main=163911&Words=Bio-Rupp&topic=0&Search=true#Post8655642

 

The 72 hour clock ended Tues at 6pm. That left almost an entire week to hash this out for those that think a time frame should be instituted and discussed. There was no resolution met or agreed to... and the discussion just petered out.

 

The majority of discussion didn't even revolve around my issue. I never was seeking a return this late in the game. This wasn't a movie hype book that shot up and then back down with a buyer trying to go back on a purchase that prevented a possible profitable flip. I was in no way seeking a full refund.

 

All I wanted was compensation for something that I paid for and didn't receive. Compensation in the form of slabbing fees etc that I would not have incurred had I known this book was going to be "green label" material.

 

Since I didn't receive something I paid for then this is where the current HOS/PL rule #5a comes in. This was a transaction that had not been fulfilled as promised. Book was falsely or mistakenly, yet specifically, stated to have no restoration. No matter how much time passes, I was still sold a book with a married cover on it that was undisclosed as such.

 

Regardless, I knew the time involved was excessive which is why I felt it right to ask for only a small percentage of my purchase price to cover fees I would not have incurred had the true condition of this book been given to me.

 

I gave mikeegg a YEAR to contact me back about the problem through PMs which he read ...and refused to address. I then gave him the mandatory 72 hours to come here and plead his side of the case. Then I gave him an additional six days to address the transaction with anyone else who felt the time line was excessive or any other disagreement he had with the nomination. He chose not to interact.

 

The fact he did this invokes HOS/PL rule #3a where after a 72-hour waiting period, if the accused does not respond they will be placed on the PL.

 

A time frame for returns is a great thing to discuss and eventually have a form of... but I honestly don't think there really can be one in this case.

 

How can you, as a responsible seller, put a time frame on your word? Sure there can be limits, but those are going to have to be determined on a case by case basis.

 

Yes, we can bring up scenarios where the Black Panther movie tanks in two years and everyone who paid astronomical prices starts finding something wrong with their FF #52s and trys to return them for what they paid. Just note that isn't the case here.

 

Again, how can you, as a responsible seller, put a time frame on your word?

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

[CAHokie]

True, you did give him a year....on top of the year it took you to contact him in the first place. No one thinks you are being unreasonable in your request and if he had any morals at all he would make it right. I know I would. The issue has been, how long is too long and for what problems? Those saying a year is not long enough because we have to take into account how long the customer needs to put a shipment together or get a book signed just seems crazy to me. At some point, the buyer has to take some responsibility or risk for whatever happens years down the road.

 

If we are going by the letter of the law then I could nominate an Ebay seller that screwed me ten years ago but joined the boards last week.

 

[Bio-Rupp]

True, you did give him a year....on top of the year it took you to contact him in the first place. No one thinks you are being unreasonable in your request and if he had any morals at all he would make it right. I know I would. The issue has been, how long is too long and for what problems? Those saying a year is not long enough because we have to take into account how long the customer needs to put a shipment together or get a book signed just seems crazy to me. At some point, the buyer has to take some responsibility or risk for whatever happens years down the road.

 

If we are going by the letter of the law then I could nominate an Ebay seller that screwed me ten years ago but joined the boards last week.

 

I do understand that.

 

Still doesn't address if there should be a time frame to a seller's word.

 

If you back what you sell...and you back what you say... then the issue of a time frame in this instance is a mute point.

 

Concerning the future... I think time frames should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

If you feel strongly enough about your concern with the Ebay seller that did you wrong a decade ago... I personally see nothing wrong with you trying to make him set it right... including discussion of it here. That is unless you feel his word was given with a time frame involved or if you have set a time frame for yourself.

 

Remember, the HOS/PL list first and foremost is here to protect others. That's why I'm using it in this case, not to get full compensation from a sale that occurred two years ago.

 

Car companies do recalls all the time for problems occurring sometimes decades after the vehicle is sold. I know this is an extreme example, but it does illuminate how time frames should be individualized and not generalized.

[PovertyRow]

If we are going by the letter of the law then I could nominate an Ebay seller that screwed me ten years ago but joined the boards last week.

 

Actually the letter of the law prevents that on two fronts:

1) The current rules did not go in effect until 8/1/2011.

2) The rules also state the transaction is between board members.

 

===========

 

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)

 

===========

 

These are the kind of thing we can bring to the new thread, though, if folks want to see changes/clarifications to the rules.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8667940#Post8667940

[CAHokie]

Ah gotcha, so I can only demand money from 4 years ago. There was no actual ebay transaction, that was obviously tongue in cheek.

[Bio-Rupp]

Ah gotcha, so I can only demand money from 4 years ago. There was no actual ebay transaction, that was obviously tongue in cheek.

 

If you felt slighted "when" you found out you didn't receive what you paid for, plus you have the seller's posted word standing behind his product... I'd say you could ask as I have in this case.

 

Perhaps your request will be answered and not ignored as mine was.

 

I might add that "demand" is a strong word and not related to what I'm asking for in the least. You may not be saying I'm demanding anything, but if I were reading this without the proper backstory, it looks like you are stating I am demanding something. Let's just go with I had a "request for action to prevent an escalated outcome".

 

Still a great discussion

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

[CAHokie]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

[thunsicker]

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.

 

Twice now, Junk Donkey, you have gone in, altered the PL list, and made no notation of WHY the PL list was altered. You just copy/paste the PL list prior to Mikeegg's addition.

 

Every time you do that I will change it back. The rules are as the rules are now. Until there is a new set of rules posted in http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4949997#Post4949997 the rules remain as they are.

 

Rather than trying to circumvent things, take your argument to http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8667940#Post8667940 and try to make a case for changes you want to see. Until they are changed, they remain as is.

 

It looks like alfredP and mikeegg were each added three times. Is it time to put such repeat offenders in the HOS?

 

[PovertyRow]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

[mschmidt]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

[NP_Gresham]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

Isn't Sagat on the PL for a transaction that took place years before the nomination?

Should he be removed?

[Bio-Rupp]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation (stated and posted misrepresentation of product either intentionally or unintentionally) like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

[mschmidt]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the buyer needs to assume responsibility in a situation like this as well.

 

As I posted previously my personal returns policy is simple - I'll take back anything I sell for any reason whatsoever as long as it's done within a reasonable timeframe.

 

Waiting more than a year before bringing up an issue isn't reasonable, nor is expecting that every seller here will take returns till the end of time. If you're making a habit of leaving unopened boxes sitting around for months on end, buy from someone who explicitly states that they will cover you in a situation like this (like Bob Storms) or communicate with the seller beforehand to ensure a no-resto guarantee has been put in place.

 

The marketplace is what it is - there are a bunch of great sellers here who would bend over backwards to make a buyer happy and then there are the ones who don't give a *spoon* once the paypal payment has cleared. If you're making the assumption that every seller here has the same generous returns policy as the one offered by Bob, well, that's on you, not them.

[Bio-Rupp]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the buyer needs to assume responsibility in a situation like this as well.

 

As I posted previously my personal returns policy is simple - I'll take back anything I sell for any reason whatsoever as long as it's done within a reasonable timeframe.

 

Waiting more than a year before bringing up an issue isn't reasonable, nor is expecting that every seller here will take returns till the end of time. If you're making a habit of leaving unopened boxes sitting around for months on end, buy from someone who explicitly states that they will cover you in a situation like this (like Bob Storms) or communicate with the seller beforehand to ensure a no-resto guarantee has been put in place.

 

The marketplace is what it is - there are a bunch of great sellers here who would bend over backwards to make a buyer happy and then there are the ones who don't give a *spoon* once the paypal payment has cleared. If you're making the assumption that every seller here has the same generous returns policy as the one offered by Bob, well, that's on you, not them.

 

 

I don't need an additional "no resto guarantee " when one has been publically posted in the selling thread in question. All I want is for a seller to back up their word. I assumed my part of the responsibility by not asking for a full refund which I don't feel I was warranted. I do feel that expenses I incurred due to the seller's negligence should be returned to me. Trust me mschmidt, I fully accept my part in the time line involved.

 

All I expected was an answer to my PM's concerning product not as described as well as an acknowledgement of my alert that the 72 hour clock was ticking and a response was required.

 

I received none of the above.

 

The rules, how they are written now, state I've done my part. If you don't agree with the rules as written, take part in the discussion to have them altered for the future.

 

For those whose word has no time line, pat yourselves on the back.

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

[jaybuck43]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the buyer needs to assume responsibility in a situation like this as well.

 

As I posted previously my personal returns policy is simple - I'll take back anything I sell for any reason whatsoever as long as it's done within a reasonable timeframe.

 

Waiting more than a year before bringing up an issue isn't reasonable, nor is expecting that every seller here will take returns till the end of time. If you're making a habit of leaving unopened boxes sitting around for months on end, buy from someone who explicitly states that they will cover you in a situation like this (like Bob Storms) or communicate with the seller beforehand to ensure a no-resto guarantee has been put in place.

 

The marketplace is what it is - there are a bunch of great sellers here who would bend over backwards to make a buyer happy and then there are the ones who don't give a *spoon* once the paypal payment has cleared. If you're making the assumption that every seller here has the same generous returns policy as the one offered by Bob, well, that's on you, not them.

 

But isn't that exactly what Rupp did? He's not asking for a refund on the book. He asked for his grading fees to be refunded, because he would not have graded the book if he had known it was restored (and which the seller said it wasn't) He basically said "I screwed up, I'll take responsibility for that and eat the cost of the book, but I'd like a refund for grading."

[mschmidt]

No, you didnt demand per say (and your request, again, is reasonable) but putting someone on a list for a two year old transaction is still a demand by action.

 

Actually putting anyone on the list is a demand by action. It sounds like Rupp started trying to work this out with Mikeggg a year after the sale and after a year of trying brought it here. I have to wonder how it would have been received if Rupp had nominated Mikeggg a year ago.

 

I can only speak for myself, but my response would have been the same.

 

I think it's nuts to assume that a seller has a completely open-ended returns policy in regards to a non-restored book coming back restored if it isn't explicitly stated in their sales thread. And I think it's equally silly to try to force a rule like this on people participating in the Marketplace on this forum.

 

I would assume that most professional sellers would be willing to work with the buyer in a situation like this - if they aren't, well, the buyer is then well within their right to shine a spotlight on the sellers transgression through one of the various discussion threads around here. It doesn't mean, however, that the buyer automatically gets to put the seller on the PL - there needs to be some responsibility on the buyer side as well and no matter how you look at it, waiting a full year before reporting an issue with a purchased item just isn't reasonable.

 

If I buy a book on Amazon, leave the book sitting in a box for a year, then open it up to discover that half the pages are missing, would Amazon oblige me with a refund? Of course not.

 

So you are saying that your word has a time frame ?

 

I'm sorry you disagree mschmidt. I personally would think the sellers here would at least be a step or two higher in standards than the run of the mill Amazon and Ebay sellers where caveat emptor is the fall back excuse.

 

Bob Storms has a return policy in place that covers situations like this. As do I. Even the majority of posters here who think the time frame is too long to do anything about, all state they would at least attempt to make this situation right. Are they all "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or are their hearts in the right place about what is the correct course of action concerning a situation like this.

 

Please also note I did not "automatically" put anyone on the PL. I went through the same channels and followed the same steps within the stated rules as they are written now.

 

I still want to believe the Marketplace is better than other selling venues. We are better than using caveat emptor and putting a time line on our word.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the buyer needs to assume responsibility in a situation like this as well.

 

As I posted previously my personal returns policy is simple - I'll take back anything I sell for any reason whatsoever as long as it's done within a reasonable timeframe.

 

Waiting more than a year before bringing up an issue isn't reasonable, nor is expecting that every seller here will take returns till the end of time. If you're making a habit of leaving unopened boxes sitting around for months on end, buy from someone who explicitly states that they will cover you in a situation like this (like Bob Storms) or communicate with the seller beforehand to ensure a no-resto guarantee has been put in place.

 

The marketplace is what it is - there are a bunch of great sellers here who would bend over backwards to make a buyer happy and then there are the ones who don't give a *spoon* once the paypal payment has cleared. If you're making the assumption that every seller here has the same generous returns policy as the one offered by Bob, well, that's on you, not them.

 

 

I don't need an additional "no resto guarantee " when one has been publically posted in the selling thread in question. All I want is for a seller to back up their word. I assumed my part of the responsibility by not asking for a full refund which I don't feel I was warranted. I do feel that expenses I incurred due to the seller's negligence should be returned to me. Trust me mschmidt, I fully accept my part in the time line involved.

 

All I expected was an answer to my PM's concerning product not as described as well as an acknowledgement of my alert that the 72 hour clock was ticking and a response was required.

 

I received none of the above.

 

The rules, how they are written now, state I've done my part. If you don't agree with the rules as written, take part in the discussion to have them altered for the future.

 

For those whose word has no time line, pat yourselves on the back.

 

The rules, as they currently stand, don't support your position.

 

What you're doing is using the absence of a specific rule in regards to how long a responsible buyer has to bring forward a claim to support your position that all sellers should be on the hook for a book coming back restored in perpetuity. Which, as I've said several times, is all fine & well if the seller explicitly offers such a guarantee, but doesn't grant you the right to assume they do.