PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[vaillant]

Also, shouldn't the probation list serve (chefly) to address dishonest behavior?

If problems arise from a neglect (for the most varied reasons), I believe what is expected is that the seller solves them, but not that he is accused not to honor the transaction terms like he did it maliciously on purpose: while in these cases he is obviously faulty, it’s a different thing than being fraudulent. It also should be handled upon single cases, even if the seller behaved dishonestly on a larger scale.

 

On this point Claudio I see it differently. I do not think the PL was created with any assumptions of good or bad faith intentions but only to serve as a mechanism to complete incomplete transactions.

 

The transaction could be off the rails because someone is indeed dishonest, or it could be a simple oversight which is corrected when made public.

 

I understand that it is the "going public" portion of it that can seem disproportionate in the case of otherwise good faith mistakes or errors, and if things get fixed via PM all the better for everyone, but if the PM route is not getting the job done, than publicity has always been the next best medicine for getting things moving.

 

(thumbs u

I have also already replied to Robert, if you have noticed.

[comicalgems]

While I'm clearing up the issues I'm not actively promoting any sales of new boxes...so it's not like I know there's a problem and I'm still trying to sell additional boxes.

 

Also with someone who has been refunded being the one to nominate me and immediately bumping my somewhat dormant sales thread to show that there's a nomination feels like he's doing it out of anger/bitterness in order to hurt any future business that I might try to conduct here which to me seems almost like a HOS offense.

 

Specifically in Diaolos case, I had another international buyer who requested I hold his order until I got the green light to ship. I made note of it on my now crashed computer and then by memory I thought "Oh yes, that's the international order I'm supposed to be holding" and didn't ship anything. I have a shipping label created on July 7th...the same day that I refunded him in full. Why? Because I intend to ship him a box anyway. He paid me on June 6th, and I did ship out a round of boxes to the people that paid me the first week of June with only the two international orders being held. So to that end refund was given before 30 days had passed.

 

I'm also shipping those first week buyers a second box at no additional cost, happy or not just because I took so long to ship out. There were a few concerns about quality/quantity of items received so my hope was to alleviate those concerns with the 2nd boxes.

 

Now I don't typically publicize my refund/replacement practices just because with a Mystery Box it's really easy to take advantage of the situation if for some reason you got say a bunch of DC books but you're a Marvel zombie, but I have always and will always treat my buyers fairly if there's a legitimate complaint.

 

Trust me You need no help from me. You seem to be doing a great job yourself. Always classy to blame the whistle blower. If you feel I deserve to be on the HOS then I welcome my follow community members to decided if what I have done here is worthy of it or not. The bumping of the thread was done to raise awareness for all that participate in the MB thread so they can know what going on. I'm not to sure you have really grasped what this is all about.

 

Whistleblower? Seriously? It's not like you are showing the world that smoking causes cancer. Get a grip.

[vaillant]

Trust me You need no help from me. You seem to be doing a great job yourself. Always classy to blame the whistle blower. If you feel I deserve to be on the HOS then I welcome my follow community members to decided if what I have done here is worthy of it or not. The bumping of the thread was done to raise awareness for all that participate in the MB thread so they can know what going on. I'm not to sure you have really grasped what this is all about.

You did it poletly, and with all the good reasons. But I believe he is right when he says you are somewhat moved by anger, even if you are absolutely legitimate in your complaints. He simply implied there was no need to post it also in the sales thread.

 

As I said, any possible nomination should be discussed here, and in my opinion in should be on a "case by case" basis.

 

It’s legitimate to ask "when you are going to fix it", and ask for a time frame, but let’s also be a bit reasonable as Jason is surely no perfect stranger, even if this time he is faulty. He has been utterly generous with people in need many times, always without looking back, so while I understand the buyers' frustration, I’d also say he deserves a bit of extra patience. :shrug:

 

Said this, I’d be eager to see a Brock's mystery box thread…

[CAHokie]

Claudio, I think you should have a custom title that says, "I think what the poster really feels and means is that......"

[vaillant]

Claudio, I think you should have a custom title that says, "I think what the poster really feels and means is that......"

Because, inversely, you can read their minds?

[comicalgems]

Claudio, I think you should have a custom title that says, "I think what the poster really feels and means is that......"

 

agreed he's pretty good at that

[vaillant]

Said this, even if the Probation List is also for simple cases of uncompleted deals "in good faith", the perception of it it’s not exactly flattering, if I have to go by sales threads' descriptions.

 

From a recent sales thread:

Rules if you suck ie on probie or HOS I will not sell to you.

 

[CAHokie]

Claudio, I think you should have a custom title that says, "I think what the poster really feels and means is that......"

Because, inversely, you can read their minds?

 

No, I allow the posters to say what they mean and take personal responsibility for their comments. Most of the time it is pretty clear.

[CAHokie]

Said this, even if the Probation List is also for simple cases of uncompleted deals "in good faith", the perception of it it’s not exactly flattering, if I have to go by sales threads' descriptions.

 

From a recent sales thread:

Rules if you suck ie on probie or HOS I will not sell to you.

 

 

If you can't complete a deal in 30 days and still don't fix it after being nominated, then you deserve the unflattering perception. Doesn't make them a scammer or a criminal, but means they are not exactly the best person to deal with.

[vaillant]

Claudio, I think you should have a custom title that says, "I think what the poster really feels and means is that......"

Because, inversely, you can read their minds?

No, I allow the posters to say what they mean and take responsibility for it. Most of the time it is pretty clear.

I am not getting this. Like that if there are third parties involved there is no responsability taken.

 

If I write something, I write to try be of help, and nothing more.

[vaillant]

If you can't complete a deal in 30 days and still don't fix it after being nominated, then you deserve the unflattering perception. Doesn't make them a scammer or a criminal, but means they are not exactly the best person to deal with.

So in this case the negative bias Jason could receive is fully deserved?

 

I believe not, and that’s why I am commenting. I you don’t see this, I don’t know what to say. More than often it is helpful to try to mediate – something very unwelcome in an uncivilized society as ours is becoming…

[CAHokie]

Claudio, I think you should have a custom title that says, "I think what the poster really feels and means is that......"

Because, inversely, you can read their minds?

No, I allow the posters to say what they mean and take responsibility for it. Most of the time it is pretty clear.

I am not getting this. Like that if there are third parties involved there is no responsability taken.

 

If I write something, I write to try be of help, and nothing more.

 

I have no idea what you mean in the first sentence. I was simply making a joke about the fact that you very often say that someone meant something when there is no way for you to know what they meant. Often they come back, and say they meant exactly what they said. Its not a bad thing, just funny to read.

[CAHokie]

If you can't complete a deal in 30 days and still don't fix it after being nominated, then you deserve the unflattering perception. Doesn't make them a scammer or a criminal, but means they are not exactly the best person to deal with.

So in this case the negative bias Jason could receive is fully deserved?

 

I believe not, and that’s why I am commenting. I you don’t see this, I don’t know what to say. More than often it is helpful to try to mediate – something very unwelcome in an uncivilized society as ours is becoming…

 

Of course mediating is a good thing. If Jason messed up, he will fix it and either not be put on the list at all or hopefully quickly removed if he is put on. He is not a scammer, a criminal or anything of the sort. He has had a lot going on, which I truly hope gets better, but by his own admission he has not conducted the transactions in the manner he intended.

[vaillant]

Claudio, I think you should have a custom title that says, "I think what the poster really feels and means is that......"

Because, inversely, you can read their minds?

No, I allow the posters to say what they mean and take responsibility for it. Most of the time it is pretty clear.

I am not getting this. Like that if there are third parties involved there is no responsability taken.

 

If I write something, I write to try be of help, and nothing more.

 

I have no idea what you mean in the first sentence. I was simply making a joke about the fact that you very often say that someone meant something when there is no way for you to know what they meant. Often they come back, and say they meant exactly what they said. Its not a bad thing, just funny to read.

But you replied, and you wrote "I allow the posters to say what they mean and take responsibility for it. Most of the time it is pretty clear."

Most of the time is not clear, it’s pretty evident. So I believe any good intentioned intervention can be of help, and if I misunderstood it’s easy to see: it was just my perception, but I still believe it’s useful.

[vaillant]

If you can't complete a deal in 30 days and still don't fix it after being nominated, then you deserve the unflattering perception. Doesn't make them a scammer or a criminal, but means they are not exactly the best person to deal with.

So in this case the negative bias Jason could receive is fully deserved?

 

I believe not, and that’s why I am commenting. I you don’t see this, I don’t know what to say. More than often it is helpful to try to mediate – something very unwelcome in an uncivilized society as ours is becoming…

 

Of course mediating is a good thing. If Jason messed up, he will fix it and either not be put on the list at all or hopefully quickly removed if he is put on. He is not a scammer, a criminal or anything of the sort. He has had a lot going on, which I truly hope gets better, but by his own admission he has not conducted the transactions in the manner he intended.

And here we get back to the ambiguity of written communication (closer to spoken word than to thoughtful writing): since you wrote "they are not exactly the best person to deal with" this (even if not in your intentions) did not sound apt to the case at hand.

 

That’s my point: clarification is useful, very much, and trying to be not arrogant in one’s own reply (even if he has all the rights in what he is exposing) is always the best, as he will end up being acknowledged but he will also have shown more "empathy", so to speak.

[comicalgems]

Three to go but I'm going to go see Ant-Man with my wife and son now...so I'll be back to it in a bit.

[miraclemet]

I have been reading the comments on this thread regarding Jason and I feel I have a legitimate complaint that would put them in the probation list. It has been well past the 30 days after I made payment and I did not receive what I was told I was purchasing. I too have been given empty promises and a lot of excuses. If in fact Jason is experiencing life challenges that are preventing him from fulfilling his obligations, then he should be held to a time limit. Jason keeps promising that he's going to make things right but he never says when. It keeps people hanging. One of the many complaints is that he is not communicating. I am asking Jason to fulfill his promises to his multiple buyers within a certain time limit before my nomination that he be placed on the probation list.. I think by holding Jason to a time limit is a very fair way of settling this situation. Jason, I am asking you how long will it take for you to for fill all the obligations you promised?

 

so if you want to nominate him for the PL follow the stated PL nomination rules.

 

1. Send him a PM, a new PM stating that you are nominating him for the Probation list regarding the transaction.

 

2. Then come here and say you've notified cgems about the nomination.

 

3. State here in the probation discussion the conditions of the nomination (though you've done most of that already). Id just clearly state the dates that you a) agreed to a purchase and b) when you made payment.

 

4. Assuming all the conditions of the PL are met, then Cgems has up to 72 hrs to respond and present their side. If after the 72 hours, or after cGems responds it can be decided if PL conditions are met and then he would be put on the list, or the nomination would be shot down (if deemed not PL worthy).

 

5. Once Cgems meets the conditions of the transaction then he would come off the PL (assume it was a successful nomination).

 

[i think I got all that right, anyone can feel free to correct me]

[HarveySwick]

Did KryptoMayor receive a mystery box?

 

Yes or no?

[miraclemet]

Did KryptoMayor receive a mystery box?

 

Yes or no?

 

I think yes, but honestly I wasnt sure, and no one had responded to his post (including Comical), so I figured telling him the PL process was a decent start.

 

If he got a mystery box not equal to the purchase value (which was what was stated in the Sales thread), I guess he could nominate right, the terms of the sale were not met, no?

[jsilverjanet]

he did receive one, Comicalgems also said he would try and fix it.