PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[ChiSoxFan]

17 minutes ago, crassus said:

If I understand it correctly only one has been in contact pleading circumstances, the other has simply disappeared? Is that right?

Correct.  The one who had something going on apologized initially for not being back in touch sooner, but given my PP info and a final total (once I confirmed a shipping address), they did not pay, and a subsequent follow-up message (where I basically said I was "checking in") went unanswered, but was read.  As anyone who's dealt with me knows, I'm the last one to be pushy with anyone, and even with me saying in my sales threads that I expect payment within 5 days, I never hold anyone's feet to the fire on that deadline.  I wouldn't categorize them as "pleading", but they mentioned a legitimate reason initially for being late in getting back with me after my intial invoice (my first follow-up was 7 days after that invoice) -- I'm more concerned with the lack of a response since then.

The second buyer has gone temporarily (?) AWOL from the boards.  My initial follow-up message was sent on June 26, but it was never read, nor was my initial invoice sent on June 19.  Their last board log-in looks to have been on June 29, so both messages would have been in their inbox, but neither was looked at (this buyer had sent me an initial PM asking a question to which I had replied, so we had talked already before during the sales thread).

[crassus]

24 minutes ago, ChiSoxFan said:

Correct.  The one who had something going on apologized initially for not being back in touch sooner, but given my PP info and a final total (once I confirmed a shipping address), they did not pay, and a subsequent follow-up message (where I basically said I was "checking in") went unanswered, but was read.  As anyone who's dealt with me knows, I'm the last one to be pushy with anyone, and even with me saying in my sales threads that I expect payment within 5 days, I never hold anyone's feet to the fire on that deadline.  I wouldn't categorize them as "pleading", but they mentioned a legitimate reason initially for being late in getting back with me after my intial invoice (my first follow-up was 7 days after that invoice) -- I'm more concerned with the lack of a response since then.

The second buyer has gone temporarily (?) AWOL from the boards.  My initial follow-up message was sent on June 26, but it was never read, nor was my initial invoice sent on June 19.  Their last board log-in looks to have been on June 29, so both messages would have been in their inbox, but neither was looked at (this buyer had sent me an initial PM asking a question to which I had replied, so we had talked already before during the sales thread).

I understand. Since you are on the fence (and I understand that too) you could give the first one a prod via PM but make an example of the second AWOL buyer. Even then, if your main concern is to inform the community, remember you can start a Nomination thread but reserve the right to not follow through...it then remains anyway as a record of the buyer's behaviour. Acting against the second may incentivize the first.

Edited July 17, 2019 by crassus

[thewritestuff]

Hello, everyone. I was wondering if this situation is PL-worthy. Here’s the gist:

A boardie (let’s call him Seller A) contacted me to offer me a book I was seeking. He sent a photo and said he was asking $2,000. I requested more photos, and he said the book was in a safe deposit box, and that he’d get the photos to me ASAP. 

Long story short, he never owned the book. The exact book was for sale on someone else’s website (a person I’ve done a lot of business with, let’s call him Seller B) for $999. The photos show it is the exact same copy. Anyway, I purchased the book from it’s true owner, and I’m happy to add it to my pc.

Afterwards, I reached out to Seller A to see what story he’d come up with for failing to send the promised photos, and he apologized and he said he decided to keep the book 😂

Anyway, I noticed Seller A lists books on here from time to time, and I noticed he’s put “removed from sale” on a few of his books. I suspect these are books he never owned in the first place.

How does the community view this sort of practice? I’m curious to hear some opinions. 

Thanks for taking the time to read this post.

Edited September 1, 2019 by thewritestuff

[Point Five]

2 hours ago, thewritestuff said:

How does the community view this sort of practice?

Um... Not well? 

I don't think it's a good candidate for the probation list here as I'm not sure how they would be able to 'resolve' the situation. It's just kind of ugly.

 

[porcupine48]

Just now, Point Five said:

Um... Not well? 

I don't think it's a good candidate for the probation list here as I'm not sure how they would be able to 'resolve' the situation. It's just kind of ugly.

 

Yeah,but I think we all want a name.Dirty.

[Xenosmilus]

Hmmm. Seller A should be upfront that he doesn't own the book but can get it for the buyer for a finders fee.  It sounds like he defiantly lied however.

[thewritestuff]

1 hour ago, Xenosmilus said:

Hmmm. Seller A should be upfront that he doesn't own the book but can get it for the buyer for a finders fee.  It sounds like he defiantly lied however.

I would’ve been fine with an honest transaction and a finders fee, but a 100% markup for a book you don’t even have a legitimate claim to? That just seems scummy to me.

[skypinkblu]

14 minutes ago, thewritestuff said:

I would’ve been fine with an honest transaction and a finders fee, but a 100% markup for a book you don’t even have a legitimate claim to? That just seems scummy to me.

I think you should out the person so that they can explain. If they cannot explain, some of us might want to avoid dealing with them.

[wombat]

Not PL worthy, But certainly personal list worthy. 

[Get Marwood & I]

7 hours ago, thewritestuff said:

I’m curious to hear some opinions. 

I'm inferring from your summary that, had the seller been legit, you may well have paid the $2000. No point asking for additional photos if the price was more than you were willing to pay. If so, for me, the only way this stacks up is if the seller owns the book, and that was their price, or they come clean that they don't own it but can secure it for you at that price. If the price suits you, the extent of their 'finders fee' is nothing to do with you.

But the seller didn't do this, based on your summary. They lied by giving you the clear impression they owned the book. The reason for the lie was presumably to hide the exhorbitant difference between their price and the owners, and to prevent you from perhaps reaching the owner direct. 

So the (would be) seller is a liar. Don't deal with liars. They also, basically, tried to rip a thousand dollars out of you. That kind of person, coupled with being a liar, is not someone I'd ever want to do business with. 

Anyway, we've heard your side of it and you do it seems have grounds to be upset. Best now to give the other person a chance to put their side forward by outing them. Otherwise, what's the point of the post?

[comicquant]

If the seller doesn’t own the book or isn’t consigning the book and will only buy the book if they sell it at the inflated price then this should be an issue.  To post a book for sale you have no rights to is fraud, plain and simple.  I think the seller should have the right to explain themselves because from what I can see, we don’t know if they’re consigning the book or not.

[thewritestuff]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. 

I don’t want to drag this out further, and I’ve already received some private messages asking for Seller A’s name. His username here is jjfversion1, and he told me his name is John. I have screenshots of our conversation in which he claims he owns the book. 

I’m actually going to send him a message now to see how he responds to this thread...

[comicdonna]

[porcupine48]

11 minutes ago, comicdonna said:

+1

Edited September 1, 2019 by porcupine48
Felt retro doing that,old boardslike

[thehumantorch]

1 hour ago, thewritestuff said:

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. 

I don’t want to drag this out further, and I’ve already received some private messages asking for Seller A’s name. His username here is jjfversion1, and he told me his name is John. I have screenshots of our conversation in which he claims he owns the book. 

I’m actually going to send him a message now to see how he responds to this thread...

Ugh.  I don't really care if someone can find a book and sell it elsewhere at a profit, knowledge deserves to be rewarded, but things can go very wrong when you sell a book you don't own.

if he did indeed tell you he owned the book and it was in his safely box and he didn't actually own the book that crosses the line and is outright lying.  @jjfversion1

[thewritestuff]

[thewritestuff]

[comicquant]

Who actually owned this book?

[porcupine48]

11 minutes ago, comicquant said:

Who actually owned this book?

I can 100%say it wasn't me.

[Red84]

That is bordering on HOS worthy. He’s talking about how there’s no restoration that he can remember, all for a book he does not own.