PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[bababooey]

So, Dekeuk's read my PM, it's been a week, no response. PL?

Just because....

Oh, by the way....

 

Since the rules now apply to ANY transaction regardless of venue, I'd like to nominate Dekuekelare or whatever his name is.

 

In Jan, 2009, he won a Batman #428 CGC 9.8 from me on ebay for $405. I shipped the book out to him via Free Media Mail (his choice.) When he received the book, he complained about the CGC grade, in particular that they had graded it a 9.8 with a tiny loose (not detached) chip in the BRC, common on these books. He claimed it had been damaged after the fact. I assured him that I knew exactly what he was talking about, that it was, in fact, NOT damaged, but that if he wasn't happy with CGC's grade, he should send it back. On the off chance that it WAS damaged (though what he was describing was not), it was fully insured, as always.

 

Instead of paying for return shipping, as he should have done, he took the book and the box it was shipped in back to the post office several days later (4 or 6, it's recorded somewhere else on these boards) and, in contravention to USPS regulations, "refused" the box so he could send it back for free. USPS regulations state that an item must be UNOPENED to qualify for refusal.

 

The box then got lost in the USPS system. Obviously, the USPS doesn't care much for Refused Media Mail.

 

After it had been lost in the mail for a month, "Dekeuk" wrote me and threatened me, stating that if I didn't pay him back his money...despite me having clearly NOT received the item back yet...he would file a Paypal claim...and that is precisely what he did. To date, that remains my first, last, and only charge-back EVER intitiated against me in 11+ years with Paypal. I have never in my life heard of a company refunding someone before they received the product back. Paypal ripped the money out of my account, and I was forced to cover it...even though, again, I had not received the item back, and proper protocol is to wait and file an insurance claim against loss.

 

He didn't like CGC's grading, which has nothing to do with me. He couldn't be bothered to pay for return shipping. He broke USPS regulations in returning the book. He filed a Paypal claim against me, even though it was HIS fault the book hadn't shown up back to me.

 

It eventually showed up a couple months down the road, but the damage had been long done. I had been timing the market, and after 3-4 more months, the value of the book had nearly halved, so I was only able to get $250 out of it. The subsequent buyer was quite pleased with the book and its grade.

 

In my mind, "Dekeuk" still owes me the difference, especially for the grief and damage to my Paypal reputation he put me through.

 

Dekeuk was later involved in an investment scheme on these boards, and disappeared entirely when called on it.

I vote no only because you probably still have 10 to 15 copies of Batman 428 that are already graded or that you are waiting to submit so regardless of what happened to the "market" during this particular transaction (no funds lost/book returned) not sure if I could see the justification as you being "wronged".

I think this is someone many would like to avoid but I don't think it's a PL situation.

 

 

I think how many other copies of this book he has is irrelevant. On this book, and this transaction he was supposed to get $405 and got $250, through no fault of his own. The math and the situation is one of the more clear cut and simple ones to comprehend, bringing in the seller's inventory is a non-starter and simply distracting to the core issue and the core problem.

 

That's not ever considering the grief, hassle and problem caused by this buyer to this seller over and above the simple monetary loss he suffered.

 

Furthermore, the "I think this is someone many would like to avoid" comment you made is EXACTLY why the PL is here in the first place.

 

YES vote here.

Thanks for the response Comix, I choose to continue to distract from the core issue.

My argument is not against RMA it is against PL Rule 2 d) and the imposition of "additional expenses" beyond the REVERSED transaction in this case; the lesser amount was a subsequent sale. I don't agree with anything Dekeuk did here. The Probation Rule 2d) is the core issue that I feel does not apply to this nomination.

 

The original sale took place in Jan 2009 - 2.5 years ago - presumably RMA had the book back two years ago - it was sold in 2009 at a loss when compared to the prior reversed sale w/Dekeuk. No arguments there.

 

The claim for damage is based on the change in the market. Supply and demand are key factors affecting price. So if someone is timing the market they have information that leads them to believe that the market is going to change. Today there are only 40 copies of this issue in 9.8 - I've seen RMA hype this book and others, I've seen him post a flock of Bats 428 in Copper and it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibilities to presume someone "timing the market" might have a few of these pass a 9.8 pre-screen back in Jan 09. The assumption being that someone timing the market is trying to sell 9.8's before more copies hit the census. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this activity - for those who choose to do it for profit but I don't see why the PL list should be part of the tool kit used by someone who chooses to play that game.

 

I am sure RMA is meticulous enough that he actually matched the serial numbers; meaning he resold the same book for less money. Would you trust all sellers to do this when they get two years to bring the loss forward to the PL?

 

Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here.

 

If the book had miraculously risen in price there would not be a PL nomination for compensation.

 

If this guy get nominated then I say he's RMA's PL biatch until he cleans up his act demonstrating "good marketplace behaviour" but I don't see money being part of his release program.

 

 

 

 

[PovertyRow]

I have twice brought up during this PL discussion that changes to the PL should not be retroactive. I don't see that as fair. Whatever rules were in place during the time of a transgression should be adhered to.

 

Just for the record I brought this up as follows. There were no objections.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=80&Number=4914691&Searchpage=1&Main=163911&Words=weeks+Povertyrow&topic=0&Search=true#Post4914691

 

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=80&Number=4920159&Searchpage=1&Main=163911&Words=retroactive+Povertyrow&topic=0&Search=true#Post4920159

[divad]

If RMA sold the book later for more, would he owe the non-paying offender money?

 

 

[Mac Man]

I'm confused... are we now allowing transactions that took place apart from the CGC Marketplace / PM system to get some one placed on the Probation List? Doesn't eBay have its own form of negative feedback? While I certainly agree that his actions were garbage to say the least (based on what you've shared), I'm not sure I'm comfortable with using the CGC Marketplace Probation List as a list for bad transactions for ALL venues.

[bababooey]

I have twice brought up during this PL discussion that changes to the PL should not be retroactive. I don't see that as fair. Whatever rules were in place during the time of a transgression should be adhered to.

 

Just for the record I brought this up as follows. There were no objections.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=80&Number=4914691&Searchpage=1&Main=163911&Words=weeks+Povertyrow&topic=0&Search=true#Post4914691

 

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=80&Number=4920159&Searchpage=1&Main=163911&Words=retroactive+Povertyrow&topic=0&Search=true#Post4920159

I thought RMA disagreed with you stating that the seller should determine loss (7/7); after those exchanges he brought it up again on 7/11 and Comix4fun, when responding to me, appears to agree with RMA's market value loss claim. I brought forward RMA's 7/11 message w/historical outline since I didn't see a resolution. I understand your opinion POV.

 

The easier argument for this particular Dekeuk nomination is to state that a probation List header change on 4/29/11 (to include off-board) doesn't apply to an off-board sale from Jan 2009. I think that is your point here POV. Even though nominating this guy aligns to the spirit of the PL it doesn't fit the rules in place at the time of the failed sale.

 

I chose to frame my prior response to Comix4fun mainly in context of the "market value/realized loss" restitution debate - that "realized loss" rule has been applied for some time here. I believe there are valid arguments on both sides but the cleanest nomination methodology is to only allow the original non-sale to be the primary determining factor that should be considered when laying out a resolution.

 

[PovertyRow]

The easier argument for this particular Dekeuk nomination is to state that a probation List header change on 4/29/11 (to include off-board) doesn't apply to an off-board sale from Jan 2009. I think that is your point here POV. Even though nominating this guy aligns to the spirit of the PL it doesn't fit the rules in place at the time of the failed sale.

 

 

baba - That was exactly what I was aiming at. We can't expect a deal from the past to adhere to rules that had not then existed.

[Bosco685]

The easier argument for this particular Dekeuk nomination is to state that a probation List header change on 4/29/11 (to include off-board) doesn't apply to an off-board sale from Jan 2009. I think that is your point here POV. Even though nominating this guy aligns to the spirit of the PL it doesn't fit the rules in place at the time of the failed sale.

 

 

baba - That was exactly what I was aiming at. We can't expect a deal from the past to adhere to rules that had not then existed.

 

[Bio-Rupp]

Perhaps the eBay transgressions could be placed in a seperate thread. Used mainly for "warning" purposes.

 

I've seen a few "warnings" over in general concerning eBay sellers, but once they make it down the list, no one sees them.

[PovertyRow]

[

I chose to frame my prior response to Comix4fun mainly in context of the "market value/realized loss" restitution debate - that "realized loss" rule has been applied for some time here. I believe there are valid arguments on both sides but the cleanest nomination methodology is to only allow the original non-sale to be the primary determining factor that should be considered when laying out a resolution.

 

baba - I agree with the specific transaction itself being the primary determining factor and have said that myself.

 

A while back I posted what I think is a valid extra expense. The buyer pays with a bounced check. Banks may charge the DEPOSITOR a bounced check fee. The bank fee the accuser got hit with would, in my opinion, constitute a valid extra expense.

 

A couple of examples of an invalid expense I had posted was

 

1) Someone, in the midst of communications,decides to just make a trip, unannounced, to the accused, incur travel expenses, and try including those travel expenses as an extra expense, when they could have used the phone or email to discuss the same things.

 

2) During the PL process a buyer agrees they were mistaken and would complete the transaction. The seller decides they would now only ship using say, Express Mail at $35 rather than the originally stated Priority Mail at $10 and then try to recoup the $25. Basically a "punishment expense".

 

I don't like the "I ended up selling the book for less and want the difference" argument. Really thinking about it, how does that fit the PL process? 30 days and then you bring up the issue here in the Probation Discussion. If the seller goes through the 30 day wait and no satisfaction is received, they bring it up in the Probation Discussion. The seller and buyer have the opportunity to air their positions. If the accused relents and the deal is made, fine. if the accused says "I am not going through with this" they go on the PL.

 

If the seller sells the book during this time they have eliminated the possibility of the transaction being completed, which is at the core of the PL process.

[PovertyRow]

As regards the off-board transactions between board members, that was discussed and voted on at the end of April. I had originally suggested adding a 3rd tier to the list specifically for Off-Board Transactions between members. Many felt that was overkill or getting to complex so we agreed to keeping the original format and using the "Off Board" noations. The Probation List was modified to say:

 

Those with an "Off-Board" notation indicates the failed transaction occurred outside of the CGC Comics Message Boards. If known, the ID used for the transaction, if different from the Message Board ID (i.e. eBay, etc), will be notated.

 

So there is an "off-board" notation appended to the name and, where it is known, the venue as well as the other ID (say, an eBay ID) is also appended to the name.

[TupennyConan]

There should be a special crybaby category.

 

If the Boards vote for the creation of such a category, I will nominate myself to be the inaugural member so long as Mark 1 is #2.

 

That guy wins the award for Comics General Crybaby of 2012.

 

Since I care enough to make this post, I deserve to be labelled a crybaby as well.

 

Have at it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

If RMA sold the book later for more, would he owe the non-paying offender money?

 

 

 

Of course not. It doesn't "work both ways" in real life, either. I mitigated my damages, as I am required to do by most civil case law, but if I had sold for more, I'd have no basis for a (legal) claim in the first place. The defendant doesn't get to be unjustly enriched because of his bad dealing, but if he causes damage, he must provide restitution.

 

A civil case lawyer could probably explain it better.

 

However, since Pov has stated that the PL will not apply retroactively, it's a dead issue. Wish he'd said that two weeks ago.

[TupennyConan]

Who recalls when they were 10 years old & they jumped on their Schwinn & they peddled down to the neighborhood park & they met all the local boys there who also arrived on their sweet Schwinns & they all formed together in confederation & created a secret social club exclusive to them with bylaws & membership requirements & various elaborate rituals & covenants?

 

Also, I am probably in the top 50 if not top 25 of buyers on these Boards.

 

I spend a lot of money around here.

 

I have never read the rules of the For Sale Forums.

 

I have never read the Probation List or House of Shame list.

 

I have never read or participated in these discussion threads.

 

I have no interest in these disputes.

 

That is all.

 

Have at it.

 

[PovertyRow]

There should be a special crybaby category.

 

If the Boards vote for the creation of such a category, I will nominate myself to be the inaugural member so long as Mark 1 is #2.

 

That guy wins the award for Comics General Crybaby of 2012.

 

Since I care enough to make this post, I deserve to be labelled a crybaby as well.

 

Have at it.

 

[TupennyConan]

lol

 

Also, I don't think I know what year it is

[mrwoogieman]

Who recalls when they were 10 years old & they jumped on their Schwinn & they peddled down to the neighborhood park & they met all the local boys there who also arrived on their sweet Schwinns & they all formed together in confederation & created a secret social club exclusive to them with bylaws & membership requirements & various elaborate rituals & covenants?

 

Also, I am probably in the top 50 if not top 25 of buyers on these Boards.

 

I spend a lot of money around here.

 

I have never read the rules of the For Sale Forums.

 

I have never read the Probation List or House of Shame list.

 

I have never read or participated in these discussion threads.

 

I have no interest in these disputes.

 

That is all.

 

Have at it.

 

Please, Mr. Crybaby, could you regale us with a third post describing your disinterest in this discussion? Only longer and with more (less?) disinterest.

 

Thanks!

 

 

[PovertyRow]

Wish he'd said that two weeks ago.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I am sure RMA is meticulous enough that he actually matched the serial numbers; meaning he resold the same book for less money.

 

When you only have 1 copy for sale, it's not that hard to keep track of it.

 

Would you trust all sellers to do this when they get two years to bring the loss forward to the PL?

 

Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here.

 

If the book had miraculously risen in price there would not be a PL nomination for compensation.

 

If this guy get nominated then I say he's RMA's PL biatch until he cleans up his act demonstrating "good marketplace behaviour" but I don't see money being part of his release program.

 

 

 

 

You're missing a critical point: directly and specifically because of Dekeuk's refusal to return the book PROPERLY, the book was out of my hands for weeks and weeks and weeks...I got it back in MAY (the transaction was in JANUARY.)

 

If Dekeuk had PROPERLY returned it, instead of violating USPS regulations, I would have received it back in a timely manner. Instead, it was lost in the USPS "refused packages" graveyard for months.

 

It is the timeliness of the return, not the return itself, that is the issue.

 

If the book had miraculously risen in price, Dekeuk would simply not have been responsible for damages...but he'd STILL have been liable for the PL, had the rules been different at the time.

[TupennyConan]

Who recalls when they were 10 years old & they jumped on their Schwinn & they peddled down to the neighborhood park & they met all the local boys there who also arrived on their sweet Schwinns & they all formed together in confederation & created a secret social club exclusive to them with bylaws & membership requirements & various elaborate rituals & covenants?

 

Also, I am probably in the top 50 if not top 25 of buyers on these Boards.

 

I spend a lot of money around here.

 

I have never read the rules of the For Sale Forums.

 

I have never read the Probation List or House of Shame list.

 

I have never read or participated in these discussion threads.

 

I have no interest in these disputes.

 

That is all.

 

Have at it.

 

Please, Mr. Crybaby, could you regale us with a third post describing your disinterest in this discussion? Only longer and with more (less?) disinterest.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

[PovertyRow]

Who recalls when they were 10 years old & they jumped on their Schwinn & they peddled down to the neighborhood park & they met all the local boys there who also arrived on their sweet Schwinns & they all formed together in confederation & created a secret social club exclusive to them with bylaws & membership requirements & various elaborate rituals & covenants?

 

Also, I am probably in the top 50 if not top 25 of buyers on these Boards.

 

I spend a lot of money around here.

 

I have never read the rules of the For Sale Forums.

 

I have never read the Probation List or House of Shame list.

 

I have never read or participated in these discussion threads.

 

I have no interest in these disputes.

 

That is all.

 

Have at it.

 

That's the spirit! Seriously. The whole process is voluntary. Selling to or buying from members of the PL or HOS is voluntary. We cannot decide for others whom to buy from or sell to.

 

The only purpose to this whole discussion is to clarify the ways and means of the Probation process. So that, for folks who decide to use it, the process can be applied fairly and consistently.

 

However, you should be aware, since you have never seen them, that the selling Guidelines posted by Arch here: Selling Guidelines also state "Threads may be removed for failure to comply, and repeated issues could result in strikes."

 

So while the PL process is voluntary, adherence to the Selling Guidelines has entered into a more obligatory world with potential Strikes to violators.

 

Again, I am only pointing this out since you said you never read them and it is a good thing to be aware of.