PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[Jeffro.]

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.

 

Agreed. Not comfortable with it either.

 

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.

 

If it doesn't take place on these boards, it is not a board dispute and therefore should not be listed as if it were a board tranacation problem.

[seanfingh]

 

That was already decided a while back. Not sure it is on the table for amendment.

[mschmidt]

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.

 

Agreed. Not comfortable with it either.

 

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.

 

If it doesn't take place on these boards, it is not a board dispute and therefore should not be listed as if it were a board tranacation problem.

 

It will have a special notation if it's an off-board transaction.

 

The reasoning behind extending the PL to off-board transactions is that if two board members engage in a transaction (through ebay, comiclink, heritage, etc), it is relevant for these boards to know if the deal went sour. Especially when you consider how many off-board transactions actually originate on these boards (with people linking to their auctions all over the place).

[Snake Eyes]

Came home and saw 30 new posts in the Probie Discussion forum.

 

I thought for sure I had missed a throw down.

 

I am a little happy and sad at the same time that I didn't.

 

POV made fun of your trophy drawing fascination. Then he deleted it.

 

 

I confess being in ignorance of what Bosco is alluding to.I would reply in jest but that would only serve to add to the considerable derailment of the purpose of this particular topic, which is the PL Rules.

 

So at this juncture, I see the voting to be too close to call. I see Item 2d to be a true issue. Right now there is a 7% margin in favor of the rules as stated. That is very uncomfortable.

 

What is also uncomfortable to me is that the voting increased considerably after the poll was posted in Comics General. I had decided to not post in the General Forum because I felt people genuinely interested in the Probation Forum would be checking the happenings here. Snake - that is NOT a slam on you. You took the initiative and at the core of it a good one. You showed gumption and concern and action.

 

The Probation Discussions forum has been updating at a very frequent rate. Anyone looking at the forums would be seeing that the Probation Discussion has new posts, even with Arch not showing the number of new posts.

 

If that is the case, then why are so many new votes coming in after the Comics General

announcement? How informed are they? I don't know.

 

I DO know there are a LOT of intelligent people here. Several of them have made some really good contributions here.

 

Is it really so difficult to determine what is a reasonable or unreasonable extra expense? Is it really so difficult to just get purely dispassionate input into the hows and whys of rules we are trying to setup to be a self-governing body?

 

Whatever.

 

 

I did figure it would juice the voting a little bit. The thought behind it was two-fold. First, a number of folks are not the equivalent of sales thread regulars and only check the sales forum generally on a semi-regular basis. The other is a Heath-issue admittedly. The way my browser is set up, when the the Sales Forum loads, I only see links to the big five forums up top (kudos, various sales, and VCC). The ones at the bottom get short shift, and I do not check as regularly...thought others might be the same way and only check when they see or hear of a throw-down in general :shrug: Hopefully they took the time to read the debate, or at the very least the rules. You are correct, however, that the level with which each voter is truly informed will vary (and some will be quite disinterested in the debate portion and skip it entirely I would think).

 

As far as additional input on the sticky issue of Rule 2d...I can offer an out of sorts. In my mind, we do not have to fix all problems at once. There will be a mistake made, or a loophole that is exploited within whatever structure is decided upon. Therefore, we can propose the rules one way (2d left in, 2d left out...whatever the consensus is when you end the poll) for an up or down vote for passage...you can even set the criteria at 60% if you want some sort of super majority. If it passes, it will be with the knowledge that there was debate over this issue and that some concern remains. IF 2d becomes problematic we can revisit that issue on a stand alone basis down the road. Perhaps we get lucky and everyone remains reasonable or no significant test-issue arises. If not, everyone can get together again, remember this discussion and look at where the rule as created failed (perhaps at that point crafting an option that has not been thought of to this point once we see an actual issue on the table)

 

Anyway, just my thoughts along the lines of Rome not being built in a day...take the progress we have now and compromise on the sticky area

 

[Snake Eyes]

Also, I just went back and looked at the poll...seems to be a pretty strong showing for approval "as is" 52% of the vote with three viable options.

 

assuming some additional turnout since you posted your concerns Pov.

[PovertyRow]

Also, I just went back and looked at the poll...seems to be a pretty strong showing for approval "as is" 52% of the vote with three viable options.

 

assuming some additional turnout since you posted your concerns Pov.

 

Well, it is at:

 

Yes, as is - 29 (52%)

Yes, but without 2d - 18 (32%)

No, Need More Discussion - 8 (14%)

I Enjoy Flavors - 1 (2%)

 

I am not comfy with 46% not being in favor of the new rule set as posted. But we shall see what happens! in the vote and in the discussions.

 

 

[divad]

Just do it! (and get it over with) (even though I voted against 2d . . . )

 

let's move on to the debt ceiling discussions . . .

[Bosco685]

Just do it! (and get it over with) (even though I voted against 2d . . . )

 

let's move on to the debt ceiling discussions . . .

 

Ewwwwwwwwww - you're in trouble.

[PovertyRow]

Is it really so difficult to determine what is a reasonable or unreasonable extra expense? Is it really so difficult to just get purely dispassionate input into the hows and whys of rules we are trying to setup to be a self-governing body?

 

Whatever.

It can be a challenge to lock down what is reasonable, as it depends on the viewpoint of each person what they consider within a 'reasonable" range. You are asking a large audience to come to an agreement on common rules, when sometimes they are going to have very different views on any topic.

 

I'm not sure why you may be taking it so personal or getting overly frustrated - this is the challenge you face when you try to lay out rules that need to apply across an entire group. It isn't going to be easy, or this would have been agreed to and written down a long time ago.

 

Hang in there, and remain impartial like you have been so everyone feels like their voice is being heard. I think you are doing a good job.

 

And there is no considerable derailment going on if folks are throwing out a small joke to keep the mood semi-light. That's all it is.

 

 

The infrequent bit of temper or frustration is a classic symptom of the more highly evolved. Don't you remember Charlton Heston's "Get your stinking paws off me you damned dirty ape!"?

 

Yeah, I too throw out the occasional, but always hilariously funny, bon mot. I was thinking of last week when almost 2 pages were jokes. Now 2 pages may not sound like that much but my page view is set to 5 times the default at 50 posts/page.

 

Anyway, let's give it more time and see what the folks who have not yet participated may have to say. I need coffee..

 

[PovertyRow]

Just do it! (and get it over with) (even though I voted against 2d . . . )

 

let's move on to the debt ceiling discussions . . .

 

We should not rush to justice.

[divad]

Just do it! (and get it over with) (even though I voted against 2d . . . )

 

let's move on to the debt ceiling discussions . . .

 

We should not rush to justice.

 

Lynch 'em.

[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.

I did not miss that critical point, I acknowledged that I read what you wrote however I was addressing the compensation issue not the "cause" of your frustration with this buyer.

However had I known beforehand that it took 'weeks and weeks and weeks" I may have felt differently.

 

I was specifically responding to this statement of yours:

 

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.

 

And the answer to that question, of course, is no, and it wasn't the logic that was being employed.

 

It is only if the buyer makes a significant delay in returning an item that it becomes an issue. Return it in a week? No problem. Return it after 6 months? Problem. And if that clearly irresponsible delay results in monetary damage, then yes, it should be part of the deal.

 

If I sell a Green Lantern #59 three months before Green Lantern comes out, when the market is cooking (and this is easily observable), and the buyer doesn't return it until two months AFTER the film has bombed at the box office, and the price has dropped like a rock, the buyer's delay cost the seller money and should be compensated. That's how civil court cases like this work (depending on whether the plaintiff can prove the loss was the result of the delay, and they mitigate their damages.)

 

That's my point.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Came home and saw 30 new posts in the Probie Discussion forum.

 

I thought for sure I had missed a throw down.

 

I am a little happy and sad at the same time that I didn't.

 

FU lawyerboy.

 

[PovertyRow]

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.

 

Agreed. Not comfortable with it either.

 

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.

 

If it doesn't take place on these boards, it is not a board dispute and therefore should not be listed as if it were a board tranacation problem.

 

I don't mind revisiting this recent addition to the current PL rules. Might as well get it all refined.

 

One suggestion would be to specify an off-board transaction qualifies if it was advertised or linked to anywhere on the boards, including the Comics Market - Sales Advertising - Ebay, Dealers, in the Comics Market - Want To Buy! section, in a sig line advertising a sale site, etc.

 

 

[Snake Eyes]

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.

 

Agreed. Not comfortable with it either.

 

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.

 

If it doesn't take place on these boards, it is not a board dispute and therefore should not be listed as if it were a board tranacation problem.

 

I don't mind revisiting this recent addition to the current PL rules. Might as well get it all refined.

 

One suggestion would be to specify an off-board transaction qualifies if it was advertised or linked to anywhere on the boards, including the Comics Market - Sales Advertising - Ebay, Dealers, in the Comics Market - Want To Buy! section, in a sig line advertising a sale site, etc.

 

 

I think that makes the most sense in order to address off-board transactions (thumbs u

[bababooey]

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.

I did not miss that critical point, I acknowledged that I read what you wrote however I was addressing the compensation issue not the "cause" of your frustration with this buyer.

However had I known beforehand that it took 'weeks and weeks and weeks" I may have felt differently.

 

I was specifically responding to this statement of yours:

 

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.

 

And the answer to that question, of course, is no, and it wasn't the logic that was being employed.

 

It is only if the buyer makes a significant delay in returning an item that it becomes an issue. Return it in a week? No problem. Return it after 6 months? Problem. And if that clearly irresponsible delay results in monetary damage, then yes, it should be part of the deal.

 

If I sell a Green Lantern #59 three months before Green Lantern comes out, when the market is cooking (and this is easily observable), and the buyer doesn't return it until two months AFTER the film has bombed at the box office, and the price has dropped like a rock, the buyer's delay cost the seller money and should be compensated. That's how civil court cases like this work (depending on whether the plaintiff can prove the loss was the result of the delay, and they mitigate their damages.)

 

That's my point.

 

I recognize that your only focus is on the time it took for the book to get back into your hands. The statement you are choosing to focus on was this:

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.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer.

 

Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger?

 

When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale.

 

A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market.

 

 

[Green]

[Speedy-D]

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.

 

Agreed. Not comfortable with it either.

 

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.

 

If it doesn't take place on these boards, it is not a board dispute and therefore should not be listed as if it were a board tranacation problem.

 

I don't mind revisiting this recent addition to the current PL rules. Might as well get it all refined.

 

One suggestion would be to specify an off-board transaction qualifies if it was advertised or linked to anywhere on the boards, including the Comics Market - Sales Advertising - Ebay, Dealers, in the Comics Market - Want To Buy! section, in a sig line advertising a sale site, etc.

 

 

I think that makes the most sense in order to address off-board transactions (thumbs u

If I felt strongly about any of this, it'd be this part. I still don't see why any off-board transactions between two board members should be limited in their PL worthiness. As far as I'm concerned, the point of the PL is to warn people about potential problems in dealing with other members. That should be the focus when determining inclusion, not any mere technicalities. Where that problem took place is just not germane.

[mschmidt]

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.

 

Agreed. Not comfortable with it either.

 

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.

 

If it doesn't take place on these boards, it is not a board dispute and therefore should not be listed as if it were a board tranacation problem.

 

I don't mind revisiting this recent addition to the current PL rules. Might as well get it all refined.

 

One suggestion would be to specify an off-board transaction qualifies if it was advertised or linked to anywhere on the boards, including the Comics Market - Sales Advertising - Ebay, Dealers, in the Comics Market - Want To Buy! section, in a sig line advertising a sale site, etc.

 

 

I think that makes the most sense in order to address off-board transactions (thumbs u

If I felt strongly about any of this, it'd be this part. I still don't see why any off-board transactions between two board members should be limited in their PL worthiness. As far as I'm concerned, the point of the PL is to warn people about potential problems in dealing with other members. That should be the focus when determining inclusion, not any mere technicalities. Where that problem took place is just not germane.

 

+1

[PovertyRow]

Current vote tally is below. Let's let this run through Monday 7/18. That will be one full week of voting. So please get your final opinions in now, especially if you voted Need More Discussion.

 

Vote For PL Rules

 

Yes, as is - 30 (51%)

Yes, but without 2d - 18 (31%)

No, Need More Discussion - 9 (15%)

I Enjoy Flavors - 2 (3%)