What would you do, Part the Second...

[RockMyAmadeus]

Did you discuss this particular issue with Buddy? If not, why not?

 

I did mention it to him, when RMA first raised the issue last month. There wasn't much to discuss, since there isn't anything novel about RMA's situation that would cause us to handle it differently from any other case where we accidentally send an incorrect lower-value book and we issue a refund. Our return policy has been the same for years, and 99% of our customers never have a problem with it.

 

I'd challenge that number as wholly invented on the spot for the sake of discussion.

 

I also challenge the implied "...and we don't care about those who don't" that follows.

 

Nevertheless, I did mention RMA's complaint, and Buddy confirmed that he wants to keep our return policy as-is.

 

If eBay ever decides to enforce their policy, it doesn't matter what Lonestar thinks.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just want to point out this is a currently very successful business, and all the postings saying they need to do this or that in order to have a successful business are not appreciating the disconnect.

 

 

Not a single person in this thread has said that. Everyone acknowledges that their business model is very successful.

 

But, as has often, often been stated, "successful" doesn't = "can't be improved."

 

There's always room for improvement, especially when policy has caused someone to not only not RETAIN business, but actually LOSE potential business.

[RockMyAmadeus]

This seems so simple:

 

1) RMA should have gotten the right book the first time

 

2) RMA shouldn't have had to pay shipping twice.

 

3) LoneStar is shooting themselves in the foot to make a point.

 

4) RMA is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

At the end of the day, the reality is, most people wouldn't make a huge deal out of this issue and go on and on and on about this. But, the reality is, RMA isn't wrong here.

 

LoneStar is in the wrong here and frankly, and, as comix4fun pointed out, handling things pretty stupidly with poor PR 101.

 

I am no champion of RMA nor his long winded blatherings, but if you look at it objectively, he's in the right here.

 

Why do so many people...including so-called "professionals" like Foolkiller...have to take personal potshots at others?

 

I haven't taken any personal potshots at anyone.

 

So why is it IMPOSSIBLE for some of you not to...?

 

Just vicious, vicious people.

[Chespirito]

Why does my burn when I urinate?

 

I have stayed up for days thinking about your problem. I have thoroughly analyzed your circumstances and the predicament seems to point out only one possible answer, with it's own set of unique factors that, not only make sense but also seem to indicate that aside from being in discomfort, you also have one choice in life, as we all do (really). If by rationalization, I am correct, I have come up with one true answer... I have entirely too much time in my hands and my thoughts are always incoherent. Now, where did I leave my scarf?

[mikenyc]

I've had smooth transactions with them in the past but was not aware this was how they conducted business. As stated earlier, the dollar amount of the books is not the issue. Pose this question to any business in the United States:

"What do you do when a customer pays for a product that you have in stock and you send the wrong product?"

The common sense answer would be to send the correct order at the expense of the business.

I will no longer order from them. Yes, over a one dollar transaction. Wrong is wrong.

 

This is the same mentality that is behind the park dwellers movement. A dollar transaction is not equal to a $5,000 transaction, period. I know that in a Utopian world, a Kmart shopper would be treated the same as a Tiffany's shopper, but this is a place called reality.

 

Not all workers are created equal, not all salaries are created equal, and not all transactions are created equal. Why do you think that there is a level of service when shopping at one establishment vs. another? It's not elitism, it's the ability for the margins to support hiring employees that want to maintain that level of service. If Target compensated a customer, above making them whole, every time there was an issue, they would be out of business.

 

Your allowed to make the distinction. It's not a dirty or bad thing to admit. I'm sure someone purchasing a 7 series with all the bells and whistles is getting better treatment than me. I can accept it. Maybe I'm crazy?

 

You've missed it completely. So let me ask you directly.

What do you do when you send the wrong book to someone and discover you have the correct one? Really, its that simple.

 

They made it right. RMA is whole. Whether they should have went above and beyond, over a tiny transaction, is up for debate. It won't stop them from getting my continued business.

 

Let me ask you directly, do you feel that when a policy is spelled out, and a mistake is made, that it is a company's duty to go beyond making someone whole? Why can't everyone acknowledge that it very much has to do with the value of the transaction? Why brush over my complete argument and simply say I missed the point? I got your point loud and clear, it's my refusal to agree with it that is causing the confusion.

 

And to answer your question, I don't sell books, but if I sold a few a month, and still screwed it up, then there's something wrong with me. Now, if I was selling hundreds of thousands of books, out of an inventory of millions, and a mistake was made, I would make the customer whole.

 

You still haven't answered my question. "I would make the customer whole?" There has been enough canned responses here today. It was a simple question. You sell me a book and ship the wrong one to me. How are you going to make me whole? Are you going to send me the correct book? Are you going to charge me for your error?

 

What is canned about my response? RMA used a portion of his $175,000 comic book budget and spent it on a transaction. A wrong book was shipped and a refund issued. RMA now has his comics + his money. That means he is whole. I believe you understand the concept fully.

 

In your equation you pay me x for book y. We have a contract. I supply book z in error. I have breached our contract. You return book z and I return your x. Done, in my thread I clearly state that I may ship the wrong book and if I do I'll refund your money.You place me on ignore, which will probably occur after our exchange, and you start a thread in a public forum about how naughty I am.

 

If you want me to say I would send the book, to validate your argument I can. I would send the book. Care to respond to anything I posed, or are you not a fan of the reach around. Selfish lovers are becoming an epidemic in CG.

 

I wasn't dismissing anything you have said previously. I was just waiting for a simple yes or no answer to my question first which you haven't really answered. I'll ask the same question again. After sending me the wrong book, would you send me the correct book at your expense? Yes or no?

 

I'll still expect a slap and tickle, but your flirting has enticed me just enough.

 

To answer your question, personally I would. There are numerous times on these boards, that I have sent a follow up payment, after seeing what "free shipping" cost the seller. Please read on.

 

But, nothing is cut and dry. The policies implemented by someone running a booth at a flea market, can't just be juxtaposed on any entity. That is the reality of running a business. There were stated policies that deal with pulling the wrong book and MCS is choosing to adhere to them.

 

Much like returning a pair of jeans at Bloomingdales after the thirty day return policy. They are choosing to not follow the stated policy at their discretion, it isn't a privilege as a consumer to have anything, whenever you want. Yes it sucks that he didn't get the right book. It happens, every customer was forewarned of its possibility. He chose to reorder the proper book and had to pay shipping again.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

And those of you saying that I'm asking Lonestar to "bend" their policies?

 

You'd be wrong.

 

I'm expecting them to follow eBay's policies, which they agreed to when opening an account.

 

 

[thirdgreenham]

RMA's second "single copy + freight" purchase is a deliberate act by a toxic customer who was disgruntled & looking for trouble and/or Comic General fodder.

 

 

You are wrong.

 

My second purchase was a deliberate act by a frustrated customer to obtain what should have been sent in the first place.

 

And you are letting your PERSONAL opinion of me affect your reason.

 

You are now lying about me and and my motives because your bad logic was refuted.

 

This is called "bearing false witness", and it's one of the Big 10.

 

 

Sue him for libel, RMA, sue him for libel!

[mikenyc]

RMA's second "single copy + freight" purchase is a deliberate act by a toxic customer who was disgruntled & looking for trouble and/or Comic General fodder.

 

 

You are wrong.

 

My second purchase was a deliberate act by a frustrated customer to obtain what should have been sent in the first place.

 

And you are letting your PERSONAL opinion of me affect your reason.

 

You are now lying about me and and my motives because your bad logic was refuted.

 

This is called "bearing false witness", and it's one of the Big 10.

 

 

Sue him for libel, RMA, sue him for libel!

 

Paging CAL.

[Park]

I wonder what would've happened if a noob had started this thread

 

I would imagine about the same that has happened here. The question would be what if it was someone that wasn't named RMA that started the thread.

 

 

[Annihilus]

This seems so simple:

 

1) RMA should have gotten the right book the first time

 

2) RMA shouldn't have had to pay shipping twice.

 

3) LoneStar is shooting themselves in the foot to make a point.

 

4) RMA is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

At the end of the day, the reality is, most people wouldn't make a huge deal out of this issue and go on and on and on about this. But, the reality is, RMA isn't wrong here.

 

LoneStar is in the wrong here and frankly, and, as comix4fun pointed out, handling things pretty stupidly with poor PR 101.

 

I am no champion of RMA nor his long winded blatherings, but if you look at it objectively, he's in the right here.

 

That's pretty much it in a nutshell, might as well lock this puppy up now and give the locked thread points to RMA, since he will inevitably be the last to post here.

 

While it wasn't $175,000, I did spend $246 at mycomicshop.com this morning, so I will that they send me all the correct items cuz I'm too young to have a coronary mild cardiac event (but you can be dang sure that I will be posting about it here from my hospital bed if I do).

[Chespirito]

Why does my burn when I urinate?

 

I have stayed up for days thinking about your problem. I have thoroughly analyzed your circumstances and the predicament seems to point out only one possible answer, with it's own set of unique factors that, not only make sense but also seem to indicate that aside from being in discomfort, you also have one choice in life, as we all do (really). If by rationalization, I am correct, I have come up with one true answer... I have entirely too much time in my hands and my thoughts are always incoherent. Now, where did I leave my scarf?

Don't worry guys! I found it, it was under my table

[Park]

I've had smooth transactions with them in the past but was not aware this was how they conducted business. As stated earlier, the dollar amount of the books is not the issue. Pose this question to any business in the United States:

"What do you do when a customer pays for a product that you have in stock and you send the wrong product?"

The common sense answer would be to send the correct order at the expense of the business.

I will no longer order from them. Yes, over a one dollar transaction. Wrong is wrong.

 

This is the same mentality that is behind the park dwellers movement. A dollar transaction is not equal to a $5,000 transaction, period. I know that in a Utopian world, a Kmart shopper would be treated the same as a Tiffany's shopper, but this is a place called reality.

 

Not all workers are created equal, not all salaries are created equal, and not all transactions are created equal. Why do you think that there is a level of service when shopping at one establishment vs. another? It's not elitism, it's the ability for the margins to support hiring employees that want to maintain that level of service. If Target compensated a customer, above making them whole, every time there was an issue, they would be out of business.

 

Your allowed to make the distinction. It's not a dirty or bad thing to admit. I'm sure someone purchasing a 7 series with all the bells and whistles is getting better treatment than me. I can accept it. Maybe I'm crazy?

 

You've missed it completely. So let me ask you directly.

What do you do when you send the wrong book to someone and discover you have the correct one? Really, its that simple.

 

They made it right. RMA is whole. Whether they should have went above and beyond, over a tiny transaction, is up for debate. It won't stop them from getting my continued business.

 

Let me ask you directly, do you feel that when a policy is spelled out, and a mistake is made, that it is a company's duty to go beyond making someone whole? Why can't everyone acknowledge that it very much has to do with the value of the transaction? Why brush over my complete argument and simply say I missed the point? I got your point loud and clear, it's my refusal to agree with it that is causing the confusion.

 

And to answer your question, I don't sell books, but if I sold a few a month, and still screwed it up, then there's something wrong with me. Now, if I was selling hundreds of thousands of books, out of an inventory of millions, and a mistake was made, I would make the customer whole.

 

You still haven't answered my question. "I would make the customer whole?" There has been enough canned responses here today. It was a simple question. You sell me a book and ship the wrong one to me. How are you going to make me whole? Are you going to send me the correct book? Are you going to charge me for your error?

 

What is canned about my response? RMA used a portion of his $175,000 comic book budget and spent it on a transaction. A wrong book was shipped and a refund issued. RMA now has his comics + his money. That means he is whole. I believe you understand the concept fully.

 

In your equation you pay me x for book y. We have a contract. I supply book z in error. I have breached our contract. You return book z and I return your x. Done, in my thread I clearly state that I may ship the wrong book and if I do I'll refund your money.You place me on ignore, which will probably occur after our exchange, and you start a thread in a public forum about how naughty I am.

 

If you want me to say I would send the book, to validate your argument I can. I would send the book. Care to respond to anything I posed, or are you not a fan of the reach around. Selfish lovers are becoming an epidemic in CG.

 

I wasn't dismissing anything you have said previously. I was just waiting for a simple yes or no answer to my question first which you haven't really answered. I'll ask the same question again. After sending me the wrong book, would you send me the correct book at your expense? Yes or no?

 

I'll still expect a slap and tickle, but your flirting has enticed me just enough.

 

To answer your question, personally I would. There are numerous times on these boards, that I have sent a follow up payment, after seeing what "free shipping" cost the seller. Please read on.

 

But, nothing is cut and dry. The policies implemented by someone running a booth at a flea market, can't just be juxtaposed on any entity. That is the reality of running a business. There were stated policies that deal with pulling the wrong book and MCS is choosing to adhere to them.

 

Much like returning a pair of jeans at Bloomingdales after the thirty day return policy. They are choosing to not follow the stated policy at their discretion, it isn't a privilege as a consumer to have anything, whenever you want. Yes it sucks that he didn't get the right book. It happens, every customer was forewarned of its possibility. He chose to reorder the proper book and had to pay shipping again.

 

 

Give it a rest dude. I like you but if this was anyone but RMA, you would have already had your summary detailing how bad a retailer Lonestar is on page three.

[Jeffro.]

Give it a rest dude. I like you but if this was anyone but RMA, you would have already had your summary detailing how bad a retailer Lonestar is on page three.

 

[Park]

Why does my burn when I urinate?

 

I have stayed up for days thinking about your problem. I have thoroughly analyzed your circumstances and the predicament seems to point out only one possible answer, with it's own set of unique factors that, not only make sense but also seem to indicate that aside from being in discomfort, you also have one choice in life, as we all do (really). If by rationalization, I am correct, I have come up with one true answer... I have entirely too much time in my hands and my thoughts are always incoherent. Now, where did I leave my scarf?

Don't worry guys! I found it, it was under my table

 

Everyone is too busy having a contest right now. Give it about another five pages and I will join you in your incoherent time wasting rage.

[mikenyc]

I wonder what would've happened if a noob had started this thread

 

I would imagine about the same that has happened here. The question would be what if it was someone that wasn't named RMA that started the thread.

 

 

When any member starts a controversial thread, is it any wonder what the outcome will be. This isn't a Discovery Channel documentary on penguins. There isn't a single objective individual on these boards. Yes personal emotions will factor in, but they do not validate or invalidate an argument.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'm sure Conan, the person, is just fine, and anyone thinking that I have been going after him personally, that would be an erroneous conclusion.

 

You go after everybody personally, don't you know that?

 

For me, I'm having a devil of a time not taking someone in this thread off ignore. It's getting harder and harder to resist.

 

Mike has been, as per the usual, and despite his word that he would "ignore" me from now on, taking potshot after potshot.

 

He lacks the maturity to exercise self-control.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Transaction #1 ends after the credit is accepted "I was ok with the refund"

 

 

But then he found out that it wasn't just an error (book already sold, website not updated) where the book no longer was available for purchase. It was still available for purchase and MCS couldn't be bothered to go track it down and get it to him, as they should have.

Aggravating, annoying? Yes.

 

His discovery that the book was on hand took place after the transaction had been completed, sure they could have gone the extra mile for him sent it with no freight charge but they weren't technically wrong in following their policy.

 

Yes, they were technically wrong...according to eBay policy, which trumps theirs when it is in conflict.

 

Again, I think the 'customer relationship' is a two way street - sellers or buyers can be wrongheaded in their thinking - a buyer can choose to spend elsewhere, a seller needs to guard against being taken advantage of.

 

Your PERSONAL opinion of me clouds your judgement.

[DiceX]

 

 

[FlyingDonut]

I still can't get over that there's a fifth printing of Man of Steel 18. Who knew!

 

Any other weird printings I should keep my eyes out for? I've got 135 long boxes of drek I have to go through as I sort through my garage.

[mikenyc]

I've had smooth transactions with them in the past but was not aware this was how they conducted business. As stated earlier, the dollar amount of the books is not the issue. Pose this question to any business in the United States:

"What do you do when a customer pays for a product that you have in stock and you send the wrong product?"

The common sense answer would be to send the correct order at the expense of the business.

I will no longer order from them. Yes, over a one dollar transaction. Wrong is wrong.

 

This is the same mentality that is behind the park dwellers movement. A dollar transaction is not equal to a $5,000 transaction, period. I know that in a Utopian world, a Kmart shopper would be treated the same as a Tiffany's shopper, but this is a place called reality.

 

Not all workers are created equal, not all salaries are created equal, and not all transactions are created equal. Why do you think that there is a level of service when shopping at one establishment vs. another? It's not elitism, it's the ability for the margins to support hiring employees that want to maintain that level of service. If Target compensated a customer, above making them whole, every time there was an issue, they would be out of business.

 

Your allowed to make the distinction. It's not a dirty or bad thing to admit. I'm sure someone purchasing a 7 series with all the bells and whistles is getting better treatment than me. I can accept it. Maybe I'm crazy?

 

You've missed it completely. So let me ask you directly.

What do you do when you send the wrong book to someone and discover you have the correct one? Really, its that simple.

 

They made it right. RMA is whole. Whether they should have went above and beyond, over a tiny transaction, is up for debate. It won't stop them from getting my continued business.

 

Let me ask you directly, do you feel that when a policy is spelled out, and a mistake is made, that it is a company's duty to go beyond making someone whole? Why can't everyone acknowledge that it very much has to do with the value of the transaction? Why brush over my complete argument and simply say I missed the point? I got your point loud and clear, it's my refusal to agree with it that is causing the confusion.

 

And to answer your question, I don't sell books, but if I sold a few a month, and still screwed it up, then there's something wrong with me. Now, if I was selling hundreds of thousands of books, out of an inventory of millions, and a mistake was made, I would make the customer whole.

 

You still haven't answered my question. "I would make the customer whole?" There has been enough canned responses here today. It was a simple question. You sell me a book and ship the wrong one to me. How are you going to make me whole? Are you going to send me the correct book? Are you going to charge me for your error?

 

What is canned about my response? RMA used a portion of his $175,000 comic book budget and spent it on a transaction. A wrong book was shipped and a refund issued. RMA now has his comics + his money. That means he is whole. I believe you understand the concept fully.

 

In your equation you pay me x for book y. We have a contract. I supply book z in error. I have breached our contract. You return book z and I return your x. Done, in my thread I clearly state that I may ship the wrong book and if I do I'll refund your money.You place me on ignore, which will probably occur after our exchange, and you start a thread in a public forum about how naughty I am.

 

If you want me to say I would send the book, to validate your argument I can. I would send the book. Care to respond to anything I posed, or are you not a fan of the reach around. Selfish lovers are becoming an epidemic in CG.

 

I wasn't dismissing anything you have said previously. I was just waiting for a simple yes or no answer to my question first which you haven't really answered. I'll ask the same question again. After sending me the wrong book, would you send me the correct book at your expense? Yes or no?

 

I'll still expect a slap and tickle, but your flirting has enticed me just enough.

 

To answer your question, personally I would. There are numerous times on these boards, that I have sent a follow up payment, after seeing what "free shipping" cost the seller. Please read on.

 

But, nothing is cut and dry. The policies implemented by someone running a booth at a flea market, can't just be juxtaposed on any entity. That is the reality of running a business. There were stated policies that deal with pulling the wrong book and MCS is choosing to adhere to them.

 

Much like returning a pair of jeans at Bloomingdales after the thirty day return policy. They are choosing to not follow the stated policy at their discretion, it isn't a privilege as a consumer to have anything, whenever you want. Yes it sucks that he didn't get the right book. It happens, every customer was forewarned of its possibility. He chose to reorder the proper book and had to pay shipping again.

 

 

Give it a rest dude. I like you but if this was anyone but RMA, you would have already had your summary detailing how bad a retailer Lonestar is on page three.

 

I have always sang Lonestars praises, always. I have had one issue with the way their trade in system works.