APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[Bomber-Bob]

I personally would vote for the following...

 

A in the sales thread beats any and all PM's regardless of timestamp.

 

If you want a deal... or any stipulations that you have with the seller that needs to be addressed via PM, you run the risk of losing the item to someone who obviously wants it more than you.

 

The trouble is there are no Sales Thread Rules. Anything goes.

[VintageComics]

Wasn't there some talk of writing up a set of "usual rules"? Did the effort fizzle out?

 

Yep, it seemed to fizzle out.

[Bio-Rupp]

I personally would vote for the following...

 

A in the sales thread beats any and all PM's regardless of timestamp.

 

If you want a deal... or any stipulations that you have with the seller that needs to be addressed via PM, you run the risk of losing the item to someone who obviously wants it more than you.

 

So Now I cant buy a present for someone Without them seeing...

 

I know you are sending me an X-Men 94 for Christmas anyway ...

[Bomber-Bob]

Hey, I'm looking for someone to at least argue with me, where were you guys when this was allowed...

 

From this point forward first wins over any ongoing negotiations.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Who here finalizes a deal without making sure everyone is on the exact same page?

 

A very large number of forum members.

 

And you well know that the abundance of popularity doesn't therefore prove the worthiness of an action.

 

 

Agreed that popular isn't necessarily right, but I also think people are slowly realizing why it happened.

 

In the past it happened because people posted 'usual rules'.

 

It happened here because Mike wasn't used to the rule of having to post something in the thread and Dan wants what some consider an unusual extra step.

 

...and that is why the rules need a revamp IMO - to avoid confusion.

 

You agree that it was an "unusual extra step."

 

If it was so important that the entire sale LITERALLY hinged on that rule...

 

...and it did....

 

...then why didn't Dan make that explicitly clear?

 

It the term was so vitally central to the sale....and it quite obviously was!...why didn't he make sure Tranny understood it at the time of the counter offer?

 

That's the problem we have here.

 

And let me clarify...Dan didn't do anything wrong, in terms of a malicious act. He simply made an error in judgment.

 

[Bio-Rupp]

I personally would vote for the following...

 

A in the sales thread beats any and all PM's regardless of timestamp.

 

If you want a deal... or any stipulations that you have with the seller that needs to be addressed via PM, you run the risk of losing the item to someone who obviously wants it more than you.

 

The trouble is there are no Sales Thread Rules. Anything goes.

 

A true statement for sure.

 

If anything it would force the seller to sell to the first posted in his sales thread.

 

Well unless he's on the seller's secret list of people he/she won't sell to... then that buyer is out of luck too

 

It's literally a no win situation.

[HarveySwick]

PLEASE....

 

Someone break out some memes. This Friday thread is so boring. oh yeah... ... I'll see your and raise you some

 

[Beige]

Well, I can see a lock coming so I'm getting in before it.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

If transplant thought he had a deal in place he should have posted the "I'll take it" in the thread, per PM. Instead, he waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

The seller's rules were crystal clear, they were not confusing in the least. He specifically said first "I'll take it" in thread trumps ALL PM's. He even made a point to emphasize "ALL". There was no need for him to "reiterate" his rules again in a PM, they were already there, plain as day in his listing.

 

It's great he's being a stand up guy with the other prospective seller, trying not to burn any bridges, but per the explicit rules of his thread, he made the correct decision. I feel for the other buyer, but it really was the right decision.

 

-J.

 

Sorry, but that's not how contract law works. You are making assumptions. The rules themselves were not confusing...it was Dan's failure to follow his rules that led to the confusion.

 

I'm not quite sure why you don't understand what negotiations are.

 

 

This sounds like the old RMA. Telling people what they should think.

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you had an issue with me.

 

I have told no one "what they should think." I'm pretty sure I have never "told people what they should think."

 

If you have a countering view, by all means, post it, and let everyone else decide for themselves which argument holds up better. That is the very opposite of "telling people what they should think."

 

Very disappointing.

 

 

Wow, you put me on ignore? It was an observation and usually most of my posts are just ignored so I'm surprised (although, it's unfortunate thats what it took to get one). In general, people don't respond well to being told they're making assumptions, or the rules are clear when they actually feel otherwise. And to think I actually tried to apologize by sending you a pm (what was I thinking). This just reminds me of why I should stay out of these kind of debates. Oh well, to each their own.

 

Your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's here.

 

Some of us welcome your input and hope you continue to contribute

 

Rupp, really, this is the last time I'm going to ask, and then I'm going to get moderation involved. I have been more than patient with you, and you have done nothing but insult me this entire thread.

 

Please stop referring to me in any way. That INCLUDES responding to people ABOUT me, like the above.

 

Ok?

[VintageComics]

You agree that it was an "unusual extra step."

 

If it was so important that the entire sale LITERALLY hinged on that rule...

 

...and it did....

 

...then why didn't Dan make that explicitly clear?

 

It the term was so vitally central to the sale....and it quite obviously was!...why didn't he make sure Tranny understood it at the time of the counter offer?

 

That's the problem we have here.

 

And let me clarify...Dan didn't do anything wrong, in terms of a malicious act. He simply made an error in judgment.

 

I agree that it was unusual and I agree that Dan didn't do anything wrong.

 

Rather than call it an error in judgement, I'd just say misunderstanding...and I think as unfortunate as misunderstandings are, everyone involved learns from them.

 

I'd say Dan and Mike are both honest guys and both feel their positions are correct.

 

As I said in another thread, I would have awarded Mike the book but also understand why Dan didn't. Rules, as much as we try to clarify them always have an element of interpretation to them. People are different and people see different things in exactly the same object.

 

Instead of arguing, let's revamp the rules.

[HighRadArt]

If transplant thought he had a deal in place he should have posted the "I'll take it" in the thread, per PM. Instead, he waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

The seller's rules were crystal clear, they were not confusing in the least. He specifically said first "I'll take it" in thread trumps ALL PM's. He even made a point to emphasize "ALL". There was no need for him to "reiterate" his rules again in a PM, they were already there, plain as day in his listing.

 

It's great he's being a stand up guy with the other prospective seller, trying not to burn any bridges, but per the explicit rules of his thread, he made the correct decision. I feel for the other buyer, but it really was the right decision.

 

-J.

 

Sorry, but that's not how contract law works. You are making assumptions. The rules themselves were not confusing...it was Dan's failure to follow his rules that led to the confusion.

 

I'm not quite sure why you don't understand what negotiations are.

 

 

This sounds like the old RMA. Telling people what they should think.

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you had an issue with me.

 

I have told no one "what they should think." I'm pretty sure I have never "told people what they should think."

 

If you have a countering view, by all means, post it, and let everyone else decide for themselves which argument holds up better. That is the very opposite of "telling people what they should think."

 

Very disappointing.

 

 

Wow, you put me on ignore? It was an observation and usually most of my posts are just ignored so I'm surprised (although, it's unfortunate thats what it took to get one). In general, people don't respond well to being told they're making assumptions, or the rules are clear when they actually feel otherwise. And to think I actually tried to apologize by sending you a pm (what was I thinking). This just reminds me of why I should stay out of these kind of debates. Oh well, to each their own.

 

Your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's here.

 

Some of us welcome your input and hope you continue to contribute

 

Rupp, really, this is the last time I'm going to ask, and then I'm going to get moderation involved. I have been more than patient with you, and you have done nothing but insult me this entire thread.

 

Please stop referring to me in any way. That INCLUDES responding to people ABOUT me, like the above.

 

Ok?

 

Wow. Seriously?

[VintageComics]

Wow. Seriously?

 

There's nothing wrong with the request. People have a habit of egging others on - it's called trolling and if you feel like you're being trolled (and it does happen to people who post a lot ) it's OK to ask to have it stopped.

 

[Bio-Rupp]

If transplant thought he had a deal in place he should have posted the "I'll take it" in the thread, per PM. Instead, he waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

The seller's rules were crystal clear, they were not confusing in the least. He specifically said first "I'll take it" in thread trumps ALL PM's. He even made a point to emphasize "ALL". There was no need for him to "reiterate" his rules again in a PM, they were already there, plain as day in his listing.

 

It's great he's being a stand up guy with the other prospective seller, trying not to burn any bridges, but per the explicit rules of his thread, he made the correct decision. I feel for the other buyer, but it really was the right decision.

 

-J.

 

Sorry, but that's not how contract law works. You are making assumptions. The rules themselves were not confusing...it was Dan's failure to follow his rules that led to the confusion.

 

I'm not quite sure why you don't understand what negotiations are.

 

 

This sounds like the old RMA. Telling people what they should think.

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you had an issue with me.

 

I have told no one "what they should think." I'm pretty sure I have never "told people what they should think."

 

If you have a countering view, by all means, post it, and let everyone else decide for themselves which argument holds up better. That is the very opposite of "telling people what they should think."

 

Very disappointing.

 

 

Wow, you put me on ignore? It was an observation and usually most of my posts are just ignored so I'm surprised (although, it's unfortunate thats what it took to get one). In general, people don't respond well to being told they're making assumptions, or the rules are clear when they actually feel otherwise. And to think I actually tried to apologize by sending you a pm (what was I thinking). This just reminds me of why I should stay out of these kind of debates. Oh well, to each their own.

 

Your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's here.

 

Some of us welcome your input and hope you continue to contribute

 

Rupp, really, this is the last time I'm going to ask, and then I'm going to get moderation involved. I have been more than patient with you, and you have done nothing but insult me this entire thread.

 

Please stop referring to me in any way. That INCLUDES responding to people ABOUT me, like the above.

 

Ok?

 

Has nothing to do with you RMA. You keep addressing me... someone you have on ignore... that you have to toggle their posts to read.

 

If you respond to every single poster here, unfortunately there is going to be a quote capture.

 

Deal with the fact that this is a public board, where you yourself stated that "anyone can post on". Its not all about you pal.

 

For God's sake... try easing up on the Ritalin buddy.

 

[Bomber-Bob]

 

Instead of arguing, let's revamp the rules.

 

Here's the Rules, posted by the Architect. Basically there are no rules....

 

Note that BUYERS AND SELLERS HAVE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR TRANSACTIONS. We will not resolve disputes, and purchases and sales are done at your own risk.

[COI]

This is one of the most overblown marketplace episodes ever.

[VintageComics]

 

Instead of arguing, let's revamp the rules.

 

Here's the Rules, posted by the Architect. Basically there are no rules....

 

Note that BUYERS AND SELLERS HAVE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR TRANSACTIONS. We will not resolve disputes, and purchases and sales are done at your own risk.

 

We've already revamped the rules in the past to make things easier for not only us but the moderators. It's in everyone's best interest and I have no doubt Arch will post another update to the rules if we can agree as a community.

 

 

[budsbundy]

I've had a couple PM sales deals with members here, and neither time did I post a I guess I didn't know I had to, and thought the deal was done.

 

Both times the sellers posted that the book was sold via pm after we reached an agreement.

 

IMO, if the pm negotiations are still ongoing, and someone posts a in the thread, than they get the book.

 

But if the deal has been reached via pm, and agreed to by both parties, than it shouldn't matter if someone posts 50 :takeit:'s in the thread, the book is already sold.

 

Just like with Ebay, if you're waiting to hear back about an offer you made, and someone hits the bin, it's gone.

 

But if the seller accepts your offer, than the sale is over, and the bin is no longer an option for anyone else.

 

My 2 cents

[namisgr]

PLEASE....

 

Someone break out some memes. This Friday thread is so boring. oh yeah... ... I'll see your and raise you some

 

[VintageComics]

This is one of the most overblown marketplace episodes ever.

 

Get your fire extinguisher and gurneys at the ready!

 

I agree, but it's also a debate that's been ready to be resolved for some time. There have been a few recent arguments about who wins a book.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

If transplant thought he had a deal in place he should have posted the "I'll take it" in the thread, per PM. Instead, he waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

The seller's rules were crystal clear, they were not confusing in the least. He specifically said first "I'll take it" in thread trumps ALL PM's. He even made a point to emphasize "ALL". There was no need for him to "reiterate" his rules again in a PM, they were already there, plain as day in his listing.

 

It's great he's being a stand up guy with the other prospective seller, trying not to burn any bridges, but per the explicit rules of his thread, he made the correct decision. I feel for the other buyer, but it really was the right decision.

 

-J.

 

Sorry, but that's not how contract law works. You are making assumptions. The rules themselves were not confusing...it was Dan's failure to follow his rules that led to the confusion.

 

I'm not quite sure why you don't understand what negotiations are.

 

 

This sounds like the old RMA. Telling people what they should think.

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you had an issue with me.

 

I have told no one "what they should think." I'm pretty sure I have never "told people what they should think."

 

If you have a countering view, by all means, post it, and let everyone else decide for themselves which argument holds up better. That is the very opposite of "telling people what they should think."

 

Very disappointing.

 

 

Wow, you put me on ignore? It was an observation and usually most of my posts are just ignored so I'm surprised (although, it's unfortunate thats what it took to get one). In general, people don't respond well to being told they're making assumptions, or the rules are clear when they actually feel otherwise. And to think I actually tried to apologize by sending you a pm (what was I thinking). This just reminds me of why I should stay out of these kind of debates. Oh well, to each their own.

 

It was an unfair observation. I have never, in my entire time on this board, "told people what to think"...and have, many dozens of times, said the exact opposite.

 

So I take such an accusation very personally, as you intended it to be.

 

People don't respond well to being told they're making assumptions? Granted. No argument there.

 

So, does that prevent anyone from saying so when they are making them?

 

Jaydog outright SAID that Tranny "waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread."

 

That is an assumption, and, I'll wager, an incorrect one. Tranny posted about 3 minutes after Roulette. The board doesn't automatically update, you have to refresh. So, Tranny may have had the thread open, and hadn't refreshed it.

 

Tranny said he had gotten on a flight, so clearly he was busy at the moment. It's an unfair assumption as well, because it impugns Tranny's motives, like he was trying to secure the book unfairly.

 

So, yes, I placed you on ignore, because you took a very low shot at me, when I don't even know if we have ever had any interaction before, ever. Instead of taking a very low shot at you, I simply put you on ignore. And you are suprised...?

 

:shrug:

 

PS. Your opinion IS just as valid as anyone else's, and I never said anything to the contrary, despite what Rupp implied. Your opinion being valid does not mean that I have to see it.