Hall of Shame and Probation Rules DISCUSSION 4 4

[Bio-Rupp]

3) What should be the statute of limitations for bringing a PL case after a failed transaction (a stand-alone question...failed transaction might relate to a seller's return policy, or might relate to a host of other transaction failures)

To help us move along this particular discussion regarding the PL statute of limitations, I am going to offer a hypothetical example that has nothing to do with return policies or restoration guarantees. My example will involve the most basic of failed transactions that would qualify for a PL nomination - seller simply never ships the book after payment is received from the buyer.

 

For the love of my home state of Georgia, or whatever it is that you personally hold dear, can we please stay on point with this for a little while?

 

Here comes my example...I'm going to hypothetically pick on Rupp, since he started this

 

Base Scenario: I purchase a book from Rupp out of one of his Clooneyfests on May 25, 2015, and I pay him immediately (for this discussion, it doesn't matter whether it's a $1 book or a $10,000 book). He simply never ships me the book I paid for. For this discussion, it doesn't matter whether he has been communicating with me or ignoring me. Fact is that I paid for a book and he has never sent the book to me. I'm out the money I paid him, and I don't have the book, period.

 

Now, I'm going to iterate through some subsequent cases:

 

Case 1: two months after purchase (i.e., on July 25, 2015), I come into the PL discussion thread and announce my intentions to follow the PL nomination protocol and put Rupp on the PL. I presume you would all say 'proceed'

 

Case 2: I've been too busy to think about Rupp and my comic book for awhile, but it comes back to the forefront of my mind six months after purchase. So, on November 25, 2015, I give Rupp a Thanksgiving present and nominate him for the PL. I presume you would still all say 'proceed'

 

I wouldn't :shrug:

 

I've mentioned this before, but I think it's silly that we're contemplating trying to enforce these ridiculously-long resolution periods. No regular company outside of this board would take any complaint seriously if you waited 6 months to bring the issue to their attention.

 

Buyers need to take responsibility for their purchases too. If you can't be bothered to bring up a non-delivery issue with a seller within a reasonable timeframe (say, a month) after the PL deadline has passed, then it's obvious you didn't care enough about your purchase to begin with. Allowing people to come forward a year later and saying "oh, I never got this item, I'm now nominating this seller for the PL" is crazy.

 

You are confusing normal returns with deliberate obfuscation.

Ewert got away with this for years before being caught.

So you give him a pass?

 

A prime example as to why case by case basis is the better option.

[CAHokie]

How can anything be a case by case basis when it seems clear that a lot of people didn't agree with your nomination yet you put the guy right on the list yourself? By that standard, no specific rule on time limits means 10 years must be ok by default. There is no type of voting process or anything. Unless we are putting them on the list based on popularity or who is the most vocal.

[Bio-Rupp]

How can anything be a case by case basis when it seems clear that a lot of people didn't agree with your nomination yet you put the guy right on the list yourself? By that standard, no specific rule on time limits means 10 years must be ok by default. There is no type of voting process or anything. Unless we are putting them on the list based on popularity or who is the most vocal.

 

If you actually think I'm that popular Hokie... then you need to re-evaluate my worth.

 

I've had one person actually state I've used the rules as they are written to circumvent the discussion process.

 

I counted approx. three to four people who were at total odds with my nomination, you being one.

 

You have to remember that an integral part of the PL process is BEING VOCAL. The accused has the right to come in and state his/her side don't they? Mikeegg didn't come forward in this case. Is this not true? He was fairly alerted was he not? He was given the required 72 hours (plus more, plus a YEAR) was he not?

 

Where is it stated in the posted rules that the accuser cannot post the accused in the PL after the allotted three days has past? This has never been a problem with anyone until I did it? Really?

 

If you want to change the rules as stated, continue the discussion and get something done.

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

[CAHokie]

Not everything is about you. I never referred to your popularity or lack of at anytime. From what I can tell, like most of us, most like you and some do not. I am simply stating that a case by case basis absent a specific guideline can at times turn into that.

 

The sucky part about your scenario is that you waited a year to type him and then by the time you did it was obvious that he was no longer an active boardie with a vested interest in his reputation or making things right. I have no doubt he is a person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed, but wait until it is two well liked, long term boardies arguing over a two year old transaction and things will get a bit more interesting.

[Bio-Rupp]

Not everything is about you. I never referred to your popularity or lack of at anytime. From what I can tell, like most of us, most like you and some do not. I am simply stating that a case by case basis absent a specific guideline can at times turn into that.

 

The sucky part about your scenario is that you waited a year to type him and then by the time you did it was obvious that he was no longer an active boardie with a vested interest in his reputation or making things right. I have no doubt he is a person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed, but wait until it is two well liked, long term boardies arguing over a two year old transaction and things will get a bit more interesting.

 

Except you are making it "everything about me". Especially in your post concerning me saying that "I" did this and "I" did that.

 

Find in the stated rules something I did wrong, then come back to my doorstep with your suitcase full of my missteps concerning this PL nomination.

 

Tell you what... once you determine that a seller's false statement of "no resto" on a book can ethically have a timeline... then get back to me. I'm anxious to see how any amount of time can justify that.

 

Until then, try to rectify the situation via productive discussion.

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

 

 

[CAHokie]

Just because something is not specifically listed in the rules doesn't mean common sense shouldn't dictate what a normal response should be.

 

You waited a year to send the book and contact the seller. A reasonable response would be to type the seller and let him know and see if he will fix it. Your request of a partial refund was also more than reasonable but you should expect at that point if he doesn't offer it then you would have to eat it. Any seller worth his salt would have made it right but this guy is a person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed so he didn't. Notifying board members what happened to protect them is also very reasonable but insisting to put someone on a list 2 years after the transaction...yeah, not so much.

 

At what point in your particular case do you think that too much time would have passed? Obviously not 6 months, a year or two years. 5 years? 10? Life?

 

Not for sure if your use of the is supposed to mean you are funny, right or simply a way to tell me to myself.

[Bio-Rupp]

Just because something is not specifically listed in the rules doesn't mean common sense shouldn't dictate what a normal response should be.

 

You waited a year to send the book and contact the seller. A reasonable response would be to type the seller and let him know and see if he will fix it. Your request of a partial refund was also more than reasonable but you should expect at that point if he doesn't offer it then you would have to eat it. Any seller worth his salt would have made it right but this guy is a person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed so he didn't. Notifying board members what happened to protect them is also very reasonable but insisting to put someone on a list 2 years after the transaction...yeah, not so much.

 

At what point in your particular case do you think that too much time would have passed? Obviously not 6 months, a year or two years. 5 years? 10? Life?

 

Not for sure if your use of the is supposed to mean you are funny, right or simply a way to tell me to myself.

 

Hokie... I give up.

 

You've talked for days about what your opinion of what is right and what is wrong should be... but nothing about how I did anything wrong in relation to the stated rules.

 

At this point I'm simply going to tell you to yourself.

 

 

[CAHokie]

Just because something is not specifically listed in the rules doesn't mean common sense shouldn't dictate what a normal response should be.

 

You waited a year to send the book and contact the seller. A reasonable response would be to type the seller and let him know and see if he will fix it. Your request of a partial refund was also more than reasonable but you should expect at that point if he doesn't offer it then you would have to eat it. Any seller worth his salt would have made it right but this guy is a person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed so he didn't. Notifying board members what happened to protect them is also very reasonable but insisting to put someone on a list 2 years after the transaction...yeah, not so much.

 

At what point in your particular case do you think that too much time would have passed? Obviously not 6 months, a year or two years. 5 years? 10? Life?

 

Not for sure if your use of the is supposed to mean you are funny, right or simply a way to tell me to myself.

 

Hokie... I give up.

 

You've talked for days about what your opinion of what is right and what is wrong should be... but nothing about how I did anything wrong in relation to the stated rules.

 

At this point I'm simply going to tell you to yourself.

 

 

(thumbs u

 

 

Just don't make a meme of me!

[Bio-Rupp]

Just because something is not specifically listed in the rules doesn't mean common sense shouldn't dictate what a normal response should be.

 

You waited a year to send the book and contact the seller. A reasonable response would be to type the seller and let him know and see if he will fix it. Your request of a partial refund was also more than reasonable but you should expect at that point if he doesn't offer it then you would have to eat it. Any seller worth his salt would have made it right but this guy is a person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed so he didn't. Notifying board members what happened to protect them is also very reasonable but insisting to put someone on a list 2 years after the transaction...yeah, not so much.

 

At what point in your particular case do you think that too much time would have passed? Obviously not 6 months, a year or two years. 5 years? 10? Life?

 

Not for sure if your use of the is supposed to mean you are funny, right or simply a way to tell me to myself.

 

Hokie... I give up.

 

You've talked for days about what your opinion of what is right and what is wrong should be... but nothing about how I did anything wrong in relation to the stated rules.

 

At this point I'm simply going to tell you to yourself.

 

 

(thumbs u

 

 

Just don't make a meme of me!

 

Had that one in your pocket ready to whip out didn't you

 

 

[cloud cloddie]

Just because something is not specifically listed in the rules doesn't mean common sense shouldn't dictate what a normal response should be.

 

You waited a year to send the book and contact the seller. A reasonable response would be to type the seller and let him know and see if he will fix it. Your request of a partial refund was also more than reasonable but you should expect at that point if he doesn't offer it then you would have to eat it. Any seller worth his salt would have made it right but this guy is a person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed so he didn't. Notifying board members what happened to protect them is also very reasonable but insisting to put someone on a list 2 years after the transaction...yeah, not so much.

 

At what point in your particular case do you think that too much time would have passed? Obviously not 6 months, a year or two years. 5 years? 10? Life?

 

Not for sure if your use of the is supposed to mean you are funny, right or simply a way to tell me to myself.

 

Hokie... I give up.

 

You've talked for days about what your opinion of what is right and what is wrong should be... but nothing about how I did anything wrong in relation to the stated rules.

 

At this point I'm simply going to tell you to yourself.

 

 

(thumbs u

 

 

Just don't make a meme of me!

 

Had that one in your pocket ready to whip out didn't you

 

 

Well this circle jerk of a topic has been going on long enough. What do you care if there's one more ?

[PovertyRow]

Well this circle jerk of a topic has been going on long enough.

 

I agree. Just take it to PM. Arch made this place to talk about the PL/HOS Rules and leave the PL Discussions free for PL Nominations. And the General Discussions here for all the drek (like this one on one),

 

Can we please focus on the PL/HOS Rule Set and come up with some ideas?

[Bio-Rupp]

Well this circle jerk of a topic has been going on long enough.

 

 

Can we please focus on the PL/HOS Rule Set and come up with some ideas?

 

Agreed.

 

Blanket two year protection plan concerning books that are found out to be not as described via 3rd party grading. I can't see the majority of good seller's here having a problem backing up their word for 730 days concerning undisclosed restoration, trimming or the like.

 

That's not saying that the buyer shouldn't have limits imposed as to the amount of dollar return allowed in certain cases with or without restoration involved.

 

A return could be based on current GPA at the time of the request for refund or a equivalent tier. This can be used to protect those sellers who believe the buyer is trying to get a refund for a hot title that has cooled off. It should be obvious to all involved if someone is trying to "game" the system and this can be looked at on a case by case basis as to what is fair.

 

I feel that most buyers, like me, would just want restitution for expenses incurred after the sale (ie grading service fees, postage etc) and not a full refund. More the acknowledgment from the seller was he/she was at least at fault for misrepresentation of goods than an actual "full refund".

[jsilverjanet]

Rupp at what time frame would you have expected a full refund?

 

I know it's been two years for this current transaction and you're only asking for grading fees but I'm curious based on your two year proposal above when you felt still asking for a full refund was fair

[bababooey]

Well this circle jerk of a topic has been going on long enough.

 

 

Can we please focus on the PL/HOS Rule Set and come up with some ideas?

 

Agreed.

 

Blanket two year protection plan concerning books that are found out to be not as described via 3rd party grading. I can't see the majority of good seller's here having a problem backing up their word for 730 days concerning undisclosed restoration, trimming or the like.

 

That's not saying that the buyer shouldn't have limits imposed as to the amount of dollar return allowed in certain cases with or without restoration involved.

 

A return could be based on current GPA at the time of the request for refund or a equivalent tier. This can be used to protect those sellers who believe the buyer is trying to get a refund for a hot title that has cooled off. It should be obvious to all involved if someone is trying to "game" the system and this can be looked at on a case by case basis as to what is fair.

 

I feel that most buyers, like me, would just want restitution for expenses incurred after the sale (ie grading service fees, postage etc) and not a full refund. More the acknowledgment from the seller was he/she was at least at fault for misrepresentation of goods than an actual "full refund".

 

(edit- When it comes to third party grading.....) I think the buyer spends what they spend at their own risk, I don't think seller's should feel the need to compensate people - if I buy raw and detect restoration I want the PL to empower me to return it regardless of seller's policy.

 

If I buy and want a third party to find something I can't it's usually because something is funky about the book and that should be documented and discussed with the seller within 30 days of receipt, that's a better time line than trying to figure out CGC's turnaround time etc..etc..

If you're going to toss GPA in the mix on the compensation side - if a buyer is looking for a seller to assume "some or all risks" on a third party submission then shouldn't the buyer be compelled to pay the seller GPA price if it comes back blue label?

Rules should protect both parties so both parties should have some skin in the game.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2015 by bababooey

[wombat]

From my view it just seems like it is getting too complicated. A simple "you have xx amount of time from date of purchase to nominate someone for the PL" seems the easiest way to go.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Time frames become such a sticky wicket

Random thoughts:

Are all of the below created equal?

Missing pages, clipped coupon/MVS, interior tape (items neither buyer nor seller should miss with with a page count)

Amateur color touch to covers (should be evident to any regular seller and the majority of collectors)

Mustaches on random interior pages or other odd abnormal items that don't stand out on a cursory examination

Tear seals

Pieces added

Married pages

Trimming

 

Does it make a difference if the book was $10 or $1000? ie: does any responsibility shift

What about repeat offenders for cheapo books?

 

Should there be a sliding scale such as 100% for 6 months, 75% for 12, 50% to 18 and 25% to 24 months?

 

 

 

 

[cloud cloddie]

From my view it just seems like it is getting too complicated. A simple "you have xx amount of time from date of purchase to nominate someone for the PL" seems the easiest way to go.

 

Seriously.

Buyer should have 30 days from date of receipt to initiate a return/refund, unless a longer time is agreed upon by both parties. After the 30 days from receipt, you're SOL for PL, regardless if the seller is willing to work with you.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I feel that most buyers, like me, would just want restitution for expenses incurred after the sale (ie grading service fees, postage etc) and not a full refund.

 

While I support your claim and the amount, I don't agree with your calculation of the amount. I do not think we should institute a requirement for sellers to reimburse grading expenses, unless there is a specific agreement between buyer and seller.

 

There are very few goods sold which allow buyers to seek recompense from sellers in excess of the initial purchase price, which would be a common result of this policy.

 

[revat]

I feel that most buyers, like me, would just want restitution for expenses incurred after the sale (ie grading service fees, postage etc) and not a full refund.

 

While I support your claim and the amount, I don't agree with your calculation of the amount. I do not think we should institute a requirement for sellers to reimburse grading expenses, unless there is a specific agreement between buyer and seller.

 

There are very few goods sold which allow buyers to seek recompense from sellers in excess of the initial purchase price, which would be a common result of this policy.

 

All these points seem quite reasonable, from a certain point of view. Which is why I'm pretty sure there will be no consensus. I think it makes MORE sense to force SELLERS TO CLEARLY STATE THEIR RETURN POLICY, whatever it may be, and let the buyers decide how much risk they're willing to take. That is an enforceable rule, while the others....much murkier.

[skypinkblu]

I feel that most buyers, like me, would just want restitution for expenses incurred after the sale (ie grading service fees, postage etc) and not a full refund.

 

While I support your claim and the amount, I don't agree with your calculation of the amount. I do not think we should institute a requirement for sellers to reimburse grading expenses, unless there is a specific agreement between buyer and seller.

 

There are very few goods sold which allow buyers to seek recompense from sellers in excess of the initial purchase price, which would be a common result of this policy.

 

All these points seem quite reasonable, from a certain point of view. Which is why I'm pretty sure there will be no consensus. I think it makes MORE sense to force SELLERS TO CLEARLY STATE THEIR RETURN POLICY, whatever it may be, and let the buyers decide how much risk they're willing to take. That is an enforceable rule, while the others....much murkier.

 

I have been thinking about this. I've always known that I'd take returns if there was a problem, I don't always remember to make it part of my sales blurb.

 

I really do not want to be legislated here in terms of what I need to do...but I'm considering specifically stating 14 days unless we've discussed other terms (for most sales).

 

I don't understand any reason why the buyer should not be required to make a timely examination of whatever he/she buys. If I don't have time to open something and look at it, it's my problem, not the seller's.

 

If I am concerned about slabbing a book, then I really should at least try to have it done in a timely manner.

 

 

 

Tying in GPA is a headache and a half.