Don't you just hate being two seconds too late! Ugg

[Gotham Kid]

I haven't gone about things the right way and I apologize to kazoo who is a great boardie. I also apologize for the way this has all went down.

 

It's not easy to apologize over the 'net after such a battle, but I for one appreciate your doing so.

 

Lesson learned.

 

Yup. Just don't do it again.

[Dr. Love]

Sure it does. Fifties was wrong to contact a seller on eBay and tell him to cheat a buyer by canceling a sale.

In keeping with this...

 

Fifties and retro of course have a right to their own beliefs, ethics, etc. However, advising the cancelling of the transaction, as fifties admits to but retro clearly does not, arguably crossed the line and makes one an accessory to a Probation worthy infraction - the cancellation of a completed sale. It shouldn't matter that the seller is not a member of the boards. FWIW common law traditionally considers an accessory just as guilty as the principal in a crime, and subject to the same penalties.

 

This is not the case where a moral avenger sought to right a wrong, as might be argued by many in the case of torpedoing a deal where a little old widow is getting bilked by an unscrupulous dealer.

 

Accessory: "Someone aiding in or contributing to the commission or concealment of a felony, e.g. by assisting in planning or encouraging another to commit a crime (an accessory before the fact) or by helping another escape arrest or punishment (an accessory after the fact). An accessory, unlike an accomplice, is typically not present when the crime is committed."

 

The cheated buyer, kazoo, imho would be within accepted board norms if he wanted to bring fifties up for Probation as an accessory before the fact. This would be a precedent setting action, and a good precedent at that. The books are gone, but satisfaction could be obtained by: $75 payment to kazoo; $75 payment to charity; a sincere public or private apology (as retro just did, with class).

 

We monitor and correct ourselves as best we can - that is one of the finest parts of the boards. Sometimes a brush back is necessary.

[sacentaur]

The cheated buyer, kazoo, imho would be within accepted board norms if he wanted to bring fifties up for Probation as an accessory before the fact. This would be a precedent setting action, and a good precedent at that.

 

Excellent post Andy, and I completely agree - a belligerent fifties is more than deserving of a Probation nomination, I'm just not sure how/if the community guidelines currently apply.

 

Certainly worth exploring, and I would encourage kazoo to do so.

[Robot Man]

Interesting, looks like retro edited his initial post deleting the auction. Maybe, he didn't want us horning in on his deal? Sounds slimey all the way around.

 

Too late, because I already copied the auction so I could see if those books turn up later. Or...not

 

Just shady. Good to know who I will be buying from or selling to in the future.

I did edit it. This thread has gotten out of hand. For the record, I never told the seller to cancel the sell. I sent him two messages. The first to tell him to do his homework next time. His reply came and I fully thought he was going to honor the sell the way he talked. I even said it was the honorable thing to do in my final message of the two. That was the extent of our conversation. Never did I try to swoop in on the books or talk him out of it or make an offer. Never. The books are not going to me I assure you. He may have not done the right thing by cancelling the sell but I can only fault him for being naive who didn't do the best in his situation but maybe the best for his situation. I haven't gone about things the right way and I apologize to kazoo who is a great boardie. I also apologize for the way this has all went down.

 

Fair enough in my book. Coming clean in a public forum is very hard. I'm sure you have learned a tough lesson.

 

Now, as far as fifties is concerned, he still hasn't answered my two questions and probably won't. Hopefully, at least he has learned something here.

 

And sadly, I won't be telling you guys about my story. Too bad, because most of you would really love it...

[Robot Man]

The cheated buyer, kazoo, imho would be within accepted board norms if he wanted to bring fifties up for Probation as an accessory before the fact. This would be a precedent setting action, and a good precedent at that.

 

Excellent post Andy, and I completely agree - a belligerent fifties is more than deserving of a Probation nomination, I'm just not sure how/if the community guidelines currently apply.

 

Certainly worth exploring, and I would encourage kazoo to do so.

 

It ain't worth it guys, let it go. He's got a right to his opinion just like we do. Hopefully he has learned something over this.

 

Dang, I'm sorry Kazoo, what a great pile of funny books but there will be more.

[EC ed]

The cheated buyer, kazoo, imho would be within accepted board norms if he wanted to bring fifties up for Probation as an accessory before the fact. This would be a precedent setting action, and a good precedent at that.

 

Excellent post Andy, and I completely agree - a belligerent fifties is more than deserving of a Probation nomination, I'm just not sure how/if the community guidelines currently apply.

 

Certainly worth exploring, and I would encourage kazoo to do so.

 

Interesting idea, indeed, Andy.

 

I just scanned through the PL/HOS guidelines, and the PL nomination guidelines are pretty explicit in requiring there to be non-completion of a transaction between two boardies...the original drafters probably saw no need to write the guidelines any other way. So, by the books, it doesn't seem like we could nestle this "interference" by fifties under that PL criteria.

 

Interestingly, the HOS criteria include as an example "Interfering with someone's business," although it seems unlikely that we could get fifties in the HOS from just this one action (although stranger things have happened). Also interestingly, I believe that any board member can call for an HOS vote (i.e., not limited to the person who was involved in a particular transaction).

 

I'd be all for changing the PL nomination guidelines to allow a boardie to nominate someone for the PL if they interfered in their "business"...someone remember to bring this up the next time we have the broader PL/HOS Rules discussion (which will inevitably happen...just a matter of time)

[sacentaur]

The cheated buyer, kazoo, imho would be within accepted board norms if he wanted to bring fifties up for Probation as an accessory before the fact. This would be a precedent setting action, and a good precedent at that.

 

Excellent post Andy, and I completely agree - a belligerent fifties is more than deserving of a Probation nomination, I'm just not sure how/if the community guidelines currently apply.

 

Certainly worth exploring, and I would encourage kazoo to do so.

 

It ain't worth it guys, let it go. He's got a right to his opinion just like we do. Hopefully he has learned something over this.

 

Dang, I'm sorry Kazoo, what a great pile of funny books but there will be more.

 

It's not just an opinion Bob, it's a willful action. And a damaging one at that.

 

Learned something? Drawing a line in the sand, defiantly challenging all comers, and belligerently isolating oneself from the community would indicate otherwise. So don't hold your breath...

[fifties]

I personally don't believe in taking that kind of advantage of someone, at the risk of being accused of being petty, jealous, miserable, a tool, a troll, and umm, lemesee what else, oh ya, a buttinski.

 

I didn't HAVE to post here as to what I did, by contacting the seller. Interesting that I smoked out how many of you act like sharks.

 

Flame away.

 

Was a nice walk in the sunshine yesterday...

 

I've got a question for you fifties...

 

If you were Kazoo what would you have really done?

 

And, do you think what the seller did to him is ethical?

 

I'm not here to call you names or judge your ethics. We all live by different moral codes. Me, I am in the camp that I would have paid him what he wanted and sweated out the mailman and sleep dreaming of lovely PCH that this seller obviously thought was junk. Doesn't make either of us wrong. Although I still say it was none of your business sticking your nose where it doesn't belong...

 

You know, RM, I've been waiting for someone to ask me that; what would I have really done.

 

In my case, as previously posted, I have most of the books Maria (the seller) had listed. So if I were to have hit the BIN, I then would have messaged her to inquire as to how she arrived at the BIN price. Given that I only would have wanted one or two of the books, not the COC BTW,I would have asked just for those, perhaps offered a little more for them, and suggested that she research values and post the remainder separately.

 

I am in this as a collector, not an investor.

 

I deal in other collectibles, and from time to time when I see an item mis-listed, I will offer my knowledge to the seller; that's just the way I am.

 

BTW, being retired, I get up late, so that's the reason you haven't heard from me until now.

 

post-emptive buyer (fifties) urged seller to renege on the deal.

Wrong. Suggested, not urged.

 

This thread has gotten out of hand.

I don't think so. It's revealed a lot of the character of board members.

 

So far I'm being tarred, feathered, sued, and placed in something called, "HOS", even though the alleged infraction didn't even occur on THIS board.

 

Kazoo, I'm deeply sorry that my action caused you to lose out.

As I posted above, it's simply my nature to help uninformed eBay sellers from time to time. This may have been the only instance when I did it after a sale.

 

Lesson learned.

[Cimm]

post-emptive buyer (fifties) urged seller to renege on the deal.

Wrong. Suggested, not urged.

 

 

Semantics. You "suggested" to another that they indulge in unethical violation of eBay terms so that they could realize a higher price for the goods that they had already sold.

 

This makes you unethical, and directly responsible for Kazoo's loss.

[entalmighty1]

I've got a question for you fifties...

 

If you were Kazoo what would you have really done?

 

You know, RM, I've been waiting for someone to ask me that; what would I have really done.

 

In my case, as previously posted, I have most of the books Maria (the seller) had listed. So if I were to have hit the BIN, I then would have messaged her to inquire as to how she arrived at the BIN price. Given that I only would have wanted one or two of the books, not the COC BTW,I would have asked just for those, perhaps offered a little more for them, and suggested that she research values and post the remainder separately.

 

[MustEatBrains]

I've got a question for you fifties...

 

If you were Kazoo what would you have really done?

 

You know, RM, I've been waiting for someone to ask me that; what would I have really done.

 

In my case, as previously posted, I have most of the books Maria (the seller) had listed. So if I were to have hit the BIN, I then would have messaged her to inquire as to how she arrived at the BIN price. Given that I only would have wanted one or two of the books, not the COC BTW,I would have asked just for those, perhaps offered a little more for them, and suggested that she research values and post the remainder separately.

 

 

Yup. He'll be in China soon digging at this rate. This is just downright insulting at this point.

[fifties]

post-emptive buyer (fifties) urged seller to renege on the deal.

Wrong. Suggested, not urged.

 

 

Semantics. You "suggested" to another that they indulge in unethical violation of eBay terms so that they could realize a higher price for the goods that they had already sold.

 

This makes you unethical, and directly responsible for Kazoo's loss.

Must be nice to live in a perfect world, where everyone does what they promise to, initially. My reality however is different.

"Directly responsible"? That mantle can only be hung on the seller. In my case, "remotely", although I'm sure, given that you want to burn me at the stake, you won't recognize that view.

[Logan510]

Y'know, this thread has really opened my eyes to just how ruthless and cut throat some people can and will be to obtain books.

Me, I just collect and enjoy comic books in my own slow and pedestrian way. I'd rather lose out on books and retain some sort of moral compass regarding their acquisition.

 

Never heard of Cool Books ®?

[Phantalien]

 

Kazoo, I'm deeply sorry that my action caused you to lose out.

As I posted above, it's simply my nature to help uninformed eBay sellers from time to time. This may have been the only instance when I did it after a sale.

 

Lesson learned.

 

Then go and search places and buy him just one of those comics that was in the lot.

[fifties]

I've got a question for you fifties...

 

If you were Kazoo what would you have really done?

 

You know, RM, I've been waiting for someone to ask me that; what would I have really done.

 

In my case, as previously posted, I have most of the books Maria (the seller) had listed. So if I were to have hit the BIN, I then would have messaged her to inquire as to how she arrived at the BIN price. Given that I only would have wanted one or two of the books, not the COC BTW,I would have asked just for those, perhaps offered a little more for them, and suggested that she research values and post the remainder separately.

 

 

Yup. He'll be in China soon digging at this rate. This is just downright insulting at this point.

Don't judge everyone by the way you would do things...

[Cimm]

post-emptive buyer (fifties) urged seller to renege on the deal.

Wrong. Suggested, not urged.

 

 

Semantics. You "suggested" to another that they indulge in unethical violation of eBay terms so that they could realize a higher price for the goods that they had already sold.

 

This makes you unethical, and directly responsible for Kazoo's loss.

Must be nice to live in a perfect world, where everyone does what they promise to, initially. My reality however is different.

"Directly responsible"? That mantle can only be hung on the seller. In my case, "remotely", although I'm sure, given that you want to burn me at the stake, you won't recognize that view.

 

I would really like to believe (and, in my life, have indeed met people who CAUSE me to believe) that ethical behaviour is not a "perfect world" scenario. It is in fact the way that righteous people conduct business, and there are many boardies that I can attribute this type of business to.

 

You sir, have shown yourself to NOT be one of them.

 

I do not wish to burn you at the stake.

 

I do, however, want you to realize that it is your ethics that need a tweak, not the rest of us who are wrong for calling you out on this underhanded, petty and maliciously handled deal.

 

I haven't gone about things the right way and I apologize to kazoo who is a great boardie. I also apologize for the way this has all went down.

 

It takes courage and fortitude to admit when you have handled a situation poorly, retro. I salute you. Apology is an under used social grace in the world today. Well done.

[thehumantorch]

And also for full disclosure, I did ask him where he got the books and if he had anymore. That was as slimey as I got but never tried to get the sold books.

 

And I'm the person who brought that up.

 

Perhaps you didn't intend to crash the sale but I don't know how you could contact the seller and not expect him to bail. In a venue where the buyer and seller don't know each other and it's easy to 'lose' the book it would be a rare, honest seller who would honor the transaction.

 

The optics of interfering with the sale and asking the seller if he had more of the same isn't great. And if you wanted to educate the seller and see if there was more of the same perhaps you could have waited a week until he shipped.

 

[Robot Man]

I personally don't believe in taking that kind of advantage of someone, at the risk of being accused of being petty, jealous, miserable, a tool, a troll, and umm, lemesee what else, oh ya, a buttinski.

 

I didn't HAVE to post here as to what I did, by contacting the seller. Interesting that I smoked out how many of you act like sharks.

 

Flame away.

 

Was a nice walk in the sunshine yesterday...

 

I've got a question for you fifties...

 

If you were Kazoo what would you have really done?

 

And, do you think what the seller did to him is ethical?

 

I'm not here to call you names or judge your ethics. We all live by different moral codes. Me, I am in the camp that I would have paid him what he wanted and sweated out the mailman and sleep dreaming of lovely PCH that this seller obviously thought was junk. Doesn't make either of us wrong. Although I still say it was none of your business sticking your nose where it doesn't belong...

 

You know, RM, I've been waiting for someone to ask me that; what would I have really done.

 

In my case, as previously posted, I have most of the books Maria (the seller) had listed. So if I were to have hit the BIN, I then would have messaged her to inquire as to how she arrived at the BIN price. Given that I only would have wanted one or two of the books, not the COC BTW,I would have asked just for those, perhaps offered a little more for them, and suggested that she research values and post the remainder separately.

 

I am in this as a collector, not an investor.

 

I deal in other collectibles, and from time to time when I see an item mis-listed, I will offer my knowledge to the seller; that's just the way I am.

 

BTW, being retired, I get up late, so that's the reason you haven't heard from me until now.

 

post-emptive buyer (fifties) urged seller to renege on the deal.

Wrong. Suggested, not urged.

 

This thread has gotten out of hand.

I don't think so. It's revealed a lot of the character of board members.

 

So far I'm being tarred, feathered, sued, and placed in something called, "HOS", even though the alleged infraction didn't even occur on THIS board.

 

Kazoo, I'm deeply sorry that my action caused you to lose out.

As I posted above, it's simply my nature to help uninformed eBay sellers from time to time. This may have been the only instance when I did it after a sale.

 

Lesson learned.

 

OK, thanks for the reply. I am also a collector primarily. I often sell dupes or stuff I pick up in collections or gasp...cheap. I collect because I like to. Part of the fun of collecting is making a nice score to pay your self back for all the time you put into this hobby. I am way more proud of the stuff I have had to hussle for, work for and just blind luck than paying through the nose for at Hertiage. It's just me, I don't expect you to understand this or even agree with me but that's how I see it and I sleep very comfortably every night thank you.

 

There were several books there that I would LOVE to have gotton myself because I am a collector and probably couldn't afford them any other way. The ones I didn't want I would happily flip for a tidy profit that I would just squander on more junk or buy a nice book that I wouldn't be able to get other wise. I see no problem in either. I wouldn't ask the seller where he got them, how much he paid or if he needed a new kidney. Just pay the seller full asking price and it is a win win for both of us. I certainly wouldn't tell him after the fact of his sloppy mistake. Why rub it in?

 

By the way, you didn't answer my second question: Do you think what the seller did to him is ethical? Is that any different than what you think Kazoo did to the seller?

[thehumantorch]

The cheated buyer, kazoo, imho would be within accepted board norms if he wanted to bring fifties up for Probation as an accessory before the fact. This would be a precedent setting action, and a good precedent at that.

 

Excellent post Andy, and I completely agree - a belligerent fifties is more than deserving of a Probation nomination, I'm just not sure how/if the community guidelines currently apply.

 

Certainly worth exploring, and I would encourage kazoo to do so.

 

And I can't agree. The seller and only the seller cancelled the deal and he's the person who lied about why.

[fifties]

post-emptive buyer (fifties) urged seller to renege on the deal.

Wrong. Suggested, not urged.

 

 

Semantics. You "suggested" to another that they indulge in unethical violation of eBay terms so that they could realize a higher price for the goods that they had already sold.

 

This makes you unethical, and directly responsible for Kazoo's loss.

Must be nice to live in a perfect world, where everyone does what they promise to, initially. My reality however is different.

"Directly responsible"? That mantle can only be hung on the seller. In my case, "remotely", although I'm sure, given that you want to burn me at the stake, you won't recognize that view.

 

I would really like to believe (and, in my life, have indeed met people who CAUSE me to believe) that ethical behaviour is not a "perfect world" scenario. It is in fact the way that righteous people conduct business, and there are many boardies that I can attribute this type of business to.

 

You sir, have shown yourself to NOT be one of them.

 

I do not wish to burn you at the stake.

 

I do, however, want you to realize that it is your ethics that need a tweak, not the rest of us who are wrong for calling you out on this underhanded, petty and maliciously handled deal.

 

I haven't gone about things the right way and I apologize to kazoo who is a great boardie. I also apologize for the way this has all went down.

 

It takes courage and fortitude to admit when you have handled a situation poorly, retro. I salute you. Apology is an under used social grace in the world today. Well done.

If you don't wish to burn me at the stake, then why izzit that you salute retro for his apology, but not me for mine?