General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[N/A]

Branget... would you take $550

 

Thread's still open.

 

Oh and I'm not picking on Branget... he's a cool dude. He just was the first one I found that had an open thread with a super nice book last month when all this came up.

 

Love ya Branget

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4535681&fpart=1

 

At some point shouldn't a thread expire? I would use my Preacher sale as a more appropriate example. See how that turned out.

[N/A]

I Am surprised you are spending the time to defend someone who acts the way he does.

 

 

Personally I think it's great. Too many just follow the crowd. Right or wrong he is the only member in this case that's keeping the debate alive. (thumbs u

[CAHokie]

True enough! It is entertaining and a valid topic.....oh, and if you could send me that WD 1 next day and double boxed that would be great.

[N/A]

 

Sorry, slab was destroyed in a freak playdoh accident. Needs a new holder and I don't feel comfortable selling until the grade is confirmed.

[CAHokie]

Dang it! I didn't think about the fact someone could have saw my take it and get excited and claimed the others. I was setting you up for a probation discussion. Haha

[Hado]

I Am surprised you are spending the time to defend someone who acts the way he does.

 

 

Personally I think it's great. Too many just follow the crowd. Right or wrong he is the only member in this case that's keeping the debate alive. (thumbs u

 

 

I fell asleep, but good discussion. Also, I don't think Rupp or myself were so much defending the kid. More questioning the system for clarity, but I shouldn't speak for him.

[Bio-Rupp]

I Am surprised you are spending the time to defend someone who acts the way he does.

 

 

Personally I think it's great. Too many just follow the crowd. Right or wrong he is the only member in this case that's keeping the debate alive. (thumbs u

 

 

I fell asleep, but good discussion. Also, I don't think Rupp or myself were so much defending the kid. More questioning the system for clarity, but I shouldn't speak for him.

 

A great discussion and you sum up my feelings on the subject exactly.

 

I still believe the PL and HOS lists are great tools to aid both buyers and sellers here... and I hate it when someone that's on one of these lists, belittles what they stand for.

 

Some people can word things better than others so if the 'kid is reading this... rather than stating the following... why not try a little less finality in your responses to inquiries about your PL list status... and try some along those I listed in red.

 

 

Like me or not I really don't care

 

"I do care what other buyers and sellers think about me, but I did tell "boardie x" that I was keeping the book in multiple PMs. He, himself wrote a post here stating he knew this fact. We never consummated a deal via PM and my thread was over a week old at this time, it was off the first five pages, and I forgot to close it."

 

I have a few board members that will vouch for me.

 

"I have completed a few deals here with others without any problems and this was an isolated incident where no money changed hands. There was an obvious communication breakdown between myself and "boardie x". I am sorry he felt the need to pursue this here, but I did attempt to explain to him my reasoning for keeping the book though multiple PMs on the subject."

 

One already did in my 1st FS thread

 

My feedback speaks for itself

 

"I will do my best to adhere closer to board etiquette concerning my sales going forward. I will contact "boardie x" and try to tell him my reasoning again for not wanting to sell the book and see if we can work it out. Please take the time to look at my feedback and see that this was merely poor communication added to the fact that it would have been a good idea to close the sales thread even though there is no stated rule anywhere that said I had to. I am open to suggestions as to how I can go forward here and welcome any advice."

 

 

These are just suggestions for the 'kid to pursue this here.

 

I don't believe he was malicious in his dealings with jawn. I just think what we had here was a buyer really wanting to buy... a seller really not wanting to sell... and the communication breakdown between the two. Now surround that with what is a "board rule" and what is considered "board etiquette" and you have this transaction.

 

Hopefully things will work out for both of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hado]

 

Well stated.

 

And now I have 'Civil War' stuck in my head.

[EC ed]

That is a great question and I think the board should have a standard "if no update by seller then all threads are considered closed after.......". Personally, I feel that 10 days or 2 weeks would make sense and be fair.

In principle, I think it makes some sense to essentially consider threads closed after some period of inactivity. However, if we go in this direction, then we also need to relax the rule that says a seller can only bump a thread three times. Otherwise, a seller has no way to keep a "low activity" thread active. We all know that sometimes selling books is a matter of patience, so it seems like we would want to allow patient sellers to be patient, right?

 

I'll give you a recent personal example...I have a sales thread in mixed - that thread has not seen much activity. My last post was a recap on 4/20/14. I have not closed that thread, because I don't intend for it to be closed. Those books are still for sale, but I'm following the "three bump rule" and not bumping the thread. So, just yesterday, I received a PM from a boardie asking whether the books are still for sale. My response was 'Absolutely! Purchase at will!"

 

I've had other sales threads in G/S/B where I wasn't in a hurry, so I was fine keeping the thread open for months on end. In that case, my three bumps were at least a month apart. You know...I was hitting it with "January bump", "March bump", etc...

 

Point here is that some threads that seem "dormant" are actually still alive in principle....we need to figure out how to accommodate these cases as part of this discussion. For example, perhaps let a seller bump a thread once a week for as long as they want to keep the thread "open"?

[N/A]

I never see the three time bump enforced so long as it is only bumped once a day.

[HarveySwick]

I never see the three time bump enforced so long as it is only bumped once a day.

[N/A]

Yes??

[Chaseman210]

I never see the three time bump enforced so long as it is only bumped once a day.

 

I honestly thought this was the rule

[HarveySwick]

For one of my first sales threads, I missed the three bump rule. I thought it was just once every 24 hours. So, that's what I did...for a few weeks.

 

[jaybuck43]

You can get around the three bump rule by posting some kind of change to the listing. I.e. Today you can post 10% off ASM 50. Tomorrow post 5% off ASM 1 The next day some other discount. So long as it is informative it's not a bump.

[EC ed]

In thinking more about this whole situation, it seems like it would also be helpful (i.e., resulting in the need for fewer rules, as opposed to more rules) if we could just get everyone on the same page with the following:

 

Items listed for sale in sales threads should technically be considered "invitations to offer" by the seller. That is, a book listed for sale is an invitation to potential buyers to make an offer to purchase for the stated price, which the seller can then legitimately refuse for any reason whatsoever...this is not a novel idea...this is actually how the real world works (I think...there was a bit of discussion about this a while back in this thread HERE ). I copied this off some legal website...here's the idea: When a shop owner displays items for a consumer to purchase, the act of placing these items out for purchase creates the invitation to offer, so when the consumer actually brings the item to the cashier to purchase, it is the consumer who is then making the offer rather than the shop owner. A subtle, but important distinction.

 

So, when a buyer posts a 'take it', the seller can legitimately refuse that offer for whatever reason, like:

 

"Sorry, I refuse your offer, because I forgot to officially close the thread and the book is no longer available", or

"Sorry, I refuse your offer, because last night I decided I love the book and want to keep it", or

"Sorry, I refuse your offer, because you are on my no-sale list", or whatever....

 

This would leave the control of sales threads in the hands of the seller (which seems to be what most people want), and then PL-type offenses would be limited to those cases where the buyer and seller agreed to a deal, then someone failed to perform.

 

If we could get this one concept put into place (put it in the "terms of use" if necessary), it would seemingly resolve a whole host of scenarios.

[crassus]

I think this is reasonable enough, Ed, provided that the first "I'll take it" still carries an obligation of the seller to deal first (or refuse first with cause) that first customer. Otherwise an "I'll take it" understood as an "invitation to offer" may result in seller's waiting for I'll take its to pile up and then picking and choosing who they like best, and that may avoid PL problems, yes, but it might create a lot of bad blood.

[EC ed]

I think this is reasonable enough, Ed, provided that the first "I'll take it" still carries an obligation of the seller to deal first (or refuse first with cause) that first customer. Otherwise an "I'll take it" understood as an "invitation to offer" may result in seller's waiting for I'll take its to pile up and then picking and choosing who they like best, and that may avoid PL problems, yes, but it might create a lot of bad blood.

Yeah, I was thinking about that as well...that's indeed a real problem with the "invitation to offer" scenario...perhaps even a worse problem...alas

[mschmidt]

In thinking more about this whole situation, it seems like it would also be helpful (i.e., resulting in the need for fewer rules, as opposed to more rules) if we could just get everyone on the same page with the following:

 

Items listed for sale in sales threads should technically be considered "invitations to offer" by the seller. That is, a book listed for sale is an invitation to potential buyers to make an offer to purchase for the stated price, which the seller can then legitimately refuse for any reason whatsoever...this is not a novel idea...this is actually how the real world works (I think...there was a bit of discussion about this a while back in this thread HERE ). I copied this off some legal website...here's the idea: When a shop owner displays items for a consumer to purchase, the act of placing these items out for purchase creates the invitation to offer, so when the consumer actually brings the item to the cashier to purchase, it is the consumer who is then making the offer rather than the shop owner. A subtle, but important distinction.

 

So, when a buyer posts a 'take it', the seller can legitimately refuse that offer for whatever reason, like:

 

"Sorry, I refuse your offer, because I forgot to officially close the thread and the book is no longer available", or

"Sorry, I refuse your offer, because last night I decided I love the book and want to keep it", or

"Sorry, I refuse your offer, because you are on my no-sale list", or whatever....

 

This would leave the control of sales threads in the hands of the seller (which seems to be what most people want), and then PL-type offenses would be limited to those cases where the buyer and seller agreed to a deal, then someone failed to perform.

 

If we could get this one concept put into place (put it in the "terms of use" if necessary), it would seemingly resolve a whole host of scenarios.

 

So ... basically allow the seller to cancel the sale for any reason they choose? I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

If a seller lists a book for sale on the boards, I see it as being no different than an eBay BIN - the seller may have people on their "no-sale" list (which would be equivalent to a blocked bidder list), but apart from that, if a buyer posts the takeit (eg. pops the BIN), the seller now has a legal obligation to sell the buyer the item. If a seller loves the book so much they can't bear to part with it, well, they shouldn't have listed it for sale to begin with.

[CAHokie]

I could see multiple i take its for every item listed in case the seller didnt like the first couple of buyers. I could also see certain people (very few I would hope) bypassing a good buyer if he sees a buddy who also wanted to buy it.