General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[N/A]

No reason to.

[comix4fun]

I prefer to let them deal with it.

 

 

Sure they can deal with it. That would be ideal. We see that very often and most transaction here live up to a great pattern of fair dealing and good vibes.

 

However, the seller's we are talking about are the ones that can't be relied upon to do the fair and just thing without sufficient prodding and reminders of the "deal's a deal" credo.

 

To sell and buy here, without fees and costs, it's a small price to pay to have sellers who lack basic contract law principles have their feet held to the fire and be brought back in line with the vast majority of good transactions on the boards.

[Transplant]

I prefer to let them deal with it.

 

 

Sure they can deal with it. That would be ideal. We see that very often and most transaction here live up to a great pattern of fair dealing and good vibes.

 

However, the seller's we are talking about are the ones that can't be relied upon to do the fair and just thing without sufficient prodding and reminders of the "deal's a deal" credo.

 

To sell and buy here, without fees and costs, it's a small price to pay to have sellers who lack basic contract law principles have their feet held to the fire and be brought back in line with the vast majority of good transactions on the boards.

Rules are for squares, man. Like, let the seller deal with it. No need to make them do something. Let them do what they like, man.

[N/A]

I prefer to let them deal with it.

 

 

Sure they can deal with it. That would be ideal. We see that very often and most transaction here live up to a great pattern of fair dealing and good vibes.

 

However, the seller's we are talking about are the ones that can't be relied upon to do the fair and just thing without sufficient prodding and reminders of the "deal's a deal" credo.

 

To sell and buy here, without fees and costs, it's a small price to pay to have sellers who lack basic contract law principles have their feet held to the fire and be brought back in line with the vast majority of good transactions on the boards.

 

It would be nice to see us encouraging them to deal with it themselves.

[comix4fun]

I prefer to let them deal with it.

 

 

Sure they can deal with it. That would be ideal. We see that very often and most transaction here live up to a great pattern of fair dealing and good vibes.

 

However, the seller's we are talking about are the ones that can't be relied upon to do the fair and just thing without sufficient prodding and reminders of the "deal's a deal" credo.

 

To sell and buy here, without fees and costs, it's a small price to pay to have sellers who lack basic contract law principles have their feet held to the fire and be brought back in line with the vast majority of good transactions on the boards.

 

It would be nice to see us encouraging them to deal with it themselves.

 

 

Which is what burned buyers and scammed sellers do, usually, before bringing it here or the other thread.

 

Usually, when they get here, it's the result of " BaronVonKnobJob has removed himself from this thread " or other such radio silence after the deal is struck, or payment is sent, or book is reserved.

 

Encouragement is great. It just doesn't work as well as the stick for certain parties.

[Transplant]

I wish there was a way to set expectations about how communication and acceptance of an offer and completed sale of a book would work, in advance. Perhaps sellers could disclose their policy on when the communication by the buyer is effective. Must it be engraved in a block of butter? If so, please let potential buyers know. Does it need to be in the thread, versus an actual agreement in a PM or elsewhere? Seems like a recipe for disaster, but if you want that to be your stupid policy, put it in the thread.

 

Not expecting a seller to say anything about it is courting problems.

[N/A]

You say so

[KPR Comics]

mess, even Barter Town had rules and that place essentially was lawless.

[N/A]

mess, even Barter Town had rules and that place essentially was lawless.

 

And how many rules did they have?

[comix4fun]

mess, even Barter Town had rules and that place essentially was lawless.

 

And how many rules did they have?

 

 

 

Well, on their side, they do have death as a consequence of breaking a deal.....a little more of an incentive than our Probation List.

[KPR Comics]

Two that I distinctly recall.

Bust a Deal, Face the Wheel.

Two Men Enter, One Man Leaves.

 

[N/A]

mess, even Barter Town had rules and that place essentially was lawless.

 

And how many rules did they have?

 

 

 

Well, on their side, they do have death as a consequence of breaking a deal.....a little more of an incentive than our Probation List.

 

I thought there was no evidence that the death penalty deters crime.

[N/A]

Two that I distinctly recall.

Bust a Deal, Face the Wheel.

Two Men Enter, One Man Leaves.

 

Does the leaving man get the book?

[comix4fun]

mess, even Barter Town had rules and that place essentially was lawless.

 

And how many rules did they have?

 

 

 

Well, on their side, they do have death as a consequence of breaking a deal.....a little more of an incentive than our Probation List.

 

I thought there was no evidence that the death penalty deters crime.

 

 

Maybe we should take it out for a test drive.

[N/A]

mess, even Barter Town had rules and that place essentially was lawless.

 

And how many rules did they have?

 

 

 

Well, on their side, they do have death as a consequence of breaking a deal.....a little more of an incentive than our Probation List.

 

I thought there was no evidence that the death penalty deters crime.

 

 

Maybe we should take it out for a test drive.

 

It already has been.

[VintageComics]

While I think it would be great to have a "board rule" on the there seem to be too many variables to create a blanket rule- does the seller accept via PM(or as I have encountered, other communication via text, phone call, etc) or just in the thread? Some sellers have strong feeling about it both ways. Public :takeit:s limit the PM sales that occur from buyers who may not post much. Maintaining that personal aspect may work as long as the buyers know what they are dealing with.

 

Maybe the best "board rule" is that a seller posts their policy in the first post, we can certainly establish a selection of options that could be copied & pasted. It may not eliminate every issue but could help reduce them.

 

...... the main thing, like you said, is clarity in the terms of each seller's listing. To create a scenario that is fair to all buyers, the PM only option needs to be allowed. Privacy should be an option if someone chooses that route. It's the standard at all the auction houses and on eBay, so it's not like the idea is unorthodox. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

I think a reasonable 'fall back' set of rules should be included in the Official forum selling rules if for no other reason, to provide clarification for when someone says 'usual rules apply'.

 

Those rules should include

 

A) timestamp wins

B) purchases by PM ok

 

That's my 2 cents.

 

Just those two mandatory rules would eliminate a world of pain.

 

And all selling rules are mandatory.

[Sqeggs]

While I think it would be great to have a "board rule" on the there seem to be too many variables to create a blanket rule- does the seller accept via PM(or as I have encountered, other communication via text, phone call, etc) or just in the thread? Some sellers have strong feeling about it both ways. Public :takeit:s limit the PM sales that occur from buyers who may not post much. Maintaining that personal aspect may work as long as the buyers know what they are dealing with.

 

Maybe the best "board rule" is that a seller posts their policy in the first post, we can certainly establish a selection of options that could be copied & pasted. It may not eliminate every issue but could help reduce them.

 

...... the main thing, like you said, is clarity in the terms of each seller's listing. To create a scenario that is fair to all buyers, the PM only option needs to be allowed. Privacy should be an option if someone chooses that route. It's the standard at all the auction houses and on eBay, so it's not like the idea is unorthodox. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

I think a reasonable 'fall back' set of rules should be included in the Official forum selling rules if for no other reason, to provide clarification for when someone says 'usual rules apply'.

 

Those rules should include

 

A) timestamp wins

B) purchases by PM ok

 

That's my 2 cents.

 

Just those two mandatory rules would eliminate a world of pain.

 

And all selling rules are mandatory.

 

A) seems reasonable, but there was a case here a while back that went something like this (if I'm remembering it accurately):

 

1. High-dollar book is offered

2. New board member posts

3. Well known dealer then posts

4. Seller sells book to well known dealer

 

This resulted in a fuss and I forget how the situation ended up being resolved, but it seemed to me at the time that the seller ought to be within his rights to do what he did. Where a significant amount of dough is involved, I think it's reasonable to opt for the quick and certain payment from someone you know rather than the chanciness in dealing with someone you don't know and who is new to the community.

 

Rule A would bar a seller from following this course.

[N/A]

Great example.

[GACollectibles]

While I think it would be great to have a "board rule" on the there seem to be too many variables to create a blanket rule- does the seller accept via PM(or as I have encountered, other communication via text, phone call, etc) or just in the thread? Some sellers have strong feeling about it both ways. Public :takeit:s limit the PM sales that occur from buyers who may not post much. Maintaining that personal aspect may work as long as the buyers know what they are dealing with.

 

Maybe the best "board rule" is that a seller posts their policy in the first post, we can certainly establish a selection of options that could be copied & pasted. It may not eliminate every issue but could help reduce them.

 

...... the main thing, like you said, is clarity in the terms of each seller's listing. To create a scenario that is fair to all buyers, the PM only option needs to be allowed. Privacy should be an option if someone chooses that route. It's the standard at all the auction houses and on eBay, so it's not like the idea is unorthodox. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

I think a reasonable 'fall back' set of rules should be included in the Official forum selling rules if for no other reason, to provide clarification for when someone says 'usual rules apply'.

 

Those rules should include

 

A) timestamp wins

B) purchases by PM ok

 

That's my 2 cents.

 

Just those two mandatory rules would eliminate a world of pain.

 

And all selling rules are mandatory.

 

A) seems reasonable, but there was a case here a while back that went something like this (if I'm remembering it accurately):

 

1. High-dollar book is offered

2. New board member posts

3. Well known dealer then posts

4. Seller sells book to well known dealer

 

This resulted in a fuss and I forget how the situation ended up being resolved, but it seemed to me at the time that the seller ought to be within his rights to do what he did. Where a significant amount of dough is involved, I think it's reasonable to opt for the quick and certain payment from someone you know rather than the chanciness in dealing with someone you don't know and who is new to the community.

 

Rule A would bar a seller from following this course.

 

That's why the policy is up to the seller- just asking them to post it so buyers are aware.

[thirdgreenham]

Yeah, like anyone's really calling you.

 

via Imgflip Meme Maker

 

 

You must be laughing when you make these.