General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[comix4fun]

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.

 

Basic business contract principles would bar the seller actually.

 

If a seller wants to limit or restrict his buyer pool, he is free to do so in the same way all businesses may in the express terms they lay out at the outset.

 

It's in the moving of the bar after the sale has begun and after a buyer comes to the table meeting all current criteria that you will run into trouble..both here and in the real world.

 

[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.

 

Basic business contract principles would bar the seller actually.

 

If a seller wants to limit or restrict his buyer pool, he is free to do so in the same way all businesses may in the express terms they lay out at the outset.

 

It's in the moving of the bar after the sale has begun and after a buyer comes to the table meeting all current criteria that you will run into trouble..both here and in the real world.

 

Does adding "I reserve the right not to sell to anyone for any reason" to your TOS cover it, or no?

[comix4fun]

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.

 

Basic business contract principles would bar the seller actually.

 

If a seller wants to limit or restrict his buyer pool, he is free to do so in the same way all businesses may in the express terms they lay out at the outset.

 

It's in the moving of the bar after the sale has begun and after a buyer comes to the table meeting all current criteria that you will run into trouble..both here and in the real world.

 

Does adding "I reserve the right not to sell to anyone for any reason" to your TOS cover it, or no?

 

Yes.

 

And as long as you don't wait for another buyer to come and take the book (stringing the first guy along) or communicate with the person who took the book first that you accept their taking of the book (waiver of your own stated terms) and then reject them in favor of someone else you are A-OK.

[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.

 

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.

 

Basic business contract principles would bar the seller actually.

 

If a seller wants to limit or restrict his buyer pool, he is free to do so in the same way all businesses may in the express terms they lay out at the outset.

 

It's in the moving of the bar after the sale has begun and after a buyer comes to the table meeting all current criteria that you will run into trouble..both here and in the real world.

 

Of course. It's common sense.

 

The rules are made so that neither buyer or seller is discriminated against and that instance sounds like outright discrimination against the buyer unless there was a credible discussion about whether the new buyer was reliable or not.

[VintageComics]

Does adding "I reserve the right not to sell to anyone for any reason" to your TOS cover it, or no?

 

Yes.

 

And as long as you don't wait for another buyer to come and take the book (stringing the first guy along) or communicate with the person who took the book first that you accept their taking of the book (waiver of your own stated terms) and then reject them in favor of someone else you are A-OK.

 

Beat me to it.

 

IMO it's still an unfair move IMO if the newbie buyer is at least not given the opportunity to follow through with the transaction, though.

[comix4fun]

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.

 

Basic business contract principles would bar the seller actually.

 

If a seller wants to limit or restrict his buyer pool, he is free to do so in the same way all businesses may in the express terms they lay out at the outset.

 

It's in the moving of the bar after the sale has begun and after a buyer comes to the table meeting all current criteria that you will run into trouble..both here and in the real world.

 

Of course. It's common sense.

 

The rules are made so that neither buyer or seller is discriminated against and that instance sounds like outright discrimination against the buyer unless there was a credible discussion about whether the new buyer was reliable or not.

 

 

 

Yes. Some folks, however, prefer a Darwinian-Wild-West-Anarchy-In-The-UK style business model where the old and infirm are eaten and people are free....FREE I tell you!

 

[comix4fun]

Does adding "I reserve the right not to sell to anyone for any reason" to your TOS cover it, or no?

 

Yes.

 

And as long as you don't wait for another buyer to come and take the book (stringing the first guy along) or communicate with the person who took the book first that you accept their taking of the book (waiver of your own stated terms) and then reject them in favor of someone else you are A-OK.

 

Beat me to it.

 

IMO it's still an unfair move IMO if the newbie buyer is at least not given the opportunity to follow through with the transaction, though.

 

 

It may be unfair, but if the seller is upfront about it, he's free to do business with whomever he chooses.

 

There are tons of folks on here that state "If you're on my personal list (unpublished) don't bother" or some such statement. So they aren't forced to deal with people they don't like, trust, or want to deal with.

 

 

[VintageComics]

Does adding "I reserve the right not to sell to anyone for any reason" to your TOS cover it, or no?

 

Yes.

 

And as long as you don't wait for another buyer to come and take the book (stringing the first guy along) or communicate with the person who took the book first that you accept their taking of the book (waiver of your own stated terms) and then reject them in favor of someone else you are A-OK.

 

Beat me to it.

 

IMO it's still an unfair move IMO if the newbie buyer is at least not given the opportunity to follow through with the transaction, though.

 

 

It may be unfair, but if the seller is upfront about it, he's free to do business with whomever he chooses.

 

There are tons of folks on here that state "If you're on my personal list (unpublished) don't bother" or some such statement. So they aren't forced to deal with people they don't like, trust, or want to deal with.

 

 

And that's fine.

 

I was replying to the instance where some noob was ignored (or however it went - I understand sqeggs may not remember all the details) as the bar was moved.

[wombat]

Personally that sounds like a d bag move to me.

[comix4fun]

Does adding "I reserve the right not to sell to anyone for any reason" to your TOS cover it, or no?

 

Yes.

 

And as long as you don't wait for another buyer to come and take the book (stringing the first guy along) or communicate with the person who took the book first that you accept their taking of the book (waiver of your own stated terms) and then reject them in favor of someone else you are A-OK.

 

Beat me to it.

 

IMO it's still an unfair move IMO if the newbie buyer is at least not given the opportunity to follow through with the transaction, though.

 

 

It may be unfair, but if the seller is upfront about it, he's free to do business with whomever he chooses.

 

There are tons of folks on here that state "If you're on my personal list (unpublished) don't bother" or some such statement. So they aren't forced to deal with people they don't like, trust, or want to deal with.

 

 

And that's fine.

 

I was replying to the instance where some noob was ignored (or however it went - I understand sqeggs may not remember all the details) as the bar was moved.

 

 

Yes. I agree. Moving the bar, post acceptance of a buyer, is a no-go.

[MetalPSI]

 

 

[crassus]

Does adding "I reserve the right not to sell to anyone for any reason" to your TOS cover it, or no?

 

Yes.

 

And as long as you don't wait for another buyer to come and take the book (stringing the first guy along) or communicate with the person who took the book first that you accept their taking of the book (waiver of your own stated terms) and then reject them in favor of someone else you are A-OK.

 

Beat me to it.

 

IMO it's still an unfair move IMO if the newbie buyer is at least not given the opportunity to follow through with the transaction, though.

 

 

It may be unfair, but if the seller is upfront about it, he's free to do business with whomever he chooses.

 

There are tons of folks on here that state "If you're on my personal list (unpublished) don't bother" or some such statement. So they aren't forced to deal with people they don't like, trust, or want to deal with.

 

 

And that's fine.

 

I was replying to the instance where some noob was ignored (or however it went - I understand sqeggs may not remember all the details) as the bar was moved.

 

 

Yes. I agree. Moving the bar, post acceptance of a buyer, is a no-go.

 

Generally I agree, and in broader terms this is the difference between what is well regulated and what is arbitrary.

 

Just two things concern me, in principle, I'm reluctant to put the emphasis on a broad seller's prerogative to sell to whom they please. The voiding of a sale with reference to an "unpublished" list, for example, sounds a little too much like why kings and prerogatives were rejected in the first place. A seller's prerogative is going to show the same tendency, to use the phrase, "to tear in the stretching of it".

 

There is also the fact that the forum operates as a public space, once books are posted for sale openly than there should be the assumption of equal treatment. To the extent that some may have lost the privilege to buy, because of their issues or whatever, the community has two lists for that.

 

[N/A]

Here we go.

[seanfingh]

Does adding "I reserve the right not to sell to anyone for any reason" to your TOS cover it, or no?

 

Yes.

 

And as long as you don't wait for another buyer to come and take the book (stringing the first guy along) or communicate with the person who took the book first that you accept their taking of the book (waiver of your own stated terms) and then reject them in favor of someone else you are A-OK.

 

Beat me to it.

 

IMO it's still an unfair move IMO if the newbie buyer is at least not given the opportunity to follow through with the transaction, though.

 

 

It may be unfair, but if the seller is upfront about it, he's free to do business with whomever he chooses.

 

There are tons of folks on here that state "If you're on my personal list (unpublished) don't bother" or some such statement. So they aren't forced to deal with people they don't like, trust, or want to deal with.

 

 

And that's fine.

 

I was replying to the instance where some noob was ignored (or however it went - I understand sqeggs may not remember all the details) as the bar was moved.

 

 

Yes. I agree. Moving the bar, post acceptance of a buyer, is a no-go.

 

Generally I agree, and in broader terms this is the difference between what is well regulated and what is arbitrary.

 

Just two things concern me, in principle, I'm reluctant to put the emphasis on a broad seller's prerogative to sell to whom they please. The voiding of a sale with reference to an "unpublished" list, for example, sounds a little too much like why kings and prerogatives were rejected in the first place. A seller's prerogative is going to show the same tendency, to use the phrase, "to tear in the stretching of it".

 

There is also the fact that the forum operates as a public space, once books are posted for sale openly than there should be the assumption of equal treatment. To the extent that some may have lost the privilege to buy, because of their issues or whatever, the community has two lists for that.

 

Your position is well and eloquently stated. I disagree, however. Placing an item for sale, if properly structured as such, is allowing someone to enter into negotiation with you. If mutually agreeable terms are met, then a bargain is struck. If someone is on ignore, on a personal list, or otherwise unsavory, the negotiation never begins.

[PovertyRow]

 

Does adding "I reserve the right not to sell to anyone for any reason" to your TOS cover it, or no?

 

Man that is a problematic statement. If the seller has a disclaimer like "I won;t sell to people on my personal list" and someone on that personal list does a in PM or on the boards, the seller should immediately refuse the sale reopen it for sale on the boards.

 

Or if the buyer starts altering the terms of the agreed on sale sure, the seller can just cancel the pending transaction.

 

But keeping it that open-ended could lead to creating an auction type situation where the seller can just wait a while for offers before acknowledging a sale. It just sits off with me.

[Park]

Does adding "I reserve the right not to sell to anyone for any reason" to your TOS cover it, or no?

 

Yes.

 

And as long as you don't wait for another buyer to come and take the book (stringing the first guy along) or communicate with the person who took the book first that you accept their taking of the book (waiver of your own stated terms) and then reject them in favor of someone else you are A-OK.

 

Beat me to it.

 

IMO it's still an unfair move IMO if the newbie buyer is at least not given the opportunity to follow through with the transaction, though.

 

 

It may be unfair, but if the seller is upfront about it, he's free to do business with whomever he chooses.

 

There are tons of folks on here that state "If you're on my personal list (unpublished) don't bother" or some such statement. So they aren't forced to deal with people they don't like, trust, or want to deal with.

 

 

And that's fine.

 

I was replying to the instance where some noob was ignored (or however it went - I understand sqeggs may not remember all the details) as the bar was moved.

 

 

Yes. I agree. Moving the bar, post acceptance of a buyer, is a no-go.

 

Generally I agree, and in broader terms this is the difference between what is well regulated and what is arbitrary.

 

Just two things concern me, in principle, I'm reluctant to put the emphasis on a broad seller's prerogative to sell to whom they please. The voiding of a sale with reference to an "unpublished" list, for example, sounds a little too much like why kings and prerogatives were rejected in the first place. A seller's prerogative is going to show the same tendency, to use the phrase, "to tear in the stretching of it".

 

There is also the fact that the forum operates as a public space, once books are posted for sale openly than there should be the assumption of equal treatment. To the extent that some may have lost the privilege to buy, because of their issues or whatever, the community has two lists for that.

 

Your position is well and eloquently stated. I disagree, however. Placing an item for sale, if properly structured as such, is allowing someone to enter into negotiation with you. If mutually agreeable terms are met, then a bargain is struck. If someone is on ignore, on a personal list, or otherwise unsavory, the negotiation never begins.

 

I'm savory.

 

Let's negotiate.

[seanfingh]

You are more sweet than savory.

[DR.X]

[VintageComics]

You are more sweet than savory.

 

You're both wrong. He's spicy.

[greggy]

FU, Roy....and Sean