General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[DavidTheDavid]

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There are tons of folks on here that state "If you're on my personal list (unpublished) don't bother" or some such statement.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 The voiding of a sale with reference to an "unpublished" list, for example, sounds a little too much like why kings and prerogatives were rejected in the first place.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.

 

This statement is getting at the crux of the problem. This selling space operates uniquely, at least compared to any other online selling venue that I've used. Selling and buying is a very personal matter, between two people, and when money is involved, no matter the love of the hobby, people are on their guard. But we do so in a loosely regulated, supposedly self-regulated manner with no set of rules. We've all agreed, at least implicitly by participation within what guidelines do exist, if not explicitly, to abide by community norms, but as we're something of a roughshod democracy (prepares for flak), that gets messy.

 

Anyhow, my , which is worth exactly as much as all advice is worth: exactly what you paid for it.

[DR.X]

FU, Roy....and Sean

 

[bababooey]

I know people use the "personal list" selling rule to be able to refuse service.

I've always felt any seller should be able to refuse service based on Arch's marketplace guidelines - it pretty specifically states that a seller has some rights to check out their buyer & that should include the right to refuse to do business with someone else.

 

 

 

[Park]

You are more sweet than savory.

 

You're both wrong. He's spicy.

 

And pretty.

 

Don't forget pretty.

[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.

 

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.

 

For me its a matter of emphasis, I would never argue that a seller is obliged to sell against their conscience, that would indeed be a bad position to take. Sometimes a refusal of sale will be out of principle, I concede that. But how from the outside could one ever separate what was out of conscientious principle and what was just arbitrary and opportunistic?

 

The other thing that troubles me is the idea that having a sale is an invitation to negotiation, and many argue this also, and probably you are in the majority, but conventionally that "I'll take it" sign, if given unconditionally, is a submission to terms, not a negotiation. The unconditional "I'll take it" is more surrender than negotiation, no?

[Park]

FU, Roy....and Sean

 

Ha! Losers.

[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.

 

For me its a matter of emphasis, I would never argue that a seller is obliged to sell against their conscience, that would indeed be a bad position to take. Sometimes a refusal of sale will be out of principle, I concede that. But how from the outside could one ever separate what was out of conscientious principle and what was just arbitrary and opportunistic?

 

The other thing that troubles me is the idea that having a sale is an invitation to negotiation, and many argue this also, and probably you are in the majority, but conventionally that "I'll take it" sign, if given unconditionally, is a submission to terms, not a negotiation. The unconditional "I'll take it" is more surrender than negotiation, no?

 

I agree completely, if there are no additional or different terms. But by stating up front that one doesn't accept the unconditional ill take it - by reserving those rights, you change the nature of the offer. It is an offer to negotiate which may or may not be accepted.

[slym2none]

BTW, I just HATE when people remove themselves from PM discussions…

I always tell something before doing that, like «in the process of cleaning up my mailbox" or something similar, to sweeten that ugly message "XXXX has removed himself from this topic"…

 

You just got a hit & run PM!

 

 

 

 

-slym

[EC ed]

I know people use the "personal list" selling rule to be able to refuse service.

I've always felt any seller should be able to refuse service based on Arch's marketplace guidelines - it pretty specifically states that a seller has some rights to check out their buyer & that should include the right to refuse to do business with someone else.

 

This is a good point.

[Chip Cataldo]

I'm getting BaronVonKnobJob engraved into a stick of butter.

[Jeffro.]

I know people use the "personal list" selling rule to be able to refuse service.

I've always felt any seller should be able to refuse service based on Arch's marketplace guidelines - it pretty specifically states that a seller has some rights to check out their buyer & that should include the right to refuse to do business with someone else.

 

 

This is a good point.

 

I agree.

I have a small list of people that for one reason or another I've put on ignore. I refuse to transact with those people. If people object to that condition, no harm, no foul. I respect the reasons why they object, but I'm not surrendering that right to refusal. If I lose potential sales because of that, so be it.

[Jeffro.]

I'm getting BaronVonKnobJob engraved into a stick of butter.

 

Change your screen name to that

[MetalPSI]

I'm getting BaronVonKnobJob engraved into a stick of butter.

 

Change your screen name to that

 

Seconded

[Timmay]

I'm getting BaronVonKnobJob engraved into a stick of butter.

 

Change your screen name to that

 

That sounds like a custom title to me.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I know people use the "personal list" selling rule to be able to refuse service.

I've always felt any seller should be able to refuse service based on Arch's marketplace guidelines - it pretty specifically states that a seller has some rights to check out their buyer & that should include the right to refuse to do business with someone else.

 

 

 

Hey, welcome to what I've been saying forever.

 

[MetalPSI]

People need a rule for this? I thought it was a right within society not to have to deal with someone you don't want to?

[crassus]

People need a rule for this? I thought it was a right within society not to have to deal with someone you don't want to?

 

My concern is whether this community would accept a sales thread which opened with all the required information, but no reference to "I'll take its" at all, and stated only that the seller reserved the exclusive right to determine when a book was sold.

 

This would certainly be the logical expression of any right to not have to deal with anybody you don't want to.

 

The "I'll take it" is not mandated by the rules, it is a perfect example of convention or custom. The rules only say "11.Prompt responses must be made to buy requests made through the boards (posts or PMs)."

 

There would also be no point in referencing time stamps, since those followed from the logic of the "I'll take it", but where those do not exist, neither does time or order of operations matter. I can look through a series of buy requests, however expressed, at whatever time, and choose the one I prefer.

 

Maybe there is nothing wrong with this. I don't claim to know for sure, but maybe not everyone would be comfortable with that format. Certainly in strict terms if the seller is merely looking over buy requests, but committing to none, there is no obligation created until he or she chooses one. I'm guessing that would be the legal analysis.

 

For me, even if not strictly necessary, the "I'll take its" express the assumption of a certain equity and fairness, an open and level playing field, that the pure seller's prerogative does not.

 

[N/A]

Seller's prerogative trumps since it is the sellers sales thread. If a potential buy does not like it then they may move on.

[MetalPSI]

Seller's prerogative trumps since it is the sellers sales thread. If a potential buy does not like it then they may move on.

 

This makes sense. I cannot go into a store, trash the place and demand to make a purchase. In a normal society, they would refuse my business.

 

 

Actually, that's hard to say. Today's big box stores will do almost anything to move inventory at required price, set by the accountants at head office.

[MetalPSI]

People need a rule for this? I thought it was a right within society not to have to deal with someone you don't want to?

 

My concern is whether this community would accept a sales thread which opened with all the required information, but no reference to "I'll take its" at all, and stated only that the seller reserved the exclusive right to determine when a book was sold.

 

This would certainly be the logical expression of any right to not have to deal with anybody you don't want to.

 

The "I'll take it" is not mandated by the rules, it is a perfect example of convention or custom. The rules only say "11.Prompt responses must be made to buy requests made through the boards (posts or PMs)."

 

There would also be no point in referencing time stamps, since those followed from the logic of the "I'll take it", but where those do not exist, neither does time or order of operations matter. I can look through a series of buy requests, however expressed, at whatever time, and choose the one I prefer.

 

Maybe there is nothing wrong with this. I don't claim to know for sure, but maybe not everyone would be comfortable with that format. Certainly in strict terms if the seller is merely looking over buy requests, but committing to none, there is no obligation created until he or she chooses one. I'm guessing that would be the legal analysis.

 

For me, even if not strictly necessary, the "I'll take its" express the assumption of a certain equity and fairness, an open and level playing field, that the pure seller's prerogative does not.

 

I have doubles I want to sell, I honestly have no idea how to start a sales thread since,

 

1) I have a sense of humor that most people don't get

2) I would totally reserve the right to not sell to anyone, even people I would choose to do business with

3) The rules on this forum are WAY too complex for simple issues, I am surprised there aren't more strikes for aggressive spelling and punctuation.