General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[mschmidt]

I could see a seller using this to solicit offers for an in-demand book - basically, "there are 4 other people who've also posted takeit's for this book, are you willing to pay extra to guarantee you're the one who gets it?"

[crassus]

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.

 

I think this is a very good point also, the "I'll take it" as BIN, and the idea of "blocked bidders" or here "blocked Boardies" raises the question of what is a legitimate reason to refuse sale.

 

I guess in the case of oceanavekid I still see it this way, he refused sale without cause, when a Boardie in good standing had hit the BIN.

 

It is harder I think to find a solution to the question of when a thread is closed, and items left in a thread are no longer valid BINs.

 

 

[EC ed]

I could see a seller using this to solicit offers for an in-demand book - basically, "there are 4 other people who've also posted takeit's for this book, are you willing to pay extra to guarantee you're the one who gets it?"

Yep, I can see that. Big, big problem. So, my proposed solution isn't great, after all....

 

 

Edit: So, getting back on track....

 

It is harder I think to find a solution to the question of when a thread is closed, and items left in a thread are no longer valid BINs.

Edited June 5, 2014 by edowens71

[Chaseman210]

Although it does seem there should be a set limit on an open sales threads, it seems the best and most common sense solution would be for a seller to just close his/her thread when the books are no longer for sale :shrug: Every time I've posted a sales thread, whether something sells, doesn't sell, or I list on eBay, I ALWAYS mark the thread as closed.

 

And in the case of oceanavekid, if a seller has a chance to respond to a PM about said sales thread, they should have 10 seconds to close it soon after claiming the book is no longer for sale. I could see oceanavekid's side if he said: "Sorry, but I'm gonna hold onto the book," and then go to close the thread. And if jawn posted immediately after the exchange, right before the seller was trying to close it, I could see the argument of "No, I'm not selling it. I was coming to close the thread." But saying "I think I'm gonna hold onto it" (or whatever the exact wording was) and still leaving the thread open leaves room for a situation like this.

[Jeffro.]

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.

 

Yes, and that is used by some as kind of a way to circumvent that rule.

 

Is anyone reporting when this happens to see if the Mods think it's a violation of the rule?

[HarveySwick]

I thought it's been pretty common knowledge that the "Comics Market - Forum Only Selling Area" was to be community policed. That is exactly why the HOS/PL was created. And that is why there are no set sales thread rules for everyone. Sellers are allowed to run their sales threads as they see fit with whatever rules they would like. It's just simply that if you post a set of rules, you have to abide by your own rules.

 

The community has taken a stance that if you list a book and it is in an open sales thread and someone - you sell that book to the buyer unless you have good cause, i.e. they're on the HOS/PL or a private list. Obviously, common sense wins in some instances like where Jeff was too lazy ( ) forgot to update his Walking Dead #1 sales thread. That thread was months or years old. Common sense would tell you - it's probably closed.

 

There doesn't need to be any more rules or regulations and time frames needed to have a thread "Open" or "Closed". In fact, the Sales Thread Guidelines are JUST that - "Usage Guidelines". They're not Rules, Regulations or Terms of Usage. Only guidelines.

 

Regarding oceanavekid - even though his sales thread was not bumped for a week, he was still negotiating on sales from that thread. Even if his "I think I might just keep it" wasn't posturing for a higher price and it was sincere, he should still be held to the sale and honor it. If anything he should learn a lesson to update his sales threads as closed when he has a change of heart. Since he didn't, the buyer did nothing wrong by simply choosing to "I'll Take It" at the asking price in the OPEN sales thread. For those reasons, I think oceanavekid is rightfully on the Probation List. The Probation List membership doesn't bother me, it's his actions after being put on the list that are troublesome. Plenty of good guys end up on the list for one reason or another. Both Venom and Tibex82 both recently got off of the list and I think they're both great guys. It's just that he takes the stance "screw you community. I'm right, you're wrong. That's that. ... My feedback speaks for itself." --> you know who also bragged about their feedback - bigboytoys. How did that work out for him? I think if oceanavekid WANTS to be taken seriously, he should work out something with the buyer. Get off the list. And take this whole thing as a learning experience to handle his sales threads better. I think the "BIN on eBay" analogy is the best one so far on how to treat sales threads here.

 

That is all.

[Chaseman210]

Regarding oceanavekid - even though his sales thread was not bumped for a week, he was still negotiating on sales from that thread. Even if his "I think I might just keep it" wasn't posturing for a higher price and it was sincere, he should still be held to the sale and honor it. If anything he should learn a lesson to update his sales threads as closed when he has a change of heart. Since he didn't, the buyer did nothing wrong by simply choosing to "I'll Take It" at the asking price in the OPEN sales thread.

 

 

Like I said, if he had the time to go back and forth in a PM about a book he really wanted to keep, he had the time to take the book down or close the sales thread.

[bababooey]

Regarding oceanavekid - even though his sales thread was not bumped for a week, he was still negotiating on sales from that thread. Even if his "I think I might just keep it" wasn't posturing for a higher price and it was sincere, he should still be held to the sale and honor it. If anything he should learn a lesson to update his sales threads as closed when he has a change of heart.

 

Please show me where he made the statement that you attribute to him IN QUOTES. It's my understanding that when someone uses quotes and attributes it to someone else that it is accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

Those were the PM's that preceded the buyer posting "takeit" in a week old thread to claim a book after the seller said he was "going to hold onto it" TWICE & also shared via PM that he might have priced it too low.

 

[N/A]

 

So he has to quote exactly and you get to quote only part of what he said? Interesting

[HarveySwick]

I guess my "I think I might just keep it" is wayyyyyyyyyyy different than oceanavekid's "Think I'm just going to hold onto it".

 

Man, I really screwed up on that one! Talk about all-time blunders!

[N/A]

Much more precise to say " going to hold onto it". That's not out of context.

[HarveySwick]

Regarding oceanavekid - even though his sales thread was not bumped for a week, he was still negotiating on sales from that thread. Even if his "I think I might just keep it" wasn't posturing for a higher price and it was sincere, he should still be held to the sale and honor it. If anything he should learn a lesson to update his sales threads as closed when he has a change of heart.

 

Please show me where he made the statement that you attribute to him IN QUOTES. It's my understanding that when someone uses quotes and attributes it to someone else that it is accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those were the PM's that preceded the buyer posting "takeit" in a week old thread to claim a book after the seller said he was "going to hold onto it" TWICE & also shared via PM that he might have priced it too low.

 

 

Just don't want anyone to miss it.

 

 

[bababooey]

 

So he has to quote exactly and you get to quote only part of what he said? Interesting

Well since the PL nomination arose from how people are interpreting the wording he used when dealing with the buyer via PM, I think it's important.

 

People should know what he said when he was:

a) declining an offer & telling a buyer it wasn't available twice

b) negotiating to get his listed price (so he could refuse it and get on the PL)

c) neither of the above

 

As for NOT quoting the rest of Harvey's blatherings??

It wasn't relevant to him misquoting a PL nominee....

he should probably stick to his "plus ones" & "winnah" posts...

 

 

[HarveySwick]

Somebody's off the Christmas card list...

[bababooey]

Somebody's not getting a Christmas card...

 

If it is sent after October 20th, if that is the date on the envelope then it's going to be tossed. I'm warning you with peace & love that I have too much to do.

 

 

[bababooey]

Somebody's off the Christmas card list...

"off"

 

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2014 by bababooey

[HarveySwick]

[Awax]

[N/A]

 

So he has to quote exactly and you get to quote only part of what he said? Interesting

Well since the PL nomination arose from how people are interpreting the wording he used when dealing with the buyer via PM, I think it's important.

 

People should know what he said when he was:

a) declining an offer & telling a buyer it wasn't available twice

b) negotiating to get his listed price (so he could refuse it and get on the PL)

c) neither of the above

 

As for NOT quoting the rest of Harvey's blatherings??

It wasn't relevant to him misquoting a PL nominee....

he should probably stick to his "plus ones" & "winnah" posts...

 

 

Except that your "quote" skipped the "might" just to make your point.

[Hado]

Isn't the 'might' part still the sellers choice, not the buyers.

 

If I ask if you'd sell your coffee table for a hundred bucks, and your response is "I might"

 

What would be your reaction to walking into your living room and finding a c-note in one of your tables carpet divots?