General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[revat]

Agree. Ocean may not be a model Boardie, I just don't see this as probation list material.

Paul, he had a book listed for sale. Someone in his open, active thread. He didn't honor the sale. What IS a probation list worthy offense?

 

active seems debatable

 

[bababooey]

Agree. Ocean may not be a model Boardie, I just don't see this as probation list material.

Paul, he had a book listed for sale. Someone in his open, active thread. He didn't honor the sale. What IS a probation list worthy offense?

See, that's taking it back to an open/closed thread discussion.

 

You are not taking into consideration anything that occurred via PM or the timeline that resulted in the nomination. It's a stronger PL nomination for anyone other than jawn - when it comes to jawn posting the "takeit" & then nominating...I'm skeptical & more forgiving as it pertains to the seller's negligence (not closing the thread)

 

 

 

[HarveySwick]

04/09/14 - oceanavekid starts a sales thread.

04/20/14 - Only one book left

04/20/14 - Adds books to the thread.

04/22/14 - "If they don't sell in the next few days i'll close this down and list on the bay."

04/24/14 - Adds NEW books to the thread. "Should have the books in hand next week."

--STAGNANT PERIOD--

04/30/14 6:49PM - Open thread: jawn inquires about one book.

oceanavekid: "Probably going to hold onto it until I'm able to take pictures." --> Seems he doesn't have the book in hand yet from CGC. And the thread is STILL open. No indication that he is not going to sell the books. He already indicated he will sell the books pending scans as he doesn't have the books back from CGC.

jawn: attempts to negotiate the price.

oceanavekid: Price isn't negotiable. It might be priced low. Think I'm going to hold onto it. --> Side question: Are the OTHER books still for sale?

05/01/14 2:31AM: oceanavekid still awake posting. Thread still open.

05/01/14 4:14AM: jawn pays oceanavekid's asking price.

 

I guess this is one of those agree to disagree things.

[CAHokie]

We both know that if anyone would have purchased any of the other books in that thread then suddenly it would have been open and the kid would have been doing the

[jsilverjanet]

We both know that if anyone would have purchased any of the other books in that thread then suddenly it would have been open and the kid would have been doing the

 

I think it's important to state facts when discussing these issues.

 

I will grant you that he's not the best board member nor would I ever buy from him again. That being said, making assumptions about would have or could have occurred are a bit misleading. We really don't know.

 

I agree with Frank (asteroid-comix) and Paul (fasterfriends). That being said this case is certainly not black/white and not as easy to determine.

 

I know it's difficult to look at this objectively but if this was any other board member would we be looking at him being guilty of PL?

 

And before I'm accused of defending Ocean, I'm not. I'm defending the process on how we go about this. It's not about "cool books" or anything like that. I think the boardies who believe he shouldn't be on there are probably thinking the same thing.

 

Most of the PL nominations are fact based (buyer/seller agreed to terms and didn't complete deal). This one (and I can't recall another one like it) has the buyer taking an item but the seller never agreed to it, on a sales thread that was a week old. Much of the dialogue here is on intent, attitude, aka noise about the seller.

 

Whether the seller remains on the PL matters little to me. Like I said, I'd never buy from him again.

 

[revat]

We both know that if anyone would have purchased any of the other books in that thread then suddenly it would have been open and the kid would have been doing the

 

I think it's important to state facts when discussing these issues.

 

I will grant you that he's not the best board member nor would I ever buy from him again. That being said, making assumptions about would have or could have occurred are a bit misleading. We really don't know.

 

I agree with Frank (asteroid-comix) and Paul (fasterfriends). That being said this case is certainly not black/white and not as easy to determine.

 

I know it's difficult to look at this objectively but if this was any other board member would we be looking at him being guilty of PL?

 

And before I'm accused of defending Ocean, I'm not. I'm defending the process on how we go about this. It's not about "cool books" or anything like that. I think the boardies who believe he shouldn't be on there are probably thinking the same thing.

 

Most of the PL nominations are fact based (buyer/seller agreed to terms and didn't complete deal). This one (and I can't recall another one like it) has the buyer taking an item but the seller never agreed to it, on a sales thread that was a week old. Much of the dialogue here is on intent, attitude, aka noise about the seller.

 

Whether the seller remains on the PL matters little to me. Like I said, I'd never buy from him again.

 

to be honest, I think I'd prefer not to sell to the buyer as well (or even more) going forward.

 

He necro'd a thread, saw it for a higher price on ebay, THEN posted an "I'll take it" in the thread after he was told he was going to hold on to it, THEN proceeded nominate for the PL, when he could have shrugged it off pretty easily as a miscommunication instead of a negotiating tactic. Seller was probably more 'wrong', but buyer was more spoon-ish in this case.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Revat

[CAHokie]

I totally get what you guys are saying. When looking at these situations, I take the boardies actions on the board as a whole and not just the thread in question. That may be the wrong thing to do, but that's just the way I look at things. As I said before, if this was a well established seller (and not someone who has posted some very questionable things in different threads in the past), I would most likely be siding with the seller. Of course, I still believe a good seller would have used very clear language without ambiguities and closed the thread if he saw people asking about it, but that is yet another topic.

[jsilverjanet]

I totally get what you guys are saying. When looking at these situations, I take the boardies actions on the board as a whole and not just the thread in question. That may be the wrong thing to do, but that's just the way I look at things. As I said before, if this was a well established seller (and not someone who has posted some very questionable things in different threads in the past), I would most likely be siding with the seller. Of course, I still believe a good seller would have used very clear language without ambiguities and closed the thread if he saw people asking about it, but that is yet another topic.

I agree with everything you said on this post.

 

Certainly even after this came up the seller could have handled the situation better and it should have never gotten this far.

 

[faster friends]

The other fact I saw that is noteworthy is someone said the book was for sale on ebay when the I'll take it was posted. We all know that a book must be exclusive to the boards to be legit. Ocean listing it on ebay makes me think he felt the thread was closed.

[HarveySwick]

I guess I'm just confused re: if a buyer nominates a seller for a book that he in an open sales thread and the seller doesn't sell him the book even though the buyer isn't on any sort of list - how does the seller NOT end up on the Probation List?

 

Putting all other discussion about the merits or faults in this instance aside, does any of this arguing back and forth actually matter?

 

The HOS is a poll with clear vote result. It's black and white with a definitive answer. The Probation List is simply a person makes a "nomination" but there really isn't any sort of a vote. So no matter which side we argue, isn't all of the power (as the system currently stands) with the nominator? I mean, if several people feel that something is NOT probation worthy and several feel that it is, how is the final determination made?

[faster friends]

[jsilverjanet]

Swick

 

to your first question - yes the seller would be on the PL - I agree with that however the ambiguity of the sales thread actually being live or the book being available is the difficult part to determine. In most cases both the buyer/seller agree to either complete the transaction or to clear up the misunderstanding. Usually the group here helps either party come to a mutual resolution. The opposite took place here and I believe because of the attitude of the seller, the buyer felt it necessary to add him to the PL - though I believe Baba has pointed out that he never truly asked to add him (no clear process like other nominations etc)

 

to answer your last question, it helps in the sense that next time this comes up maybe we've learned from this one and do a better job as a community

[bababooey]

Jawn just said he didn't care but originally did nominate him.

 

Also, with regard to HS question/comment - I think most PL updating is done based on a clear majority or clear case - with great power...and all that.

[HarveySwick]

Only jawn can answer that. I PM'ed him with a link to this discussion. If he doesn't care about the nomination, let him say that.

 

I don't think anyone wants to put words in someone else's mouth. If jawn don't care, neither will. (thumbs u

[vader2001]

The other fact I saw that is noteworthy is someone said the book was for sale on ebay when the I'll take it was posted. We all know that a book must be exclusive to the boards to be legit. Ocean listing it on ebay makes me think he felt the thread was closed.

 

If he had if for sale on ebay why would you think the thread was closed? He may have just wanted to get around the rules here. He would not be the first to list a book in 2 places.

[HarveySwick]

And now that I think about it, MOST of oceanavekid's have duplicate listings on here AND eBay. The fact that book was listed on eBay means nothing in this particular case.

[faster friends]

The other fact I saw that is noteworthy is someone said the book was for sale on ebay when the I'll take it was posted. We all know that a book must be exclusive to the boards to be legit. Ocean listing it on ebay makes me think he felt the thread was closed.

 

If he had if for sale on ebay why would you think the thread was closed? He may have just wanted to get around the rules here. He would not be the first to list a book in 2 places.

 

Well, for me, If one of my sales falls off the 1st page after a few days I will list on eBay and may not Officially close the thread. If I sell out I always close them, But if they just die a horrible death of silence and crickets, I just list on eBay and move on with life.

Edited June 11, 2014 by faster friends

[EvenInHisYouth]

I have only sold a few times here, but I was of the understanding that it was MY responsibility as a seller, to close a thread if the items were no longer for sale.

 

I recently went back to find a sales thread of mine that hadn't seen a post in a week, just to edit it as closed...specifically so no one would post a two weeks later.

 

 

I guess I assumed it is free to sell here, the least we could do is keep track of whether we have open sales threads or not

[joe_collector]

The bad thing about that "common sense" is most people seem to lean in their favor concerning discussions about common sense. This case for example... the 'kid says he's going to keep the book. He might think the buyer would use common sense and realize "hey he told me he's going to keep it". The flip of the coin is, the buyer doesn't see it that way and hits the take it. Now the buyer thinks that common sense should dictate the seller sell him the book.

 

How in the world can anything the buyer did be construed (by a rational person) as embracing "common sense"?

 

You can be angry about the conduct of the seller (like cross-listing here, online, eBay, etc.), but the buyer seems to be a real nitwit.

[joe_collector]

He necro'd a thread, saw it for a higher price on ebay, THEN posted an "I'll take it" in the thread after he was told he was going to hold on to it, THEN proceeded nominate for the PL, when he could have shrugged it off pretty easily as a miscommunication instead of a negotiating tactic. Seller was probably more 'wrong', but buyer was more spoon-ish in this case.

 

So let me get this straight, this dickwad buyer actually got ocean on the PL for his own stupid behavior?

 

Really?