• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean
29 29

Started by Transplant,

35,153 posts in this topic

EC ed

EC ed

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yes, and this nightmare is directly enabled by the often seen rule that a thread take trumps everything. For the life of me, I can't understand why sellers continue to specify the rules this way. Why would a seller want to allow this messy situation to occur...i.e., why would a seller desire to specify rules that allow a thread poster to supersede a fully completed PM deal where the seller or PM taker simply hasn't had time or opportunity to update the thread?

 

In general, I just don't understand the incentive on any seller's part to use any "take rule" other than "first take wins, whether in the thread or via PM". Doing otherwise seems a bit :screwy: , unless the seller just intentionally desires to set the stage for drama. (shrug)

 

rantrant over.

Edited by edowens71
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MCMiles

MCMiles

Posted
Posted

Yes, and this nightmare is directly enabled by the often seen rule that a thread take trumps everything. For the life of me, I can't understand why sellers continue to specify the rules this way. Why would a seller want to allow this messy situation to occur...i.e., why would a seller desire to specify rules that allow a thread poster to supersede a fully completed PM deal where the seller or PM taker simply hasn't had time or opportunity to update the thread?

 

In general, I just don't understand the incentive on any seller's part to use any "take rule" other than "first take wins, whether in the thread or via PM". Doing otherwise seems a bit :screwy: , unless the seller just intentionally desires to set the stage for drama. (shrug)

 

rantrant over.

 

It's completely stupid.

 

I posted this in the thread, but going to repeat it here.

 

By these rules, as a seller I can agree to a deal via PM and just wait to post "SOLD" for a few hours and hope someone hits the BIN at a better price.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted

Yes, and this nightmare is directly enabled by the often seen rule that a thread take trumps everything. For the life of me, I can't understand why sellers continue to specify the rules this way. Why would a seller want to allow this messy situation to occur...i.e., why would a seller desire to specify rules that allow a thread poster to supersede a fully completed PM deal where the seller or PM taker simply hasn't had time or opportunity to update the thread?

 

In general, I just don't understand the incentive on any seller's part to use any "take rule" other than "first take wins, whether in the thread or via PM". Doing otherwise seems a bit :screwy: , unless the seller just intentionally desires to set the stage for drama. (shrug)

 

rantrant over.

 

It's completely stupid.

 

I posted this in the thread, but going to repeat it here.

 

By these rules, as a seller I can agree to a deal via PM and just wait to post "SOLD" for a few hours and hope someone hits the BIN at a better price.

 

 

 

The potential buyer who sent the PM obviously read the thread and therefore should be aware of the rules. Your example doesn't work. The seller stated his terms so kudos to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bio-Rupp

Bio-Rupp

Posted
Posted

Yes, and this nightmare is directly enabled by the often seen rule that a thread take trumps everything. For the life of me, I can't understand why sellers continue to specify the rules this way. Why would a seller want to allow this messy situation to occur...i.e., why would a seller desire to specify rules that allow a thread poster to supersede a fully completed PM deal where the seller or PM taker simply hasn't had time or opportunity to update the thread?

 

In general, I just don't understand the incentive on any seller's part to use any "take rule" other than "first take wins, whether in the thread or via PM". Doing otherwise seems a bit :screwy: , unless the seller just intentionally desires to set the stage for drama. (shrug)

 

rantrant over.

 

It's completely stupid.

 

I posted this in the thread, but going to repeat it here.

 

By these rules, as a seller I can agree to a deal via PM and just wait to post "SOLD" for a few hours and hope someone hits the BIN at a better price.

 

 

 

Well lets remember that each of the two :takeit: in question were less than 3 minutes apart hm

 

I mean that's barely enough time to walk to the bathroom and take a pee and come back (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MCMiles

MCMiles

Posted
Posted

Yes, and this nightmare is directly enabled by the often seen rule that a thread take trumps everything. For the life of me, I can't understand why sellers continue to specify the rules this way. Why would a seller want to allow this messy situation to occur...i.e., why would a seller desire to specify rules that allow a thread poster to supersede a fully completed PM deal where the seller or PM taker simply hasn't had time or opportunity to update the thread?

 

In general, I just don't understand the incentive on any seller's part to use any "take rule" other than "first take wins, whether in the thread or via PM". Doing otherwise seems a bit :screwy: , unless the seller just intentionally desires to set the stage for drama. (shrug)

 

rantrant over.

 

It's completely stupid.

 

I posted this in the thread, but going to repeat it here.

 

By these rules, as a seller I can agree to a deal via PM and just wait to post "SOLD" for a few hours and hope someone hits the BIN at a better price.

 

 

 

The potential buyer who sent the PM obviously read the thread and therefore should be aware of the rules. Your example doesn't work. The seller stated his terms so kudos to him.

 

"Trumps all PMs " that would include agreed upon deals is stupid. It lacks common sense and good business sense.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MCMiles

MCMiles

Posted
Posted

Yes, and this nightmare is directly enabled by the often seen rule that a thread take trumps everything. For the life of me, I can't understand why sellers continue to specify the rules this way. Why would a seller want to allow this messy situation to occur...i.e., why would a seller desire to specify rules that allow a thread poster to supersede a fully completed PM deal where the seller or PM taker simply hasn't had time or opportunity to update the thread?

 

In general, I just don't understand the incentive on any seller's part to use any "take rule" other than "first take wins, whether in the thread or via PM". Doing otherwise seems a bit :screwy: , unless the seller just intentionally desires to set the stage for drama. (shrug)

 

rantrant over.

 

It's completely stupid.

 

I posted this in the thread, but going to repeat it here.

 

By these rules, as a seller I can agree to a deal via PM and just wait to post "SOLD" for a few hours and hope someone hits the BIN at a better price.

 

 

 

Well lets remember that each of the two :takeit: in question were less than 3 minutes apart hm

 

I mean that's barely enough time to walk to the bathroom and take a pee and come back (shrug)

 

Totally irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted

Yes, and this nightmare is directly enabled by the often seen rule that a thread take trumps everything. For the life of me, I can't understand why sellers continue to specify the rules this way. Why would a seller want to allow this messy situation to occur...i.e., why would a seller desire to specify rules that allow a thread poster to supersede a fully completed PM deal where the seller or PM taker simply hasn't had time or opportunity to update the thread?

 

In general, I just don't understand the incentive on any seller's part to use any "take rule" other than "first take wins, whether in the thread or via PM". Doing otherwise seems a bit :screwy: , unless the seller just intentionally desires to set the stage for drama. (shrug)

 

rantrant over.

 

It's completely stupid.

 

I posted this in the thread, but going to repeat it here.

 

By these rules, as a seller I can agree to a deal via PM and just wait to post "SOLD" for a few hours and hope someone hits the BIN at a better price.

 

 

 

The potential buyer who sent the PM obviously read the thread and therefore should be aware of the rules. Your example doesn't work. The seller stated his terms so kudos to him.

 

"Trumps all PMs " that would include agreed upon deals is stupid. It lacks common sense and good business sense.

 

 

 

Your opinion which you are entitled to but his rules do not violate board rules and were stated up front. You have no case other than simply not liking the rule. His decision followed his rule. The seller did nothing wrong and is common practice on the boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
revat

revat

Posted
Posted

Yes, and this nightmare is directly enabled by the often seen rule that a thread take trumps everything. For the life of me, I can't understand why sellers continue to specify the rules this way. Why would a seller want to allow this messy situation to occur...i.e., why would a seller desire to specify rules that allow a thread poster to supersede a fully completed PM deal where the seller or PM taker simply hasn't had time or opportunity to update the thread?

 

In general, I just don't understand the incentive on any seller's part to use any "take rule" other than "first take wins, whether in the thread or via PM". Doing otherwise seems a bit :screwy: , unless the seller just intentionally desires to set the stage for drama. (shrug)

 

rantrant over.

 

Agree, and the pm buyer can post his 'I'll take it via pm' right away IN THE THREAD, without waiting for the seller to post it.

 

I know that not every buyer wants to purchase publicly, but if them's the rules, them's the rules, whether they're the smartest rules or not. The rules were posted and should be followed to the extent possible.

 

It's completely stupid.

 

I posted this in the thread, but going to repeat it here.

 

By these rules, as a seller I can agree to a deal via PM and just wait to post "SOLD" for a few hours and hope someone hits the BIN at a better price.

 

 

 

The potential buyer who sent the PM obviously read the thread and therefore should be aware of the rules. Your example doesn't work. The seller stated his terms so kudos to him.

 

"Trumps all PMs " that would include agreed upon deals is stupid. It lacks common sense and good business sense.

 

 

 

Your opinion which you are entitled to but his rules do not violate board rules and were stated up front. You have no case other than simply not liking the rule. His decision followed his rule. The seller did nothing wrong and is common practice on the boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MCMiles

MCMiles

Posted
Posted

Yes, and this nightmare is directly enabled by the often seen rule that a thread take trumps everything. For the life of me, I can't understand why sellers continue to specify the rules this way. Why would a seller want to allow this messy situation to occur...i.e., why would a seller desire to specify rules that allow a thread poster to supersede a fully completed PM deal where the seller or PM taker simply hasn't had time or opportunity to update the thread?

 

In general, I just don't understand the incentive on any seller's part to use any "take rule" other than "first take wins, whether in the thread or via PM". Doing otherwise seems a bit :screwy: , unless the seller just intentionally desires to set the stage for drama. (shrug)

 

rantrant over.

 

It's completely stupid.

 

I posted this in the thread, but going to repeat it here.

 

By these rules, as a seller I can agree to a deal via PM and just wait to post "SOLD" for a few hours and hope someone hits the BIN at a better price.

 

 

 

The potential buyer who sent the PM obviously read the thread and therefore should be aware of the rules. Your example doesn't work. The seller stated his terms so kudos to him.

 

"Trumps all PMs " that would include agreed upon deals is stupid. It lacks common sense and good business sense.

 

 

 

Your opinion which you are entitled to but his rules do not violate board rules and were stated up front. You have no case other than simply not liking the rule. His decision followed his rule. The seller did nothing wrong and is common practice on the boards.

 

It's not common practice to back out of deals. It's not common practice for that rule to allow that to be acceptable. If that is common practice around here now days, then you guys can have it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bio-Rupp

Bio-Rupp

Posted
Posted

Yes, and this nightmare is directly enabled by the often seen rule that a thread take trumps everything. For the life of me, I can't understand why sellers continue to specify the rules this way. Why would a seller want to allow this messy situation to occur...i.e., why would a seller desire to specify rules that allow a thread poster to supersede a fully completed PM deal where the seller or PM taker simply hasn't had time or opportunity to update the thread?

 

In general, I just don't understand the incentive on any seller's part to use any "take rule" other than "first take wins, whether in the thread or via PM". Doing otherwise seems a bit :screwy: , unless the seller just intentionally desires to set the stage for drama. (shrug)

 

rantrant over.

 

It's completely stupid.

 

I posted this in the thread, but going to repeat it here.

 

By these rules, as a seller I can agree to a deal via PM and just wait to post "SOLD" for a few hours and hope someone hits the BIN at a better price.

 

 

 

Well lets remember that each of the two :takeit: in question were less than 3 minutes apart hm

 

I mean that's barely enough time to walk to the bathroom and take a pee and come back (shrug)

 

Totally irrelevant.

 

Well it could be hm

 

It's just as irrelevant as insinuating that Dan was holding out putting out a "Sold" notice just to reel in more money from an unsuspecting other buyer later on (shrug)

 

I respect your opinion on it though and I think you BOTH are top notch sellers (both of whom I respect). I've just dealt with this situation before in the past and it's no fun.

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

Link to comment
Share on other sites
asteroid-comix

asteroid-comix

Posted
Posted

Yes, and this nightmare is directly enabled by the often seen rule that a thread take trumps everything. For the life of me, I can't understand why sellers continue to specify the rules this way. Why would a seller want to allow this messy situation to occur...i.e., why would a seller desire to specify rules that allow a thread poster to supersede a fully completed PM deal where the seller or PM taker simply hasn't had time or opportunity to update the thread?

 

In general, I just don't understand the incentive on any seller's part to use any "take rule" other than "first take wins, whether in the thread or via PM". Doing otherwise seems a bit :screwy: , unless the seller just intentionally desires to set the stage for drama. (shrug)

 

rantrant over.

 

It's completely stupid.

 

I posted this in the thread, but going to repeat it here.

 

By these rules, as a seller I can agree to a deal via PM and just wait to post "SOLD" for a few hours and hope someone hits the BIN at a better price.

 

 

 

The potential buyer who sent the PM obviously read the thread and therefore should be aware of the rules. Your example doesn't work. The seller stated his terms so kudos to him.

 

"Trumps all PMs " that would include agreed upon deals is stupid. It lacks common sense and good business sense.

 

 

 

Your opinion which you are entitled to but his rules do not violate board rules and were stated up front. You have no case other than simply not liking the rule. His decision followed his rule. The seller did nothing wrong and is common practice on the boards.

 

This. There's something to be argued if the rules were not so clear. The seller was pretty good about detailing what he was going to consider when awarding the book to a buyer.

 

Let's be honest, he could have said that he's not selling to anyone on the west coast or anyone named Branget. You could argue that those rules were stupid and didn't make good business sense. But if known up front, the rules are still the rules. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MCMiles

MCMiles

Posted
Posted

Fine. The rule is there. Dan didn't do anything wrong, but IMO sided wrong at the end.

 

I'll recommend to anyone that anyone that ever wants to sell here and keep a good reputation avoid that rule in that vague form. A time stamp should win and I'm guessing most people would agree. There really isn't any reason not to adopt this rule. It will save any seller from this awkward situation and clear rules won't off any buyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
revat

revat

Posted
Posted
Fine. The rule is there. Dan didn't do anything wrong, but IMO sided wrong at the end.

 

I'll recommend to anyone that anyone that ever wants to sell here and keep a good reputation avoid that rule in that vague form. A time stamp should win and I'm guessing most people would agree. There really isn't any reason not to adopt this rule. It will save any seller from this awkward situation and clear rules won't off any buyers.

 

This would be the smartest rule, and makes the most sense in general. BUT we allow people to sell as they like, which can includes rules that are counterintuitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
29 29
Go to topic listing