General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[N/A]

I look forward to the wording which eliminates technicalities.

[awakeintheashes]

I look forward to the wording which eliminates technicalities.

First in thread wins. Period. Full stop.

[N/A]

I look forward to the wording which eliminates technicalities.

First in thread wins. Period. Full stop.

 

Apparently the last 20 pages disagree.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

Maybe we should create a standard template for sellers. Apparently these tools can't be honest on their own.

 

I've gone this route.

 

First unconditional in PM or Thread wins, unless a deal has already been agreed to by both parties. (Timestamp will decide winner).

 

It doesn't negate the seller stringing the buyer along, but unless there are time limits on offers (which I don't advocate for), I don't think you can totally eliminate it.

this is worded how it should be.

[N/A]

Yes, there can be only one.

[MCMiles]

I look forward to the wording which eliminates technicalities.

First in thread wins. Period. Full stop.

 

Apparently the last 20 pages disagree.

 

Common sense disagrees, but some of you will keep using/justifying that rule. (thumbs u

Edited August 8, 2014 by MCMiles

[N/A]

Common sense ain't common and certainly doesn't justify the alternative. (thumbs u

[EC ed]

I look forward to the wording which eliminates technicalities.

First in thread wins. Period. Full stop.

 

[awakeintheashes]

I look forward to the wording which eliminates technicalities.

First in thread wins. Period. Full stop.

 

[N/A]

Stop joking! This is serious!!

[awakeintheashes]

Stop joking! This is serious!!

[namisgr]

Common sense ain't common and certainly doesn't justify the alternative. (thumbs u

 

Since when does common sense tell you it's ok to negotiate a deal via pm, reach a mutually acceptable agreement, and then later reneg on the negotiated deal because somebody else put a 'take it' graemlin in the sales thread (and agreed to pay a higher price)?

[revat]

Common sense ain't common and certainly doesn't justify the alternative. (thumbs u

 

Since when does common sense tell you it's ok to negotiate a deal via pm, reach a mutually acceptable agreement, and then later reneg on the negotiated deal because somebody else put a 'take it' graemlin in the sales thread (and agreed to pay a higher price)?

 

common sense would tell me that 'clearly stated rules' takes precedence over 'commonly accepted rules', especially when purchasing is when sales threads are somewhat infrequent for any given seller and rules are somewhat inconsistent from seller to seller.

 

"But judge, she looked 19 and was wearing a college sweater and we were in love." Are there situations where adhering to the strictest definition of the law doesn't seem like the rightest thing? Maybe, if you're 20 and you met in college and she graduated a year early from high school, and you dated for 6 months, she's very mature, blah blah blah. But believe me, you run a much more slippery slope when you don't uphold the technicality.

[N/A]

Common sense ain't common and certainly doesn't justify the alternative. (thumbs u

 

Since when does common sense tell you it's ok to negotiate a deal via pm, reach a mutually acceptable agreement, and then later reneg on the negotiated deal because somebody else put a 'take it' graemlin in the sales thread (and agreed to pay a higher price)?

 

You'd have to ask Mr Common Sense.

[N/A]

Common sense ain't common and certainly doesn't justify the alternative. (thumbs u

 

Since when does common sense tell you it's ok to negotiate a deal via pm, reach a mutually acceptable agreement, and then later reneg on the negotiated deal because somebody else put a 'take it' graemlin in the sales thread (and agreed to pay a higher price)?

 

common sense would tell me that 'clearly stated rules' takes precedence over 'commonly accepted rules', especially when purchasing is when sales threads are somewhat infrequent for any given seller and rules are somewhat inconsistent from seller to seller.

 

"But judge, she looked 19 and was wearing a college sweater and we were in love." Are there situations where adhering to the strictest definition of the law doesn't seem like the rightest thing? Maybe, if you're 20 and you met in college and she graduated a year early from high school, and you dated for 6 months, she's very mature, blah blah blah. But believe me, you run a much more slippery slope when you don't uphold the technicality.

 

Oh the legalities.

 

There are laws that do not require intent. I don't see how your example relates to the sales scenario.

[HarveySwick]

[N/A]

Aren't you a lawyer?

[revat]

Common sense ain't common and certainly doesn't justify the alternative. (thumbs u

 

Since when does common sense tell you it's ok to negotiate a deal via pm, reach a mutually acceptable agreement, and then later reneg on the negotiated deal because somebody else put a 'take it' graemlin in the sales thread (and agreed to pay a higher price)?

 

common sense would tell me that 'clearly stated rules' takes precedence over 'commonly accepted rules', especially when purchasing is when sales threads are somewhat infrequent for any given seller and rules are somewhat inconsistent from seller to seller.

 

"But judge, she looked 19 and was wearing a college sweater and we were in love." Are there situations where adhering to the strictest definition of the law doesn't seem like the rightest thing? Maybe, if you're 20 and you met in college and she graduated a year early from high school, and you dated for 6 months, she's very mature, blah blah blah. But believe me, you run a much more slippery slope when you don't uphold the technicality.

 

Oh the legalities.

 

There are laws that do not require intent. I don't see how your example relates to the sales scenario.

 

I think in many cases, with contract law, with crimes, even with your kids, there are opportunities to rule on a situation by the letter of the law, or in a way that seems more reasonable but might lead to even more controversy immediately or down the road. I'm just saying I wouldn't think less of the person for choosing to strictly follow the rules, even if it makes a little less sense in one specific case.

[HarveySwick]

Yes, I'm a lawyer.

 

Do you mean my response of or position in general? I didn't understand the analogy in relation to this current mess. If you meant regarding my position, I think a deal was struck and the seller should be accountable for following through on that deal with Transplant. I think it's a situation for both buyers and I've updated my personal list of sellers I won't even bother looking at what they have to sell in the future. I get that he is following his "rules" to a tee, but in some instances common sense trumps self-serving "rules".

 

At the end of the day it's just

[MCMiles]

It's already been established the stated rule in the sales thread allows the seller to back out of a deal already established, exonerating the seller.

 

What really needs to be established and accepted is the rule is stupid and asking for trouble.

 

It's simple to use the time stamp on a done deal or an I'll take it to determine the winner. This also allows the seller to have a broader audience because a lot of people don't want to buy publicly. If a seller doesn't want offers, then say "Public i'll take its only" or "absolutely no offers via PM, only I'll take its are accepted." The only draw back is it would allow the seller to pretend a book sold via PM in order to get out of a public sale due to some sort of sellers remorse.

 

I'd also recommend people stop posting sales threads with out scans and allowing the "I'll take it pending scan" Most people don't want to come in and post an unconditional "I'll take it" after some have posted "pending scans", but it happens and it's pretty discourteous IMO.

 

I don't appreciate the "PM sent" in the public thread by a buyer either. It's a way of playing on those that are courteous and not cut-throat to get them to back off, while you work a deal.

 

Common sense and common courtesy should prevail, but this is comic books we're talking about and it's been established many times that grandma ain't safe around the stairs when comics are involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2014 by MCMiles