Mephisto25 for probation 0

[misterrmystery]

10 minutes ago, Jimmy Linguini said:

I'm not sure he can be nominated if you're not out anything.
I agree that this sucks, but making this thread and putting his name out there definitely helps the community!

Luckily I was Paypal protected. I got my money back from them, not the seller. Lesson here: never pay with F&F unless you know and trust the seller.

Thanks for your input.

[crassus]

The PL is first and foremost to facilitate the completion of a transaction. If you have received a refund from Paypal than the transaction in that sense has been completed, albeit no thanks to the seller. It is important to make the community aware of this, and I think that purpose has been served.

Technicalities, aside, I am really sorry that you have had to go through this.

[Red84]

It is incorrect to read this situation as the buyer not being out anything.  He has been deprived the benefit of the bargain.  He also was deprived of use of that $400 during the time when the seller did not ship the books.  The seller did not complete the deal within 30 days.  This is probation worthy.

[Red84]

On 5/30/2017 at 11:45 AM, Jimmy Linguini said:

On 5/30/2017 at 11:41 AM, misterrmystery said:

I did get my money back but I believe there should be an avenue to warn others and probation is also a way to  discourage a seller from not fulfilling their obligation. Sort of like the strike Ebay gives you.

I needed to do a lot of leg work to get my money back. It took 25 days for Pappal to go through their procedures and give him time to respond.

I've never nominated anyone before so I'm new to the process.

Thanks

I'm not sure he can be nominated if you're not out anything.
I agree that this sucks, but making this thread and putting his name out there definitely helps the community!

He is out receiving the books that he purchased.  The individual should be placed on the probation list.

[seanfingh]

1 minute ago, Red84 said:

He is out receiving the books that he purchased.  The individual should be placed on the probation list.

This is the age old argument about whether the person can go on the PL without a way to get off of it.  If you look at the beginnings of the PL, this has always been hotly debated, and it is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out.  You are well within your rights to state your opinion, and I respect it, but the CW on the Probation List has been that this type of scenario is split about 50-50 as to whether it is Probation worthy. Usually not.

[Red84]

Just now, seanfingh said:

This is the age old argument about whether the person can go on the PL without a way to get off of it.  If you look at the beginnings of the PL, this has always been hotly debated, and it is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out.  You are well within your rights to state your opinion, and I respect it, but the CW on the Probation List has been that this type of scenario is split about 50-50 as to whether it is Probation worthy. Usually not.

How is this any different than a seller just backing out of a deal and refunding the money?  That would no doubt be PL worthy.  In this case the buyer had to go through PayPal to get that refund, but the result is the same.  Seller sold a book, accepted money, did not ship, and "refunded" money, thereby not completing the deal within 30 days.

[seanfingh]

1 minute ago, Red84 said:

How is this any different than a seller just backing out of a deal and refunding the money?  That would no doubt be PL worthy.  In this case the buyer had to go through PayPal to get that refund, but the result is the same.  Seller sold a book, accepted money, did not ship, and "refunded" money, thereby not completing the deal within 30 days.

It would not be "no doubt probation worthy," for the exact same reasons I stated above.  Is it poor customer service? Yes. Is it rude? Yes. Should the public be warned? Yes.

But for the reasons stated above, there would be, based upon past experience, a lot of pushback on the nomination.

 

[Red84]

Just now, seanfingh said:

It would not be "no doubt probation worthy," for the exact same reasons I stated above.  Is it poor customer service? Yes. Is it rude? Yes. Should the public be warned? Yes.

But for the reasons stated above, there would be, based upon past experience, a lot of pushback on the nomination.

 

I don't consider attempted theft to be just poor customer service.

Since you say a potential way to make things right is required to be put on the probation list (a underlying idea that I think is silly, but that's a side point), the seller could provide the books he agreed to sell at the agreed to price.  But as it stands, you are advocating letting him off the hook for attempting to steal from the OP.  That's garbage as far as I'm concerned.

[seanfingh]

1 minute ago, Red84 said:

I don't consider attempted theft to be just poor customer service.

Since you say a potential way to make things right is required to be put on the probation list (a underlying idea that I think is silly, but that's a side point), the seller could provide the books he agreed to sell at the agreed to price.  But as it stands, you are advocating letting him off the hook for attempting to steal from the OP.  That's garbage as far as I'm concerned.

I am not advocating anything.  I'd suggest you actually read what I type, if you want to converse. 

There are many, many people who agree with your position (possibly even the Boardie typing this response). But there likewise have, historically, been many who feel differently - and this has led to an entire catalogue of debate that has, many times, led to Probation nominations being defeated.  

 

[Red84]

Just now, seanfingh said:

5 minutes ago, Red84 said:

I don't consider attempted theft to be just poor customer service.

Since you say a potential way to make things right is required to be put on the probation list (a underlying idea that I think is silly, but that's a side point), the seller could provide the books he agreed to sell at the agreed to price.  But as it stands, you are advocating letting him off the hook for attempting to steal from the OP.  That's garbage as far as I'm concerned.

I am not advocating anything.  I'd suggest you actually read what I type, if you want to converse. 

There are many, many people who agree with your position (possibly even the Boardie typing this response). But there likewise have, historically, been many who feel differently - and this has led to an entire catalogue of debate that has, many times, led to Probation nominations being defeated.  

Then let's see if this nomination is defeated then.  I thought HOS nominations used votes rather than PL nominations, but I'd be up for a vote here.

There's a big difference between a refund initiated by the seller and one forced by PayPal.  That could be the distinguishing factor for anyone on the fence about the probation worthiness of this incident.

[seanfingh]

It absolutely could.  And I'm not sure why I decided to get into the mix when most of the Probation discussions have as much substance around here lately as a popcorn fart.  It used to be an extremely dynamic debate among a large group of regular marketplace participants.  Now, not so much. 

[crassus]

1 hour ago, Red84 said:

1 hour ago, seanfingh said:

It would not be "no doubt probation worthy," for the exact same reasons I stated above.  Is it poor customer service? Yes. Is it rude? Yes. Should the public be warned? Yes.

But for the reasons stated above, there would be, based upon past experience, a lot of pushback on the nomination.

 

I don't consider attempted theft to be just poor customer service.

Since you say a potential way to make things right is required to be put on the probation list (a underlying idea that I think is silly, but that's a side point), the seller could provide the books he agreed to sell at the agreed to price.  But as it stands, you are advocating letting him off the hook for attempting to steal from the OP.  That's garbage as far as I'm concerned.

I agree that in principle the seller could still do the right thing and ship the books, since he still has the money, but whether he still has the books, is something only the seller knows. If he did not have the books, it is true that the buyer could demand some other form of compensation, assuming it was reasonable.

For me the problem is that at this point the PL would no longer be about getting a transaction completed as originally agreed upon, it would than become a process for making reparations until the buyer is satisfied. That is not in principle impossible its just not what the PL is constructed to do, and it is also something that could be subject to abuse, i.e. "I keep you on the PL until I get what I think is owed to me". But the only standard we have for what is owed to the buyer is the original transaction. If originally the buyer is owed books, but say the books are no longer available, than what now is the buyer owed exactly?

Another issue is the fact of the refund. Some would object that since the buyer has his money back, to now receive the books also is not the same transaction, the buyer having his money and his books is I'm sure the best of all transactions, but unless the buyer maintains that he now deserves the books for free, that would need to be explained.

The PL is not the HoS, the PL is not punishment, nor a lifetime of bondage to the party wronged. It certainly can be argued what "making it right" means in this situation, but it is not silly to insist that someone going on the list have a way to get off of it, as its purpose is to get transactions completed.

[crassus]

1 hour ago, seanfingh said:

It absolutely could.  And I'm not sure why I decided to get into the mix when most of the Probation discussions have as much substance around here lately as a popcorn fart.  It used to be an extremely dynamic debate among a large group of regular marketplace participants.  Now, not so much. 

Yes, it now feels like a very large empty gymnasium, and its a shame.

[porcupine48]

I think he should be placed on the list and have it sorted IF the seller tries to make good.He should not have the chance to do this to another person here without his name on the list to forwarn others.

[Red84]

13 minutes ago, porcupine48 said:

I think he should be placed on the list and have it sorted IF the seller tries to make good.He should not have the chance to do this to another person here without his name on the list to forwarn others.

Exactly.  It's on the seller to try and make things right.  No consequences because buyer won a paypal case is absurd.

[Jimmy Linguini]

You guys are missing the point of the probation list.

Its not a list of bad buyers and sellers, its a feature of the CGC board to try to remedy any situation where a CGC board member needs to be made WHOLE.

No one is arguing that this isn't a terrible situation and no one is arguing that this seller shouldn't be avoided.

Adding someone on the probation list who would have no way to get off the probation list defeats the purpose of the probation list.

[Red84]

Just now, Jimmy Linguini said:

You guys are missing the point of the probation list.

Its not a list of bad buyers and sellers, its a feature of the CGC board to try to remedy any situation where a CGC board member needs to be made WHOLE.

No one is arguing that this isn't a terrible situation and no one is arguing that this seller shouldn't be avoided.

Adding someone on the probation list who would have no way to get off the probation list defeats the purpose of the probation list.

The buyer has not been made whole.  I haven't researched the value of the books in question, but let's say it would cost the buyer $450 to get them somewhere else.  He paid $415 in the deal with the seller.  That means that buyer has been denied that $35 benefit.  That's the benefit of the bargain I was referring to earlier.  Not to mention the opportunity cost of having his money tied up for more than a month.

The seller could likely make it right by apologizing and offering to now complete the deal at an agreed to price taking into consideration the inconvenience he has caused to the buyer.

 

[Red84]

I should also note that when someone is on the PL or HOS lists an individual is able to post 1 warning in that seller's sale thread to alert everyone.  That is clearly something that would be needed in this case.

[CAHokie]

I would say he goes on the PL and can get off it by offering to send the buyer the comics and be paid after their arrival.  He could also offer a donation to a charity or other monetary compensation to the buyer for tying up his money. 

He should not be allowed to just walk away without a symbolic scarlet letter so to speak.  

[CatskillMike]

I also agree that to do nothing is incorrect.  I know nobody is going to like this, but maybe a new list should be made to address this type of situation?  Of course, if the feedback thread wasn't just a kudo's thread it would take care of itself.