Nominating DavidtheDavid 1 1

[vaillant]

On 27/6/2017 at 3:51 PM, crassus said:

 

On 27/6/2017 at 3:38 PM, DavidTheDavid said:

This is why I steer clear of these threads. People start playing amateur detective and part-time psychoanalyst, offering un-asked for advice based on little more than attempts to infer innuendo, hidden motives, likely causes, and whatever pabulum you want to inject. Advice, I've come to learn, is worth what you pay for it. Folks need to decide on the matter at hand and limit comments to that, which is the PL, which has apparently been decided. Some people have managed that. All the other --sorry, but yeah, it's , no matter how well-intentioned you think yourself--is just patronizing, presumptuous, and condescending. I don't like to engage in that kind of thing, so I no longer visit the probation forum or the moderation action. Some people are drawn to it like flies on poop. It's the same reason I largely avoid CG and the other sub-forums. Not only do you get to watch the drama, you get to insert yourself into it. Maybe we just need some live tweeting from all the sage commentators.

Eventually, these threads fall into a bunch of back-slapping and heehawing from parties who have no vested interest in the matter. Someone just needs to post a meme to complete the cycle. Then we'll start a new cycle with people criticizing my critique or offering more sage advice or furthering the misdirection. Yeah, the whole matter sucks, but in general so does the board's response.

And no, I didn't sleep well last night, and yes, I might be in a bad mood. But just as disappointing is the whole transaction and PL matter, so is it to watch things dissolve into the muck that has typified this board for so long.

 

 

Do not be so cynical about the process, yes there is always chatter, but many people involve themselves because it is part of community service on these Boards to help police them and when possible arbitrate disputes. The Board members did not make this dispute public. Maxwell Smart nominated you and than you nominated him, so now we have two threads instead of one.

I do not presume to speak for everyone, but for myself its not my first definition of fun to see this unfold and for me it is discouraging that it could not have been settled by civil compromise in the first instance. I do not doubt that each of you acts in good faith based on what you believe is the case, but the fact is that each of you does not give the other any credit for acting in good faith, and this is the root of the problem, not the Boards or its members.

 

Yes, David (James): do not blame members suppositions – or assumptions – alone (even if maybe worded presumptuously in some cases): after all the matter was made public by Maxwll, so it is natural that people start to imagine how facts unfolded.
And since, as Robert very well said here, the actual information provided is very little, there is more room for imagination and for "un-asked" advice.

It might be "un-asked" but we are speaking of honesty and integrity, so I guess it is just reasonable to expect any kind of reaction to such facts and sentiments. As Robert said, I’m sure most of us would have not liked to see things take this turn and some were just trying to contribute for the good.

[vaillant]

1 hour ago, telerites said:

Unfortunately this thread has become nothing more than entertainment for the rest of the board (which includes me).  I, along with many others, continue to say the same thing regarding the poor initial responses from both parties and neither accepting the possibility of blame (as the damage either occurred while in the possession of the seller, or the buyer, or less likely but still possible while in transit).   It is possible that neither the buyer nor the seller knows they caused the damage, but it also possible that either party knows they created the damage and are now not being forthcoming.  

Why can everyone but two interested parties realize that - is it some misguided bravado, intention to deceive, remorse, etc.?  For whatever reason, please don't mind the spectators here and on with the show - the admission was free, popcorn and drinks are available, and the entertainment is most enjoyable.

The above expressed as my own opinion, of course.  

An entertainment? I could never think of such things as "an entertainment". I would have happily avoided to take the time to read everything and suffer the whole thing.

[RockMyAmadeus]

18 hours ago, comix4fun said:

It's a form of waiver. When the seller agrees to override his own terms, the buyer's own statements and words, and agrees to unilaterally alter the closure of a deal he's waived the ability to hold the buyer to his statement of "it's all good". 

Also, it's because the seller agreed to the return without question and without qualification. He read the statement by the buyer and what the buyer wanted and he voluntarily allowed the return. The seller had a stance that the buyer had waived condition issues up until the seller decided to accept the return in the face of the buyer having accepted the book and then later rejected the book upon noticing the defect. 

If you don't put conditions on the return it is an unconditional return. Conditions can't only be "implied" because it eliminates them from being an agreed to term of the transaction. The only thing that would alter this further is proof of fraud on either party which would alleviate the responsibilities of the waiver being that the decision to do so was made under false pretenses. 

I understand this (and thank you for the explanation!) but...if we're going to get bogged down in the legal weeds of who said what, when, where, and how, at what point does "gentlemen's agreement" come into play? 

As it stands, in this "accept all returns, no matter what" online mercantile environment we're in, it would look like bad faith to deny at least a return to assess damage, which is what the seller did.

I understand that the seller should not have accepted the return to preserve his rights, but the seller DID say that he would have to "see the book up close to respond to the damage you've mentioned." In other words: the seller put conditions on acceptance of the return, if not the return itself.

It wasn't a return without conditions, and therefore not an unconditional return. 

Therefore, since it wasn't an unconditional return, I don't see how it could override the buyer's negligence in...and I know there's a legal term or phrase here that I'm forgetting..."proactively approving the condition upon receipt." And, in that case, I don't see how the seller has given up his right of refusal of a "full refund return" under these circumstances.

I wonder if landlord/tenant law might apply here...that is, if a tenant accepts a place as it is, without informing the landlord of damage upon move-in, that the tenant may even be liable for those issues, because there's no way to prove who actually did the damage after a reasonable amount of "inspection time." 

Just wondering out loud, here, so it may not be applicable.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

18 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

The fact that this was a PM exchange and probably not much more thought out than a verbal exchange I don't think it should be analyzed as a legal document. I see...... 

- This book is damaged, it's not an 8.5, I want a rebate.

- I have to see it first. I would prefer to keep it rather than rebate.

 

 

That's where I lean, too, BB.

[RockMyAmadeus]

18 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Taken out of context, I concur. But the seller said he wanted to see the book to inspect the damage so he has to give his return address. If only the seller had clearly said, upon inspection, I will refund you but he didn't. So everyone reads it differently. I am just trying to imagine myself in the seller's situation. The more he thinks about it he reaches the conclusion NO, this is not right, the book was not damaged. Additionally, he gets notified that the buyer has contacted Paypal. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr. I know I am reading between the lines but I sympathize with the seller. Sorry.

Accepting the return...with or without conditions...is a good faith move.

Not only accepting the book, admitting that he knew in his mind that there was an issue, but still proactively telling the seller the book was satisfactory AND leaving kudos publicly, and then changing his mind 6-7 days later when he "had the time" to more thoroughly examine it, is a bad faith move.

Opening a Paypal dispute before the seller has even received the book back...provoked or not...is a bad faith move. It assumes bad faith on the part of the seller, who has already demonstrated a measure of good faith.

Not telling the whole story to Paypal...that the buyer initially gave written notice of his satisfaction, then rescinded that satisfaction a week after the fact...is a bad faith move.

I don't see where the seller has acted in bad faith.

I see multiple points where the buyer has acted in bad faith.

I am with BB on this: the seller...so far as I can see, and I'm willing to consider correction on this...has acted in good faith throughout this transaction. Unprofessional, yes. Emotional, yes. But I don't see acts of bad faith on the part of the seller.

I see multiple instances of bad faith on the part of the buyer, and a complete unwillingness to acknowledge any responsibility whatsoever, including comparing his purchase to buying pants from a store, saying they fit, and then noticing a missing belt loop. It would be more accurate to say "I saw that the area was frayed, but I figured I could sew it back up, and told the merchant the pants were perfect."

Plus, in online commerce, part of the ritual of transaction, especially transaction between private individuals, is the buyer letting the seller know that the item they purchased was satisfactory...which the buyer did!

It's not just overlooking at this point: it's a deliberate act of negligence, that I don't see is overridden by the seller accepting a return to "see the damage." The seller merely misspoke...if that...but the buyer saw there was a problem, ignored it, told the seller things were satisfactory, and THEN decided, after all of this and a measure of time had passed, that it wasn't. 

Edited June 28, 2017 by RockMyAmadeus

[Bomber-Bob]

1 hour ago, joeypost said:

Was the top of the sleeve taped to keep the book from sliding out?

Joey, these are excellent questions. I see where you are going with this. If the book has any freedom of movement, even inside the mylar, a resulting dent can occur. Often without any obvious damage to the shipping box. Just a little room to slide is all it takes.

[comix4fun]

14 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I understand this (and thank you for the explanation!) but...if we're going to get bogged down in the legal weeds of who said what, when, where, and how, at what point does "gentlemen's agreement" come into play? 

As it stands, in this "accept all returns, no matter what" online mercantile environment we're in, it would look like bad faith to deny at least a return to assess damage, which is what the seller did.

I understand that the seller should not have accepted the return to preserve his rights, but the seller DID say that he would have to "see the book up close to respond to the damage you've mentioned." In other words: the seller put conditions on acceptance of the return, if not the return itself.

It wasn't a return without conditions, and therefore not an unconditional return. 

Therefore, since it wasn't an unconditional return, I don't see how it could override the buyer's negligence in...and I know there's a legal term or phrase here that I'm forgetting..."proactively approving the condition upon receipt." And, in that case, I don't see how the seller has given up his right of refusal of a "full refund return" under these circumstances.

I wonder if landlord/tenant law might apply here...that is, if a tenant accepts a place as it is, without informing the landlord of damage upon move-in, that the tenant may even be liable for those issues, because there's no way to prove who actually did the damage after a reasonable amount of "inspection time." 

Just wondering out loud, here, so it may not be applicable.

 

The problem with this matter is, there's far too much writing between them and far too much of it is ambiguous or easily misconstrued by the other. 

That means when we read what they wrote, we are forced to make assumptions about what seemingly simple comments like "Sure, send it back" and "I agreed to take it back before really looking" and "have to see the book to respond" and "once I get it I'll send back your money". You and I have to assume what they meant to get to "conditional" or "unconditional" returns. You and I and everyone else are forced to use context to figure out meaning because of how clumsily things are worded and how they almost immediately took on different meanings for both the buyer and seller.

The context, to me, reads like the buyer is getting his money back once the book is in hand. There are words like "buy back" in the same paragraph that conflict with "send back your money"  later on, so we each go on what the words mean to us. Given how many people read that as "send me the book and you'll get your money back" it's not an irrational translation. 

[comix4fun]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Opening a Paypal dispute before the seller has even received the book back...provoked or not...is a bad faith move. It assumes bad faith on the part of the seller, who has already demonstrated a measure of good faith.

 

Not telling the whole story to Paypal...that the buyer initially gave written notice of his satisfaction, then rescinded that satisfaction a week after the fact...is a bad faith move.

 

I don't see the opening of a paypal dispute as "provoked" I see it as brought up and suggested by the Seller. 

I agree with the characterization to Paypal being incongruous with all the facts and isn't something the buyer should have done. 

[Bomber-Bob]

2 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

The problem with this matter is, there's far too much writing between them and far too much of it is ambiguous or easily misconstrued by the other. 

 

Totally agree on this comment. I am anxious to see where Joey's line of questions lead. Perhaps it will conclude the cause of the damage.

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I don't see the opening of a paypal dispute as "provoked" I see it as brought up and suggested by the Seller. 

 

I don't see it as provoked, either, but the argument can be made (and I believe is where the buyer is coming from) that the seller provoked the buyer into opening the case.

[comix4fun]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I don't see it as provoked, either, but the argument can be made (and I believe is where the buyer is coming from) that the seller provoked the buyer into opening the case.

I guess so. I looked at it as the Paypal claim was the seller's idea, since he was the one who brought it up. Makes sense though, it was either an earnest request to let Paypal sort it out or a nudge to provoke him to go that route since the Seller had shifted to believing the buyer damaged the book and was being dishonest.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

I should have spent more time on my initial inspection. Upon removing the book from its mylar and bag and board, the front corner damage was evident, though I didn't look carefully at that time. The front corner damage would easily explain the back corner damage. That tells me the book was damaged upon receipt. How and when he damaged it in the sending, I don't know. So yes, I should have inspected more carefully at the start, or waited to respond to him until I had time to look at it more thoroughly. As stated earlier, my life is busy. I don't go into Christmas Morning mode when a comic arrives. I do like to let the seller know that I've received something, especially on an expensive book as that's just polite.

When Maxwell flipped to hostile and accusatory, it quickly became obvious that reaching an amicable resolution was not in the works and that PayPal would best provide restitution. I have as much trust in him to do the right thing as he probably has for me. The detective thing is a bit of a gas, but hey, knock yourself out. I'll keep an eye out for the private investigators circling my house.

If you had shown conciliation...of any kind...rather than answering hostile with hostile...you probably wouldn't be in this situation.

Something like: "I'm sorry I didn't check more thoroughly before announcing my satisfaction, Eric. That's my fault. I saw there was an issue, but I didn't think much of it at the time. I shouldn't have responded with satisfaction so quickly. I'm sure I didn't cause any damage, and it's certainly possible it happened in shipping. I'm sorry that my actions have caused you to be angry, and I hope we can work something out."

But you refuse to budge, saying here that the seller damaged it, and STILL trying to characterize your statement of satisfaction as "just letting the seller know that you received it." That's not what you said. And, if there was any ambiguity, leaving kudos...the "board precedent for satisfactorily completed transactions"...sealed the deal. Then, a week later, you change your mind, but can't understand why the seller "flipped to hostile and accusatory"...?

"I'm sorry you feel that way" isn't an apology of any kind.

Pride's a wicked taskmaster.

[RockMyAmadeus]

13 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I guess so. I looked at it as the Paypal claim was the seller's idea, since he was the one who brought it up. Makes sense though, it was either an earnest request to let Paypal sort it out or a nudge to provoke him to go that route since the Seller had shifted to believing the buyer damaged the book and was being dishonest.  

And the weird thing about that is, Paypal will almost certainly side with the buyer, as they always do.

 

[comix4fun]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

And the weird thing about that is, Paypal will almost certainly side with the buyer, as they always do.

 

I didn't want to say anything about that (since the parties are so sensitive to opinions) but that crossed my mind instantly as well. 

[DavidTheDavid]

PayPal was the obvious choice considering the loss of trust I suffered when he became hostile, accusatory, and irrational. Keep in mind, the book was returned on the understating of his statements...

1. but maybe its best that I simply buy the book back from you. I'm not interested in the downside if the book becomes more damaged. Sorry, but I think this is best. Let me know what you wish to do - I can have the money sent back to you on Monday.
2. I meant I can have the money sent to you once I receive the book back.
3. Please pack it safely and return the book.

See early posts here for complete context. 

So I returned the book, on that understanding. He changed his mind, unilaterally. Yet he still accepted the returned book, signed for it, and took possession of it.

See where this is going?

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

I had a nap. I felt better later.

Still, it's about PL. It's not about non-professionals attempting to litigate or mitigate something in a public forum, or mediate a financial dispute. Nor is it about professionals, who by most professional codes of conduct would be out of line doing so, inserting their informed judgment. That's my gripe. But yeah, I know people do what people do, unthinking or not. Not trying to argue with you or snap at you. It's just what I think, and it's what turns me off about this kind of thing. 

What does someone's status as a "professional" or "non-professional" have to do with anything?

Is a doctor always right because he has a few degrees on the wall?

Is a patient always wrong because he doesn't?

Common sense is still common sense, and blaming the discussion doesn't render common sense invalid.

I have no doubt you're "turned off" about this kind of thing, because this situation casts you in a poor light. Continued responses like this...taking no responsibility for yourself, and blaming everyone else...only makes it worse.

Good advice, if you can take it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I didn't want to say anything about that (since the parties are so sensitive to opinions) but that crossed my mind instantly as well. 

Good thing I'm not a lawyer.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

PayPal was the obvious choice considering the loss of trust I suffered when he became hostile, accusatory, and irrational. Keep in mind, the book was returned on the understating of his statements...

1. but maybe its best that I simply buy the book back from you. I'm not interested in the downside if the book becomes more damaged. Sorry, but I think this is best. Let me know what you wish to do - I can have the money sent back to you on Monday.
2. I meant I can have the money sent to you once I receive the book back.
3. Please pack it safely and return the book.

See early posts here for complete context. 

So I returned the book, on that understanding. He changed his mind, unilaterally. Yet he still accepted the returned book, signed for it, and took possession of it.

See where this is going?

Continuing to call the seller "hostile, accusatory, and irrational"...when you, yourself, have acted in measurably bad faith....doesn't help your case.

Regardless of your excuses, you opened the case before the seller even had the item back in hand.

Sometimes, people need time to cool off. Sometimes, when they get that time, they do cool off, and things can be resolved without further escalation.

But, because you were offended that someone would dare question you and your integrity, you decided to answer measure for measure, up the ante, and file the claim before giving the seller the chance to receive the item back and refund you. 

On top of that, you misrepresented the situation in your claim to Paypal. Why? (probably a rhetorical question.)

If I were you, I'd stop posting, unless you can manage to swallow your pride and apologize for the parts for which you are responsible, and contact Paypal to let them know that you misrepresented the dispute to them.

I said that neither party's actions rose to the level of the PL previously; I have changed my mind: if you win the dispute with Paypal, based on your misrepresentation of the material facts of the situation, that is fraud, and for that, you should go on the PL.

Here's your chance to do the right thing....

 

[jsilverjanet]

On 6/26/2017 at 1:33 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

PS. I've spoken about this before, and I know it seems much less collegial, but it really is confusing for a lot of people when first names, rather than usernames, are used, if they're different.

For example...I had no idea who Randall was...I figured out that it was ChiSoxFan, and I'm no dumb bunny...I think.

I know it can seem a little less friendly, but it's a lot more confusing the other way, especially for casual readers.

I agree Wolfgang 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, telerites said:

 drinks are available, 

Wait...there's LIQUOR here...??

No one told me that! 

I'll take a manhattan on the rocks, please.