Nominating DavidtheDavid 1 1

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, Bird said:

I always refer to people by their board names; I feel it is respectful to call them the name that they have chosen to be known as. And it is faaaar less confusing. When people call me by my given name I almost always say "who is this Sean character?"

I also want to point out that I am enjoying your presence here far more now that you do not constantly engage mr hype his variants for their low print run guy. )At least it seems that way to moe.) Yes it is worth doing once in a while and yes every comic is someone's first but it is much more pleasant reading your posts lately.

Not that this thread is about this, but I do not enjoy my time here very much. I took almost 6 months off from posting at all. I was in a mood the last week, which is the only reason I've posted at all. I have refrained from posting many, many times because of the management of this board. As a result, a ton bunch of misinformation and misunderstanding is posted that is never corrected...by anyone, because most of the folks who would have done so have, like me, mostly moved on. The mr. hype his variants guy has gotten away with metaphorical and factual murder, and that's really a shame.

Until and unless something drastically changes, that won't change, either.  

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 hours ago, Jaxxon said:

Sorry to stick my big nose in this but didn't he agree to a return? If so I thnk skypinkblue's solution is the best one.

No issues on my part; the discussion is valid and valuable. I think any good seller would accept a return if a customer is unhappy, almost as a knee-jerk reaction these days. I know I do. 

But just because the return was accepted...at least initially...doesn't absolve the buyer. The issue isn't that the buyer didn't have time to look over the book...I think any seller wouldn't have a problem with that...it's that the buyer said to himself "hmmm...this looks like it might have a problem. Oh well, not important", and then said to his seller "All A-OK, thank you!"..and THEN had a problem with it, a week or so after the fact.

"Sterling reputations" aside, if that was someone I didn't know, I, too, would be very suspicious, and probably decline the return. Not doing your due diligence is a killer.

As Paddy_McS said, "I'd be going over a $1500 book with a fine tooth comb before leaving kudos."

[wombat]

I see the same lack of "due diligence" on both parties. One not properly examining the book and the other not properly vetting an acceptance of a return. The same "i would be going over a $1,500 book with a fine tooth comb" can also be " I would give serious thought before agreeing to a return of a $1,500 book". 

[RockMyAmadeus]

26 minutes ago, wombat said:

I see the same lack of "due diligence" on both parties. One not properly examining the book and the other not properly vetting an acceptance of a return. The same "i would be going over a $1,500 book with a fine tooth comb" can also be " I would give serious thought before agreeing to a return of a $1,500 book". 

No.

They aren't on the same level at all, as explained exhaustively above. They're really not even in the same ballpark. It is the buyer's responsibility..obligation...to make sure that the item they receive is satisfactory, and to let the seller know immediately if it's not. That's part of the obligation of any transaction. That's how transactions work.

It is NOT the seller's responsibility to "properly vet a return" before accepting one, or risk losing the right to refuse that return upon further examination. That's not a part of due diligence. It is, rather, a mark of good faith that a seller would accept a return without question.

They aren't comparable. At all.

[wombat]

I completely disagree. 

[DavidTheDavid]

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.

 

 

[crassus]

3 minutes ago, 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.

[comix4fun]

1 hour ago, 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.

 

 

I pride myself on never, for any reason, "heehawing".

That said, this is one of the more ethically complicated issues I've seen in my (in three more days) 15 years on the boards. 

If the seller had denied your request for a return or refund due to your initial acceptance of the book, he would have been well within his rights. The quick acceptance was your negligence, which you already know.

The seller didn't deny your request though. He unilaterally altered the normal return policy procedures you'd expect by allowing the return without taking the time to look into the purported damage to the book. That quick acceptance of the return was his negligence. 

Your negligence in initially accepting is rendered moot by his later negligence in allowing the return. Allowing the return, basically, rendered everything that came before in terms of your actions meaningless. He could have chosen to stick to the sale and your acceptance, but that didn't happen. 

So we're left with a situation where both buyer and seller made an error, post sale, and there's no way to determine when and how the damage on the book occurred and who should justifiably be "on the hook" for it. 

It's an incredibly sticky ethical dilemma because, up to now, neither party has had a negative dealing reputation leaving no prior acts to act as a "rap sheet" where their account might be deemed suspect. In this situation, from the perspective of both buyer and seller you may both be right, or you might both be wrong, and we have no way of accurately determining what actually happened. 

Sorry for your sleeplessness. Bad moods are like elbows in this place....everyone's got at least one at all times.  

[FineCollector]

This isn't going to be resolved in a civil manner, since both parties are acting like reproductive organs.  However, I'd like Sha's resolution to be enacted, rather than seeing PayPal resolve it for us.

Edited June 27, 2017 by FineCollector
Vocabulary filter

[DavidTheDavid]

1 hour ago, FineCollector said:

This isn't going to be resolved in a civil manner, since both parties are acting like reproductive organs.  However, I'd like Sha's resolution to be enacted, rather than seeing PayPal resolve it for us.

First, PayPal is not resolving it for you. It's resolving it for two people. That's what I mean. Why are people inserting themselves into that aspect of this issue? Sorry, but it doesn't concern you.

And the bit about cursory examinations or more thorough ones, or saying, hey looks good!, is also not a valid argument. You buy some pants. You try them on. They fit! Thank god, at your age, it's getting harder and harder to find stuff that fits without making you look like a 1980's dad ad. You get home, you look at them again. Ah heck, missing a belt loop! Well, back to the store they go. You buy a new car, tell the salesman you love it when he calls you in a week to check in, then the transmission falls out, or the wheels fall off, or the roof rack is loose, whatever. By the logic on display here, I told the guy, Hey it's great! so tough luck. That's now how it works. Let's do a more immediate example. You buy a comic, you examine it thoroughly the same day you receive it, looks great, you consider it a done deal, you send it to CGC, uh oh! restoration.   Too bad you're not a resto expert. You told someone you were happy and left them kudos. And here's the thing: that has happened several times on this board and not a single person has considered that scenario. So no, that's not some sort of contractually binding event.

[comix4fun]

42 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

First, PayPal is not resolving it for you. It's resolving it for two people. That's what I mean. Why are people inserting themselves into that aspect of this issue? Sorry, but it doesn't concern you.

And the bit about cursory examinations or more thorough ones, or saying, hey looks good!, is also not a valid argument. You buy some pants. You try them on. They fit! Thank god, at your age, it's getting harder and harder to find stuff that fits without making you look like a 1980's dad ad. You get home, you look at them again. Ah heck, missing a belt loop! Well, back to the store they go. You buy a new car, tell the salesman you love it when he calls you in a week to check in, then the transmission falls out, or the wheels fall off, or the roof rack is loose, whatever. By the logic on display here, I told the guy, Hey it's great! so tough luck. That's now how it works. Let's do a more immediate example. You buy a comic, you examine it thoroughly the same day you receive it, looks great, you consider it a done deal, you send it to CGC, uh oh! restoration.   Too bad you're not a resto expert. You told someone you were happy and left them kudos. And here's the thing: that has happened several times on this board and not a single person has considered that scenario. So no, that's not some sort of contractually binding event.

I tried to give you the even handed analysis that both of you made negligent statements, but you seem the believe that you've done nothing at all careless or negligent, or made too hasty an analysis of your purchase. That's a shame.

In this situation you didn't have any hidden resto issues, you didn't have any hidden automobile defects that could not be discovered immediately upon driving off the lot, you made an unqualified statement that you'd looked over the book, determined it to be gorgeous and voicing your unreserved happiness with the deal. If the defect was there when the seller sold it to you, then the defect was right there, on the cover that looked so "fresh", when you sent that PM. Nothing hidden, nothing that broke later, just something you missed and accepted. That was an error on your part.  It's called "waiver". Had you couched your happiness with "at a quick glance" or " haven't had a chance to really look at the book, however..." it might be a different story. 

As I mentioned, the seller opened the door to the return regardless of your actions, so the impact of your mistake is moot. Moot is not the same as it having never happened. It's certainly not the same thing as a hidden defect. Those are logical fallacies given this fact pattern. 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by comix4fun

[CAHokie]

8 hours ago, 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.

 

 

I may have misunderstood the above post.  Are you saying that you don't want anyone to comment on this situation? How do you propose a community probation nomination be handled then without commenting.

Again, I may just be misreading it.  I have failed to comment because there is no clear answer on this one.

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 hours ago, comix4fun said:

I pride myself on never, for any reason, "heehawing".

That said, this is one of the more ethically complicated issues I've seen in my (in three more days) 15 years on the boards. 

If the seller had denied your request for a return or refund due to your initial acceptance of the book, he would have been well within his rights. The quick acceptance was your negligence, which you already know.

The seller didn't deny your request though. He unilaterally altered the normal return policy procedures you'd expect by allowing the return without taking the time to look into the purported damage to the book. That quick acceptance of the return was his negligence. 

Your negligence in initially accepting is rendered moot by his later negligence in allowing the return. Allowing the return, basically, rendered everything that came before in terms of your actions meaningless. He could have chosen to stick to the sale and your acceptance, but that didn't happen. 

So we're left with a situation where both buyer and seller made an error, post sale, and there's no way to determine when and how the damage on the book occurred and who should justifiably be "on the hook" for it. 

It's an incredibly sticky ethical dilemma because, up to now, neither party has had a negative dealing reputation leaving no prior acts to act as a "rap sheet" where their account might be deemed suspect. In this situation, from the perspective of both buyer and seller you may both be right, or you might both be wrong, and we have no way of accurately determining what actually happened. 

Sorry for your sleeplessness. Bad moods are like elbows in this place....everyone's got at least one at all times.  

I find myself not agreeing that the actions of the seller...to accept a return...render the previous actions of the buyer moot, but I'm not a lawyer. I don't see how accepting a return...just a return, mind you, not a "no questions asked" return...rises to the same level or degree of negligence of a buyer who admits that he saw a problem, but then went ahead and told the seller everything was fine, and then changed his mind 6-7 days later.

Can you explain precisely why such an action renders the negligence of the buyer moot? Is there some sort of implied warranty in accepting a return that I don't understand, here?

And...can't sellers accept returns, but with conditions, implied or not? Granted, the seller allowed a return, but did he grant a "no questions asked or needed" return? 

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 hours ago, 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.

 

You've done the very thing you decry here, and far more vehemently, to others. 

What makes you imagine that you are, therefore, immune to it yourself?

You did something that isn't common, to say the very least, but you don't seem to think you've done anything wrong, nor are you willing at all to recognize, much less admit, that you've caused any part of this issue. You've shown no contrition of any kind, no humility, no "I'm sorry I created this problem, how can we resolve it?"

But you think criticism isn't fair...?

Really...?

[thehumantorch]

4 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

First, PayPal is not resolving it for you. It's resolving it for two people. That's what I mean. Why are people inserting themselves into that aspect of this issue? Sorry, but it doesn't concern you.

And the bit about cursory examinations or more thorough ones, or saying, hey looks good!, is also not a valid argument. You buy some pants. You try them on. They fit! Thank god, at your age, it's getting harder and harder to find stuff that fits without making you look like a 1980's dad ad. You get home, you look at them again. Ah heck, missing a belt loop! Well, back to the store they go. You buy a new car, tell the salesman you love it when he calls you in a week to check in, then the transmission falls out, or the wheels fall off, or the roof rack is loose, whatever. By the logic on display here, I told the guy, Hey it's great! so tough luck. That's now how it works. Let's do a more immediate example. You buy a comic, you examine it thoroughly the same day you receive it, looks great, you consider it a done deal, you send it to CGC, uh oh! restoration.   Too bad you're not a resto expert. You told someone you were happy and left them kudos. And here's the thing: that has happened several times on this board and not a single person has considered that scenario. So no, that's not some sort of contractually binding event.

There's public discussion about this issue because both parties in the discussion make it public and a nomination for the PL was made requiring public discussion.  Most of the discussion has been reasonable and even handed and intended to help solve this issue.  I understand it can be painful but this is how we try to identify bad players and arbitrate disputes.

Your analogies to a car transmission, roof rack, wheels or belt loop don't really align with this problem.  The book was perfectly fine at the beginning of this transaction and a hidden defect didn't cause a reduction in value.  I hate to say it but clearly somewhere along the line the book was damaged through what I have to characterize as carelessness.

I also can't see a fair comparison to sending the book to CGC and finding out it's restored.  There was no third party changing perception of this book.  Rather you evaluated the book, gave positive feedback, and then found a flaw you hadn't seen before.

Finally, if the situation was reversed and you'd sent a $1500 book and now you were facing a return of a damaged book and a paypal refund wouldn't you want our support and wouldn't you want us asking questions?

 

 

[comix4fun]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I find myself not agreeing that the actions of the seller...to accept a return...render the previous actions of the buyer moot, but I'm not a lawyer. I don't see how accepting a return...just a return, mind you, not a "no questions asked" return...rises to the same level or degree of negligence of a buyer who admits that he saw a problem, but then went ahead and told the seller everything was fine, and then changed his mind 6-7 days later.

Can you explain precisely why such an action renders the negligence of the buyer moot? Is there some sort of implied warranty in accepting a return that I don't understand, here?

And...can't sellers accept returns, but with conditions, implied or not? Granted, the seller allowed a return, but did he grant a "no questions asked or needed" return? 

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. 

[Bomber-Bob]

I just reread the PM exchanges on this from early in the thread. During the initial exchanges, it appears the buyer wanted to keep the book but get a refund/adjustment. Seller says he would like to see the book, see the damage so mail it back to him. He added he would rather keep the book than offer an adjustment. IMO, the seller's request to mail the book back was so he could inspect the book and render a decision. In the meantime, before the seller gets the book back to inspect, the buyer submits a PP claim for a refund. Am I accurate here ? If so, why is the seller obligated to refund ?  

[comix4fun]

8 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

I just reread the PM exchanges on this from early in the thread. During the initial exchanges, it appears the buyer wanted to keep the book but get a refund/adjustment. Seller says he would like to see the book, see the damage so mail it back to him. He added he would rather keep the book than offer an adjustment. IMO, the seller's request to mail the book back was so he could inspect the book and render a decision. In the meantime, before the seller gets the book back to inspect, the buyer submits a PP claim for a refund. Am I accurate here ? If so, why is the seller obligated to refund ?  

I'll have to go back and look. I know the seller rejected the entire return after the seller had already mailed it, correct? The PP claim was what the seller told the buyer to do when the seller accepted then rejected the possibility of refund and they couldn't reach agreement. 

After checking:

The seller didn't say he had to get the book back and look at it to approve a refund, he just said he couldn't respond to what the buyer was calling corner damage until he saw it. He seemed to give the buyer (from the PMs on page 1) the choice of keeping the book or 2) returning for a full refund. The seller states he would have the money back out to him as soon as he got the book back in his possession, without further qualification. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by comix4fun
WENT BACK AND LOOKED...

[Bomber-Bob]

On 6/24/2017 at 7:07 AM, DavidTheDavid said:

 

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

These are the two PMs I'm referring to...

He gives the option of keeping it or sending it back for a full refund, it's not conditional on seeing the book. The discussion of the damage is him responding to if it was there before, it's not a condition (the way it's worded) on a refund.