Nominating Bfairb for the probation/HOS lists 4 4

[crassus]

Bfairb has been added to the Probation List 

[Bird]

 

[skypinkblu]

This is really a shame, two really nice people involved here. Brian has been a super generous person behind the scenes, never a hint of any kind of trouble, just a really nice person. I highly  doubt he decided to sell a book for more. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing there was just too much confusion about the sale by PM and on the boards. I don't think I've ever seen him do another sale before. Your first sale can get confusing.

I'm hoping he will respond.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

Really unfortunate situation. Two observations.

1. If Mike reckons the seller guy (who I do not know) sent him an expensive box of clothing etc. out of pure kindness, I highly doubt he has pulled the rug from the sale just to make a few more bucks.

2. Sometimes when you try and sell something, and you are inundated with buyers, it can make you think that you shouldn't be selling the item after all. Not trying to excuse the seller, just trying to understand the reasoning behind it.

[Pitboss]

I was rooting for a... 

[Dr. Love]

There doesn't appear to be any correlation that I can see between an individual's generosity and their own particular reckoning of what it means to honor their word.  Indeed for some, and we see this time and time again on the boards, to back out of a deal when money has not changed hands isn't going back on your word - it's just changing your mind, which they strongly feel everyone has a right to do.  If the buyer isn't out anything tangible, if money paid is handed back, then no harm no foul.  And there is no personal wrestling of conscience, it's pretty cut and dried to them, they're amazed at your response or simply hey whatever, you do you and I'll do me.

In the "real world" it's not like that though.  The law has a remedy called specific performance.  "Actions for specific performance are usually allowed with regard to a contract involving the sale of particular real estate; and a contract for sale of a particular business. Specific performance is not allowed regarding a contract for the sale of personal property unless the property is unique in some way like an antique, coin collection, or art objects."

 

[crassus]

On 8/1/2021 at 10:37 PM, G G ® ™ said:

Really unfortunate situation. Two observations.

1. If Mike reckons the seller guy (who I do not know) sent him an expensive box of clothing etc. out of pure kindness, I highly doubt he has pulled the rug from the sale just to make a few more bucks.

2. Sometimes when you try and sell something, and you are inundated with buyers, it can make you think that you shouldn't be selling the item after all. Not trying to excuse the seller, just trying to understand the reasoning behind it.

My comment is with respect to #2, which I find plausible, and granted we are speculating, only the seller can say their motive. But the market now is such that sellers remorse is almost to be expected, when selling a few months too early can mean thousands of dollars of lost revenue. Part of the reason that market prices are so strong generally is that many people are holding books back as they are afraid to sell too soon. Everyone hates to leave money on the table. Again, this is not an excuse, as this PL is open and shut, but more a sign of the times. 

[MattTheDuck]

On 8/2/2021 at 4:04 PM, crassus said:

My comment is with respect to #2, which I find plausible, and granted we are speculating, only the seller can say their motive. But the market now is such that sellers remorse is almost to be expected, when selling a few months too early can mean thousands of dollars of lost revenue. Part of the reason that market prices are so strong generally is that many people are holding books back as they are afraid to sell too soon. Everyone hates to leave money on the table. Again, this is not an excuse, as this PL is open and shut, but more a sign of the times. 

You point out a good object lesson for those who may be "new" to the selling part of this hobby.  It's not really a "rule," but I wonder if there's some place this kind of warning could be added that new sellers will review before they start offering books for sale?

[Bird]

so he's apparently left, but could it be that I just today understand his user name?

now...to be fair

bfairb

[Domo Arigato]

On 8/2/2021 at 7:02 PM, Bird said:

so he's apparently left...

 

[Gaard]

I'd like to make a couple of points here. I never post here, but I like to read these threads ... kinda like being a rubbernecker. Plus, I'm watching a rerun of the 2016 US Open (go DJ!) and I'm really bored.

Point #1 - I ran a sales thread a couple of years ago. For some reason, PP was giving me fits because they wouldn't let me accept payments, and true to their typical selves, they couldn't/refused to tell me why. I ended up sending people their books first and then they would send me a check. That was the last sales thread I ran. My point is, even though my problems were different than the problems @Bfairb experienced in his thread, problems are problems. They can lead to a lot of confusion and are VERY frustrating. And I wouldn't blame him one bit if he decided to say "Screw it. Nobody gets nothing. I'm done."

Point #2 - Like I said, I like to read these threads. In previous threads, people, many people (including the keeper/updater of the PL) have stated something like "You've been refunded, so you're 'whole'. Thus, there is no justification to put ____ on the PL."  Of course, it's entirely possible that the rules/reasons for being put on the PL have changed and I just didn't get the memo.

[crassus]

On 8/5/2021 at 7:07 PM, Gaard said:

I'd like to make a couple of points here. I never post here, but I like to read these threads ... kinda like being a rubbernecker. Plus, I'm watching a rerun of the 2016 US Open (go DJ!) and I'm really bored.

Point #1 - I ran a sales thread a couple of years ago. For some reason, PP was giving me fits because they wouldn't let me accept payments, and true to their typical selves, they couldn't/refused to tell me why. I ended up sending people their books first and then they would send me a check. That was the last sales thread I ran. My point is, even though my problems were different than the problems @Bfairb experienced in his thread, problems are problems. They can lead to a lot of confusion and are VERY frustrating. And I wouldn't blame him one bit if he decided to say "Screw it. Nobody gets nothing. I'm done."

Point #2 - Like I said, I like to read these threads. In previous threads, people, many people (including the keeper/updater of the PL) have stated something like "You've been refunded, so you're 'whole'. Thus, there is no justification to put ____ on the PL."  Of course, it's entirely possible that the rules/reasons for being put on the PL have changed and I just didn't get the memo.

With respect to point #2, this has been debated for as long as I can remember, and if one were to go back through all the examples I have no doubt you are correct that the responses would not be consistent. I had often argued against these kind of nominations on the technical basis that if there  was nothing to deliver or to refund, how on this basis could a person nominated ever get off the PL? I was not the only person arguing this, and sometimes this view prevailed and a nomination was discouraged. I have no basis to say whether this  view  ever held a majority of support within the community, but in recent years it seems to me that it probably does not. This has  been put to the test in various PL cases over the last few  years, and to keep it brief, I think it has to do with the feeling of many that the PL cannot be confined to simple monetary loss, and that if you broke a public promise, whether or not someone is out money, that is a concern of the whole  community. On the side of letting it pass, some would say "not a PL just update your personal list..." etc but for others the PL is precisely the  public list....you break a public promise, you go on a public list. Many feel that it should not be the obligation of the  wronged party to create solutions for the person who broke their word. This is as much to say, "you want off the list, you suggest something reasonable". 

For me this highlights the significance of the process. The 72hr rule  provides for people, including most importantly the person nominated, to challenge or contest the facts or fairness of the nomination. If  the  person(s) doing the nominating come out of the gate with a credible and well documented grievance, stick around to answer questions and be transparent about their business, and the person nominated can't be bothered to show up to deal with it, the debate becomes academic, as most people will reason that if the person nominated doesn't care enough to argue it, why should I? Conversely, in those cases where the person nominated participates in the discussion, by way of either explanation or a willingness to find a solution, chances are much better that the PL will be avoided, or if they have been added, that they are subsequently removed. 

If you are willing to brave reading it, two examples I think show the evolving views of the PL, GEEzusWalks, and more recently Top City Comics, the first is still on there, and the second went on and then off the PL in a span of three weeks. Fair warning, the Top City thread is the closest approximation Nature allows to grown men in protracted child birth....but it did get resolved, and in that case "specific performance" was not entirely possible, but the grieved parties and Top City kept working through it until there was a resolution. The PL process is meant to encourage mediation and reconciliation, but that takes both parties to work. 

Have the reasons for being on the PL changed? My  is not really. The PL exists because sometimes people cannot meet their obligations, obligations that they freely entered into, in a public place. What has evolved I think, is the desire to put the ax to the root of the problem. The moment the community becomes indifferent to broken promises, the breaking of faith in transactions, it's over for the marketplace. 

[Ryan.]

Woah. 

[JollyComics]

I simply blame on COVID that has caused people being greedy and refusing to sell for less.

[MattTheDuck]

Selling something at FMV is not being "greedy."

[revat]

On 8/9/2021 at 1:15 PM, MattTheDuck said:

Selling something at FMV is not being "greedy."

It is, if you’ve already agreed to sell it to someone else for less

[comicdonna]

It doesn't really matter but, after communicating with Brian, I do not believe the reason for backing out was money.  It's  not fair to him to assume that.  That's all I have for this thread.  

[Ryan.]

My interpretation is that he got spun around by competing "takes" on the same book, tried to make good on his own rules and satisfy all parties, unintentionally obfuscating the issue further, and finally grew frustrated to the point of canceling all sales. I'm not sure where the narrative became that he was canceling lower value deals to sell for more money. That's an unverifiable assumption. 

[Funnybooks]

On 8/10/2021 at 6:49 AM, comicdonna said:

It doesn't really matter but, after communicating with Brian, I do not believe the reason for backing out was money.  It's  not fair to him to assume that.  That's all I have for this thread.  

 

On 8/10/2021 at 9:45 AM, Ryan. said:

My interpretation is that he got spun around by competing "takes" on the same book, tried to make good on his own rules and satisfy all parties, unintentionally obfuscating the issue further, and finally grew frustrated to the point of canceling all sales. I'm not sure where the narrative became that he was canceling lower value deals to sell for more money. That's an unverifiable assumption. 

You both make valid arguments but that does not satisfy Jeff's clean . If @Bfairb grew frustrated with the other "takes" that should not have impacted the sale to Jeff. Unfortunately, anyone still interested in this topic can only make assumptions, right or wrong, due to Bfairb's decision to disengage from the conversation which is fairly within his rights to do so. It just saddens me to see this play out on the boards.

[Ryan.]

On 8/10/2021 at 9:59 AM, Funnybooks said:

 

You both make valid arguments but that does not satisfy Jeff's clean . If @Bfairb grew frustrated with the other "takes" that should not have impacted the sale to Jeff. Unfortunately, anyone still interested in this topic can only make assumptions, right or wrong, due to Bfairb's decision to disengage from the conversation which is fairly within his rights to do so. It just saddens me to see this play out on the boards.

No argument from me on that. I'm not defending Bfairb's actions; merely explaining my interpretation as I saw it play out in real time.