NEW POLL: To decide if we should add a rule to the Forum Marketplace 3 3

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 7/24/2022 at 10:14 PM, Domo Arigato said:

Any ideas on how to prevent it from happening?

 

Coming up empty 

[Domo Arigato]

On 7/24/2022 at 9:15 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

Coming up empty 

I could start a poll.

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 7/24/2022 at 10:19 PM, Domo Arigato said:

I could start a poll.

 

Absolutely you should 

[Domo Arigato]

On 7/24/2022 at 9:21 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

Absolutely you should 

Done!

Should THE_BEYONDER be banned from the forum so his pet peeve won't drive him crazy?

1. Yes
2. Yes

To vote:  Please quote this post and indicate your choice with a "1" or "2".

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

[Domo Arigato]

On 7/24/2022 at 9:28 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

Not so fast.

Give people a chance to complain about the poll first.

 

[Domo Arigato]

On 7/24/2022 at 9:00 PM, CGC Mike said:

I never said I was going to throw it out.  I was just interested in hearing  few more comments before I made this a new rule.  I'll visit this thread again in the morning.  

I just like to snark back at people. 

But....from a personal perspective, adding or not adding this rule won't affect me....so I'm ok with whatever you want to do.

If you even want to give it a few extra days to gather more opinions/info in here, I don't see what that would hurt.

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by Domo Arigato

[bluehorseshoe]

On 7/22/2022 at 5:36 PM, Domo Arigato said:

There's a simple fix for that. 

Vote it down.....step up.....and do a new poll yourself.

 

 

The simple fix was writing it coherently in the first place.  But GLWYS.

[Nick Furious]

I haven't been posting on this forum very long and haven't sold any books on this board yet...but It's likely I will sell some in the near future.  Probably won't pose a problem for me, but it's possible some of my listings would be freshly graded and not yet returned from CGC.  Just wondering, what would be the problem if I just acknowledged that in the listing, letting the potential buyer know the situation before they decide to buy?  That way the buyer knows the situation and can make their own decision accordingly?  I don't understand why a simple disclosure rule wouldn't solve the problem without risking putting some folks out of business?  Candidly, If I'm reading the proposed rule right, I think it is questionable on a legal basis.  It has anti-competitive and restraint-of-trade components to be considered.  It eliminates competition from consignors in favor of dealers who have on-hand stock.  If someone actually had their livelihood affected by this rule after 15 years of doing business, I could see them challenging it on a legal basis.  Particularly because, as others have mentioned, there doesn't seem to be a systemic problem that the new rule is addressing.  I would really recommend modifying the rule to a simple disclosure requirement, if that doesn't already exist.       

[Domo Arigato]

On 7/24/2022 at 11:28 PM, bluehorseshoe said:

The simple fix was writing it coherently in the first place.  But GLWYS.

A lot of other people didn't seem to have a problem understanding it.  It's not my fault you couldn't.

And I take it this means you won't be stepping up?  It is much simpler to just complain.....so I guess it might be better if you stuck with that.

 

[shadroch]

On 7/24/2022 at 10:16 AM, Iceman399 said:

So we are adding a rule where it's never been an actual issue on the boards? 

 

Cool cool cool

It's never been an issue because it wasn't against the rules. Now that it is against the rules, expect people to break them.

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 7/25/2022 at 12:33 AM, Nick Furious said:

I haven't been posting on this forum very long and haven't sold any books on this board yet...but It's likely I will sell some in the near future.  Probably won't pose a problem for me, but it's possible some of my listings would be freshly graded and not yet returned from CGC.  Just wondering, what would be the problem if I just acknowledged that in the listing, letting the potential buyer know the situation before they decide to buy?  That way the buyer knows the situation and can make their own decision accordingly?  I don't understand why a simple disclosure rule wouldn't solve the problem without risking putting some folks out of business?  Candidly, If I'm reading the proposed rule right, I think it is questionable on a legal basis.  It has anti-competitive and restraint-of-trade components to be considered.  It eliminates competition from consignors in favor of dealers who have on-hand stock.  If someone actually had their livelihood affected by this rule after 15 years of doing business, I could see them challenging it on a legal basis.  Particularly because, as others have mentioned, there doesn't seem to be a systemic problem that the new rule is addressing.  I would really recommend modifying the rule to a simple disclosure requirement, if that doesn't already exist.       

The marketplace is free.  It doesn’t owe sellers anything.

[ExNihilo]

On 7/24/2022 at 7:11 PM, Iceman399 said:

I've yet to see a reason why we need this rule. 

I'll start by saying I don't transact here often so my opinion probably doesn't carry much weight.  I think I voted in the original poll, but don't think I was aware of or voted in this one.

That said, the original discussion that brought this all about was here.  In the past, I have seen similar issues, and daresay maybe even a probation thread or two where the seller sold a book they were not in possession of, then for whatever reason never received the book themselves and the sale went sideways.  I can't say it's a common issue, but perhaps this was the straw that broke the camels back.

I will say, if I had a vote today, I'd vote no on a new rule prohibiting such sales, but I'd vote yes that not having a book in your possession needs to be disclosed.  It then boils down to how much you trust the seller and how much risk you're willing to accept.  I suppose a "yes" vote would eliminate/reduce such risks associated with books that aren't in possession of the seller.  (Suddenly as I type this out, I find myself going back and forth on it...tough one.)

[Iceman399]

On 7/25/2022 at 1:14 AM, ExNihilo said:

I'll start by saying I don't transact here often so my opinion probably doesn't carry much weight.  I think I voted in the original poll, but don't think I was aware of or voted in this one.

That said, the original discussion that brought this all about was here.  In the past, I have seen similar issues, and daresay maybe even a probation thread or two where the seller sold a book they were not in possession of, then for whatever reason never received the book themselves and the sale went sideways.  I can't say it's a common issue, but perhaps this was the straw that broke the camels back.

I will say, if I had a vote today, I'd vote no on a new rule prohibiting such sales, but I'd vote yes that not having a book in your possession needs to be disclosed.  It then boils down to how much you trust the seller and how much risk you're willing to accept.  I suppose a "yes" vote would eliminate/reduce such risks associated with books that aren't in possession of the seller.  (Suddenly as I type this out, I find myself going back and forth on it...tough one.)

Oh I know what thread this stemmed from. 

Again Omaha had access to the book via slug (who from my understanding did nothing wrong, he purchased the book from the guy who screwed Dr balls out of the comic link sale)

If Dr balls had bought the book from omaha/slug the deal still would have been completed or else they'd have faced the consequences of not being able to complete it. 

If my business model is to sell books before they are in hand and checked for qc issues from cgc that's my problem should a deal go sideways. 

If my business model is taking consignments and selling books without them in hand and things go sideways that's my problem should a deal go sideways. 

 

Have a link to any others where the seller sold something and didn't have it in hand? I know there's been some where a seller 'left money on the table and didn't complete for that reason'. Heck that's happened WAY More than a seller selling something not in hand and the deal going sideways. 

 

Maybe all sellers should be required to send books to a 3rd party for safe keeping so they can't back out once the book is posted

[Nick Furious]

On 7/24/2022 at 9:58 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

The marketplace is free.  It doesn’t owe sellers anything.

In legal situations it's not always true that something being free means there is no responsibility to consider impact of changes on long-time participants.  This situation is particularly awkward because it's not the market provider saying they need to make a change to eliminate a systemic problem.  It's a bunch of market participants, some of which could be construed as competitors, voting to  potentially eliminate other participants without regard to the financial impact it may have on them.  We could be pulling the rug out from under people who have invested years here building their credibility and relationships with buyers.  When a simple disclosure requirement would have served the intended purpose.  It's using a sledgehammer when only a rock hammer is needed.     

Edited July 25, 2022 by Nick Furious

[KCOComics]

It seems unreasonable to create a new rule for a problem that didn't occur on the boards and where Omaha reacted reasonably and professionally. 

The collectible comic market just experienced it's greatest surge in 30 years and we can't get 100 people to vote in a poll. That should be a concern for those who want the market place to flourish.

There are so many alternative platforms that will allow dealers like Omaha and Roy to sell without these headaches. If the rule doesn't address an underlying flaw, then it's regulation for the sake of regulation. 

[CGC Mike]

I am leaning towards starting another poll asking is if sellers should disclose if they don't have the book in their possession, or is they do not have to disclose.

I am just not convinced that board members want a rule that is stated in this poll.  I feel that if the poll had a choice that I mentioned above, the results would have been different.  I will hold off for a while and see what people have to say.

[Domo Arigato]

Never mind.....my part in this tale is finished. 

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by Domo Arigato

[musicmeta]

On 7/24/2022 at 6:48 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

I don’t want more rules at all.  I just haven’t heard a good reason why this isn’t already one. 

As for Roy, why can’t he wait til the books arrive and he has a chance to inspect them?

I’m not at all concerned about impacting those that insist on pimping their wares as soon as they know the grades.  I’d be happy to see the “on their way back from CGC” posts disappear. 

CGC is having a QC crisis.  Seems like due diligence to inspect the books before offering them for sale here.

 

So, maybe if I'm understanding you right,  Just have a rule where the seller only has to state the book(s) are not in hand but it's fine to not actually have the book(s) in hand? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Example:  
Wrong -  "Up for sale is an Action Comics #1 in CGC 9.8 white, blue label from 1938.  See raw scans below". (Seller does not have book in hand). 

Right - "Up for sale is an Action Comics #1 in CGC 9.8 white, blue label from 1938.  Book is not in hand but I'll post pics of it when I actually have it.  
             I'm flying to Sarasota this morning to bring it back. Enjoy the raw scans until I have the CGC one here."

[Domo Arigato]

On 7/24/2022 at 9:24 PM, Domo Arigato said:

Should THE_BEYONDER be banned from the forum so his pet peeve won't drive him crazy?

1. Yes
2. Yes

To vote:  Please quote this post and indicate your choice with a "1" or "2".

In a somewhat related topic.....are zero votes a big enough sample size to get Chris banned?