Prez nominated for probation 1 1

[bluehorseshoe]

22 hours ago, DeadOne said:

There's a picture missing/not viewable in the PM conversation you placed in spoilers... at least for me. It sounds like a lot of the initial conflict came from what is missing.

There were two tinypic links that did not work, I have replaced those.

[bluehorseshoe]

15 hours ago, Foley said:

@bluehorseshoe Just curious if you sent Prez a separate PM notifying him of this thread as per the rules?

Also, sorry this happened, and like Red84 said, this thread alone will likely prevent many from buying from him in the future. I had never hear of him before this, but he's certainly on my "do not deal" list now.

See the bottom of the first post in this thread.  I PM'd Prez advising him of the nomination thread, then posted the nomination thread, and noted the date and time I PM'd him with notice.  He's already responded to that PM, which was just more of the same stuff from him.

[bluehorseshoe]

14 hours ago, r100comics said:

It doesn't look like the entire PM as there are portions missing where you dispute the $15 airmail charge for boxed delivery and also where you go into detail on your expectations of the condition of the book.

Could you please provide the complete PM conversation for clarity ?

There was no airmail charge, the shipping was via USPS Priority Mail.  Whether that was supposed to be accomplished by air or truck or train or whatever, I dont know, but airmail service was never an issue in this transaction.  Further, the expectations of the conditions of the book that Prez mentions in one of his PMs to me is related to language I included with the payment I made to him via paypal, which is the Overstreet Price Guide definition of "Near Mint," which I take the position is the authority in terms of comic book grading descriptions, and I include a grade definition with most of the payments I made for books over, say, $30 or so.  The book I paid for and Prez never delivered to me was advertised in this sales thread as "NM," so that is why I included that language in the payment email.

[bluehorseshoe]

I very, very much appreciate everyone's comments and insight up to this point, and for taking the time to read and react.  

[bababooey]

I say "no" to the PL nomination, this is just a case of 2 people wasting each others time....and now our time.   
On March 23 via PM you called the seller a "piece of shit" in response to his overreaction when you were hinting at backing out...you gave him more than enough reasons to not want to deal with you earlier on and after, just as he did the same for you.

Simply put, if you want the satisfaction of saying that to someone before someone ships you your book......you don't get to nominate them for being wise enough to not send you the book.   

[bluehorseshoe]

14 minutes ago, bababooey said:

I say "no" to the PL nomination, this is just a case of 2 people wasting each others time....and now our time.   
On March 23 via PM you called the seller a "piece of shit" in response to his overreaction when you were hinting at backing out...you gave him more than enough reasons to not want to deal with you earlier on and after, just as he did the same for you.

Simply put, if you want the satisfaction of saying that to someone before someone ships you your book......you don't get to nominate them for being wise enough to not send you the book.   

 

In hindsight, both of us could have cooled our jets and acted in a more civil manner.  That is without question.  I don't agree with you regarding justification of Prez's actions; I dont think threatening me, or anyone else with probation, not sending the book, or if he did, refusing to give me any shipping information about the book, unless I paid him my original paypal payment, and paid him $50/hour to "find the receipt," is acceptable, but we hall have different opinions.  I certainly don't mean to waste your or anyone's time.

 

[bababooey]

19 minutes ago, bluehorseshoe said:

In hindsight, both of us could have cooled our jets and acted in a more civil manner.  That is without question.  I don't agree with you regarding justification of Prez's actions; I dont think threatening me, or anyone else with probation, not sending the book, or if he did, refusing to give me any shipping information about the book, unless I paid him my original paypal payment, and paid him $50/hour to "find the receipt," is acceptable, but we hall have different opinions.  I certainly don't mean to waste your or anyone's time.

 

He was done with you and not shipping the book once he coaxed that response out of you....most of the things you're saying he didn't do right happened after March 23.  Threatening you with the PL got the desired reaction.

[DeadOne]

@bluehorseshoe Has the magazine in question been delivered to you yet?

I ask because I kinda get the feeling that neither the refund of the money (which has already occurred) nor the magazine actually being delivered at this point would make it right.

[bluehorseshoe]

3 minutes ago, bababooey said:

He was done with you and not shipping the book once he coaxed that response out of you....most of the things you're saying he didn't do right happened after March 23.  Threatening you with the PL got the desired reaction.

I can't say you are wrong or right in your assumptions of why Prez did or did not do related to this.  As long as we are speculating, I think that it would be a reasonable response, if he was "done with me" as you are stating, to just have refunded my payment immediately upon receipt.  Instead, he shipped the book, or says he did, but I wont ever know that because of his refusal to provide me with that information, unless I paid him for it. 

As far as threatening people on here with nomination for probation, especially when such a nomination would be not be valid under the nomination rules, I you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that issue.  I didn't pay him because he threatened me with a probation nomination, I paid him to be able to get the transaction going and get past the going back and forth between the two of us.

 

[bluehorseshoe]

3 minutes ago, DeadOne said:

@bluehorseshoe Has the magazine in question been delivered to you yet?

I ask because I kinda get the feeling that neither the refund of the money (which has already occurred) nor the magazine actually being delivered at this point would make it right.

Nothing has shown up.  Last inquiry I made to Prez about the status of the book was April 14, 2018, and he has not responded.

[crassus]

Just now, bluehorseshoe said:

Nothing has shown up.  Last inquiry I made to Prez about the status of the book was April 14, 2018, and he has not responded.

One question, in your narrative of events you write "Between March 16, 2018, and March 22, 2018, Prez and I went back and forth regarding issues related to shipping." Can you explain what the back and forth over shipping was about exactly? 

[bluehorseshoe]

1 minute ago, crassus said:

One question, in your narrative of events you write "Between March 16, 2018, and March 22, 2018, Prez and I went back and forth regarding issues related to shipping." Can you explain what the back and forth over shipping was about exactly? 

Sure.  First, all dialogue regarding this transaction are contained in the PMs, and there are no emails, IMs, or whatever else folks use out there related to this transaction.  The issue was related to shipping the book.  Prez invoiced me with costs to ship the book using (presumably) a USPS Priority Mail Box for $15.  I wanted the book shipped in a USPS Priority Mailer for $7.  These were both options set forth in the "Rules" section of the sales thread.  After going back and forth about that issue, he agreed to use an oversized envelope with rigid cardboard, but included the statement that it may not arrive in the condition stated in the sales thread.  I never disagreed with that statement, but it gave me concern, and stated I wasnt waiving any part of the contract when it came to condition.  Not that I had to state that, as Prez had a return policy for the books that he sold contained in his sales thread.

Again, both of us could have reset the entire conversation at that point in terms of attitude, at least that is what I think.

[bababooey]

42 minutes ago, bluehorseshoe said:

As far as threatening people on here with nomination for probation, especially when such a nomination would be not be valid under the nomination rules, I you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that issue.  I didn't pay him because he threatened me with a probation nomination, I paid him to be able to get the transaction going and get past the going back and forth between the two of us.

 

The desired reaction wasn't payment, I think it was to have you get upset and call him "a piece of mess" - essentially getting you upset enough to have a reason to NOT do business with you.

[Jaydee]

I would like to nominate him on never once after a month acknowledging my purchase.  While I never paid him he backed out after a WINNAH acknowledgment.  

[DeadOne]

54 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

I would like to nominate him on never once after a month acknowledging my purchase.  While I never paid him he backed out after a WINNAH acknowledgment.  

You've got a pretty good case for PL, imo.
I think, to follow board etiquette, you would need to create a separate thread dedicated to just your case. After that, if it has been 30 days, send prez a PM stating your intent to nominate and wait the 3-days for a response. If no response, then he goes on the PL.

At least I think that is how all this works. 

 

[bluehorseshoe]

Per the probation/HOS rules, 72 hours has elapsed since Prez received a PM from me notifying him of this nomination thread.  I have attached a screenshot of the PM, which also shows he viewed the PM this past Friday afternoon, and never responded to this thread. 

Spoiler

 

[1Cool]

I believe in the past all a board member needed to do was refund the purchase price to make the buyer "whole".  Unless you can prove he is trying to sell the book elsewhere it has to be assumed the book was shipped and lost.

[crassus]

20 hours ago, DeadOne said:

21 hours ago, Jaydee said:

I would like to nominate him on never once after a month acknowledging my purchase.  While I never paid him he backed out after a WINNAH acknowledgment.  

You've got a pretty good case for PL, imo.
I think, to follow board etiquette, you would need to create a separate thread dedicated to just your case. After that, if it has been 30 days, send prez a PM stating your intent to nominate and wait the 3-days for a response. If no response, then he goes on the PL.

At least I think that is how all this works. 

I do not believe a separate thread is necessary, and there would be good reasons I think for keeping all the grieved parties in the same convenient thread. When or if the seller returns to answer to all this he will be required to satisfy all parties before he can be taken off of the list, having it all in one place also allows others who may come forward to more conveniently add their nominations if they wish.

As for the PM notification, yes @Jaydee you need to send a separate PM notifying the seller that you are nominating him.

My  is that it would be best to wait out the 72hrs on Jaydee's nomination before adding the seller to the list, as his nomination is the most straightforward as per the rules, but certainly if the seller returns he will have to at least address the points raised by bluehorseshoe.

[revat]

12 minutes ago, crassus said:

20 hours ago, DeadOne said:

21 hours ago, Jaydee said:

I would like to nominate him on never once after a month acknowledging my purchase.  While I never paid him he backed out after a WINNAH acknowledgment.  

You've got a pretty good case for PL, imo.
I think, to follow board etiquette, you would need to create a separate thread dedicated to just your case. After that, if it has been 30 days, send prez a PM stating your intent to nominate and wait the 3-days for a response. If no response, then he goes on the PL.

At least I think that is how all this works. 

I do not believe a separate thread is necessary, and there would be good reasons I think for keeping all the grieved parties in the same convenient thread. When or if the seller returns to answer to all this he will be required to satisfy all parties before he can be taken off of the list, having it all in one place also allows others who may come forward to more conveniently add their nominations if they wish.

As for the PM notification, yes @Jaydee you need to send a separate PM notifying the seller that you are nominating him.

My  is that it would be best to wait out the 72hrs on Jaydee's nomination before adding the seller to the list, as his nomination is the most straightforward as per the rules, but certainly if the seller returns he will have to at least address the points raised by bluehorseshoe.

 this seems to make the most sense to me as well.  Jaydee has the stronger case for PL (though I would say HOS might actually be more appropriate as I said in an earlier post), but the seller will likely have to answer for both issues before the situation can be satisfactorily be resolved and his name removed.

 

This just seems like kind of weird thing for a relatively high traffic good standing member to suddenly go rogue on two transactions.  Not that I doubt the accusers (I don't at all), just that it seems odd for the seller to throw it all away over whatever this is.  Hopefully we get to hear his side too.

Edited April 30, 2018 by revat

[Jaydee]

  I Send several PMs and Still No Response. This was the last 2

17 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Prez, I do not want to nominate for the HOS, or Prob list but It has been 30 Days.  

 

1 minute ago, Jaydee said:

You have Officially Been Nominated