Getting tired of bad sellers
Doomaz
screwed again. This deadbeat seller had 17 positives and zero other
feedback. The guys in Canada and I'm in the U.S. but I didn't expect a
problem. I had a couple of emails back and forth but the other day I noticed
he received his first negative for non-delivery and so I emailed him as to
where my item was. This time he did not respond. I wanted to give him extra
time but I saw on PayPal that I had to file a fraud report in 30 days so on
the 30th day, I did that. He's got until Monday to respond. He has not done
so yet. I doubt that I have a very good chance to see my money back though.
I also filed the fraud with Ebay. He now has received a nuetral for sending
a hard drive in a regular envelope and it was damaged. Sounds like another
seller gone bad. The only good part is that he gave me a positive right away
because I paid instantly so I don't have to worry about retaliatory feedback
now.
tradervic
"Doomaz" <Doo...@rvrvrvrvrv.net> wrote in message
news:slxxb.2787$a54...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Well dont feel bad...I'm tired of deadbeat buyers too....now we're even
Kris Baker
You might just get your money back, as the transaction falls
outside the PayPal seller protection oplicies.
Good luck.
Kris
Katra
Buy from me. ;-)
I'll treat ya right!!!
Or Don if you need computer stuff.
Funny, I've been buying and selling on ebay now for about 5 years, and I
have yet to get screwed, even once.
Have had a few shitheads for buyers tho' and they are on my blocked
bidders list...
K.
--
>^,,^< Cats-haven Hobby Farm >^,,^< Ka...@centurytel.net >^,,^<
"There are millions of intelligent species in the universe, and they are
all owned by cats" -- Asimov
Custom handcrafts, Sterling silver beaded jewelry
http://cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=katra
Curtis Desjardins
> Well dont feel bad...I'm tired of deadbeat buyers too....now we're even
Apples and oranges.
Curtis.
--
The other night, I was lying in bed looking up at the stars, and I
wondered, "Where the FUCK is my ROOF?!?"
Don Lancaster
What possible reason could you have for bidding on a foreign item?
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Dreamstalker
> What possible reason could you have for bidding on a foreign item?
Some people see items they want that aren't readily available
domestically, and some people collect certain items that aren't
available domestically at all. Not all international sellers are
crooks, yannow...
Katra
Curtis Desjardins wrote:
>
> "tradervic" <v...@tradervicrules.com> wrote
> >
> > Well dont feel bad...I'm tired of deadbeat buyers too....now we're even
>
> Apples and oranges.
>
> Curtis.
>
> --
NOT!!!
It takes two to make a good transaction....
Deborah Stevenson
>Curtis Desjardins wrote:
>>
>> "tradervic" <v...@tradervicrules.com> wrote
>> >
>> > Well dont feel bad...I'm tired of deadbeat buyers too....now we're even
>>
>> Apples and oranges.
>>
>> Curtis.
>>
>> --
>NOT!!!
>It takes two to make a good transaction....
I'm not sure it does, actually. I think that it's often possible to
handle a possibly problematic transaction partner in a way that keeps
things from going sour, and that's a skill that sellers in particular
would be advised to cultivate, though of course it's a useful tactic for
buyers as well. It's more like _To Have and Have Not_--it's better if
they help.
I also think that the contribution of each partner to the transaction
doesn't mean that those contributions aren't apples and oranges.
--
Deborah Stevenson
dste...@OBSTACLESuiuc.edu
[eliminate OBSTACLES to email me]
Kris Baker
"Deborah Stevenson" <dste...@OBSTACLESuiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:bq86ii$kuk$1...@reader2.panix.com...
I agree.
As a seller, there's always a few buyers who don't read
the EOA emails, don't understand the auction terms
well, or are slow to pay. These folks need a bit of
extra hand-holding, but it doesn't mean that the entire
transaction is bad, when it's completed.
My friends own an upscale kitchenwares store, and I
used to help them out by running the store when they
were out of town. It was good pre-eBay training.
"How does this [$10 item] work?" "Is it guaranteed?"
"If I want to use it for [such and such], will it work?"
"OK, thanks! I got one for my birthday and wasn't
sure what to do with it." (That was ONE "customer".)
"I bought this pan last week and my cake burnt
anyway. I want my $35 back." (I sold them an
oven thermometer, instead of making the refund.
They were happy.)
Kris
"
Katra
I bend over backwards to help my buyers, but some are STILL so damned
clueless... my blocked bidder file accumulates at least 1 per month. <sigh>
And I am very patient.
Bertha
<dste...@OBSTACLESuiuc.edu> muttered something like:
> I'm not sure it does, actually. I think that it's often possible to
> handle a possibly problematic transaction partner in a way that keeps
> things from going sour, and that's a skill that sellers in particular
> would be advised to cultivate, though of course it's a useful tactic for
> buyers as well. It's more like _To Have and Have Not_--it's better if
> they help.
I think it's like most human relationships--business, friendship,
marriage. It takes work by both parties to make the interaction fruitful
and satisfactory--but it only takes one behaving badly to screw it up for
both of them.
Still, if one is behaving badly, the other one can always minimize the
damage by refusing to respond in kind and just terminate the relationship
as cleanly as possible. Or they can get right down there and be nasty
about it and make the mess exponentially worse.
-Bertha
--
I don't buy books on impulse. I buy them at warp speed.
Deborah Stevenson
>Deborah Stevenson wrote:
>>
>> In <3FC79247...@centurytel.net> Katra <Ka...@centurytel.net> writes:
>>
>> >Curtis Desjardins wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "tradervic" <v...@tradervicrules.com> wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Well dont feel bad...I'm tired of deadbeat buyers too....now we're even
>> >>
>> >> Apples and oranges.
>> >>
>> >> Curtis.
>> >>
>> >> --
>>
>> >NOT!!!
>>
>> >It takes two to make a good transaction....
>>
>> I'm not sure it does, actually. I think that it's often possible to
>> handle a possibly problematic transaction partner in a way that keeps
>> things from going sour, and that's a skill that sellers in particular
>> would be advised to cultivate, though of course it's a useful tactic for
>> buyers as well. It's more like _To Have and Have Not_--it's better if
>> they help.
>>
>> I also think that the contribution of each partner to the transaction
>> doesn't mean that those contributions aren't apples and oranges.
>>
>> --
>> Deborah Stevenson
>I bend over backwards to help my buyers, but some are STILL so damned
>clueless... my blocked bidder file accumulates at least 1 per month. <sigh>
>And I am very patient.
Great. That still doesn't translate into a fraudulent seller's being the
equivalent of a non-paying bidder, which was the equation Curtis was
labeling "apples and oranges."
--
Deborah Stevenson
Doomaz
fault and only recovered $1.54 for me.
Doomaz
????
I've purchase 2 time before from Canada. No problems. This guy lives just a
few miles north of the border with Maine.
Katra
Sellers that don't ship.
Buyers that don't pay (and cost you fees if you don't do the filing, but
my time is as valuable as the fees so it STILL costs me!)
Costs money either way. :-)
The time spent dealing with idiots and NPB's is valuable.
K.
bl...@adelphia.com
wrote:
So now you see how dumb it is to make snap judgements like only buying
from sellers with 99% fb. I've got less than that and I wouldnt have
cheated you! Makes as much sense as saying you wont buy from somebody
that doesnt wear a suit and tie at all times or drives an old car.
Wise up....many people get undeserved fb. Gee...why not say you dont
buy from anybody that has ANY negs. Opps...you tried that and it didnt
work. If it were that easy to filter bad sellers, nobody would ever
get cheated.
Deborah Stevenson
>Deborah Stevenson wrote:
>>
>> Great. That still doesn't translate into a fraudulent seller's being the
>> equivalent of a non-paying bidder, which was the equation Curtis was
>> labeling "apples and oranges."
>Sellers that don't ship.
>Buyers that don't pay (and cost you fees if you don't do the filing, but
>my time is as valuable as the fees so it STILL costs me!)
>Costs money either way. :-)
Sellers that take money and don't ship are commiting fraud, a crime.
Nonpaying bidders aren't.
>The time spent dealing with idiots and NPB's is valuable.
As is the time spent dealing with fraudsters. It's not like time is
inherently more valuable for a seller.
I think you're letting your sellerhood blind you to some key differences.
It's not a position-dependent--it is, after all, worse for a buyer to pay
with a stolen credit card than it is for a seller to refuse to take the
buyer's money and provide the item.
Fraud is worse than a mere failure to fulfill a contract, regardless of
which transaction partner it happens to. I suspect that when you're the
victim, you realize that :-).
Katra
Deborah Stevenson wrote:
>
> In <3FC85499...@centurytel.net> Katra <Ka...@centurytel.net> writes:
>
> >Deborah Stevenson wrote:
> >>
> >> Great. That still doesn't translate into a fraudulent seller's being the
> >> equivalent of a non-paying bidder, which was the equation Curtis was
> >> labeling "apples and oranges."
>
> >Sellers that don't ship.
> >Buyers that don't pay (and cost you fees if you don't do the filing, but
> >my time is as valuable as the fees so it STILL costs me!)
>
> >Costs money either way. :-)
>
> Sellers that take money and don't ship are commiting fraud, a crime.
> Nonpaying bidders aren't.
I don't agree.
They are violating a legal contract...
>
> >The time spent dealing with idiots and NPB's is valuable.
>
> As is the time spent dealing with fraudsters. It's not like time is
> inherently more valuable for a seller.
Oh? My time is worth at LEAST $10.00 per hour! That is what I add for
crafting time on hand-made items. On my full time job (career), I earn
slightly over $20.00 per hour.
How many hours per week do you spend on the internet? I know that I
spend a good 2-3 hours per day...
>
> I think you're letting your sellerhood blind you to some key differences.
I'm both a buyer and a seller.
Yes, a bad seller is committing fraud, but a bad bidder, well, as I
said, it still costs me money!
To date, (and I've been ebaying now for about 5 years), I've never
failed to ship and I've never EVER not gotten my item that I bid on!
I've never been ripped off.
Guess I've just been lucky? <shrugs>
My NPB file is up to 99 users out of well over 4,000 sales. :-)
I keep a "deadbeat" file on my system and have blocked all the users on
that list.
> It's not a position-dependent--it is, after all, worse for a buyer to pay
> with a stolen credit card than it is for a seller to refuse to take the
> buyer's money and provide the item.
See, it's a bit of a gray area for interpretation. :-)
>
> Fraud is worse than a mere failure to fulfill a contract, regardless of
> which transaction partner it happens to. I suspect that when you're the
> victim, you realize that :-).
I have not been a victim... yet! <knocking on wood>
>
> --
> Deborah Stevenson
K.
--
Deborah Stevenson
>Deborah Stevenson wrote:
>>
>> In <3FC85499...@centurytel.net> Katra <Ka...@centurytel.net> writes:
>>
>> >Deborah Stevenson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Great. That still doesn't translate into a fraudulent seller's being the
>> >> equivalent of a non-paying bidder, which was the equation Curtis was
>> >> labeling "apples and oranges."
>>
>> >Sellers that don't ship.
>> >Buyers that don't pay (and cost you fees if you don't do the filing, but
>> >my time is as valuable as the fees so it STILL costs me!)
>>
>> >Costs money either way. :-)
>>
>> Sellers that take money and don't ship are commiting fraud, a crime.
>> Nonpaying bidders aren't.
>I don't agree.
>They are violating a legal contract...
That's still not a crime, Katra. That's a tort at best, and the redress
involved will depend on how much money you'd be out as a result--which the
court would be unlikely to consider more than the listing fee unless it
was a time-related item.
You've not been defrauded, any more than a buyer who finds the seller
won't seller to her has been defrauded. *That's* what the NPB is
equivalent to.
But if you really think they're the same, then you wouldn't be any more
upset by a $200 fraudulent chargeback on an item
>>
>> >The time spent dealing with idiots and NPB's is valuable.
>>
>> As is the time spent dealing with fraudsters. It's not like time is
>> inherently more valuable for a seller.
>Oh? My time is worth at LEAST $10.00 per hour!
And there's nothing that makes a buyer's time worth inherently less than
that, and many can demonstrate that it's worth considerably more.
Again, you're making the mistake of thinking that your position in the
transaction makes a difference to the significance of the loss. It
doesn't.
>How many hours per week do you spend on the internet? I know that I
>spend a good 2-3 hours per day...
>>
>> I think you're letting your sellerhood blind you to some key differences.
>I'm both a buyer and a seller.
>Yes, a bad seller is committing fraud, but a bad bidder, well, as I
>said, it still costs me money!
I didn't say it didn't, Katra. I said it's a different thing. There is
room for more than one bad thing, and you can still be dealing with a bad
thing when something worse is happening to somebody else. NPBs can still
suck even though they're not fraud. But they're not as bad as fraud.
>To date, (and I've been ebaying now for about 5 years), I've never
>failed to ship and I've never EVER not gotten my item that I bid on!
>I've never been ripped off.
>Guess I've just been lucky? <shrugs>
Could be. I don't understand what you're saying, though--how would this
make fraud better? I think perhaps you're confusing an argument about
frequency of occurrence with the significance of the event.
>My NPB file is up to 99 users out of well over 4,000 sales. :-)
>I keep a "deadbeat" file on my system and have blocked all the users on
>that list.
Again, I don't think you're understanding. The fact that you've
experienced one more frequently doesn't translate into an NPB's being a
fraud.
Neither Curtis nor I suggested that nothing bad happens to sellers, or
that it's harder for one side than another, or worse, which seems to be what
you're arguing about.
However, in the situation where one side is defrauded, it *is* worse than
in a situation where somebody is merely dealing with an unfulfilled
contract. Doomaz was posting about a seller who has taken his money and
is apparently trying very hard to keep it without sending the item.
That's not equivalent to an NPB. It's a situation where one
transaction partner is keeping both the money and the item. Its closest
seller equivalent would be a buyer who's paid with a stolen charge card
or who does a fraudulent chargeback and manages to keep the item without
the seller's getting the money.
>> It's not a position-dependent--it is, after all, worse for a buyer to pay
>> with a stolen credit card than it is for a seller to refuse to take the
>> buyer's money and provide the item.
>See, it's a bit of a gray area for interpretation. :-)
No, Katra, it's not. That's the point. There's a difference between a
fraud and a contract that wasn't fulfilled. The fact that you're very
annoyed by the unfulfilled contract isn't actually enough to make it into
a fraud. The fact that the unfulfilled contract often happens to sellers
isn't enough to make it into a fraud.
Yes, it's too bad that you've had so many NPBs. That's still not the kind
of fraudulent experience Doomaz is outlining.
tra-der-vic
here.....and by your responses it shows. (yes I paid you a very much due
compliment).
"Deborah Stevenson" <dste...@OBSTACLESuiuc.edu> wrote in message
Marek Williams
<dste...@OBSTACLESuiuc.edu> dijo:
>Great. That still doesn't translate into a fraudulent seller's being the
>equivalent of a non-paying bidder, which was the equation Curtis was
>labeling "apples and oranges."
A buyer who doesn't pay has breached the sales contract. A seller who
doesn't ship has breached the sales contract. I don't understand why
one is not the equivalent of the other.
--
Bogus e-mail address, but I read this newsgroup regularly, so reply here.
Bertha
muttered something like:
> A buyer who doesn't pay has breached the sales contract. A seller who
> doesn't ship has breached the sales contract. I don't understand why
> one is not the equivalent of the other.
Well, from another point of view, a buyer who doesn't pay hasn't got
anything from the seller. A seller who doesn't ship still has the buyer's
money.
-Bertha
--
"Look at the weaver, looming in the corner!"
Deborah Stevenson
>On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:24:52 +0000 (UTC), Deborah Stevenson
><dste...@OBSTACLESuiuc.edu> dijo:
>>Great. That still doesn't translate into a fraudulent seller's being the
>>equivalent of a non-paying bidder, which was the equation Curtis was
>>labeling "apples and oranges."
>A buyer who doesn't pay has breached the sales contract. A seller who
>doesn't ship has breached the sales contract. I don't understand why
>one is not the equivalent of the other.
A seller who takes the buyer's money and doesn't ship, which is the
scenario being discussed, hasn't just breached the sales contract, he's
committed fraud.
A seller who simply refuses to sell is engaging in a breach similar to
that of the buyer who doesn't buy, but that's not a fraudulent seller,
it's not the situation being discussed, and it's not the situation Katra
was equating with a non-paying bidder.
Eric Bustad
>>Even though I only bid on sellers with a better than 99% rating, I got
>>screwed again. This deadbeat seller had 17 positives and zero other
>>feedback. The guys in Canada and I'm in the U.S. but I didn't expect a
>>problem. I had a couple of emails back and forth but the other day I noticed
>>he received his first negative for non-delivery and so I emailed him as to
>>where my item was. This time he did not respond. I wanted to give him extra
>>time but I saw on PayPal that I had to file a fraud report in 30 days so on
>>the 30th day, I did that. He's got until Monday to respond. He has not done
>>so yet. I doubt that I have a very good chance to see my money back though.
>>I also filed the fraud with Ebay. He now has received a nuetral for sending
>>a hard drive in a regular envelope and it was damaged. Sounds like another
>>seller gone bad. The only good part is that he gave me a positive right away
>>because I paid instantly so I don't have to worry about retaliatory feedback
>>now.
Sounds more like he died or otherwise became unable to access the web.
= Eric
Doomaz
away
> >>because I paid instantly so I don't have to worry about retaliatory
feedback
> >>now.
>
> Sounds more like he died or otherwise became unable to access the web.
That's a possibility, although he did respond to the first negative. On the
Nuetral, the item was delivered but it was broke when it arrived due to bad
packing. Also, I figure he must have replied to the PayPal investigation as
my email from them said he had until 12/1 to reply, but they have already
decided he was at fault.
Katra
Geez, finally someone who agrees with me! ;-)
Thanks!
Katra
But the seller is out the time, and possibly the listing and final value
fee, or the TIME spent trying to recover those fees!
Ebay does not make it easy to recover fees!
Bertha
something like:
> But the seller is out the time, and possibly the listing and final value
> fee, or the TIME spent trying to recover those fees!
Yes, they are. I was suggesting a reason that refusing to give someone an
item they paid for was fraudulent, whereas refusing to pay for an item one
does not have is merely breach of contract. I didn't suggest that there
was no loss involved in one and not in the other.
-Bertha
--
This tagline stolen [274] times; add 1 when stealing.
Deborah Stevenson
>Marek Williams wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:24:52 +0000 (UTC), Deborah Stevenson
>> <dste...@OBSTACLESuiuc.edu> dijo:
>>
>> >Great. That still doesn't translate into a fraudulent seller's being the
>> >equivalent of a non-paying bidder, which was the equation Curtis was
>> >labeling "apples and oranges."
>>
>> A buyer who doesn't pay has breached the sales contract. A seller who
>> doesn't ship has breached the sales contract. I don't understand why
>> one is not the equivalent of the other.
>Geez, finally someone who agrees with me! ;-)
Could be, but I also think he may have misinterpreted the OP's situation
as a seller who merely doesn't sell, rather than a seller who takes the
money and then fails to act.
Basically, there's two different patterns: either neither money nor item
changes hands (non-paying bidder or non-selling seller), or one
transaction partner keeps both (fraudulent seller or fraudulent
charge/fraudulent chargeback by buyer).
The latter is fraud. The former isn't, no matter how much it may annoy.
Curtis Desjardins
> >Marek Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> A buyer who doesn't pay has breached the sales contract. A seller who
> >> doesn't ship has breached the sales contract. I don't understand why
> >> one is not the equivalent of the other.
Maybe so, but one is fraud, and the other isn't. And, yes, the seller
is out the listing fees for a NPB, but it doesn't compare to someone
who's been defrauded of the bid price and shipping costs.
> >Geez, finally someone who agrees with me! ;-)
>
> Could be, but I also think he may have misinterpreted the OP's situation
> as a seller who merely doesn't sell, rather than a seller who takes the
> money and then fails to act.
I thought the OP was complaining about a seller that didn't deliver
the item (took the money and ran... fraud). Vic complained about
NPBs... not fraud.
> Basically, there's two different patterns: either neither money nor item
> changes hands (non-paying bidder or non-selling seller),
Apples.
> or one
> transaction partner keeps both (fraudulent seller or fraudulent
> charge/fraudulent chargeback by buyer).
Oranges.
> The latter is fraud. The former isn't, no matter how much it may annoy.
You've been on the same page as me from the beginning, Deb.
Curtis.
--
The other night, I was lying in bed looking up at the stars, and I
wondered, "Where the FUCK is my ROOF?!?"
bob peterson
few people give neg FBs, even when a seller deserves it due to the
very real possibility of receiving a neg fb as retaliation which a
very large percentage of sellers adopt, if not as a tactic, at least
as a threat.
I would not consider anyone who has such a small number of feedbacks
to be a reliable seller yet, especially if he has mostly buys in his
fb list.
I look at some sellers who have hundreds of auctions going, and
receive relatively few feedbacks. They make me very nervous so I
rarely bid on these type of operators. I also don't usually bid on
sellers who whine on in their auction descriptions about how they no
longer give out feedback until some such even happens. My theory as a
buyer is that I have fullfilled my duty to the seller when my payment
arrives at his doorstep. if the seller is honorable, he will
acknowledge my end of the transaction was positive, regardless of what
I may or may not say about him. To withhold feedback as a threat
against the buyer seems like a dirreptable tactic to me.
"Doomaz" <Doo...@rvrvrvrvrv.net> wrote in message news:<slxxb.2787$a54...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> Even though I only bid on sellers with a better than 99% rating, I got
> screwed again. This deadbeat seller had 17 positives and zero other
> feedback. The guys in Canada and I'm in the U.S. but I didn't expect a
> problem. I had a couple of emails back and forth but the other day I noticed
> he received his first negative for non-delivery and so I emailed him as to
> where my item was. This time he did not respond. I wanted to give him extra
> time but I saw on PayPal that I had to file a fraud report in 30 days so on
> the 30th day, I did that. He's got until Monday to respond. He has not done
> so yet. I doubt that I have a very good chance to see my money back though.
> I also filed the fraud with Ebay. He now has received a nuetral for sending
> a hard drive in a regular envelope and it was damaged. Sounds like another
Terry Bullard
>few people give neg FBs, even when a seller deserves it due to the
>very real possibility of receiving a neg fb as retaliation which a
>very large percentage of sellers adopt, if not as a tactic, at least
>as a threat.
>
>I would not consider anyone who has such a small number of feedbacks
>to be a reliable seller yet, especially if he has mostly buys in his
>fb list.
>
>I look at some sellers who have hundreds of auctions going, and
>receive relatively few feedbacks. They make me very nervous so I
>rarely bid on these type of operators. I also don't usually bid on
>sellers who whine on in their auction descriptions about how they no
>longer give out feedback until some such even happens. My theory as a
>buyer is that I have fullfilled my duty to the seller when my payment
>arrives at his doorstep. if the seller is honorable, he will
>acknowledge my end of the transaction was positive, regardless of what
>I may or may not say about him. To withhold feedback as a threat
>against the buyer seems like a dirreptable tactic to me.
>
I really don't see how you figure that a Seller should give you feedback once
he/she receives your payment. Personally I don't mind when a Seller gives me
early feedback but in my view the Seller's responsibility is not over until you
receive and are happy with what you bought. Once that is done then the deal is
concluded and both should leave positive feedback for each other, the buyer
goes first. If a problem does occur along the way then there is time to work
the matter out before feedback is left to quickly. I can only speak for myself
but I know there are tons more Sellers who will bend over backward to make the
deal right because it is the right thing to do! There will be Sellers who prove
out to be assholes, no question about that, but those are the ones to duke it
out with. You can't lump all Sellers into one group, grin.
Terry
--
Crayfishing Made Easy!
http://www.terrybullard.com
Doomaz
once
> he/she receives your payment.
Because at that point, there is no other reason for the seller to not give
feedback, unless its to give a retaliatory negative if they get a negative.
Howard N. Lute
wrote:
Eactly...who's in charge here? The Seller is...they wait til the Buyer
posts feedback to see that they are satisfied with the way the whole
transaction was, incl shipping, damage, quality of goods, rapidity of
service etc etc. Then and only then does the Seller post feedback.
H
Retired Teacher, Terrible Mechanic, Worse Plumber!
LPFM Page: http://home.att.net/~optcamel/fmradio.htm
Richard Ward
And of course the buyer waits till the seller posts feedback to see that
they were satisfied with the way the whole transaction was, including
the rapidity of payment, nature of payment, communication, etc....
Of course this means that no one ever leaves feedback, but that's the
problem with deciding that feedback is part of the transaction, if it's
part of the transaction, then the transaction never ends, and it's never
appropriate for either party to leave feedback.
As for who is in charge here, the one paying the money is ultimately the
one with the power. eBay's figured it out, sellers are much easier to
find than buyers. The buyer has ultimate power, exercised by not bidding.
Anthony
"bob peterson" <peter...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:44088d06.03120...@posting.google.com...
> I think you need to be cautious in using the percentage method. Very
> few people give neg FBs, even when a seller deserves it due to the
> very real possibility of receiving a neg fb as retaliation which a
> very large percentage of sellers adopt, if not as a tactic, at least
> as a threat.
I'll agree with that. I won an auction today for a book and I missed the
sellers no PayPal items under $3. The witch refunded the PayPal payment and
said she was going to give me negative feedback for non-payment. She went
ballistic when I offered to cover the PayPal fees (about 40 cents) and went
on a rant. I was only suggesting options for payment not insisting on how
it had to be. It'll be a cold day in hell before I buy from oldklutz again.
I mailed the payment by certified mail so that she couldn't claim she never
got it. I'm almost willing to bet she refuses it when it gets there.
On the other hand I won another auction for some camping items and the
seller combined shipping and gave me a multiple item discount that I really
did not expect. By far most sellers I've done business with have been fair
and honest but it only takes a few to sour the milk. About a year ago, a
seller took my payment and never shipped but since it was only a $20 item
SafeHarbor did nothing for me.
Tony
Richard
news:20031202154021...@mb-m20.aol.com:
> concluded and both should leave positive feedback for each other, the
> buyer goes first. If a problem does occur along the way then there is
> time to work
>
No way. If I win an auction and pay immediately, that's all I can do.
What more does a seller want? If that's not good enough for positive
feedback then what is? I often check my feedback and respond to those that
left me feedback. Some sellers have forgotten who the buyer is. They are
the ones that should say "Thank you". Then I'll say "You're welcome".
Richard
Bob Niland
> No way. If I win an auction and pay
> immediately, that's all I can do.
Far from it.
> What more does a seller want?
* That the buyer provided a correct address
which is reasonably secure against the
parcel being stolen.
* That the buyer take delivery, and not refuse
it, and then pretend it never arrived.
* That the buyer take delivery, and not claim
non-delivery.
* And if delivery does not occur, that the
buyer requests a refund, and both parties
mutually agree to no-FB the deal.
* That the buyer not claim damage when there
was none.
* That the buyer not complain that, dammit,
the item is exactly as described.
* That the buyer not falsely claim that the
parcel contains something other than
what the buyer bid on.
* That if there are any real issues, the buyer
communicates and get them resolved, rather
than assumes that an instant Neg is the
answer.
* That the buyer report acceptance - delivery,
complete, undamaged, as-advertised, as this
dramatically increases the odds that the
buyer will report any real problems, and
dramatically reduces the odds that the
buyer will reverse the payment.
* And generally, that the buyer not treat FB
as a chat room. I want communication.
This is why, as a seller, I have a seller-posts-
FB-first policy, and I do so instantly, after
the buyer reports acceptance. As long as I
get an acceptance report, I don't care if the
buyer ever posts FB to me.
--
Regards, PO Box 248
Bob Niland Enterprise
mailto:na...@ispname.tld Kansas USA
which, due to spam, is: 67441-0248
email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
http://www.access-one.com/rjn
Unless otherwise specifically stated, expressing
personal opinions and NOT speaking for any
employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
Doomaz
> As an update, Paypal sent me a message today that says the seller was at
> fault and only recovered $1.54 for me.
New update. Seller has been NARUed. Ebay is supposed to refund me all but
$25 so that'd be around $21. Better than nothing.
Lumpy
Those guys with the bells out
in front or Wal Mart. Grrr. I'm
trying to teach my dog to poop
on their shoes.
Lumpy
--
In Your Ears for 40 Years
www.lumpymusic.com