__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

The sender must make sure the cards reach their destination. Only the sender can obtain delivery confirmation proof and insure the cards against loss or damage. ... If you do send anything via mail, make sure you use signature-required delivery confirmation and insure the cards so the cycle of lack of proof can end. With signature-required delivery confirmation, the recipient can then open the package in the presence of a postal employee and verify the contents with an impartial witness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by psrex:
I thought that DC wasn't sufficient for MOTL:

---

DC is evidence to show your cards reached their destination. It helps in cases where someone could say "I didn't receive the cards."

quote:

---

Originally posted by WCFmo:
DC is evidence to show your cards reached their destination. It helps in cases where someone could say "I didn't receive the cards."

---

Has anyone had a letter with DC delivered to the wrong address? I know it's happened before that my neighbor has gotten cards from a trade and then given them to me, but it hasn't happened recently (since DC really took off as an option).

quote:

---

Originally posted by psrex:
Has anyone had a letter with DC delivered to the wrong address? I know it's happened before that my neighbor has gotten cards from a trade and then given them to me, but it hasn't happened recently (since DC really took off as an option).

---

I've heard horror stories before, but like I said just because you can show you have a DC and that it was delivered does not mean

1. You sent it to the right address
2. The Post Office didn't screw up

I've had a crazy DC say it was delivered in a different state but the person received it (in the right state )

IDK how much weight/faith the mods have in DC but at the very least it's evidence in your favor as long as it shows it was delivered in the same town.

quote:

---

Originally posted by frankenskid:
Best way of sending protection?

---

I just carry it on me, usually in my wallet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by frankenskid:
More to the mods than anyone, how would a video from a cell phone of the packaging/addressing, and eventual mailing of the items with a DC# be received for proof of mailing?

---

As proof of mailing, it's fine. Unfortunately, proof of mailing is useless on motl. Proof of receipt is what counts, as without that, the package could still be lost in the mail.

We are discussing delivery confirmation and it's use as proof of receipt, and it sounds like some of you have some good takes on that. While it is not without flaw, I am concerned about what may happen if it is no longer considered sufficient for motl as proof of receipt. It seems to be widely used and generally considered sufficient for many packages as a way to prevent claims of a package not being received. What do you all think about a change to how it's been done?

I'll post my thoughts later, so as not to lead the discussion.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WCFmo:
I've had a crazy DC say it was delivered in a different state but the person received it (in the right state )

---

I've had this happen to me too. Also had some DC runarounds (sorting, out for delivery, sorting).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bagbokk:
I've always disliked the proof of receipt requirement to begin with.

---

I don't know if anyone actually likes it, but it's the best option that we've been able to come up with. The reasoning behind it is that the sender has the ability to use tracking or insurance, so they have the ability to protect themselves. The recipient has no such safeguards available. Without proof, it's just a he-said, she-said situation which is impossible to mediate because we have no way of knowing whether the sender lied about sending, the receipient lied about receiving, or the mail got lost in the middle. If anyone ever comes up with a better way of handling these, we're always open to suggestions.

To the original questions about DC being sufficient proof, IMO it's a reasonable compromise. Yes, occasionally it may produce weird results or end up in the wrong place, but in my experience that is still fairly rare. Upping the requirement to insurance should result in less false positives, as the post office is likely going to be a bit more aware when they have money on the line, but it's also going to increase the cost of doing business for many MOTLers. International could become even more of a burden as people increase the stated value of packages in case a package is lost to maximize the benefits of insurance, and people who are in countries that charge customs fees will end up paying much more to deal outside their own borders.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
I don't know if anyone actually likes it, but it's the best option that we've been able to come up with. The reasoning behind it is that the sender has the ability to use tracking or insurance, so they have the ability to protect themselves. The recipient has no such safeguards available. Without proof, it's just a he-said, she-said situation which is impossible to mediate because we have no way of knowing whether the sender lied about sending, the receipient lied about receiving, or the mail got lost in the middle. If anyone ever comes up with a better way of handling these, we're always open to suggestions.

---

I understand the reasoning behind it. I'm more worried about international sales/trades than domestic, because DC cost is minimal. For international trades, the chances of stuff getting lost is higher and the cost of ensuring that it doesn't is also higher.

It may be possible, albeit slightly more complicated, to have different rules for domestic and international trades.

I still think that proof of sending should be sufficient for international trades and anything beyond that can be worked out between the parties to the trade/sale. If the party does not ask for registered/insured mail then they bear the risk of loss as long as the sender can prove that he sent. If the deal is big enough the parties can agree that both send registered; if only one party is worried, he can request registered and they can determine who bears the $11.50 cost of it, etc.

There are three things that can be combined for proof of sending international mail. One is taking a picture of the properly-addressed package with the customs form attached to it. Second is the customs # itself--you can enter it into USPS and get an acceptance notice and sometimes a notice that it has been routed to NY or whatever before it goes overseas. Finally the receipt from the post office, at least from mine, would have both the customs # and the country to which it is sent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bagbokk:
I understand the reasoning behind it. I'm more worried about international sales/trades than domestic, because DC cost is minimal. For international trades, the chances of stuff getting lost is higher and the cost of ensuring that it doesn't is also higher.

It may be possible, albeit slightly more complicated, to have different rules for domestic and international trades.

I still think that proof of sending should be sufficient for international trades and anything beyond that can be worked out between the parties to the trade/sale. If the party does not ask for registered/insured mail then they bear the risk of loss as long as the sender can prove that he sent. If the deal is big enough the parties can agree that both send registered; if only one party is worried, he can request registered and they can determine who bears the $11.50 cost of it, etc.

There are three things that can be combined for proof of sending international mail. One is taking a picture of the properly-addressed package with the customs form attached to it. Second is the customs # itself--you can enter it into USPS and get an acceptance notice and sometimes a notice that it has been routed to NY or whatever before it goes overseas. Finally the receipt from the post office, at least from mine, would have both the customs # and the country to which it is sent.

Regardless, I don't think the current system is bad, and no system is perfect. I think it's great as to domestic trades. I just feel that there are enough international traders here that the barrier could be reduced to facilitate trading/selling without placing the $11.50 registered mail burden on the sender no matter what. I've had success with getting people to release me from liability instead of paying for registered mail, but some people are apparently very offended/insulted by that idea (see yukizora above).

---

I understand the additional costs, but unless someone magically makes a cheap international dc option, not much is going to fix anything. Having different sending rules for domestic and international sending is unreasonable. Someone has to eat the cost of lost packages. Since only the sender can obtain protection, it only makes sense that they be the ones to take the loss. Since you note that packages are more likely to get lost internationally, do you not think that the recipient losing the value is just as hard to take as the sender losing out?

It's a cost of doing business. People are free to make other agreements if it suits the trade, but the default position is that the sender must make sure that the package arrives safely, so either a trade is worth protecting or not.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.