quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
I don't like that you keep saying "This is how it should be" when everyone else in the community is telling you it's not actually like that in the real world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
How many times do people have to tell you that the USPS postal worker WILL NOT stand there and wait for you to verify the content of the package? Even a USPS postal worker himself said this is just not possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
I've personally never had an issue opening a package at the post office counter and quickly confirming the contents, nor have I had any issue asking my local carrier to wait a minute for me to check a package and sign.

---

~MM

__________________
I am MeddlingMage...YOUR Motl Survivor 11 Champion, 2007 Captain N award winner, 2010 Marlboro award winner, and 2011 Champion Tournament Pick'em
MOTL NCAA Bracket Challenge winner!

CM Punk "OMG Kevin Nash WTF, thought he was dead, LOL"

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
Postal employee verification is absolutely not a requirement to file an insurance claim. It simply makes resolution of your claim much easier. There's a reason I give Christmas presents to my mail carrier....

---

What? So now you are saying it is not a must to verify the contents in front of a postal employee? What if I have signed for the package, but it turns out there are missing cards in it? Now am I SOL because the postal employee didn't have 30 minutes to spare for me to verify the stack of bulk rares that I bought?

For every single suggestion you make, there is always a scenario that it will fail.

Btw, the whole "I give Christmas presents to my mail carrier..." has nothing to do with this.

__________________
MOTL Fantasy NBA 2010 Champion

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
Delivery confirmation addresses the potential for Karma penalty from not sending. It doesn't protect when theft occurs. I'm definitely interested in any other ideas that address these three issues covered by the current Policy (all of which have happened in the past):

1. Protect members from a thief spending $2 on delivery confirmation, sending an empty envelope, and then blackmailing the member to give them free stuff or be banned.

2. Protect members from a thief getting a legit and complete package, stealing the cards, claiming the envelope was empty or not actually received, and then blackmailing the member to resend or be banned.

3. Protect members from a thief stealing a delivery confirmed parcel, and the intended recipient getting nothing because they weren't at their mailbox or door 24/7 to prevent the theft.

Online trading has inherent risks. Insurance is the only mitigation for the risk of financial loss.

---

1. This issue is separate from the BTA case because of a very important fact - Hooskdaddy never claimed he got an empty envelope. He claimed to never get the package at all. There are ways to address the problem you lists (registered shipping, sending through a 3rd party, etc.) but this problem is separate from the issue at hand.

2. This is the Empty-Box dillemma. The reality is that the risk of such scams can only be mitigated by the use of BTAs, user reputation, and the time/effort required to get someone to agree to send you a parcel of cards that is somehow worth the risk of potential criminal charges. But again, and I can't stress this enough - Are you saying that holding a sender liable for a parcel after it's reached it's destination somehow prevents these scams? I would make the argument that the ruling in the BTA case ENCOURAGES this type of scumbaggery, because you've given a recipient zero liability even in the face of an impartial mailing system contradicting his claim. That's the real issue. You're conflating liability and responsibility, which is an error in my opinion.

3. This is very cut-and-dry, and the fault is on the recipient for not having a secure shipping address. You're equating a guy getting mugged after he opens his mailbox with a guy that leaves a parcel on his doorstep unattended for a week. Where do you draw that line, exactly? Is the sender still liable if I choose to have that sender ship a parcel into a war zone? What about a commune filled with recovering kleptomaniacs? I'm being facetious, but it's to illustrate the point that a recipient has to have some responsibility to maintain a safe shipping address. I would argue that a recipient's responsibility to maintain a safe shipping address also requires a sender's liability to end at that destination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
inca, you're skirting the real issue, which is why MOTL is officially taking the stance that Delivery Confirmation doesn't release liability from a sending party AFTER a package has been confirmed by USPS to be delivered? Are you making the argument that such a stance somehow prevents more scamming or confusion than the alternative? I think the community has made a very well-reasoned argument as to why DC should be viewed as acceptable proof of delivery. I would also like to know if MOTL officially condones recipients knowingly providing shipping destinations that are unsafe for delivery and safekeeping?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
Are you even reading the posts you're responding to?

---

Yes. Please do not selectively remove the last sentence in my response that directly addresses the issue of there being no verification by a postal employee (see underlined):

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
That said, if any insured package doesn't have what was supposed to be inside upon delivery regardless of verification, then an insurance claim should be filed for restitution.

---

1) Stop contradicting yourself every three posts. It's giving us a headache (us being everyone in #motl who is collectively reading the post and trying to make sense of your babbling).

2) Stop ignoring points you don't want to answer. You're an administrator of the site. It is your responsibility to make sure it runs smoothly and that everyone understands the rules of the game, even if you don't want to hear about the confusion.

3) Stop insulting people that demand clarification, as they are entitled to it as members of the community in good standing following the terms of service of the site.

I think you're way, way off base here and it shows with your responses. You continually point out that the rules "are as they are" because it's the only way to prevent scams such as empty envelopes. The problem with this, is that you're opening up a loophole to a MUCH LARGER problem by "solving" (which isn't really solved) another. This would be akin to chopping your leg off because you had a rash on your shin. Yeah, you no longer have a rash, but you also no longer have a leg. Insurance doesn't really solve the issues you are claiming it does either. If (hypothetically) a seller sends a package or envelope with 100 commons in it rather than the $200 worth of rares that's supposed to be there, how is the post office going to know who is at fault? They don't know the difference between $2 worth of cards and $200 worth of cards if you open it in front of them. As far as they are concerned, the package was delivered and the contents is none of their concern. The receiver would obviously then file a claim or BTA the seller, but it's a complete crapshoot how that one plays out from there. It's one persons word against another. Nothing is actually solved by having the rules as you lay them out.

I haven't been around MOTL as long as some people and I've never been the most active chatter on the message boards. But I have put in my time seriously enough to be borderline top 50 references on this site with 337 of them, so I know a thing or two about online transactions. I think I echo what most people are thinking / posting by saying that the "empty envelope" scenario, while possible, is a MUCH, MUCH smaller problem in the grand scheme of things than basically making DC / Sig Con 100% useless.

You are completely correct when you say that ultimately there are always going to be risks when trading or selling online. I think all of us are in agreement with that and we understand that. But that doesn't mean we can't have an active and relatively safe community like we have for the past however many years here.

We have moderators for a reason. Why not let them have a little power to decide things in a reasonable and rational outcome? The rules, as you lay them out, give a CLEAR loophole for any scammer to exploit. As it is now apparently, anyone can simply claim that they themselves never received the package in their possession and the seller is then liable. This is an easy, understandable way for someone to scam the system 100% of the time.

Alternatively, we could make DC / SC have value again, as it has for the past 5-10+ years around here, and leave ourselves only open to the "empty envelope" scam instead. If and when the "empty envelope" scenario happened, we would then have moderators to make their best judgment on the situation taking into consideration the parties involved, how long they've been around, their ref count, and anything else that they feel would help them to make that judgment call. At the VERY least, this option is not a CLEAR CUT way for someone to scam the system and leaves the door open for a 3rd party to rule against them. I can say with a high degree of certainty that less people are likely to be scamming if they aren't positive about what the outcome of their scam will be.

I hope this made sense. As it is now, this is a sad day for MOTL as a whole. The biggest thing MOTL has going for it is the community, and this is dividing people and making them not want to trade/buy/sell any more. The ruling needs to be reversed if you hope to maintain order and stability. More importantly, the rules as you lay them out now just make NO SENSE, and are completely asinine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeddlingMage:
If I trade here any more, my 250+ refs are NEVER sending 1st again.

~MM

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
I ignored the irrelevant part of the post. You need to do the following:

1) Stop contradicting yourself every three posts. It's giving us a headache (us being everyone in #motl who is collectively reading the post and trying to make sense of your babbling).

2) Stop ignoring points you don't want to answer. You're an administrator of the site. It is your responsibility to make sure it runs smoothly and that everyone understands the rules of the game, even if you don't want to hear about the confusion.

3) Stop insulting people that demand clarification, as they are entitled to it as members of the community in good standing following the terms of service of the site.

Ideally, we would add 4) Discuss with Leshrac the idea of selling/transferring control of the site to someone who cares about it and will pay attention, but I know that's too much to ask.

---

1. Please describe the contradiction in what I have said. The message is unclear and unchanging. Delivery confirmation covers Karma penalty for not sending. Insurance protects against financial loss.

2. I'm responding to every post in this thread after my first, regardless of who makes it. Please list the posts that have not been responded to and I will address them.

3. Who is being insulted and how?

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
It is not my intent to skirt any issue or fail to address any post. If a package is confirmed as delivered, there will not be trading liability on MOTL for non-delivery. Delivery confirmation does not eliminate the shipper's financial liability for problems with un-insured contents. For example, cards damaged from poor packaging of a delivery confirmed parcel is not addressed in the system you describe above. This is a frequent occurrence. If a package is stolen or damaged, only insurance provides restitution. If an address is unsafe for delivery, there will be multiple BTA posts listing problems with the address that will show up on a search prior to sending cards. If a trader does not have a history of successful trades, insurance is even more important, which is why refs are a barometer of trading risk.

---

First off, the BTA system already in place is capable of handling disputes of cards damaged in transit or as a result of improper packaging, and again, is an issue entirely separate from the responsibility of a recipient to maintain a safe mailing address.

Secondly, are you stating that a user has to have a history of packages getting "stolen or misplaced by USPS" before he is held responsible in the eyes of MOTL? By the admission of Hoosk himself, he allowed his mailing address to become unsafe AFTER Ryusei had already shipped out. Not holding Hoosk responsible for that is the entire reason this BTA has caused such a commotion. It has nothing to do with existing scams like the ones you keep throwing out as distractions. People have traded on here for years knowing that a scammer will always have a way to take your property from you, and we've always know that only insurance mitigates that risk. What we didn't know is that MOTL has suddenly decided that "destination" now means something entirely different than "mailing address".

This pandora's box also opens up a whole new set of problems due not to scams, but receiver incompetence as well.

Dropped the package unknowingly on the way inside from the mailbox? That's now the seller's fault.

Accidentally threw away the package with your junk mail? Also the seller's fault.

Misplaced the package unknowingly after receiving it? Yup, that's also the seller's fault.

Need I continue?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tha Gunslinga:
DC just goes by zip code, though, so you can't really tell where it ended up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
Inca, let me start by saying that I have no clue what role you play in the realm of MOTL. I love that MOTL has existed all of these years and it's been good to me. I still enjoy MOTL even now, and I'm probably one of the few people that likes the fact that it never goes through any changes and enjoys it's archaic simplicity. What I'm trying to say here, is that whatever role you play here let me first say thank you for giving us this place to begin with, and please understand that my frustration with this particular issue does not take away from that despite how I may sound in the forthcoming paragraph.

---

You're emotional because you care. Nothing wrong with that. Thanks for taking time to post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
I think you're way, way off base here and it shows with your responses. You continually point out that the rules "are as they are" because it's the only way to prevent scams such as empty envelopes. The problem with this, is that you're opening up a loophole to a MUCH LARGER problem by "solving" (which isn't really solved) another. This would be akin to chopping your leg off because you had a rash on your shin. Yeah, you no longer have a rash, but you also no longer have a leg.

---

Deliver confirmation addresses the MOTL sending/not sending issues. That is unchanged. The reality is that most people on here that have some refs are honest, so the risk level is the same low level it has always been regardless of whether something is insured or not. I'll address the much larger problem as you describe it below.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
Insurance doesn't really solve the issues you are claiming it does either. If (hypothetically) a seller sends a package or envelope with 100 commons in it rather than the $200 worth of rares that's supposed to be there, how is the post office going to know who is at fault? They don't know the difference between $2 worth of cards and $200 worth of cards if you open it in front of them. As far as they are concerned, the package was delivered and the contents is none of their concern.

---

You absolutely do not need a postal employee to verify anything to file an insurance claim. It's simply an easy way to do it that I know works. I opened $3k in insured fakes at the post office and showed the employee the issue. He wrote a nice signed note with his contact info in case I needed it. I contacted the seller who claimed I swapped the cards. I then sent a scan of the postal employee note and the mail fraud penalty issue. Problem solved. Insurance is the only protection available. If the package is insured, you have as much protection as you can get.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
The receiver would obviously then file a claim or BTA the seller, but it's a complete crapshoot how that one plays out from there. It's one persons word against another. Nothing is actually solved by having the rules as you lay them out.

---

Without any evidence, I fully agree your claim may or may not be successful. That's why a high dollar receipt needs confirmation, any that's why I tip my mail carrier or open at the post office. Nobody signs at my house except me, and nothing is left on a doorstep.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
I think I echo what most people are thinking / posting by saying that the "empty envelope" scenario, while possible, is a MUCH, MUCH smaller problem in the grand scheme of things than basically making DC / Sig Con 100% useless.

---

DC/Sig Con isn't useless, it proves shipment. But how does it help at all if I send you a fake Library tomorrow? I have "proof", and you will either have to resend or be banned. How would that be resolved? If you post on the BTA that I sent you a fake, I claim you switched it out (which has also happened) and you are still stuck. Help me understand the protection from DC/Sig Con. Either way, we are each talking a tiny chance of a problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
You are completely correct when you say that ultimately there are always going to be risks when trading or selling online. I think all of us are in agreement with that and we understand that. But that doesn't mean we can't have an active and relatively safe community like we have for the past however many years here.

---

Nothing that has been posted changes the basic safety from trading on the site. Nor does it change the fact that a stamp on a letter works almost every time to get something safely delivered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
We have moderators for a reason. Why not let them have a little power to decide things in a reasonable and rational outcome?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
The rules, as you lay them out, give a CLEAR loophole for any scammer to exploit. As it is now apparently, anyone can simply claim that they themselves never received the package in their possession and the seller is then liable. This is an easy, understandable way for someone to scam the system 100% of the time.

---

Without insurance, the clear loophole is there. With only CD/SigCon required, if you send me $100 today, and I send you empty envelope tomorrow, you are 100% toast.

With insurance, there is no loophole. You send me $100 today, and I send you empty insured package tomorrow, you file insurance claim and I get felony mail fraud. If I don't insure it, you can claim it was empty and I'm nailed because I chose not to protect myself.

Which is more robust?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
Alternatively, we could make DC / SC have value again, as it has for the past 5-10+ years around here, and leave ourselves only open to the "empty envelope" scam instead. If and when the "empty envelope" scenario happened, we would then have moderators to make their best judgment on the situation taking into consideration the parties involved, how long they've been around, their ref count, and anything else that they feel would help them to make that judgment call. At the VERY least, this option is not a CLEAR CUT way for someone to scam the system and leaves the door open for a 3rd party to rule against them. I can say with a high degree of certainty that less people are likely to be scamming if they aren't positive about what the outcome of their scam will be.

---

The judgement call method works fine until a high dollar trade goes bad between two solid members, or there is a grey area about who promised to be someplace at some time. Without insurance, nobody is protected. For smaller trades, issues get addressed and insurance isn't worth the hassle. I've split the difference on a problem trade many times. It's a cost of ignoring insurance that I'm willing to pay.

If DC/SigCon is the only proof required, there is a 100% clear cut way to scam the system. I send empty (or send a fake), and it's 100% guaranteed to work with a miniscule risk to the ripper. A mail fraud claim can still be filed, but it won't likely be successful. If insurance is used, the ripper must commit federal mail fraud knowing that an insurance claim will be filed.

For smaller trades with solid members, why change something that works most every time? Send however you want, but realize there is no real protection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
I hope this made sense. As it is now, this is a sad day for MOTL as a whole. The biggest thing MOTL has going for it is the community, and this is dividing people and making them not want to trade/buy/sell any more. The ruling needs to be reversed if you hope to maintain order and stability. More importantly, the rules as you lay them out now just make NO SENSE, and are completely asinine.

---

Hopefully we have a mutual understanding that you care and want a system that is simple, and that I care and want a system that is simple and protects people from theft attempts like I have experienced many times for thousands of dollars. I can absolutely cheat the DC/SigCon system 100% of the time, with no fear of a felony mail fraud conviction, until the BTA makes it clear that I'm ripping people off. Easily fixed by an apartment move. I can also attempt to cheat the insurance system 100% of the time, but at the much more substantial risk of having a felony conviction on my permanent records for the rest of my life, and the recipient doesn't lose a dime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
People have voiced their opinion, listen to them.

---

I am definitely listening, and working to understand the true cost/benefit offered from a DC/Sig Con system.

$0.85 for basic DC on a package
$2.55 for SigCon
$1.85 for $50 insurance
$2.35 for $100 insurance
$2.90 for $200 insurance

What's the concern? Insurance will be cheaper or equivalent to SigCon for the majority of trades.

quote:

---

Deliver confirmation addresses the MOTL sending/not sending issues. That is unchanged. The reality is that most people on here that have some refs are honest, so the risk level is the same low level it has always been regardless of whether something is insured or not. I'll address the much larger problem as you describe it below.

---

If DC was only good for sending/not sending issues, then the receipt of first class mail provides EXACTLY the same information in case of a dispute, since the zipcode and city/state/country of destination are printed on the receipt. But that's not why DC exists, is it? DC gos beyond that, providing CONFIRMATION OF DELIVERY. As I find myself repeating too many times in the last day, the issue with the BTA ruling is that MOTL has expressly placed liability on the sender for a host of issues that a sending party cannot reasonably protect against. An above poster listed quite a few common problems with recipient incompetence, and I would agree with the statement that MOTL's current stance on sender liability creates far greater scamming potential than the scenarios inca has posted.

quote:

---

DC/Sig Con isn't useless, it proves shipment. But how does it help at all if I send you a fake Library tomorrow? I have "proof", and you will either have to resend or be banned. How would that be resolved? If you post on the BTA that I sent you a fake, I claim you switched it out (which has also happened) and you are still stuck. Help me understand the protection from DC/Sig Con. Either way, we are each talking a tiny chance of a problem.

---

Consider the reverse scenario - I send you a REAL library tomorrow, and despite my requirements of a signature confirmation AND insurance, you sign for the package, claim to never have received it, and blame the USPS for incompetence (or even better, if you live in an apartment complex, accuse the postal worker of letting someone other than you sign for the package, further muddying the waters). Now, the sender has to file a claim, prove to the USPS that the recipient is lying, wait for the USPS to investigate the issue, hope that the postal worker in question is both a reliable witness (in legal terms, i.e. no prior record, no history of lying to superiors, etc.), hope that the USPS ACTUALLY INVESTIGATES, hope the scamming recipient is incapable of providing a statement that places any kind of doubt on the sender's claim, and if the stars align and the sender wins his claim?

I gets the value of my cards back.

And I also get a red flag in the USPS system, making it harder to win a future insurance claim should the issue arise again.

And MOTL, as per its ruling in the BTA, still holds me responsible for the package not being received by the scammer. Are you starting to see fallacy of the position MOTL is taking on this issue? Your stance attempts to limit one type of scam while making it clear that a host of other scams are going to be successful until the scammer develops a reputation of repeat offenses.

quote:

---

Hopefully we have a mutual understanding that you care and want a system that is simple, and that I care and want a system that is simple and protects people from theft attempts like I have experienced many times for thousands of dollars. I can absolutely cheat the DC/SigCon system 100% of the time, with no fear of a felony mail fraud conviction, until the BTA makes it clear that I'm ripping people off. Easily fixed by an apartment move. I can also attempt to cheat the insurance system 100% of the time, but at the much more substantial risk of having a felony conviction on my permanent records for the rest of my life, and the recipient doesn't lose a dime.

---

Again, consider the reverse scenario. A dedicated scammer is going to get you one way or another, and the only real deterrents are the BTA and the ref rule. But for the millioth time, this issue at heart has less to do with scamming and more to do with liability in the case of incompetence.

Take malicious intent completely out of the situation. 2 parties agree to a trade. The sending party took steps to make sure the parcel reaches it's destination (for the love of god, inca, just clarify what MOTL deems as a "destination"), and the receiving party ends up having an unsafe shippind location. Neither party wanted to screw the other over, but the end result is that cards were lost, and someone is on the hook for the loss. MOTL is officially punishing the guy that made sure he got his end of the deal to the other guy's house. Again, take malicious intent out of it. How do you make that ruling? By what justification? Ryusei has no history of bad trading practices, and Hoosk never claimed he got an empty package.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
First off, the BTA system already in place is capable of handling disputes of cards damaged in transit or as a result of improper packaging, and again, is an issue entirely separate from the responsibility of a recipient to maintain a safe mailing address.

---

I'm unclear what "safe mailing address" means. If you mean a recipient has packages frequently stolen, then insurance is even more important and DC is an even worse option. I agree that card damage isn't a large concern. If I ship a package with DC and the carrier leaves it on my doorstep in the morning where my sprinkler system waters it for an hour due to high winds, who's to blame?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Secondly, are you stating that a user has to have a history of packages getting "stolen or misplaced by USPS" before he is held responsible in the eyes of MOTL?

---

Not at all. It only takes one large theft to potentially wreck a collection. That said, if someone claims multiple shipments have been lost and there are multiple posts on the BTA describing problems with their address, then clearly precautions must be taken. The most logical precaution would be insuring the shipment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
By the admission of Hoosk himself, he allowed his mailing address to become unsafe AFTER Ryusei had already shipped out.

---

Do you mean he wasn't waiting at home 24/7 for a package to be delivered? That certainly isn't a reasonable requirement for any trade. Plans change all the time. I had a trade take an extra month from someone ending up in the hospital. If I can't afford to lose something, I must protect it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Not holding Hoosk responsible for that is the entire reason this BTA has caused such a commotion. It has nothing to do with existing scams like the ones you keep throwing out as distractions.

---

What you refer to as "distractions" are real situations I have encountered and avoided, and that I am using as specific examples to explain why insurance is clearly specified twice in the sending Policy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
People have traded on here for years knowing that a scammer will always have a way to take your property from you, and we've always know that only insurance mitigates that risk.

---

If you insure your shipments, you will not have people successfully steal from you. I'm glad that you believe everyone knows that. I've had multiple scammers attempt to take thousands of dollars from me. None have been successful in any amount that was significant. The statement that "a scammer always has a way to take your property from you" is false.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
What we didn't know is that MOTL has suddenly decided that "destination" now means something entirely different than "mailing address". inca, you've continued to avoid explaining why MOTL does not consider a mailing address as the "destination" outlined in the Sending Rules. Explain that, and I think you will answer a lot of the questions and confusion that resulted in the BTA ruling.

---

Certainly. People don't trade with buildings, they trade with other people. Theft from mailboxes is a real thing, and recipients cannot be required to be at home waiting for every package to arrive. If an insured package disappears, it's easy to file an online claim. If an insured package is missing contents, file a claim. If the contents are poorly protected and damaged, file a claim.

quote:

---

Theft from mailboxes is a real thing, and recipients cannot be required to be at home waiting for every package to arrive. If an insured package disappears, it's easy to file an online claim.

---

If it dissapears FROM MY MAILBOX, it's easy to file a claim? bull****.

__________________
"He fights you not because you have wronged him, but because you are there."

[16:17] <@BrassMan> what do you need new tech for?
[16:18] <@BrassMan> gush is unrestricted

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
Please know the rates are more expensive here in the Great White North lol the case in question cost the trader 23.00 in shipping.

---

Thanks,
Jazaray

__________________
A Plastered Dragon Original Limerick:
There was a nice lassie named Jaz
Many wished to have what she has,
A delicate face,
A soft warm embrace,
And a whole lot of bedroom pizzazz.

WeedIan: Jazaray is like MOTL's Mom.