quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:

$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.

---

Again though, I think you're off base here. It's really easy to start throwing postage costs out there like the difference between an insured package and a non-insured package is no big deal, but for anyone that does any sort of volume we simply know that this isn't true. We're talking about hundreds of dollars in wasted postage costs by insuring every single shipment.

Also, while your figures might not technically be incorrect as far as physical post office prices are concerned, everyone knows that online postage costs are different and much more economical.

Delivery confirmation does not cost .85 cents - it's free. Most trades these days cost exactly 1.64 to ship properly - that's a 3 ounce or less bubble mailer package WITH delivery confirmation on it. 1.64 is a reasonable cost to complete the vast majority of trades and sales that occur, those being in the $5-$20 range. Adding ANY amount of insurance to this immediately doubles (or more) the cost of postage. Once we get up closer to $4-5 in postage costs, it simply isn't worth it any more. The point isn't that insurance is useless or not a nice service, it's that it makes most of the trades and sales on MOTL not happen in the first place due to the prohibitive costs. And if most of the trades and sales stop happening, well, it's pretty easy to see the possibility of MOTL ceasing to exist as a popular place to buy/sell/trade.

You seem to think insurance is some be-all-end-all solution to all of the potential problems too and it just isn't. It's just not as easy as you make it out to be. Filing insurance claims isn't difficult, but the USPS WILL find any reason not to pay out. I've been through it before.

If someone sent me an empty box tomorrow with $100 worth of insurance on it, do you actually think they are going to reimburse me for my loss? It's just not going to happen. As far as they are concerned, they delivered the package as promised and undamaged, and the contents is none of their business. Along the same lines, if I send someone $100 worth of cards and insure the package for $100 and then they claim that the box was empty, how does insurance help me one bit? How about if someone else at my residence signs for an insured package, then loses it and it never reaches me. Do you think USPS is going to pay out in that scenario? According to you, the seller would still be at fault because it didn't reach its final intended destination. Once again, insurance isn't going to help.

The only thing that this ruling does is open the door for more honest sellers / traders to be taken advantage of and ripped off by those on the receiving end simply wanting to make a quick buck by claiming the package was stolen from their mailbox.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryusei24:

anyway, everyone should maybe relax a bit...none of ur mail got stolen yet and none of ur receivers claims no reception yet lol

---

I feel for you man, you got screwed here, plain and simple.

But the problem for the rest of us isn't that we specifically haven't gotten screwed or lost anything yet, but rather that a pandora's box of potential scamming has been opened up allowing it to happen in the future. If proof of delivery is no longer good enough, there's literally nothing a seller can do to protect themselves, and that includes insurance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red316DX:
Rules
3. I am not responsible for lost and/or damaged mail if insurance is not purchased. By contacting me, you agree that D/C to the proper zip code is proof that the package has been received.

---

Everyone knew that it was only a matter of time, before even ZERO ref members would be posting stuff like that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by choco man:
It's not good to assume something in rules text automatically superceded MOTL rules. People still have to agree to something explicitly if it's outside MOTL rules, correct?

---

If a lot of people are under the assumption that DC provided adequate protection for proof of delivery, (mind you multiple cases show proof of this in the later years) shouldn't it just be written into the rules that this holds true? Mod are receiving a lot of heat about this because the original intent of what was set up was lost. And was continually enforced. Do you have DC? Other then Inca (note I did not fully look into Wayne and HanSolo), I did not see anyone ask about DC with signature nor Insurance. It has always been, while I have been here just DC. I think, in this case, that the mods should not be the ones to decide for the members of the community but the community deciding how they want it. Ill face it, personally when a package is delivered to an address what is done with it afterwards is solely up to its recipient. I made sure it arrived Each of us tries to take care that the package arrives, why shouldnt the person receiving take responsibly after it arrives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
correct. You need them to spell it out. If they don't, your rules mean jack. Thats fine by me. It just takes some coercing sometimes to get people to actually reply with a release of liability.

---

Which shouldn't be necessary. Release of reliability upon proof of tracking info should be baseline to MOTL Sending rules, plain and simple. Inca is oversimplifying the issue by saying "insurance or bust" for nearly every trade, which simply isn't the optimal protocol for the large chunk of trades that are $25-$100 in value.

As was posted earlier, insurance mitigates risk, but it doesn't eliminate it, nor does having insurance prevent the headaches involved with successfully completing a claim. If a recipient decided to leave my parcel on his doorstep for a week, then claim he's not responsible at all for the hours, gasoline, effort, and stress involved in filing a USPS insurance claim, I'd have some choice words in rebuttal.

***Restricted Delivery*** is signature confirmation where you get to specify who can sign for the package and it is $4.55. Otherwise anyone upon attempt of delivery can sign for it, or anyone with the same address can sign for it. and unless its the person who you sent it to, you can't PROVE they got it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scipio624:
Does someones history go into making decisions on a BTA? I keep reading that if someone tries to pull this more then once no one will deal with them, but by the letter of MOTL law if people do keep trading with them and they say, "Never received, didn't get it no matter what the DC says. Show me the signiture!" Are they still good to trade since a signiture was not required because I only insured for $50 on my trade? Sure I guess I can try to get the insurance on my cards paid back but is that really the point?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Ask yourself if you would ever feel comfortable trading with Hooskdaddy, given his actions? He may not be liable in the eyes of MOTL Mods, but I have no doubt that he's lost a huge portion of potential trades as a result of his actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
Again though, I think you're off base here. It's really easy to start throwing postage costs out there like the difference between an insured package and a non-insured package is no big deal, but for anyone that does any sort of volume we simply know that this isn't true. We're talking about hundreds of dollars in wasted postage costs by insuring every single shipment.? Delivery confirmation does not cost .85 cents - it's free. Most trades these days cost exactly 1.64 to ship properly - that's a 3 ounce or less bubble mailer package WITH delivery confirmation on it. 1.64 is a reasonable cost to complete the vast majority of trades and sales that occur, those being in the $5-$20 range.

---

I do not understand how quoting the costs for the services under discussion is "off base". Thanks for sharing the online costs. If you don't mind adding risk, you can correctly package a letter (diffuse the sharp edge of the toploader), not use a bubble mailer, and drive your uninsured cost to ship a single toploader down to $0.45 for stamp + $0.10 for toploader. That would save $1 per trade that could be used if there is ever damage (which there won't be if you diffuse the toploader edges). The cost of insurance can be viewed as "wasted" if there is never a loss, but if your garage burns down I doubt the cost of your home and auto policy will be viewed as a waste. If the trades are small enough so a loss isn't a problem, why pay to add anything extra at all? Use refs to find good traders, send cards, and be willing to resend if there's a problem. I'm trying to understand the objection. Purchasing insurance is not mandatory, but being responsible for loss of uninsured items is the default rule.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
Also, while your figures might not technically be incorrect as far as physical post office prices are concerned, everyone knows that online postage costs are different and much more economical.

---

I'm part of everyone. I don't use online postage, and I don't know those rates.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
Adding ANY amount of insurance to this immediately doubles (or more) the cost of postage. Once we get up closer to $4-5 in postage costs, it simply isn't worth it any more. The point isn't that insurance is useless or not a nice service, it's that it makes most of the trades and sales on MOTL not happen in the first place due to the prohibitive costs. And if most of the trades and sales stop happening, well, it's pretty easy to see the possibility of MOTL ceasing to exist as a popular place to buy/sell/trade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
You seem to think insurance is some be-all-end-all solution to all of the potential problems too and it just isn't. It's just not as easy as you make it out to be. Filing insurance claims isn't difficult, but the USPS WILL find any reason not to pay out. I've been through it before.

If someone sent me an empty box tomorrow with $100 worth of insurance on it, do you actually think they are going to reimburse me for my loss? It's just not going to happen. As far as they are concerned, they delivered the package as promised and undamaged, and the contents is none of their business. Along the same lines, if I send someone $100 worth of cards and insure the package for $100 and then they claim that the box was empty, how does insurance help me one bit? How about if someone else at my residence signs for an insured package, then loses it and it never reaches me. Do you think USPS is going to pay out in that scenario? According to you, the seller would still be at fault because it didn't reach its final intended destination. Once again, insurance isn't going to help.

---

Purchasing insurance is the only way to get paid for the loss of any valuable item. It is the only end-all-be-all solution. I disagree that you are able to make blanket claims on behalf of the USPS. The effectiveness of insurance is helped if you take simple steps to verify receipt, as recommended in the Policy. If I sign for and open an insured shipment with my mail carrier or at the post office, then yes, I absolutely believe the USPS will pay the insurance claim and prosecute for mail fraud. If I open the package in front of a parent, then yes, I believe the odds are also very high the claim will be paid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
The only thing that this ruling does is open the door for more honest sellers / traders to be taken advantage of and ripped off by those on the receiving end simply wanting to make a quick buck by claiming the package was stolen from their mailbox.

---

I do not understand why you feel a system where "insurance protects against loss, a potential felony mail fraud conviction is the primary deterrent/penalty, and arrangements may be mutually agreed upon to deviate from the sending responsibility requirement" is worse than a system where "I can ship anything unprotected and have no financial recourse to be compensated for loss/theft/damage nor is there any robust deterrent/penalty for someone to steal my stuff".

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:

As others have said: Proof of delivery is all that's needed on every other internet sales and trading website including sites like eBay. Why is MOTL suddenly any different?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by paragondave:
Why not just send your end?

http://classic.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/091356.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
If proof of delivery is no longer good enough, there's literally nothing a seller can do to protect themselves, and that includes insurance.

My 300+ references AND proof of delivery mean nothing now. A 0 ref member can buy something from me and simply claim they never received it (despite my proof of delivery) and I'm now somehow at fault for that. It's complete and total BS and makes no logical sense on any level imaginable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by choco man:
It's not good to assume something in rules text automatically superceded MOTL rules. People still have to agree to something explicitly if it's outside MOTL rules, correct?

---

__________________
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 Dragon_Summoner:
If a lot of people are under the assumption that DC provided adequate protection for proof of delivery, (mind you multiple cases show proof of this in the later years) shouldn't it just be written into the rules that this holds true? Mod are receiving a lot of heat about this because the original intent of what was set up was lost. And was continually enforced. Do you have DC? Other then Inca (note I did not fully look into Wayne and HanSolo), I did not see anyone ask about DC with signature nor Insurance. It has always been, while I have been here just DC. I think, in this case, that the mods should not be the ones to decide for the members of the community but the community deciding how they want it. Ill face it, personally when a package is delivered to an address what is done with it afterwards is solely up to its recipient. I made sure it arrived Each of us tries to take care that the package arrives, why shouldnt the person receiving take responsibly after it arrives.
Ben

---

The default rules of the site are determined and documented by those responsible for the site. The default is that financial responsibility is on the individual who is able to reduce the risk by purchasing insurance.

The rules allow people to mutually agree to other terms, and these documented alternate terms are then provided in the event there is a problem: "If a different sending policy is agreed upon, proof of this must be furnished during any dispute resolution."

I think the fact that the sender held up his end of the agreement he should be entitled to his cards that you agreed to send him. It is not his fault you had to go out of town. You should have had the knowledge that these expensive items are coming and should have made proper arrangements with the post office to hold mail or the apt. complex to keep an eye out for the package or to not leave the package at the door.

Yes he should have insured, but that is my opinion and I normally insure anything over $100.

I would be livid if I was this guy and would be looking into action to recoup the lost he occurred from you.

- Basically, what I'm reading in all of this is that I shouldn't bother with D/C anymore because, at the end of the day, it's still going to be the recipient's word against mine. Correct?

- Regarding traders crying wolf in the BTA forum, I regularly do browse those and make sure I'm up to date on what's going on, but honestly, if someone were making such bogus claims every few months, I honestly doubt I would pick up on it. I'm focusing on the offender, not the supposed victim.

quote:

---

Originally posted by stu55:
Just reposting this here since last thread got consolidated here:

I think the fact that the sender held up his end of the agreement he should be entitled to his cards that you agreed to send him. It is not his fault you had to go out of town. You should have had the knowledge that these expensive items are coming and should have made proper arrangements with the post office to hold mail or the apt. complex to keep an eye out for the package or to not leave the package at the door.

Yes he should have insured, but that is my opinion and I normally insure anything over $100.

I would be livid if I was this guy and would be looking into action to recoup the lost he occurred from you.

If you don't think it is right, set the precedent and send him the 4 Volcs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooskdaddy:
Bc the Ex-NM ones I have run $65-70 each. Im trying to do as much as I can to help the guy out and not totally wreck myself either. I figured since he just wanted them to play for his tournament that he would rather have 4 useable ones over 2 great conditioned ones. Ive asked him and he was cool with me sending 4 played ones and said that would probably work out better. I just need to get them out to him one way or the other as his tourny is march 24th weekend. So i posted that up.
Contrary to what you think Dave, I am trying to do right by this guy.

---

This little situation is getting out of hand, I actually had a 180+ ref tell me that he's scared to trade with me until the mods "revisits" this situation. Initially I thought he was joking but then I read this post and realized that he is actually scared or that he's taking a stand.

I know that the majority of the senior members understand that this is an unique situation and trading with another high ref member will 99.9% of the time be safe but there are indeed those that are extremely shaken up by this and are now becoming baby hamsters with no balls even though the system has been working for over a decade.

Despite the fact I agree with the community in that this situation should be looked into and a safer procedure for the sender should be adopted, I do want to tell everyone to calm down a little and not do dumb s*** like attacking the administrator of the site when you are hot-headed and he doesn't agree with your point

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Which shouldn't be necessary. Release of reliability upon proof of tracking info should be baseline to MOTL Sending rules, plain and simple. Inca is oversimplifying the issue by saying "insurance or bust" for nearly every trade, which simply isn't the optimal protocol for the large chunk of trades that are $25-$100 in value.

---

Kindly do not attempt to speak for me. To be completely clear: I would personally not insure nor pay for DC on any smaller trades. I would use the ref system to find good traders and trade with them. I wouldn't even bother with a bubble mailer to save costs*. I would personally choose to take the risk that I might lose some cards now and then. I would also pay up or resend when something bad occasionally happens, as that is my responsibility. I would also require any risky traders to either pay for insurance, or waive my responsibility in writing (e.g., international trades).

*As an aside, a toploader with correct paper wrapping put in an envelope to diffuse the toploader edges hasn't had any issues with the post office's automated processing, but just a toploader in an envelope without the proper wrapping will probably be damaged.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
As was posted earlier, insurance mitigates risk, but it doesn't eliminate it, nor does having insurance prevent the headaches involved with successfully completing a claim. If a recipient decided to leave my parcel on his doorstep for a week, then claim he's not responsible at all for the hours, gasoline, effort, and stress involved in filing a USPS insurance claim, I'd have some choice words in rebuttal..

---

The goal is not to eliminate all risk. We are talking risk management, not risk avoidance. If you don't want to deal with insurance, agree not to do so. What is so difficult about this? Insurance claims are always annoying, just as they are incredibly infrequent. My personal success rate is probably greater than 999 times out of 1,000. If the item is valuable enough, the work to protect it is worthwhile. If the item isn't valuable, why bother?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
What's also not being discussed is the spirit of the Sending Rules. Ask yourself if you would ever feel comfortable trading with Hooskdaddy, given his actions? He may not be liable in the eyes of MOTL Mods, but I have no doubt that he's lost a huge portion of potential trades as a result of his actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ravidell:
At what point did REASONABLE EXPECTATION, become the senders problem. If I agree to trade with "trader X" and I send my cards to him. Why is it my fault if he/she has holes in his mailbox and the package gets wet? Why is it my fault he/she moved and didn't forward his/her mail? As a sender should I not have some REASONABLE EXPECTATION that where I am told to send my package has adequate means to receive and or keep package safe?

***Restricted Delivery*** is signature confirmation where you get to specify who can sign for the package and it is $4.55. Otherwise anyone upon attempt of delivery can sign for it, or anyone with the same address can sign for it. and unless its the person who you sent it to, you can't PROVE they got it.

It is only going to take a matter of time for this to happen. I am not trying to argue with Mod's and the Ruling, I am simply trying to point out how this ruling may be a bit safer. It still does not PROVE that the addressed receive.

---

I agree with Zeckk, Bagbokk, PotalisX, and about a dozen of the other sellers on here. Requiring insurance or waiver in writing for anything under about $250 is unnecessary, burdensome, and absurd.

Delivery confirmation is absolutly proof against non-receipt claims. Even paypal, eBay and Amazon accept this. If a delivery confirmaition number shows as delivered and you didn't receive a package, it is on the BUYER to find it. (Receiving the wrong item is completely different). You can go to your post office and talk to a carrier supervisor about missing packages.

Zeckk's posts and arguments basically sum up the way I feel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
Basically, what I'm reading in all of this is that I shouldn't bother with D/C anymore because, at the end of the day, it's still going to be the recipient's word against mine. Correct?

---

Or simply agree in writing that DC is all that's needed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
- Regarding traders crying wolf in the BTA forum, I regularly do browse those and make sure I'm up to date on what's going on, but honestly, if someone were making such bogus claims every few months, I honestly doubt I would pick up on it. I'm focusing on the offender, not the supposed victim.

---

If you use the search function for the BTA using the username, name, and physical address and ingnore the posted content details, there isn't much that can be done to help.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
- Insurance for the trades within the US is easy, but when you start dealing internationally (including to Canada), it's a different story. The only option I'd have when sending now is registered, which starts at ~$12. If it's a big trade, it requires additional insurance, and the international insurance rates are pretty steep. Furthermore, there is a limit to international insurance coverage I can buy (I want to say it was $200, but I'm not sure and admittedly too lazy right now to look it up). What then, do I simply turn down the big trade if I don't want to assume the risk?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lindencards:
I agree with Zeckk, Bagbokk, PotalisX, and about a dozen of the other sellers on here. Requiring insurance or waiver in writing for anything under about $250 is unnecessary, burdensome, and absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lindencards:
Delivery confirmation is absolutly proof against non-receipt claims. Even paypal, eBay and Amazon accept this. If a delivery confirmaition number shows as delivered and you didn't receive a package, it is on the BUYER to find it. (Receiving the wrong item is completely different). You can go to your post office and talk to a carrier supervisor about missing packages.

---