quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:

Except when I send a package with Delivery Confirmation, I have to fill out the slip and write the address on it, which does in fact show where I sent it.

---

Actually, while you may have to do this, my post office doesn't require anything written on the D/C slip. They don't even look at what I write there, just scan it and put it on the package.

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:

Except when I send a package with Delivery Confirmation, I have to fill out the slip and write the address on it, which does in fact show where I sent it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:

The spirit of the sending rules has been discussed at length. Risk is placed on the party that has the sole ability to reduce the risk by purchasing insurance. Parties can mutually agree to other terms. From review of the publicly available BTA information, if you personally feel trading with Hoosk is risky, then use insurance or trade with one of the many other members. It's completely your choice.

---

I think I'm starting to understand why it feels like me and inca are talking past each other, and it's highlighted by the bolded sentence above.

I, and others, believe that there is an aspect of responsibility inherent in maintaining a safe shipping address, because maintaining a safe shipping address reduces the risk of a trade going bad. The MOTL Sending Rules, in their current interpretation, completely ignores the risks associated with a recipient failing to secure his mailing receptable, whether that receptacle is a mailbox, P.O. box, or a doorstep.

But I can see why MOTL would be hesitant to default all liability to the recipient in the face of proof of delivery, because it's naturally a grey area - how long does someone get to leave a package in an unlocked mailbox before they are considered negligent? With that said, the BTA case would likely not have generated nearly as much outrage and discussion if there had been no evidence of negligence on the recipient, i.e. "I waited at the mailbox night and day, and never saw the package".

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
DC proves delivery for purposes of a sender meeting their commitment to send on time and such. On both sides of the discussion, there are items that will bother someone. If the recipient feels it's safe, it should be no problem for them to agree to waive the sender's responsibility. We are all in violent agreement that a theft is the fault of the thief, but a default responsibility must be assigned to either the sender or recipient. Only one of those is physically able to buy insurance, so the sender has been selected. If anyone doesn't like the default, please just agree in writing with your trade partner and change it. I know I personally have changed it hundreds of times in writing for small trades.

Am I just missing something that makes it difficult to agree with someone on these 7 words: "DC is good enough, no insurance needed" ?

---

Sigh. I really feel like you are defending your decision based on your ego, and not for the good of the community or the forum.

First, you are dead set that D/C will never be good enough, and the sender should get SC and insurance to cover his/her ass, but you then suggested that people should ask the receiver to waive their rights for such liability for smaller trades.

This is by far the stupidest thing I have seen for awhile on MOTL, and that bar was set pretty high previously. If you don't even think the rule that you implemented would work for smaller trades (majority of the trades here), how could you expect the rest of the community to follow it?

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if D/C is the default MOTL policy, and will remove the sender from stolen good liability (but not damaged good or missing items), but recommend people who are doing big trades to ask the sender for extra responsibility, such as SC and insurance?

It just seems like you are trying to ask majority of the people to waive their rights on small trades, instead of asking people to add extra responsibility for bigger trades.

__________________
MOTL Fantasy NBA 2010 Champion

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
Am I just missing something that makes it difficult to agree with someone on these 7 words: "DC is good enough, no insurance needed" ?

---

The BTA ruling directly contradicts those seven words. I don't understand how that ruling can be made in one breath, then this argument made in the next.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
The BTA ruling directly contradicts those seven words. I don't understand how that ruling can be made in one breath, then this argument made in the next.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zakman86:
I think inca believes that those words should have to be explicitly stated, instead of implicit; that's where the issue lies.

---

One of the things I learned while working with three different college organizations on their constitutions is that the document needs to be flexible, and should reflect what the organization actually does as well as what it's supposed to do, because there are some organizational rules you can't dance around. I believe that DC being implied is a case of what actually happens (what a good te for that awful meme, btw) needing to be part of the rules.

I have a few things to contribute to the discussion. Take with grain of salt etc. Not -actually- assuming to speak for anybody/everybody/somebody but myself.

1/ The users of the site need to understand that the administration is simply trying to set up a situation where they are supporting the most legally defensible system that protects their own interests as well. They -need- to be advocating the most secure methods possible, because if they actually advocate an insecure method of shipment, one could suggest they assume some liability as well. They have the choice of either saying "DC is enough for us to enforce rulings, bans, and suggestions to file criminal fraud charges, but by the way, if someone DOES rip you off, it's not on us, even thought we told you DC was fine" or they can say "If you don't get protected signature requirements and insurance, it's not on us if a deal goes south, but you can agree to anything you want." We the users might prefer the former, because it gives us more protection, but to ask the site to put their official backing on something that opens far more doors that leave you no recourse is too much.

2/ Conversely, the administration of the site needs to understand that the majority of traders on this site seem to be dealing in low-volume low-cost high-frequency trading. Adding 2 or 3 dollars per trade to every trade ends up costing a LOT of money over time, when everyone seems to be in agreement that 99% of trades go great with no problems at all. Saying that the sender keeps 100% liability on everything at all times is dangerous. Sure, insurance IF THE INSURANCE CLAIM IS APPROVED (which it might not be) can reimburse you. But then you have to prove to someone that a piece of coloured cardboard is actually worth any number of dollars, which is easier said than done.

Fundamentally what I think it comes down to is that the majority of users find it -far- easier to imagine sending someone cards using any method, and having that person go "Whoops they never got here"

And to have been explicitly told that in this case, the ruling is going to be "Yup, they said it didn't get there, no actual evidence is sufficient, hope you insured it, because you get NOTHING" is going to turn a lot of people off trading to lower/no rep users. I think the benchmark of "What gets you a simulsend" is going to drop substantially. I expect many people to refuse to send first if they have even ONE MORE ref than the other person. If I know -I'm- honest, the only way I can be sure the trade will work is if they send first and I have cards in hand before I send. And the message has been sent that the sender is on the hook right up until the instant the receiver says "Yes I got the cards."

I think what would make the administration happy is an acknowledgement from the userbase that they understand that the site can only enforce trading practices, and not actual trades, and that the site doesn't actually have the authority to issue demands that users MUST send, resend, compensate etc and that the best they can do is make the decision to remove someone from the community, and inform you about your options to get legal compensation. They have informed us in the rules that the responsibility lies with the sender to get the items to their destination, and while most of us assumed that basically meant "To their house" what they actually meant was "Into their hands" and that with this understanding, we can go back to trading based on the community and reputation building that communities like this are built around.

I think what would make the user base happy is an acknowledgement from the administration that the methods they are advocating as the only truly secure methods to trade are not always going to be feasible, for any of a number of reasons, and that while we do have to accept some risk in shipping things to internet strangers, that we have some assurances that this isn't going to become "Receiver didn't get it, you're out your end of the deal, receiver has a 100% clean slate forever" and instead is "We're sorry that the cards seem to have not gotten where they were supposed to, we're not punishing the recipient but we're still keeping their name somewhere and if they keep pulling this, we'll take action."

That's what everyone sounds like they are afraid of, being scammed with impunity because the rules defend a whole host of "easy to imagine" scams. Something as simple as the knowledge in fact that the moderators maintain a list of all users with BTA's against them for -any- reason, which is checked previous to adjudication of new BTAs, with some relaxing of the rules to allow reporting a BTA -against- someone who claimed to not receive when some kind of confirmation/proof of delivery exists. You need never rule against these people, punish them, or close their trading list, just...jot the name down somewhere in case it crops up.

I think the degree to which this is precedent-SETTING is being highly exaggerated. This is really more precedent-REVEALING since it seems like this has actually been the policy all along, just not ever around something that became high profile.

I know that was a big wall of text, and I'm not really a very well-known member of this community whatsoever, but I've been around a while. I've administrated sites, I manage a small business, I've had to handle complaints from the obvious to the patently ridiculous and unprovable, so I've been there.

This is a community of players, traders, collectors, ect. I am more involved with, and have much more communication with my trade partner here (MOTL), than I do on eBay. Everyone here (for the most part) is part of the "MOTL" community, and feels that MOTL will back them up if they have a problem. I am willing to accept more risk on MOTL to trade as I have trust for the community. Why has MOTL put more burden of proof on its members than any other site?

I think that if there were a vote among members Delivery Confirmation would be acceptable for a landslide.
I do not follow the BTA posts often. I am not sure but I don't think there has been a very large issue like the one this post is about. If the majority of trades are smaller, would it not be easier to put in place a policy of; if trade is over X dollars, you must have sig to be covered, or something like that.
I do understand that card values vary from people to people, and sites used. And prices vary day by day. As it stands right now, there is more work to do for smaller trades. "7 little words" as it was put. Why not make more work for the fewer big trades, instead of more work for more common small trades?

The sender's responsibility clause, I think, is Leshrac trying to protect us all, as well as his site, from people who would take advantage of any other type of clause.

Remember, Leshrac is a lawyer, and I think he drew up the rules that he felt would be able to be upheld by the law. If MOTL makes D/C the standard of confirmation of delivery, there is no way for us to encourage or help you file for mail fraud, because you'd have no case. He, as we all do I'm sure, wants this site to be safe for everyone, and the way the rules are written now, makes it safer.

I just wanted to put out my thoughts on why Leshrac may have made the rules the way they are. This in no way is asserting that those are the reasons, just my opinion on what they may be.

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.

quote:

---

1/ The users of the site need to understand that the administration is simply trying to set up a situation where they are supporting the most legally defensible system that protects their own interests as well. They -need- to be advocating the most secure methods possible, because if they actually advocate an insecure method of shipment, one could suggest they assume some liability as well.

---

MOTL doesn't have sending rules, they have guidelines. You are free to follow those guidelines or change them as long as the other person consents as well. MOTL has no moral or legal liability for any transaction facilitated by the website. Has anyone ever asked MOTL to reimburse them for being ripped off by another user? If they charged something to be a member then you could maybe argue they have some liability when a trade goes bad but as it is now, they have none. So liability has nothing to do with it.

quote:

---

They have the choice of either saying "DC is enough for us to enforce rulings, bans, and suggestions to file criminal fraud charges, but by the way, if someone DOES rip you off, it's not on us, even thought we told you DC was fine" or they can say "If you don't get protected signature requirements and insurance, it's not on us if a deal goes south, but you can agree to anything you want." We the users might prefer the former, because it gives us more protection, but to ask the site to put their official backing on something that opens far more doors that leave you no recourse is too much.

---

This simply isn't true. What Inca is advocating opens many more doors than what has been argued by the community. Have you read this thread?

quote:

---

Fundamentally what I think it comes down to is that the majority of users find it -far- easier to imagine sending someone cards using any method, and having that person go "Whoops they never got here"

---

Bingo.

quote:

---

I think the degree to which this is precedent-SETTING is being highly exaggerated. This is really more precedent-REVEALING since it seems like this has actually been the policy all along, just not ever around something that became high profile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Devonin:

I think the degree to which this is precedent-SETTING is being highly exaggerated. This is really more precedent-REVEALING since it seems like this has actually been the policy all along, just not ever around something that became high profile.

---

I hear what you're saying here Devonin, but you're overlooking one key component: This IS precedent SETTING because the mods have been regulating this site for as long as I've been here with the understanding that proof of delivery is sufficient to release the sender of responsibility from that point forth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazaray:
He, as we all do I'm sure, wants this site to be safe for everyone, and the way the rules are written now, makes it safer.

---

However, Inca, I have a major concern regarding Insurance. According to USPS policy, in order to prove the worth of an item lost and insured, you must have a receipt or invoice showing the price you purchased the item for. While this might work for selling and buying, trading cards that have arbitrary values defined by various factors will be hard to get reimbursed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazaray:
Actually, while you may have to do this, my post office doesn't require anything written on the D/C slip. They don't even look at what I write there, just scan it and put it on the package.

Thanks,
Jazaray

---

Quoted for truth. Some PO employees will jot down some info, but most don't do anything but hand me a slip and nothing ever gets written it.

__________________
MOTL's Most Likely to Play in the Pro Tour - 2007, 2008, and 2009
(My 2008 Nationals)

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
I don't know what else to say. You've got 99% of the community here telling you that this ruling (and rule in general) is a complete joke, and you are the only one defending it (maybe 1 straggler is with you). Is there not a point at which the authority (you) realizes that the people who use and care about this website don't like this, and perhaps you should listen to them and make necessary changes? Your stubborn defense of this without compromise tells me that you care more about arguing your point than making the rules fit the needs of those that use and love this website, and that saddens me.

---

Long story short: D/C protects the sender, insurance protects the recipient. What's wrong with this?

EDIT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
Firstly, I think personal attacks against Inca are completely off base and people need to back off. He is representing MOTL as an entity and being very patient, which I commend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
Might I suggest that the rule simply be this: Delivery confirmation is considered sufficient proof of delivery on the sender's behalf. It should not be a requirement of MOTL that everything be sent with D/C, but the risk should be considered by the sender. On the recipient's end, they shall have the right to request, at the recipient's cost, that insurance be purchased by the sender, protecting against the mail being stolen from them or other such risks.

Long story short: D/C protects the sender, insurance protects the recipient. What's wrong with this?

---

I think that this opens up a bit too much of an issue for the recipient to let senders get off the hook for sending large value packages without insurance because the recipient didn't think or didn't know to insist on proper shipping. It's always been, and always should be IMO, the sender's responsibility to ensure that the package is protected, it's simply a matter of where that responsibility ends. Does their liability end when the package reaches it's destination address (which DC will show) or when it reaches the specific recipient's hands (where insurance or sig confirmation will be key)? Essentially, who's responsible for mail that disappears from the time the postal employee leaves the package at the address (be it left on a doorstep, in a locked or unlocked mailbox, signed for by a different person, etc.) until the intended recipient has possession of it.

__________________
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 PortlisX:
I hear what you're saying here Devonin, but you're overlooking one key component: This IS precedent SETTING because the mods have been regulating this site for as long as I've been here with the understanding that proof of delivery is sufficient to release the sender of responsibility from that point forth.

The rule may very well have been what it is all along, but if it wasn't being enforced that way then it wasn't really the rule was it?

---

How often has it been the case that the statement from the intended recipient is "Yeah, I'm willing to grant that it -was- delivered, just, it was misplaced or stolen before I got to it."? I read all the BTAs as they come up and I can't think of one.

Someone says "Nope, I was here all day, and it never showed up" when DC says delivered is not the same thing. This is a guy willing to agree that it may well have been delivered correctly, but is claiming it was no longer there when he got to it...so mod rulings in the former case don't really show the precedent for this.

When this all started to explode I had the same reaction many people had, which was to go "Wait, DC's not good enough anymore? That's BS, let me go quote the sending rules at them!" Except when I went to the sending rules...there's nothing in there about DC being good enough. The sending rules say "Sender is responsible to get the cards to their destination" and "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."

There's nothing in there that ever said "If you have DC showing delivered and they say they didn't get it, you are absolved" or there wouldn't be the clause about signature-required DC, or Insurance, or the advocating of opening the parcel with the Post Office employee present.

I absolutely read this BTA and was of the opinion that it would be -reeealy- easy for Hoosk to have just -said- this and voila, he gets 4 volcs worth of product and keeps 4 volcs, how unfair!

Both sides could have been more secure and planned more ahead. If Ryusei had required Hoosk to sign for the package, it would have gotten to his closed door, and bounced back to the post office and sat there safely waiting for his return. If Hoosk had the time to think on his way out the door that something valuable was on the way, he could have contacted the post office and had them hold his mail for the week. Either case would have prevented the problem.

And obviously, if I've requested insurance and paid for it, and the sender doesn't ship insured, then I've got a BTA worthy offense.

"Due to the recent rulings, Insurance can be offered on any deal, as long as you are willing to pay for it. If insurance is not purchased, you must agree that I am not liable for a package once proof of delivery has been established."
(-from a well-known members' sale list)

As I've been saying nearly the whole time... this is all you have to do! This is not the end of the world people!

Can't take an extra bit of time to protect yourself? That's fine, but don't whine about it.