quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
I believe the destination address is the line in the sand. There needs to be some reasonable level of responsibility on the part of the recipient, and I would think their mailbox isn't an unreasonable place to draw that line. If I give you a bad or unsafe address, that's my problem, not yours. Likewise, if I live in an area where mail gets stolen frequently, it would be a good idea for me to request insurance. And if it's in the rules (assuming I've read the rules), I should now know to ask, even if I otherwise wouldn't have. And if I haven't read the rules, then, yes, I'm SOL.

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.

I don't see why, nor do I like, that we're putting so much burden on the sender. As others have mentioned, if Amazon leaves something at my doorstep and it gets stolen, it's tough cookies for me. Draw the line at the mailbox, and let's be done.

---

Exactly, this is what I've been saying all along. I can't understand how any rational person doesn't see it like this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by flophaus:
This is what I'll be adding to my rules when trading/selling from now on until this gets figured out.

"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.

---

Do you not see how completely ridiculous this is though? Every member is now going to have this silly prerequisite on all of their lists. Come back in a month and tell me it's "just this easy" after trying to get all of your trade partners and buyers to explicitly state this in writing on all of your deals too. Trust me, it's like pulling teeth.

I've been requiring all international buyers to agree in writing that I'm not responsible for lost mail for over a year now because I won't have proof of delivery. Sometimes they are good about it and agree without too much prodding. The vast majority of the time though, they will continue to negotiate or discuss the trade or even pay me without agreeing to it. My request gets basically ignored. I regularly need to keep asking three, four, sometimes even five times before they finally respond. Some of them stop responding completely. It's an exercise in frustration to be sure. Again, it sounds easy enough, but if you do ANY sort of volume trading/selling you're going to be frustrated with it, trust me.

Did you see the part where I said "until this gets figured out"?

I understand what you're saying, though.

I was under the impression that Leshrac was taking the weekend to figure this out. Which means I should only be waiting another day or two?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
[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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stu55:
I think at this point, some one needs to clearly state what the rule for responsibility and what Postal services do in terms of protecting sender and receiver.

Also, if we continue with these insults towards Inca or any of the mods I am probably going to lose it on some one....there is no need for that one bit.

---

Amen, honestly
I expected alot better from some of the people posting here (trand)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vegas10:
I beleive Inca who is the site administrator made this decision not the Mods, I think even some of them disagree with it but ultimatly, Leshrac and Inca set policy the mods enforce it but if they feel they need help in a matter they go to one of them to step in which is probably why inca spent a day and a half answering posts in this thread since he made this decision.

---

Well Ben made a decision in the case, and the Admins seems to be sticking by it. Either way, I do believe Inca has been more than helpful this past week, I do.

I think flophaus makes a good, albeit time consuming, point, just do what he said (bottom of page 6).

Personally, I seem to constantly flipflop on the issue. Someone makes a good point, then someone makes a good counterpoint.

In essense, the issues at hand:

1. D/C no longer completely protects the sender. Thei biggest issue seems to be the fact that other online communities consider DC confirmation.
2. Rippers are going to rip regardless of this ruling, and could previously use the "empty package BS," but this ruling makes it slightly easier.
3. Do I think this ruling may have been different if Hoosk was the one sending (because of refs etc.)? Maybe.
4. Will the number of $25-100 dollar trades go down? Probably, but those are almost 95% of my deals. So what's the simplest way for me to continue trading? Continue to do my trades, and have both parties agree on DC being reasonable proof. If the deal is under $20, I usually send in PWE (non-machinable). It gets there every time. If $20-$100, i've been using DC. DC is no longer good enough, but if both parties agree, OK. Yeah it adds in a step in the deal-making process, but it's worth it. If it's over $100, insurance it is.
Enough said.

The ruling on this incident is bad for the site. I do understand the reasons the ruling was made. But this issue has been decided the other way countless times with only DC being used. It's unfortunate that one young trader has to be the one who get's burned, for this much attention to finally be paid to this issue. The cost of the education should have been shouldered only by one responsible person. Everyone who understands what responsibility is knows how this should have gone.

I always back up what I say and what I believe in. From the beginning, talking to Jaz and Ryusei24, I offered to offset the costs paid by Ryusei24 by sending 2 of my own Volcanic Islands to him. I gain nothing from this but I do share in the cost of the education for everyone.

I make no apologies for anything I've said. I appreciate what the mods do (a tough job that I certainly don't want), for no compensation other than what grateful members send their way. I appreciate what the site has done for me and the friends I've made thru it. And I appreciate what the administrators have to go thru trying to make decisions that will benefit all the members of this site. I understand that only the sender can purchase insurance. I get that.

But in THIS case, they got it wrong. The reputation of this site and it's members has been tarnished by it. This ruling will make it harder for good traders to trade on this site. Everyone's honesty and integrity, not just Hooskdaddy's will now be questioned more often and it will increase the cost of trading. The discussion generated by this ruling makes that clear.

Inca911, you have my undying respect for the way you conduct yourself. You must have gotten my ration of tact when it was issued. I hope I get a chance to talk directly to you in the future about some non-stressful topic.

I will not comment again on this issue since so many other members on this site have. I am humbled by how many other members that I have disagreed with in the past share my opinion on this. I will always hope that good people will do the right thing even when it stings a bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by flophaus:
This is what I'll be adding to my rules when trading/selling from now on until this gets figured out.

"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.

---

I'll admit, while I am flattered that I came up with something that people want to use, even I know that what I wrote is a temporary solution. It's also one that I'm not the happiest that I even have to use.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by baldr7:
so i believe that this new stipulation is somewhat flawed, but it's not worth getting into. I understand that the site is a commercial venture, but why not just take a vote among MOTL members? set up a poll let users decide?

---

Because that will never allow the new policy to pass. That's the same as conceding the point.

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:

---

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.

---

It's not the end of the world, but it does make selling more difficult, especially when I have multiple deals going on. I certainly can take this extra bit of time to require the waiver; what I'm "whining" about is having to take the extra time to negotiate legal terms instead of what I used to be able to do with U.S. buyers, which is simply negotiate the terms of the sale/trade.

quote:

---

Now that Leshrac is up-to-date on stuff, he, inca and us Mods are discussing a change in policy and whether or not there should be one.

---

quote:

---

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

~MM

---

403 refs here.. Never sending first again either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:

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.

---

It is to much to ask as I personally don't see that ever happening unless it's an offer you can't refuse. Plus who has 12k to spend on a site? 10k? Certainly not I.

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
Since you have a good track record of successful trading, it's surprising that you would be asked to send first very often.

---

I feel I do as well. But, albeit rarely, borderline unique, I am asked to send first. I lol'd. Tell em I'll pass on that offer now and move along. But what if I am buying? They have, say, 39 refs, I still have to send first? Ugh.

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazaray:
Now that Leshrac is up-to-date on stuff, he, inca and us Mods are discussing a change in policy and whether or not there should be one.

Thanks,
Jazaray

---

How soon before you or anyone else think there is or isn't a policy change and/or announcement about it?

~Revenger

__________________
Your 2008 and 2010 Motl Siskel & Ebert award winner!

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.

Without adequate disclaimers on EVERYONE's H/W list about their neighborhood, crime rates, and in what type of recepticle their mail is left, however, it is impractical for me to continue trading here. I cannot pay for insurance on every package I send, and will feel silly shipping out ~$15 worth of cards with no protection. Delivery confirmation was fine, but if it is not a reasonable standard of protection, I just can't justify trading here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fluffycow:
Out of curiosity, what's the ruling on hacked accounts? Say I trade with Leshrac for something like 1k and then he tells me that his computer went to hell for a week and his motl and email accounts were hacked, what happens?

---

Not sure what kind of answer you're looking for here. We investigate the claim and see if it's true..

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 Jazaray:
Not sure what kind of answer you're looking for here. We investigate the claim and see if it's true..

Thanks,
Jazaray

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by baldr7:
Obviously without answering in a way that makes it easy for people to do this, how do you go about investigating? It seems difficult to prove that someone didn't have their account hacked

---

I don't think it's in the best interests of the MOTL community for the mods to reveal their investigation processes. Policy is different, but processes are, as you said, something that a scammer could actively abuse to mitigate or circumvent the BTA system.