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

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

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
The quick easy answer is that if someone is suspected of being hacked, we can lock the account until we know for sure. Either way, the address of the person doing the ripping is what is going to end up in the BTA, so the right person is going to be punished.

---

In another word, I am out of luck if his account actually got hacked, right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by fluffycow:
In another word, I am out of luck if his account actually got hacked, right?

---

Well, depending on how you actually sent, yes and no If you sent with insurance, etc, you may be able to recoup your losses. If you didn't, yeah, you're out of luck. There might be a way to have the original account owner help and file identity theft charges, but I don't know that aspect of the law.

Did you get ripped off by a hacker? I mean, is there a specific reason you're asking, or are you just curious.

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:
Well, depending on how you actually sent, yes and no If you sent with insurance, etc, you may be able to recoup your losses. If you didn't, yeah, you're out of luck. There might be a way to have the original account owner help and file identity theft charges, but I don't know that aspect of the law.

Did you get ripped off by a hacker? I mean, is there a specific reason you're asking, or are you just curious.

Thanks,
Jazaray

---

1) Whether it is USPS Delivery Confirmation, FedEx tracking, UPS tracking (uninsured), or even REGISTERED/EMS shipping (trackable), being able to look up the item number in question and see a time and date that it was delivered is considered the gold standard in loss/dispute help centers at all of the aforementioned major online ventures such as eBay, PayPal, Amazon, and nearly everywhere else. The issue of 'Insurance vs Delivery Confirmation' is being ignored as it relates to sender responsibility, and more important liability. At dispute/claim help centers an item that shows as DELIVERED (and not specifically hand signed, received, or fondled in front of a mail clerk or carrier) always releases a seller/shipper from liability (except in case of a wrong item being shipped). The main issue most people are having here is that MOTL does not conform to this rule and standard. So as moderators, do you wish to have this site act like nearly every other online shipping venture, or do you want to have a different rule that opens up everybody to liability claims?

2) The burden of proof for someone to make an Insurance claim at USPS/FedEx/UPS if the Delivery Confirmation shows an item has been delivered, and someone claims it has not, is absurdly high, and just about makes it impossible to recoup anything with the Insurance claim. What this means in plain English is, with your current policy (Confirmation of Delivery meaning nothing, but up to sender to file Insurance claim for any liability payments) it is quite simple for someone to agree to a trade (let's say $195 for a Moat), and after the sender has shipped the Moat with Insurance, the buyer can simply say they didn't receive it, even though Delivery Confirmation shows that they did. Now it is up to the sender to file an Insurance claim, which will immediately be denied by the post office and the sender will be on the hook for $195. But this is allowable with the current policy as it stands.

http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm300/609.htm#1098416

Nonpayable Claims
Indemnity is not paid for insured mail, Registered Mail, COD, or Express Mail in these situations:

a. Evidence of insurance coverage not provided.
b. Loss, damage, or have missing contents, that occurred after delivery by the USPS.

Also, I was a claims agent for one of USPS's competitors, and while the above website doesn't reference items of extraordinary value or of a collectible nature (outside of coins and stamps) I believe it may be an uphill value to not only prove what "Fair market value" is of collectible cardboard, but also there may even be limits as to how much is paid out regardless of insurance purchased. Remember most of these transactions are trades which muddles the true value even more.

The bottom line is that trading online always has risks. However, it is MY belief that showing a complete good faith attempt at sending these items should be proof enough for MOTL.

The shipper sends the package. The USPS delivers the package. Both are proveable events. The recipient doesn't receive the package. This is the only event which can't be proven. Why are we taking the recipient's word as Gospel?

If the post office, who delivers millions of packages a day states that the package was left at the recipient's location, why isn't that proof enough? Could the postal worker have made a mistake? Certainly. Could the package have been stolen? Certainly. Could the recipient be lying? Certainly. However, the shipper has absolutely no control over any of these scenarios!!

Also bigballashotcaller is absolutely correct. eBay/Paypal only require proof of delivery from the carrier. If the carrier states it was delivered correctly, they will rule in the Shipper's favor. It is not the shipper's fault that you live in an area where people will take belongings off of your property.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
@transfan. You got to believe the reason why they don't pay you for packages lost after delivered is the same reason why this new ruling shouldn't stand. It creates a situation that just begs for scammers to abuse.

---

It's even more simple than that - Establishing DC as acceptable proof of delivery just eliminates a lot of headaches in the arbitration process for any given online shipping venture, because it establishes a very clear benchmark in terms of liability protection.

You want to know what I think? I think that if the accused wasn't Hooskdaddy, this whole thing wouldn't have gotten blown up as it did, that this community wouldn't gotten up in arms about this situation. In fact, I know it wouldn't have. How do I know? Because almost the same situation came up on the BTA before, four years ago. The ruling was the same. And this didn't happen back then, everyone didn't come on and accuse the other person of being immoral or whatnot. No one accused the staff member of being biased, or moronic or whatever. It was opened and decided with no comments from anyone but the mods and the posters.

So, before you go accusing people of being biased, make sure you check your facts first.

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.

Speaking of rulings, any progress on leshrac's response?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazaray:

So, before you go accusing people of being biased, make sure you check your facts first.

Thanks,
Jazaray

---

And before you go accusing MOTL members remember that a LOT of the people commenting probably weren't around 4 years ago. That one of the people in the case didn't post his problems all over MOTL. I was around, and honestly I don't remember that case. I don't look often(if at all) at BTA cases. I try to stay out of there as best as I can for all kinds of reasons. I don't want to be associated with it.

MOTL has grown leaps and bounds from 4 years ago, and honestly if this did happen 4 years ago then it's even more the mods/admin fault for not seeing how potentially flammable this situation COULD become.

Yelling at people like your doing and stooping to a disrespectful member's level doesn't make you look much better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazaray:
You know, some of you guys are saying that the one reason it was ruled this way, was because the accused was Hooskdaddy. That if the situation had been between two lower ref'd members, or lesser known members, the ruling would have been different. I don't particularly like that statement, as it calls my ethics into question, as well as the ethics of inca911. We (ALL of us mods) have been nothing if not unbiased in our dealings on the BTA, and it hurts that you think so little of us after all the time and effort we put into trying to make this a fun and safe site for all.

You want to know what I think? I think that if the accused wasn't Hooskdaddy, this whole thing wouldn't have gotten blown up as it did, that this community wouldn't gotten up in arms about this situation. In fact, I know it wouldn't have. How do I know? Because almost the same situation came up on the BTA before, four years ago. The ruling was the same. And this didn't happen back then, everyone didn't come on and accuse the other person of being immoral or whatnot. No one accused the staff member of being biased, or moronic or whatever. It was opened and decided with no comments from anyone but the mods and the posters.

So, before you go accusing people of being biased, make sure you check your facts first.

Thanks,
Jazaray

---

Why come here with attitude and continue to stir the pot with accusations and drivel when all anyone wants is resolution to this mess? It's pointless and contributes nothing to the matter at hand.

I just re-read this entire thread, and I didn't see a single instance where an individual claimed that the ruling was made solely because the accused was Hoosk. Not only did I not see a single person say that, I certainly didn't see "some" (implying at least a few) of us make that claim. As offended as you seem to be about these phantom statements that may or may not have been made, I'm sure the rest of us are equally as offended for being called out by a mod for something none of us seem to have done.

I also haven't seen anyone accusing the staff members of being "immoral", "biased", or "moronic", certainly not in this thread. Again, where are you seeing this and why are you now suddenly up in arms about it and calling us out?

There's certainly been disagreement with the DECISION "the mods" made, but I haven't seen anything where you guys are being bashed or specifically called out. In fact, I've seen more of the opposite. There's been 2 or more instances in this very thread where people have specifically defended you guys.

I, too, agree with what bigballa said.

I also don't really see how sending certified mail is different in this regard to DC. Anyone can sign for it so it does the same thing, proves that the package was delivered. It doesn't prove that the correct person received.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazaray:
How do I know? Because almost the same situation came up on the BTA before, four years ago. The ruling was the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazaray:
So, before you go accusing people of being biased, make sure you check your facts first.

Thanks,
Jazaray

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
Another thing, why isn't Ben getting more flack for obviously making an out-of-bounds PM regarding the transaction to hooskdaddy? DC is a waste of time? That's news to about fifty thousand of us, and I bet it would be news to someone who had the same problem with you. There is zero chance hooskdaddy wins this case if it was [Ben] instead of a noob at the other end, and that's bull****.

---

I stand by what I said. It's not an attack on anyone's partiality, although I do see why it can be read that way. I didn't mean to offend you, and I think I've said my piece enough recently for you to know I'm on your side.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
Originally posted by JoshSherman:
Another thing, why isn't Ben getting more flack for obviously making an out-of-bounds PM regarding the transaction to hooskdaddy? DC is a waste of time? That's news to about fifty thousand of us, and I bet it would be news to someone who had the same problem with you. There is zero chance hooskdaddy wins this case if it was [Ben] instead of a noob at the other end, and that's bull****.

---

None of your statement is correct.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
Well nevertheless...Hoosk did pm "Ben" in regards to the BTA. I too believe that all comments and questions in regards to the BTA should be posted within the BTA.

---

Hooskdaddy PM'd me a question about the situation before anyone was posted on the BTA. He wanted to know what to do. I gave him my opinion. You folks are taking all this WAY too seriously.

I know a friend of mine who was a top trader many years ago irsih31. He had a few situations where members said "Oh ya i received but the envelop was empty.

Onus is on irsih31 to make sure the cards arrived, they didn't. He wasn't happy but he had to take the hit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
If this site ever comes to the point of waiver liabilities you need not worry about trading, bc it will stop altogether.

---

It will slow a little but it won't stop altogether because most people on the H/W forums don't read the discussion forums. So unless the change is actually announced where everyone will see it, most people will remain ignorant of this and just get a really terrible wakeup call when someone simply claims they didn't receive even though DC was used.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Hoosk's BTA history was only an aggravating factor. In fact, I never looked at his BTA history before I spoke up in his BTA thread, and I believe many people are primarily upset over the ruling's implications on liability. Of course there's going to be backlash against authority figures when the community feels like it was misled (not assigning blame, just stating facts), but don't take it personally.

---

When people are calling your ethics into question, it's quite hard not to take it personally.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Speaking of rulings, any progress on leshrac's response?

EDIT - Jaz, do you have a link to the BTA case you are referencing? I've been spending a bit of my free time delving into older BTA rulings regarding DC.

---

No, there's been no concrete answer from Lesh yet. And the link is here: http://classic.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004422.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
And before you go accusing MOTL members remember that a LOT of the people commenting probably weren't around 4 years ago.

---

Hence why I said to check your facts...

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
Yelling at people like your doing and stooping to a disrespectful member's level doesn't make you look much better.

I know you are just defending yourself and other mods, Jaime, but you are better than that.

---

I didn't see myself as "yelling at people", I saw myself expressing that I was hurt that people would think that I, or any mod/admin, would make a ruling because of anything other than the facts of the case, and the rules of the site. It gets pretty tiring being accused of bias, or playing favorites, or however it's said, when you rule against someone. IE: Animosity vs Tonberry - I was accused no less than three times of ruling the way I did because I was "friends" with Animosity, when the truth of the matter was, I had never even talked to him before that case. Ryusei himself, in his first two sentences implied that he was afraid the case wouldn't even be heard because Hooskdaddy was "well known" and had a lot of refs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PortlisX:
Why come here with attitude and continue to stir the pot with accusations and drivel when all anyone wants is resolution to this mess? It's pointless and contributes nothing to the matter at hand.

I just re-read this entire thread, and I didn't see a single instance where an individual claimed that the ruling was made solely because the accused was Hoosk. Not only did I not see a single person say that, I certainly didn't see "some" (implying at least a few) of us make that claim. As offended as you seem to be about these phantom statements that may or may not have been made, I'm sure the rest of us are equally as offended for being called out by a mod for something none of us seem to have done.

I also haven't seen anyone accusing the staff members of being "immoral", "biased", or "moronic", certainly not in this thread. Again, where are you seeing this and why are you now suddenly up in arms about it and calling us out?

There's certainly been disagreement with the DECISION "the mods" made, but I haven't seen anything where you guys are being bashed or specifically called out. In fact, I've seen more of the opposite. There's been 2 or more instances in this very thread where people have specifically defended you guys.

You can be certain there are plenty of people like me who are 100% UNbiased towards ryusei or hoosk (I don't think I've ever had contact or dealt with either of them, and if I have I certainly don't remember it) and are simply concerned with the ruling on this particular case because of the dangerous precedent it sets.

---

Here's one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
There is zero chance hooskdaddy wins this case if it was him instead of a noob at the other end, and that's bull****.

---

And then ryan2754 agreed with it.

So, no, it wasn't some "phantom statement that may or may not have been made". I made me quite angry when I read it, but I made myself calm down about it. Then, someone started IMing me about the situation, and it brought it all back to the front of my mind, coupled with the case I mentioned...

Yes, there have been many members that have defended us, and I truly appreciate and thank them for it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rockondon:
If this precedent was already set, why was there any additional need for Inca, Leshrac, etc to deliberate on it? I would be very interested to see this case.

---

Because, I too, had forgotten about it until Leshrac asked for cases that were similar and I found it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
I stand by what I said. It's not an attack on anyone's partiality, although I do see why it can be read that way. I didn't mean to offend you, and I think I've said my piece enough recently for you to know I'm on your side.

---

How can you NOT see that saying the case would have been ruled differently had Hooskdaddy been on the other end is an attack on our partiality? I love you tons Josh, but that really hurt. I strive, have ALWAYS strived, to be an impartial judge. You don't think I've had people up on the BTA that I've considered friends? You don't think I've had to rule against them? Ban them even? You think I didn't WANT to rule in their favor, so as not to ban them? I admit it, I would have loved to have not banned iakae, or neo darkside. They were (and ARE) both my friends. Granted, I've never actually met iakae, but I've talked to him for years (and still do), in fact, waaay back when he was still an admin and started talking to me, I had a bit of a hero worship thing going (OMG! iakae is talking to ME?!?). I actually met Neo, he came to the MOTL party, he came to RI and had coffee with me quite a few times. We had a great friendship going, would still have one, if he'd get back in touch (I hope..) I am so very worried about him, as I haven't heard back from him since that case. Yeah, there are quite a few people that I've had to ban, that I would rather not have had to. And yes, on the other side of the coin, there are people that are still here that I would love to ban! But, I do my job. I follow the rules of the site and I enforce them as well. No matter WHO you are.

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.