What I want to know from the MOTL community is whether or not the moderator's ruling is acceptable to you as a trader. The mods have their ruling posted on the last post of the thread, alongside the relevant section of the Sending Rules. I've already posted my opinion on the matter in the suggestion forum, but I want to know if anyone else thinks that the wording used in MOTL's Sending Rules contradicts the ruling itself, both in terms of unsafe shipping addresses and what constitutes a party's "destination"

I have not done all the research myself, but it seems to me like DC was acceptable as proof of shipment before this case... so why the flip-flopping now?

So what about all these other guys that lost/won their cases for/against them using the DC argument prior to this case?

Honestly I think technically Hooks doesn't owe Ryusei anything, but I feel bad for Ryusei! Apparantly an unfortunate lesson learned =(

All in all... it appears that there needs to be some consistentcy in the rulings among BTA cases.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wayne:
[B]I think there are enough threads on this, B]

---

I don't. I feel like this is a pretty important issue that potentially affects every trade on this site!

I know it's got me thinking differently about the whole point in getting DC for a trade send.

quote:

---

Originally posted by flophaus:
I don't. I feel like this is a pretty important issue that potentially affects every trade on this site!

I know it's got me thinking differently about the whole point in getting DC for a trade send.

If nothing else, this should serve as a definitive eye-opener for people trying to protect themselves against shenanigans.

---

I think there needs to be one consolidated thread discussing this issue--having its own thread might be better to me rather than using the PFS, for various reasons (e.g., people use the PFS for other things like discussing their personal lives or complaining about co-workers), but we don't need 3 different places to discuss the same thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pugowar in PFS:
If the final ruling and precedent that was intended is that DC is worthless, I would ask that that be spelled out better in the rules.

I know I will be asking all traders to waive rights to loss/damage in writing going forward and would like to have this spelled out so that i can point them to it.

---

Is it pretentious to quote yourself?

Seriously though I am glad to have a thread to link back to from my sales/trade pages.

I would like to get a Mod to post here or change the wording in the rules to clarify this sites stance on DC.

Yes it's another way for rippers to exploit the rules, but they would have done that anyway saying "They received an empty package."

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
See my opinion here.
http://classic.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/025383-3.html

Yes it's another way for rippers to exploit the rules, but they would have done that anyway saying "They received an empty package."

---

I don't think this is the same as the "empty package" argument. For an extreme example pretend a brand new trader buys $75.00 in cards from Ben.

No one in their right mind would be believe that new trader if he claimed Ben sent him an empty box.

However, say Ben ships those $75.00 worth of cards in a bubble mailer with delivery confirmation. Under the rules any trader (even a brand new one with no reputation) could argue that they didn't receive it. AND NO ONE COULD ARGUE THIS!!!

Forget about trading ...how do you feel about not being able to sell on here either?

quote:

---

Originally posted by tragicmagic:
In a situation similar where I was involved, it ruled the other direction because I said I was not positive if I was in err or not.

---

Our Policy:
"The sender must make sure the cards reach their destination. Only the sender can obtain delivery confirmation proof and insure the cards against loss or damage. If a problem has occurred, please resend your part of the deal, return the cards you received (if applicable), or make appropriate monetary restitution (the parties involved can decide on which one of these options is best). 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. With signature-required delivery confirmation, the recipient can then open the package in the presence of a postal employee and verify the contents with an impartial witness. If you send payment, make sure you use a check or money order that you can use as proof of payment. PayPal and other online payment services also give proof of payment."

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.

The current Policy protects all parties against these three scenarios, and the insurance provider then becomes the final legal arbiter of any actual insurance claims that may result.

Bottom Line:
If someone can't afford to lose a shipment, they have to be responsible and protect it with insurance, just like any other valuable item. If sending of a shipment is proved via Delivery Confirmation, there will be no Karma deduction for failure to send part of an agreed upon deal. However, the monetary risk associated with loss or theft of a shipment still rests solely with the shipper, unless the recipient agrees in writing to accept that responsibility.

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.

---

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.

__________________
MOTL Fantasy NBA 2010 Champion

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.

---

__________________
"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 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. 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.

---

Could you imagine getting 4 packages with 15- 20 cards inside each of them? Good luck asking the postal worker to stand and wait for you to go print out a list of your trades, open all the packages, verify all the contents are there, check on the condition of the cards and make sure they are not fakes!

__________________
MOTL Fantasy NBA 2010 Champion

quote:

---

Originally posted by thror:
How many times do we have to ALSO say : Insurance doesnt help when the post office shows a package as delivered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
Could you imagine getting 4 packages with 15- 20 cards inside each of them? Good luck asking the postal worker to stand and wait for you to go print out a list of your trades, open all the packages, verify all the contents are there, check on the condition of the cards and make sure they are not fakes!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
That statement is incorrect. An insurance claim can be filed for a package that has been shipped with delivery confimation. The USPS Insurance Claim Form is specific to Lost, All Contents Damaged or Missing, or Some Contents Damaged or Missing, and can be viewed here:
http://about.usps.com/forms/ps1000.pdf

---

If I understand correctly I believe he was saying if the item has been delivered and shows that the delivery has been confirmed yet the recipient states that they didn't receive it because recipient was out town when it was delivered, even if the sender also purchased insurance, they would not be able to collect since the delivery was....confirmed. I think.