IIRC, This policy was put into place for ErtaiJ and his business, and he used it to great effect to not have to pay back people who claimed to not receive. But now half the sellers and a handful of traders include the same verbiage to get out of the responsibility that every other person who trades stuff on the internet has.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
Basic MOTL Sending Rules state "The sender must make sure the cards reach their destination." This has been true since I can remember using the website. However, it is becoming increasingly popular for people to include clauses stating they are not responsible for packages arriving. Yes, I understand that by including this as a prerequirement, both parties "agree". But it goes against the spirit of MOTL and sending Magic cards by mail. It has ALWAYS been the responsibility of the sender to make sure mail gets delivered.

IIRC, This policy was put into place for ErtaiJ and his business, and he used it to great effect to not have to pay back people who claimed to not receive. But now half the sellers and a handful of traders include the same verbiage to get out of the responsibility that every other person who trades stuff on the internet has.

My Suggestion: Enforce the MOTL Sending Rule stated above, and don't let people get out of it by saying that they aren't responsible.

---

I honestly think that everyone should be required to either use DC (over ten dollar deal) or have proof of sending (under ten dollar deal). If you can prove that you sent it, I don't think you should be responsible. Also, having proof of sending will make sure that people don't fake anymore the they havn't received because the person didn't have proof that it ever got there..

The rule is there to give people an option when negotiating to alleviate the need for overly expensive shipping if the sender is trusted. Also, if someone's buying cards, why should the seller have to either eat a sizable chunk of their profits by sending with protection if the buyer isn't willing to pay for the shipping?

I also get the impression that you don't fully understand when the rule takes effect. Anyone can post such a term in their trading rules, but at that point it's not binding. Both parties must agree explicitly that such a policy will be used, otherwise it won't hold up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NoblePurpose:
I honestly think that everyone should be required to either use DC (over ten dollar deal) or have proof of sending (under ten dollar deal). If you can prove that you sent it, I don't think you should be responsible. Also, having proof of sending will make sure that people don't fake anymore the they havn't received because the person didn't have proof that it ever got there..

Thats my thought

---

That's pretty much exactly why this type of policy exists. If everyone has to spend a lot of money for every trade just for shipping, a large chunk of the MOTL population will stop trading. Proof of sending is also completely useless. It shows that a package was sent, but has no bearing on whether the package was lost in the mail, so doesn't actually prove the important part of whether the package was received. I've had mail with delivery confirmation that I sent out be lost, so I know firsthand that it does actually happen. Why should the recipient be the one that loses out on a lost package when they're not the ones that could have insured the package and recovered their losses?
__________________
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:
If you don't like the rule, don't agree to it. That's certainly your choice. Plenty of people appreciate having that option, though, and it would be very unfair to take it away from them. In fact, it's not even a MOTL Rule, per se. It's just enforcing the right of 2 parties to agree to change standard protocols. If there was a MOTL rule that stated that the party with less refs always sends first, would you oppose the right of 2 people with 201 and 203 refs to simul-send? It's the exact same issue.

The rule is there to give people an option when negotiating to alleviate the need for overly expensive shipping if the sender is trusted. Also, if someone's buying cards, why should the seller have to either eat a sizable chunk of their profits by sending with protection if the buyer isn't willing to pay for the shipping?

I also get the impression that you don't fully understand when the rule takes effect. Anyone can post such a term in their trading rules, but at that point it's not binding. Both parties must agree explicitly that such a policy will be used, otherwise it won't hold up.

That's pretty much exactly why this type of policy exists. If everyone has to spend a lot of money for every trade just for shipping, a large chunk of the MOTL population will stop trading. Proof of sending is also completely useless. It shows that a package was sent, but has no bearing on whether the package was lost in the mail, so doesn't actually prove the important part of whether the package was received. I've had mail with delivery confirmation that I sent out be lost, so I know firsthand that it does actually happen. Why should the recipient be the one that loses out on a lost package when they're not the ones that could have insured the package and recovered their losses?

---

But the complain about sellers losing profits cause the buyer isn't willing to pay shipping doesn't make any sense, because if you utilize your previous argument, the seller can REQUIRE the shipping or no sale gets done. Every vendor I've ever bought from guarantees my package gets delivered, from MtG products to Ebay to computer parts, etc. Except for MOTL.

As for both parties agreeing, all you have to do is include it in your email confirmation. Like:

Ok, we agree to deal X. My address is X. I am not responsible for lost mail. Please send me back your address as confirmation.

As for "alleviate the need for overly expensive shipping if the sender is trusted". I'm trusted. I've never NOT sent my side of a bargain. Nonetheless, when my package gets lost in the mail, -=I=- take the hit, and -=I=- assume responsibility. So I take precaution and spring for the extra $1 shipping when sending stuff I can't really affprd to send again.

I don't like the rule, and I don't agree to it. And I believe that the majority of people on the site don't appreciate the upper 1% having that option, since of course those are the people utilizing their standing and position to force others to deal with their rules.

Look, I realize it's a free website and people can do and agree to anything they want. Nonetheless, all I'm saying is that by allowing this practice you end up screwing the little people by allowing the big dogs to shirk responsibility in the case of "accidents". I'm not talking about ripping, or lying, or cheating. I'm talking about bad luck, and the fact that some people don't have to suffer from it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
Every vendor I've ever bought from guarantees my package gets delivered, from MtG products to Ebay to computer parts, etc. Except for MOTL.

---

Half the members of ebay have "not responsible for lost mail" in their auctions.

__________________
MOTL's best sale

Stop worrying; everything is fine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
Look, I realize it's a free website and people can do and agree to anything they want. Nonetheless, all I'm saying is that by allowing this practice you end up screwing the little people by allowing the big dogs to shirk responsibility in the case of "accidents".

---

I disagree, sir. Like you said, it's a free website. No one is forcing you to trade with these people. You could find pretty much every pritned card on here without using those people. Anyway, my understanding was that there had to be more involved with acknowledging a break from MOTL's protocols, like actually copying and pasting the notice itself back into the reply with your address (correct me if I'm wrong).

Also, your position could be construed as a sleight to the middle eschelon of traders. Are you suggesting they are less reputable than the top 1% of MOTL traders? No one can argue that they have less refs, but that certainly does not make them less reputable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:

Also, your position could be construed as a sleight to the middle eschelon of traders. Are you suggesting they are less reputable than the top 1% of MOTL traders? No one can argue that they have less refs, but that certainly does not make them less reputable.

---

Huh? What I'm saying is that the middle class SHOULD be more trusted, and that the top 1% shouldn't be immune.

Slinga: While that may or may not be true, I have never bought something from a vendor and not had it replaced or refunded if I didn't receive. Now, this has only happened twice, but whatever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NoblePurpose:
It would be so that people don't fake anymore that they never received. I have seen a lot of people who have quote "not receive their side.." I know everyone can't be telling the truth because the number of lost mail is very slim.

---

That's what tracking is for. The sender has many options for protecting the package, the recipient has none. Why should the burden of proof be on the person who has no way or proving anything?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
Oh, I understand the rule. And I understand it's use and implications.

But the complain about sellers losing profits cause the buyer isn't willing to pay shipping doesn't make any sense, because if you utilize your previous argument, the seller can REQUIRE the shipping or no sale gets done. Every vendor I've ever bought from guarantees my package gets delivered, from MtG products to Ebay to computer parts, etc. Except for MOTL.

As for both parties agreeing, all you have to do is include it in your email confirmation. Like:

Ok, we agree to deal X. My address is X. I am not responsible for lost mail. Please send me back your address as confirmation.

As for "alleviate the need for overly expensive shipping if the sender is trusted". I'm trusted. I've never NOT sent my side of a bargain. Nonetheless, when my package gets lost in the mail, -=I=- take the hit, and -=I=- assume responsibility. So I take precaution and spring for the extra $1 shipping when sending stuff I can't really affprd to send again.

I don't like the rule, and I don't agree to it. And I believe that the majority of people on the site don't appreciate the upper 1% having that option, since of course those are the people utilizing their standing and position to force others to deal with their rules.

Look, I realize it's a free website and people can do and agree to anything they want. Nonetheless, all I'm saying is that by allowing this practice you end up screwing the little people by allowing the big dogs to shirk responsibility in the case of "accidents". I'm not talking about ripping, or lying, or cheating. I'm talking about bad luck, and the fact that some people don't have to suffer from it.

Anyway, it's just an opinion.

---

Again, you don't understand the proper application of the rule. Both parties must EXPLICITLY agree. This means that replying with a confirmation address is not sufficient. They must reply acknowledging that they have read and understand the non-responsibility clause or it's not valid.

If you choose to absorb the added cost of shipping, that's perfectly fine. No one says you can't. Why does that mean that others shouldn't be allowed to do things differently. I honestly don't know what your point is, other than "I don't want to do it that way, so no one else should be able to either."

Yet again, people who don't like these terms don't have to agree to it, so I fail to see why it's a problem. No one is forcing anyone to do anything, it's an option, just like sending with delivery confirmation or insurance.

Usually when you buy from vendors and other larger places, you're paying their shipping and handling fees which are either over the actual costs of true shipping and handling or include protections for the sender.

__________________
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 MasterWolf:
I just don't think it's right for people to remove responsibility from themselves to save money or whatever.

Doesn't mean I won't do it if it's allowed. I just don't think it should be allowed. *shrug*

---

So you prefer that everyone should have to spend a lot more in shipping for no good reason? Given the economic situation in the world today, I really can't even begin to justify anything that would cause people to have to spend more money needlessly.

__________________
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 MasterWolf:
I just don't think it's right for people to remove responsibility from themselves to save money or whatever.

---

Ususally this method is used when it's a buyer who is trying to save money by not coughing up the extra cash to cover tracking. I would love it if anyone who buys from me would use tracking, but a lot of people opt out.

Many people on this site seem to have this notion that everything can be shipped for under a $1. That's true, if you just use a plain white envelope, which is probably the most unsafe to way to send cards. Using a bubble mailer gets rid of the most common reasons why cards arrived damage or missing. However, it does cost a bit more to send that way.

If a seller tries to make tracking mandatory, it's going to result in less sales because people have some mental thing about spending an extra dollar on shipping. I don't understand it, but it's just the way it is.

The clause is especially important on international deals. Even if I offer to split the cost of registered shipping, I've still had people turn me down because they don't want to pay an extra $5. Why should I be held responsible then if their cards get lost in transit? Especially when it's a questionable country I'm sending to.

Keep in mind, I'm speaking only about selling cards. On trades, I cover whatever shipping I feel is necessary to make sure my cards arrive safely.

edit: yes this is primarily a sale issue. The existing rules are fine concerning trades as both parties are already covering their own shipping costs. The reason it is different for sales is the buyer is expected to cover the shipping cost hence the buyer is the only one that can make the choice as to what sending to use when the choice is presented by the seller.

__________________

-Caquaa
caquaa@yahoo.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
nah, the biggest problem is when sellers tell the buyer they have two options either registered for $12 or regular air mail for $2 and they wont be responsible. I've seen cases in BTA where this is in there and the seller of course just paypals the cards + $2 and then doesn't receive and has a "legitimate" BTA case because they didn't spell out that they accept those terms. This isn't a case of sellers trying to dupe the buyer or the such. Its always given an excuse that there is no way to prove the buyer read the terms but you could say that about any part of the email everything from the list of the cards to the price of the cards to the sending arrangements but this is the only portion that is inconsistent and requires the buyer to spell out that they are agreeing. IMO this inconsistency needs to be fixed. If the buyer isn't reading their emails they are at fault regardless.

---

Meh. I don't really see it as an inconsistency at all. It's assumed that the traders are going to look at the standard stuff like list of cards and sending arrangements. It's part of agreeing to a trade. It's not safe to assume that someone's going to read every single word of the rest of the email. I've seen some shady people hide the not-responsible clause way down to where it's almost assured that it won't be read by the average trader, in a signature line or elsewhere in a mass of text that is clearly not part of the trade details. I will not put myself in a position of having to play the "is it reasonable" game and decide just when it should and shouldn't have been read by an average person, so blame the weasels trying to pull a fast one on people for ruining it for everyone.

__________________
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 NoblePurpose:
If someone is buying something, and they pick non tracking option instead of tracking... or no insurance instead of insurance.. Then the seller should not be responsible if it is lost because the buyer did not want that protection.. If its always the sellers fault, then no one would choose tracking.. That seems pointless. That is why people give insurance options.

---

Like I said before, I have no problem with a seller saying "Pay an extra $1 for insurance or I'm not responsible". I DO have a problem with a seller/trader/whoever saying "I'm not responsible for lost mail. End of story".

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:

Like I said before, I have no problem with a seller saying "Pay an extra $1 for insurance or I'm not responsible". I DO have a problem with a seller/trader/whoever saying "I'm not responsible for lost mail. End of story".

And before you say that never happens, it does.

---

If that does happen, it's because buyers/traders let it happen. This is not a 1-way street, it takes 2 parties to agree to these rules.

__________________
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 Tha Gunslinga:
Half the members of ebay have "not responsible for lost mail" in their auctions.

---

Luckily by ebay's own rules that rule doesn't matter at all.

I find it's just easier to force everybody to pay for registered, which is basically the same thing as saying "not responsible for lost mail" but it doesn't sound so negative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
Luckily by ebay's own rules that rule doesn't matter at all.

I find it's just easier to force everybody to pay for registered, which is basically the same thing as saying "not responsible for lost mail" but it doesn't sound so negative.

Tho instead I get nubs who are like "ZOMG WHY SO EXPSNIVE"

---

ZOMG its not like people don't charge $4 for "Regular shipping"

Which is a 25 cent padded envelop and a few stamps.

I think that is a good plan to charge for registered, but it won't help you clean up smaller ticket items on ebay.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WeedIan:
ZOMG its not like people don't charge $4 for "Regular shipping"

Which is a 25 cent padded envelop and a few stamps.

I think that is a good plan to charge for registered, but it won't help you clean up smaller ticket items on ebay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NoblePurpose:
It cost me $2.09 to send first class parcel the other day and that included DC.. And then the padded envelope only costs 11 cents. Add maybe another 20 cents for the 3 toploaders and that $2.40. If people can't pay that little amount for shipping to make sure the package arrives then I don't know what to say.. It was $1.34 without the DC.. I think people should be able to pay an extra 75 cents..

---

Sorry i was bashing Ebay because people charge $4 then send with just stamps.

That being said.

As a seller I appreciate the option to not take responsibility for some packages. I get alot of people from overseas who want to buy ... and my only option is registered mail which is like 13-15 bucks. This doesn't make sense for a 10 dollar order, but I also don't want to be held responsible for lost or damaged mail overseas. So I always make a point to mention that I am not responsible for lost or damaged mail if the buyer does not buy insurance or registered postage.

I think it's good that I can do that or I couldn't sell to people outside of the US.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jmedina:
99.9% of the time I send insured or DC with trades. It's just good for both people... Even to people I trust, it's nice to give them a number that they can check.

That being said.

As a seller I appreciate the option to not take responsibility for some packages. I get alot of people from overseas who want to buy ... and my only option is registered mail which is like 13-15 bucks. This doesn't make sense for a 10 dollar order, but I also don't want to be held responsible for lost or damaged mail overseas. So I always make a point to mention that I am not responsible for lost or damaged mail if the buyer does not buy insurance or registered postage.

I think it's good that I can do that or I couldn't sell to people outside of the US.

---

you can't do that. You have to have them agree to not hold you responsible, not state that you aren't.

__________________

-Caquaa
caquaa@yahoo.com