posted on February 6, 2001 12:08:11 PM new
I don't purchase items to accomodate a seller's lack of people skills---I buy fo ME!! and I look out for ME.
If I am overcharged for something at the store and don't realize it til I get home--I'll go back to the store--if the cashier won't accomodate me--I ask for the manager. This buyer was concerned about getting a negative--I wouldn't have been--but they felt their only recourse was SafeHarbour---the manager of the 'venue''
and FYI--I do very little buying on EBAY--mostly selling.
posted on February 6, 2001 12:17:01 PM new
I'm sure they felt their "only" recourse was safeharbor. However, if you look at the various recourses available to people, they have reasonably defined scope. For example, feedback is one recourse, not bidding is another, etc.
However, using safeharbor against this person was a gross misuse of ebay's resources. It was totally inappropriate to the offense committed (if there even was one), and every time this happens, it means some REAL problem gets ignored.
A better analogy is some "concerned" citizen going to the police and harrassing them for hours to deal with litterbugs, and distracting them while armed robberies occur.
And in this case, the citizen would be stealing money from the parking meter while complaining to the cops about the trash in the streets! (IMO of course)
Basically,they made a mistake, and in their panic to avoid a negative, they went to safeharbor to cover it up. Sad.
[ edited by captainkirk on Feb 6, 2001 12:17 PM ]
[ edited by captainkirk on Feb 6, 2001 12:59 PM ]
posted on February 6, 2001 12:23:15 PM new
I wonder what would happen if a pile of garbage was dumped in your backyard?
SafeHarbor exists to be used--for large and small problems and the individual can decide for themselves whether they need thier resources to solve the problem or not.
posted on February 6, 2001 12:32:43 PM new
"SafeHarbor exists to be used--for large and small problems and the individual can decide for themselves whether they need thier resources to solve the problem or not."
Except, of course, for those sellers who continuously list and sell illegal copies of video tapes, bootleg CD's, etc. In those cases, SafeHarbour exists simply to run blocker between the crooks and those who are trying to report the crooks just long enough to let the auctions end so eBay can collect their fees ...
posted on February 6, 2001 12:36:11 PM new
Of course each individual can decide that. And brigette did. And we are rendering our opinion of same.
Just like any citizen can waste the police's time complaining about trivial offenses. Of course, such actions make us all worse off, so you can hardly expect us to support her. Thank goodness *most* people understand when to call on safeharbor (and when NOT to), or safeharbor would quickly become completely useless.
posted on February 6, 2001 12:45:48 PM new
zazzie:
Well, perhaps you can't diffentiate between littering and robbery, but I can, and so can almost everyone else in the world. And the former is trivial if the later isn't being handled.
And we all know fraud continues in ebay, serious fraud,involving hundreds and thousands of dollars. I have NO trouble differentiating between that and "I don't like the S&H from this seller", and I'm sorry if you can't.
sometimes safeharbor does help. They have been shutting down, for example, the hotly-debated "I'm selling a box WITHOUT the playstation" auctions (except people don't realize it doesn't actually have the unit, so they bid hundreds of dollars).
so sometimes they do help, lets give them some amount of credit.
posted on February 6, 2001 01:09:36 PM new
If only the most serious of crimes should be investigated by Safe Harbor or Police then all minor laws should be struck from the books.
No noise by-laws (ever had a party house next door?)
No Pollution laws (won't big business be happy)
No traffic laws ( yeeeeeehaaaaaa!!!)
No drug laws (it's a losing battle anyways)
No animal abuse laws (they're only animals)
No tax laws ( I'll go for that one)
No election laws (is there any??)
posted on February 6, 2001 01:12:20 PM new
This is nothing other then a DEADBEAT BIDDER conning ebay into helping them cheat a seller who had CLEARLY POSTED shipping rates in his ad.
The guy knocked off $11.00+, and the DEADBEAT BIDDER still was not happy.
The DEADBEAT BIDDER decided that THEY would dictate to the SELLER what HIS terms for HIS items in HIS auction would be.
This is NOT about gouging on shipping, it is about abusing ebay resources that could be better utilized to help people that "really" get ripped off...
Where is ebay on the Alien situation? where more then 250 people got robbed for over $150,000.00?
I'll tell you where, helping a DEADBEAT BIDDER scam a seller out of an auction that they had buyers regret about, THAT'S WHERE!
You all scream and hollar about DEADBEAT BIDDERS, unless it's someone elses, then it's "hurray for them".
PATHETIC!
BTW: Hi zazzie
[ edited by Pocono on Feb 6, 2001 01:15 PM ]
posted on February 6, 2001 01:16:44 PM new
Well, I presume you have just given up on supporting your argument and are just being silly now (which is ok, of course).
However, if you mean this as a serious "rebuttal" to what I said, you are wrong. What I said (you may want to go back and re-read it) was that serious crimes should have priority over trivial ones. As long as serious fraud exists on ebay, safeharbor shouldn't be helping buyers argue about S&H disagreements.
Heck, the day that serious fraud is completely solved, by all means, start work on the rest of the problems here. And throw ourselves a big party while we're at it. But i'm not holding my breath.
Prioritization, by the way, is the way all effective organizations work. For example, Triage on the battlefield helps ensure that scarce medical care goes to soldiers most in need, etc. Organizations who work on anything and everything, willy-nilly, usually become worthless.
I'm not going to take this even more offtrack from your current post by discussing the specific categories of laws you reference.
posted on February 6, 2001 01:46:48 PM new
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
When I'm purchasing goods on the internet (and I purchase a LOT of goods on the internet), I "ask" the web site to total the purchase and the shipping for me BEFORE I hit the "submit order" button.
If I feel the shipping charge is too high, I hit the "cancel order" button instead.
Ask BEFORE you bid! If you don't like the answer, don't bid.
posted on February 6, 2001 03:06:00 PM newIf I am overcharged for something at the store and don't realize it til I get home--I'll go back to the store--if the cashier won't accomodate me--I ask for the manager.
If the price on a can of green beans says 59 cents and you are charged 79 cents, you should talk to the manager. You have been overcharged
If the price on the green beans says 59 cents and you are charged 59 cents, you have not been over charged. You may think you have paid too much, but you have not been overcharged. You should have looked at the price more carefully. Same with this bidder.
posted on February 6, 2001 04:44:29 PM new
that's right---the can of beans (cost of stamps) says $4.50---so handling is $25.00
Pleeeeezzz
and in reviewing what Brigette said about the auction I fail to see anywhere that she stated that the seller had anything on his auction that made mention that he did or did not combine shipping.
posted on February 6, 2001 04:55:28 PM new
Presumably since brigette said nothing about combined shipping, we can assume it was NOT mentioned in the listing. (If they did say something about it and she neglected to mention it, then we can wonder what else she "neglected" to mention...).
Since the seller did NOT advertise combined shipping, then it is NOT allowable to just blindly assume unilaterally that an 80% reduction in S&H is acceptable to the seller.
No matter how you slice it, brigette erred severely in this matter by making such an assumption.
By the way, you never did answer my question earlier: did bridget "rip off" the seller by offering a S&H that was "too low" (since you seem to feel the seller wanted to "rip off" the buyer by asking for a S&H that was "too high"? Or are you just casually flinging around inflammatory words?
PS - my "open invitation" still stands - can ANYONE prove that the seller's S&H proposal was, in fact, UNreasonable? And can anyone show how a "rip off" was ongoing here? Its easy to make these offhand charges, but apparently harder to back them up...
posted on February 6, 2001 05:08:46 PM new
I never fling...hmmmph
but yes--$25.00(?) handling ususally makes me say Rip-off
but as I do not have all the pertinent information--I will cease in my assumptions--though you may continue as you see fit--even though above you 'promised' you were done for the day. I guess I'm just too irrestible or maybe you've been drugged by tears Captain Kirk. Just call me Elaan of Troyius.
posted on February 6, 2001 05:52:03 PM new
Sad to say, I WISH I was done for the day.
I've got something that is due tomorrow at 9 am, and I thought I'd be done by now. But I ain't. Oh well, so here I sit, yet another overworked/underpaid white collar salaried worker.
I'm glad you admit the error of your ways in using the term "rip off" with absolutely no justification, even though I had to force it out of you through sheer force of superior logic (thank you Mr. Spock for all your training...)
And you have YET to prove that $25 is "handling", so you'll have to retract that statement at a later post (feel free to do so at your leisure, your unsupported assumption is clear for all to see now). I know, its difficult limiting our discussion to actual facts, but that makes it easier to come to the proper conclusion. Although rumor and innuendo certainly liven up a debate!
reddeer: agreed. Both sides managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. By working hard, both buyer and seller collaborated to turn what should have been a simple transaction on ebay into a minor war!
posted on February 6, 2001 05:54:33 PM new
Triplesnack, there are situations where as in my case some of the products I offer are drop shipped from various vendors, and I can only guesstimate shipping costs until packed to ship and I am notified. I give estimated costs to bidder and will refund overcharge if there is one. I end up eating as many undercharges when s&h is more than expected and somtimes I make a few cents, but never have I intended to rip anyone off. The world is not black and white,there will always be gray.
posted on February 6, 2001 06:03:48 PM new
I didn't see the auction, but when a seller doesn't say in his/her TOS that they combine shipping, I don't just assume they will. I'm mostly a buyer and I almost always have email questions for the seller before I bid. It takes a little extra time but so far I haven't had any nasty surprizes. The majority of sellers do combine on multiple items but there are some that can't or don't. They have a right to run their auction the way they want to and I have a right to bid or not. I don't see where this seller did anything wrong.
posted on February 6, 2001 06:21:00 PM new
December:
Not only did they assume a savings from combined shipping (which, just to state the obvious, is NOT required by any ebay regulation), they assumed it would be nearly 80%!
And yes, zazzie, this time I hope to be gone for good for tonight....finally done with my "homework"...
posted on February 6, 2001 06:40:13 PM new
captainkirk, I call it a rip-off anytime a seller overcharges for shipping. Obviously this seller intended to make their profit through high shipping to 15 different bidders, just too bad for them it didn't work that way.
The only thing I agree about is the seller missed out on some money and now appears to be getting NO money.
Ain't Life Grand...
posted on February 6, 2001 06:55:08 PM new
"Never give up, never surrender!"
--with some of the statements made here--I would take it that if by chance one bid on one of the empty box auctions and won it at a high price thinking something was in the box--but somehow twigged on it before sending money--that you would be a DEADBEAT BIDDER --because you make the choice after the end of the auction not to be taken advantage of.
It would be nice to have the complete information here---what exactly the auction said about shipping---and what the seller's justification was for the amount--but alas he choose to be vulgar to the buyer rather than give any reason for the amount. So with those actions as my only clue to the seller's character--I'll still say Rip-Off. I'll retract when given concrete reason to do so. You must have missed a lesson in logic from Spock.
posted on February 6, 2001 07:03:30 PM new
i am glad brigitte went after this person.
if someone doesn't mention that the item I buy is clean, does that mean that I don't have the right to expect it to be clean? Does that mean the seller who sold it to me can say "I'm sorry, but nowhere in my TOS does it state that the item was clean. It said the item was in good condition but it did not say clean. My TOS is my TOS. No refunds, you should have asked first." I don't think I should have to ask if something is clean. I also don't think it's outrageous to assume that a seller would combine shipping (from the GET GO, not after a complaint!) for someone buying 15 items. Of course, I already know you disagree with this basic commonsense proposition, so don't bother to go over it again. We will have to agree to disagree.
and by the way, whether or not the seller bought a bunch of boxes or packed them or whatnot is a red herring. If that's the case, then the SELLER assumed something too, in that he ASS-U-MEd that the high bidder wouldn't take all the items. so he is no less culpable for WHATEVER transpired.
IMO I'd be DELIGHTED to get a neg for this transaction.....so I could reply "Yes---I backed out after he tried to charge $25 to ship 2 pounds worth of stuff" or whatever the numbers were.
I agree, the consumer is king and it's not an election either. When you decided to become a merchant you accepted the fact that some consumers will bring pressure to bear on you if they don't like your way of carrying out a transaction. I do NOT always like that, but since I am a consumer also, I support it.
The sweet perfume of TOS can't cover the rotting stench of a rip-off. And yes, it was a rip-off, because it IS common sense to assume that 15 things in one box cost less than 15 things wrapped individually. You can argue that this might be that one out of one hundred cases where it's not so, but that's not enough to change the commonsense assumption IMO.
(IMO of course)
