BST etiquette am I wrong

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What do the words, "i'll take it," convey if not an intention to take it? This just isn't complicated IMO. The man said I'll take it, a follow up message was sent clarifying if he was good with no fee, the card was still available at that point, give the man a chance to finalize the deal. Good Lord, the pretzel twisting here is ridiculous IMO.

I think the bigger issue is the radio silence. We all have our own idea around what is an appropriate window to give someone. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to move on if the counterparty has gone dark and isn’t responding to requests to confirm key details.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

I think the bigger issue is the radio silence. We all have our own idea around what is an appropriate window to give someone. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to move on if the counterparty has gone dark and isn’t responding to requests to confirm key details.

It was a few hours. He didn't go dark at all, as I see it. Some of us aren't staring into our devices all day lol.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It was a few hours. He didn't go dark at all, as I see it. Some of us aren't staring into our devices all day lol.

Peter, you have over 33,000 posts. Clearly, you're staring into some device that has net54 visible on it more than most people.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Peter, you have over 33,000 posts. Clearly, you're staring into some device that has net54 visible on it more than most people.

LOL funny. Some days more active than others, depends on work, family, etc. I think I tend to pick up a lot of post counts in threads like this.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Peter, you have over 33,000 posts. Clearly, you're staring into some device that has net54 visible on it more than most people.

LOL and a card.

[JollyElm]

The biggest lie ever perpetuated here was pretending this site is a "community" (with all the respect and goodness that implies).
A "school of sharks" would clearly be a more accurate descriptor.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

The biggest lie ever perpetuated here was pretending this site is a "community" (with all the respect and goodness that implies).
A "school of sharks" would clearly be a more accurate descriptor.

It's a community until 2 or more people want the same item. Then it turns into a school of sharks.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jayshum

It's a community until 2 or more people want the same item. Then it turns into a school of sharks.

And then the losing shark throws a public tantrum, threatens to take it to court, and gets caught telling outright lies while playing the victim.

[bigfanNY]

But again it is not what I said. I Said I will see you in court. I give you my word on that. Get it? A promise not a threat. You can have last word I am done..

[Rich Klein]

When a market is hot, and the sports card market is very hot right now does make for interesting conversations.

While not as hot as during covid, I can tell you (with the caveat that this is mostly for newer cards) that the world is more like 1988-91 than than 2008-11.

And when markets are that hot and a popular item is posted at a fair price there will be competition for said item.

From reading this thread I believe the seller should have posted after the "I'll Take it" post that as noted he is working with people who contacted him first and he will get back to JS if they pass on said item

And I don't know about you but calling someone a low life and saying you'll see them in court implies future behavior. It will not come to pass for me, but I would not want to do business with someone acting that way.

Sounds like Peter is about to pick up some new clients as well.

Regards
Rich

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

But again it is not what I said. I Said I will see you in court. I give you my word on that. Get it? A promise not a threat. You can have last word I am done..

I won't have the last word, you will in court. Because your case is totally legitimate and real and you will be taking this excellent court to case where you will surely win and be vindicated.

Again, you claimed in 86 "I 100% agree with you saying I will see you in court sounds like a threat. But not what I said."

You admit right there it sounds like a threat, but it is not because it is "not what I said".

However, It is, in fact, literally what you said. Verbatim. Word for word. "I will see you in court". The message was already shown where you did this.

In retrospect, OP was obviously correct to wrap up with the earlier responders rather than making a deal with the guy who responded to the situation by lying, throwing a fit, issuing threats, and allegedly-and-totally-actually suing in court over a tiny and petty dispute over who should get first dibs. Can't wait to see the judge's ruling in court, which will definitely happen.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Sounds like Peter is about to pick up some new clients as well.

Regards
Rich

Haha. The only things I have ever done in this space are to help some collectors out with their issues for no charge.

[SyrNy1960]

I think once something is posted for sale on the B/S/T, then all communications should only be on the B/S/T. Posting on B/S/T, then using other sources to communicate with others, while not updating the B/S/T post, can definitely confuse things, as shown in this situation.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by SyrNy1960

I think once something is posted for sale on the B/S/T, then all communications should only be on the B/S/T. Posting on B/S/T, then using other sources to communicate with others, while not updating the B/S/T post, can definitely confuse things, as shown in this situation.

That wouldn't work as many people have stuff listed on several different sites. Plus as Peter pointed out not everyone is always on the internet so someone posting it was sold shouldn't need to be updated for several hours or the next day.

[Carter08]

No one should be so hurt over this. Seller was trying to sell. A bunch of people wanted to give him their money. He went with someone that gave it quickly. Semi-uncool of someone said I’ll take it and he didn’t go that route. Perhaps. Lesson learned though - if it’s a hot item say I’ll take it and get the seller paid.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by SyrNy1960

I think once something is posted for sale on the B/S/T, then all communications should only be on the B/S/T. Posting on B/S/T, then using other sources to communicate with others, while not updating the B/S/T post, can definitely confuse things, as shown in this situation.

I'll repost what I said before.

There have been probably 10s of thousands of transactions on the B/S/T without any issues with the way things are now set up. A few recent complaints don't seem to be reason to try to force everyone to follow some set of rules that can never be enforced.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Your a lawyer you understand that a threat of legal action with no intent to follow up is just wrong. I gave you my word I will follow up in court. That's not a threat.

Also thank you for clarification on the fact that although
I was not the first to inquire about the card. I was the first to say I will take it.
That is the crux of our disagreement. I believe that saying " I will take it " means I am committed to buying the card. And you disagree. And claim another layer of conformation is nesacery.

So, if you do actually file in court, that would mean you were not threatening and you weren't lying.

If you don't actually file in court, you were both. I'd love to see the court filings updated to this thread. My guess is, the whole thing will be a big waste of your time. But at least it would settle the "threat" and "lying" questions.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So, if you do actually file in court, that would mean you were not threatening and you weren't lying.

If you don't actually file in court, you were both. I'd love to see the court filings updated to this thread. My guess is, the whole thing will be a big waste of your time. But at least it would settle the "threat" and "lying" questions.

My vote for best post in the thread. I will also be waiting to see court papers to settle the this.

[PhillyFan1883]

I would love to be in attendance if there ever was a trial. There will be scenes as captivating as the movie "A Few Good Men" ----that I am sure of.

Joe Jackson always entangled in controversy.

[Vintage Vern]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That wouldn't work as many people have stuff listed on several different sites. Plus as Peter pointed out not everyone is always on the internet so someone posting it was sold shouldn't need to be updated for several hours or the next day.

Then say it's cross posted.

What difference does that make? The part about people being here all the time? It actually makes it easier to have it posted in one place here vs having DMs and posts with items for sale here. Its an automatic reveal for this board. If a seller isn't online for 12 hours at least people that post I'll take it have an order of the pecking order in plain view. A DM won't be answered either in that time frame.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So, if you do actually file in court, that would mean you were not threatening and you weren't lying.

If you don't actually file in court, you were both. I'd love to see the court filings updated to this thread. My guess is, the whole thing will be a big waste of your time. But at least it would settle the "threat" and "lying" questions.

He's surely not actually doing it, but even if he did that doesn't make it not a threat. Following through on the threatened action does not mean that then retroactively there was no threat. Lots of people are threatened with things that then happen. Following through on the harm, injury or danger does not mean the threat didn't happen. This is quite a novel concept that it's not a threat if you then do the thing you are threatening to do. Even if he is so mad that he actually tries to sue this guy and gets laughed out of court before it gets anywhere, he did in fact threaten to take it to court. 'It's not a threat, it's a promise' is just some tough guy posturing bullshit from angry people.

[Vintage Vern]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I'll repost what I said before.

There have been probably 10s of thousands of transactions on the B/S/T without any issues with the way things are now set up. A few recent complaints don't seem to be reason to try to force everyone to follow some set of rules that can never be enforced.

Are you scared to have it changed so everything is in the open?

[bigfanNY]

As I said I will update down the road.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

He's surely not actually doing it, but even if he did that doesn't make it not a threat. Following through on the threatened action does not mean that then retroactively there was no threat. Lots of people are threatened with things that then happen. Following through on the harm, injury or danger does not mean the threat didn't happen. This is quite a novel concept that it's not a threat if you then do the thing you are threatening to do. Even if he is so mad that he actually tries to sue this guy and gets laughed out of court before it gets anywhere, he did in fact threaten to take it to court. 'It's not a threat, it's a promise' is just some tough guy posturing bullshit from angry people.

We don't even know Cody's full name do we? No, he's not suing him. And much as I think he was in the right here at least until the aftermath, he would certainly lose. There was no contract to be breached.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Vintage Vern

Are you scared to have it changed so everything is in the open?

My experience is that people around here tend to value their privacy a lot when it comes to what they’re buying, and in terms of what they have. So requiring that everyone post publicly that they’re interested (and might end up owning it) seems like it would face a lot of resistance.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

He's surely not actually doing it, but even if he did that doesn't make it not a threat. Following through on the threatened action does not mean that then retroactively there was no threat. Lots of people are threatened with things that then happen. Following through on the harm, injury or danger does not mean the threat didn't happen. This is quite a novel concept that it's not a threat if you then do the thing you are threatening to do. Even if he is so mad that he actually tries to sue this guy and gets laughed out of court before it gets anywhere, he did in fact threaten to take it to court. 'It's not a threat, it's a promise' is just some tough guy posturing bullshit from angry people.

I agree, plus, you eloquently proved, by his own words, that he lied when he said he didn't say something he clearly did. So these issues are already settled. But after all these discussions, with lawyer input, it would be interesting to see an actual court make a ruling.

Then when these discussions come up, we could all cite bigfanNY vs. Cody77 as precedent.

In the recent thread that was somewhat similar, it was generally decided that a seller could choose to not do business with someone if they had reason. In retrospect, it looks like this seller is glad he didn't do business with this guy. At least, the seller is saying he never will in the future.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I agree, plus, you eloquently proved, by his own words, that he lied when he said he didn't say something he clearly did. So these issues are already settled. But after all these discussions, with lawyer input, it would be interesting to see an actual court make a ruling.

Then when these discussions come up, we could all cite bigfanNY vs. Cody77 as precedent.

In the recent thread that was somewhat similar, it was generally decided that a seller could choose to not do business with someone if they had reason. In retrospect, it looks like this seller is glad he didn't do business with this guy. At least, the seller is saying he never will in the future.

Hopefully one of the parties will let us know the trial date, courthouse and which courtroom. I'll bring some popcorn.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Vintage Vern

Are you scared to have it changed so everything is in the open?

Bingo. You're on to me.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

Hopefully one of the parties will let us know the trial date, courthouse and which courtroom. I'll bring some popcorn.

Where would a case like this need to be filed? It looks like one party is in NJ and the other is in CO.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Where would a case like this need to be filed? It looks like one party is in NJ and the other is in CO.

Not a lawyer, but this seems like small claims court to me.

But I guess there’s always the question of which one.

[Vintage Vern]

Originally Posted by raulus

My experience is that people around here tend to value their privacy a lot when it comes to what they’re buying, and in terms of what they have. So requiring that everyone post publicly that they’re interested (and might end up owning it) seems like it would face a lot of resistance.

This isn't a place for privacy. I mean we all are stamped here in many ways. Names, personal phone numbers, emails what's collected etc etc.

Honest people aren't the problem. Neither are people that say "I'll take it on a post".

Hell, most the guys know who has what anyway. People post items worth 5 or 6 figures all the time here.

[Vintage Vern]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Bingo. You're on to me.

Must be. Transparency must bother you?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

Not a lawyer, but this seems like small claims court to me.

But I guess there’s always the question of which one.

One internet non transaction is not going to make Cody subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Vintage Vern

This isn't a place for privacy. I mean we all are stamped here in many ways. Names, personal phone numbers, emails what's collected etc etc.

Honest people aren't the problem. Neither are people that say "I'll take it on a post".

Hell, most the guys know who has what anyway. People post items worth 5 or 6 figures all the time here.

I guess you didn't read the thread talking about showing off collections people have. Plenty of people there said they are very hesitant to tell people what they have or show them anything. Also, I don't know about you, but my phone number isn't posted anywhere on the board, and my email may have been on some old B/S/T threads, but with all of the scammers that pop up, I've stopped posting that as well.

https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=358153

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Vintage Vern

Must be. Transparency must bother you?

Pretty sure if you set up a poll, I wouldn't be the only one voting against your idea.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Vintage Vern

This isn't a place for privacy. I mean we all are stamped here in many ways. Names, personal phone numbers, emails what's collected etc etc.

Honest people aren't the problem. Neither are people that say "I'll take it on a post".

Hell, most the guys know who has what anyway. People post items worth 5 or 6 figures all the time here.

Go ahead and draft up the rules that you think should apply to the BST. And then lobby Leon to make them the law of the BST.

I wish you the best of luck!

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Vintage Vern

Must be. Transparency must bother you?

I posted this earlier, but it got lost in the rest of the thread so no one really commented on it.

According to the seller, he was already discussing purchase of the card with others who had contacted him when the OP posted that he would take it if still available. If the seller was a dealer selling the card in question at a show and someone else was discussing buying the card from him and the OP just walked over and said "I'll take it", I would consider that rude and inappropriate. Is it different just because this happened online?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I posted this earlier, but it got lost in the rest of the thread so no one really commented on it.

According to the seller, he was already discussing purchase of the card with others who had contacted him when the OP posted that he would take it if still available. If the seller was a dealer selling the card in question at a show and someone else was discussing buying the card from him and the OP just walked over and said "I'll take it", I would consider that rude and inappropriate. Is it different just because this happened online?

I mean, it doesn’t seem rude and inappropriate to me in an online setting. Largely because he doesn’t know who else is having what other conversations. That and it’s not an interruption the way it is in person.

On the other hand, demanding that the seller has to sell to you or getting agitated over the internet could start to seem a bit much.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I posted this earlier, but it got lost in the rest of the thread so no one really commented on it.

According to the seller, he was already discussing purchase of the card with others who had contacted him when the OP posted that he would take it if still available. If the seller was a dealer selling the card in question at a show and someone else was discussing buying the card from him and the OP just walked over and said "I'll take it", I would consider that rude and inappropriate. Is it different just because this happened online?

It's a mantra of the BST that "I'll take it" takes precedence over continuing negotiations. And of course it's different to walk up to a table and try to undermine a potential deal in progress before your eyes, and posting online where there is no indication a deal has been made or is imminent.

[Vintage Vern]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I guess you didn't read the thread talking about showing off collections people have. Plenty of people there said they are very hesitant to tell people what they have or show them anything. Also, I don't know about you, but my phone number isn't posted anywhere on the board, and my email may have been on some old B/S/T threads, but with all of the scammers that pop up, I've stopped posting that as well.

https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=358153

Actually I did. I also see many other posts that people may take as harmless, but show a lot. Every board I've belonged you get to know people, and find out about them, directly or non directly. It's a public forum.

Many people have a ton of info in posts along with what they're collecting or looking for with contact information. Go on Google and much of what you post here can be found. You have your name and state. That's all it takes for people up to no good.

People that have signatures have all kinds of info. The sad thing is its to help, but also is a bad thing for people looking for targets.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by raulus

I mean, it doesn’t seem rude and inappropriate to me in an online setting. Largely because he doesn’t know who else is having what other conversations. That and it’s not an interruption the way it is in person.

On the other hand, demanding that the seller has to sell to you or getting agitated over the internet could start to seem a bit much.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a mantra of the BST that "I'll take it" takes precedence over continuing negotiations. And of course it's different to walk up to a table and try to undermine a potential deal in progress before your eyes, and posting online where there is no indication a deal has been made or is imminent.

True, it may not be rude because they don't know what other discussions are going on, but it seems to be analogous. I don't see why the seller has to immediately ignore everyone else who he may have already been in contact with just because someone else says "I'll take it". I've definitely seen listings where that is indicated so if someone says that in their listing, then they should follow it. If they don't say it explicitly, why should they have to drop everyone else just to contact someone else?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

True, it may not be rude because they don't know what other discussions are going on, but it seems to be analogous. I don't see why the seller has to immediately ignore everyone else who he may have already been in contact with just because someone else says "I'll take it". I've definitely seen listings where that is indicated so if someone says that in their listing, then they should follow it. If they don't say it explicitly, why should they have to drop everyone else just to contact someone else?

If someone says I'll take it at your price, WHY would you continue to negotiate with someone ELSE hoping that they eventually get to the place you are already at? This is not making any sense to me. The only issue is should Cody have given Jonathan more time before looking elsewhere, and I say yes. This isn't complicated -- the answer to that question is either yes or no, depending on your POV. Or, if you think contract law is the only relevant consideration, then fine, Cody was free to do whatever he wanted.

[Vintage Vern]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Pretty sure if you set up a poll, I wouldn't be the only one voting against your idea.

I'm sure if Leon changed the policy you would.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jayshum

True, it may not be rude because they don't know what other discussions are going on, but it seems to be analogous. I don't see why the seller has to immediately ignore everyone else who he may have already been in contact with just because someone else says "I'll take it". I've definitely seen listings where that is indicated so if someone says that in their listing, then they should follow it. If they don't say it explicitly, why should they have to drop everyone else just to contact someone else?

I think it hinges on whether “I’ll take it” trumps all else, and as long as you’re the first to say those magic words, then it’s yours.

I think the general idea is that saying “I’ll take it” is tantamount to clicking the “buy it now” button on eBay. It automatically yanks the item off the platform and no one else can attempt to buy it, and all pending offers are automatically rescinded.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If someone says I'll take it at your price, WHY would you continue to negotiate with someone ELSE hoping that they eventually get there? This is not making any sense to me.

I'm not saying I would negotiate with someone who was offering a lower price, but what if they just asked for better pictures or had a question about the card? If they were the first person to contact me about it and I had already responded to them, I don't know that I would just tell them, too bad, someone else bought it. It certainly wouldn't happen that way in person.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Vintage Vern

I'm sure if Leon changed the policy you would.

I'm sure if Leon changed the policy, there would be a lot of unhappy members and a lot fewer items posted for sale.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I'm not saying I would negotiate with someone who was offering a lower price, but what if they just asked for better pictures or had a question about the card? If they were the first person to contact me about it and I had already responded to them, I don't know that I would just tell them, too bad, someone else bought it. It certainly wouldn't happen that way in person.

So you would not tell them and lead them on? I am not following where you are going with this.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If someone says I'll take it at your price, WHY would you continue to negotiate with someone ELSE hoping that they eventually get to the place you are already at? This is not making any sense to me. The only issue is should Cody have given Jonathan more time before looking elsewhere, and I say yes. This isn't complicated -- the answer to that question is either yes or no, depending on your POV. Or, if you think contract law is the only relevant consideration, then fine, Cody was free to do whatever he wanted.

Because with the first person it was a cash plus trade deal for my card. He could not send pics of the cards he wanted to include in the deal for a few hours when he got off work. In the meantime I had an extremely generous cash offer. Personally I waited until the first guy could send me pictures of the trade part of his offer to make my decision. I felt that was the correct thing to do.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So you would not tell them and lead them on? I am not following where you are going with this.

I would probably tell them that someone else is offering to buy it and then tell the first person who asked about it that they need to make a decision if they're going to buy or not because someone else is offering to buy it. It gets back to the discussion in the other thread about etiquette. I don't see a problem with the first person expressing interest getting priority even if they didn't commit to buying right away. Again, like at a show, if someone is looking at a card, someone else isn't going to be able to buy it until the first person puts it down and says no.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Because with the first person it was a cash plus trade deal for my card. He could not send pics of the cards he wanted to include in the deal for a few hours when he got off work. In the meantime I had an extremely generous cash offer. Personally I waited until the first guy could send me pictures of the trade part of his offer to make my decision. I felt that was the correct thing to do.

And there you probably would have been justified, because the first guy did not express a willingness to buy on your terms, but proposed a different deal.