Jump to content
Have You Played Atari Today?
2600|5200|7800|Lynx|Jaguar|Forums|Store  

mumbai

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    925

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mumbai

  4. Posted · Edited by mumbai
    grammar

    29 minutes ago, nanochess said:

    At last found time to update CoolCV to version 0.6.7, few changes but useful.

    Great! Thanks!

     

    The issue still remains with the bundled SDL framework (see posts #338 - #340 in this thread) not loading in macOS (for me, macOS 10.14.6), so users on that platform still have to install the framework independently to use CoolCV.

     

    Looks like the version string in Info.plist also needs to be bumped to 0.6.7, unless it's 0.6.6 in the "almost all" zip archive for macOS?

     

    Crashlog attached.

    crash.txt

  6. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Albert said:

    I don't understand why a seller thinks it's acceptable to just refund 46% or 43%?  That doesn't make any damn sense to me at all.  And it's ridiculous that eBay won't do anything to "curb the seller's behavior", but after my experiences with eBay, that absolutely does not surprise me at all.

    Here, it isn't acceptable because it wasn't even the arrangement made ahead of time. The two repeated reminders after the first stunt went unanswered. As did the two requests for explanation before the last two returns were even shipped back.

     

    eBay is paying out of pocket on this and opening themselves to further courtesy refunds down the road. I guess someone did a cost-benefit analysis (refund v. future final-value fees) to justify letting sellers like this continue unchecked.

  7. Posted · Edited by mumbai
    note final resolution

    On 6/4/2020 at 4:56 PM, mumbai said:

    It is my strong recommendation that people avoid purchasing items from eBay seller "coolo23".

     

    [...]

     

    Well, the first return was delivered back to the seller, who promptly refunded me 40% of the original purchase price with the only explanation being "per eBay policy", which, no. No, that's not right.

    One last follow-up, then I'll shut up (whew! right?).

     

    Predictably, "coolo23" did the exact same thing with the remaining two returns, without explanation. Partial refunds of 46% and 43%, but that percentage improvement masks the fact that these transactions were for significantly larger amounts than the first time. 😐

     

    ETA: eBay again stepped in with courtesy refunds. This will do nothing to curb the seller's behavior in the future, but I guess this all is over. My feedback was again erased by eBay's system, but whatever.

    • Sad 1

  8. Posted

    1 minute ago, MMarcoux66 said:

    These look like reproductions to me? Didn't Fisher Price games come in either red or blue shells?

    They did, unlike these.

     

    I believe you are correct. The sister auction with Spinnaker games includes a Jukebox with a copied label with non-rounded corners like these F-P games (never mind the shells).

    • Thanks 1

  12. Posted · Edited by mumbai
    grammar

    13 minutes ago, Swami said:

    For me, I feel like a 97% on Amazon is perfectly fine, but a no-go on eBay. It is a bad deal if it's hurting folks that just got a bad rap and didn't know how to hide it.

    This moves further away from the original topic under discussion, but Amazon is becoming a no-go for me when it comes to used books (basically all I buy from third-parties there). For all the ire directed toward eBay, Amazon's Marketplace is filled to the brim with questionable booksellers, amongst others. My wife frequently fails to recognize when she's buying from a third-party instead of Amazon proper, and more often than not, her good nature leads to being taken advantage of. Oh, well.

     

    I agree that eBay is harder on sellers (and buyers) who don't see the loopholes in their system. I'm not suggesting that bad rap isn't necessarily deserved, but everyone should take their lumps the same if for the same reason.

     

    Both sides take advantage of these undeserved outs. eBay grants courtesy refunds, forfeits final value fees, and devotes call-center time in cases where I think they really shouldn't. I fail to understand why eBay doesn't save itself the headache (if nothing else) by blocking the most obvious dodges and calling it a day. Again: oh, well.

     

  13. Posted

    12 hours ago, Swami said:

    That's why anything less than 99% on eBay looks bad. Even 99.3% is a red flag. Kinda Cuckoo.

     

    7 hours ago, atari181 said:

    It can be, yes, as Al stated, you should click on it and read what it was about.

    As I seem to be (re)discovering now, feedback below 100% for sellers with over a few hundred seller feedback ratings is less about poor service and more about not knowing how to game the system to have non-positive feedback removed or blocked from being left in the first place. Yes, there are crackpot bidders who neg without cause, but there's unscrupulousness on the other side of the fence, too.

     

  15. Posted · Edited by mumbai

    16 hours ago, Albert said:

    This is the sort of thing that allows sellers to continue to get away with poor selling/shipping practices.

    One last thing...

     

    The kicker: I left negative feedback last night for one of the purchases. It disappeared from both our feedback profiles inside of an hour.

     

    eBay explained that closure of the return claim triggered removal, even though: (1) eBay stepped in to complete the refund and (2) eBay support had earlier told me to leave negative feedback if appropriate -- in their words, the only downside the seller could face here.

     

    Absurd. I'm done chasing my tail over it all.

  16. Posted

    15 minutes ago, Albert said:

    I very often will look at a seller's feedback, and in particular will read the neutral and negative comments.  This can easily show a pattern of poor selling/shipping practices.

    In these cases, I don't really think I have any choice but to leave negative feedback. The seller's already profited off eBay's goodwill toward me with the courtesy refund, likely to be the first of several such rewards for ill behavior.

     

    I'm a reformed man thanks to you.

  17. Posted

    Just now, Albert said:

    I doubt it, it's pretty easy to figure out that a lighter package will cost the seller less money.

    Oh, I meant the "none of my [imagined] previous customers have ever complained about just this sort of packaging job" script. But, yes, you're 100% correct that the relative weight and cost difference is something easily grasped.

     

    Just now, Albert said:

    This is the sort of thing that allows sellers to continue to get away with poor selling/shipping practices.

    I know that's the risk. Every time something like this comes up (which is increasingly frequent, I apparently hang with the wrong selling crowd) I have an internal debate over whether to neg. The weak excuse I use to justify not is that people will likely just ignore warnings posted in feedback or those warnings will get lost amongst other, positive feedback for sellers who churn out 100s or more transactions a month.

     

     

  18. Posted · Edited by mumbai

    1 minute ago, Albert said:

    Whenever I buy a boxed game, I make sure to ask the seller in advance if they will ship it in a box.  It's not worth the hassle of taking a chance, and if the seller then ships the game in an envelope anyway, at least you're better covered when it comes time to confront the seller about their inexcusable shipping job.

    I do, too. Look what happens yet ... Typical seller response in such cases: "oh, I didn't notice that request." :)

  20. Posted

    Just now, Albert said:

    The only reason sellers will try and skimp on packaging like this is because they want to save as much on the shipping as possible.  There's no excuse to ship boxed games in a "paper envelope", and putting pieces of cardboard on either side of the box surely isn't going to keep it from getting crushed.  I also find it hard to believe nobody's complained before, if he's shipped "dozens of games just like this" in the span of over a decade.  Boxes suitable for shipping games like this are cheap, and the shipping isn't that much more expensive (it could even be the same right for First Class Mail). 

     

    I hope you leave suitable feedback for these items.

    First, I'll admit that I don't leave negative feedback unless a situation is egregious and/or the seller outright lies about something. My thinking is that doing that in each similar interest would make me look like a "problem buyer". I'd like to believe that I'm anything but. Perhaps I should change that personal policy.

     

    You are entirely correct as to the underlying rationale (postage costs). In this case, the irony is that a few of the cardboard slats had the dimensions of the donor box printed on them ... and those dimensions would have been ideal to ship any of these games. The mind boggles.

     

    Oh, and I don't believe for an instant that the seller in question has sold any such quantity of boxed games, let alone sent things off to Merry Ol' England, from what I could glean from his/her standard listing fare. Whenever I get the scripted "no one has ever complained", I simply say I'm not going to engage that, how would I know one way or the other?

     

    I do wonder whether there's some seller forum or site where this denial tactic originated.

  21. Posted

    I typically keep these things to myself, but I'm going to make an exception here. I'm reaching my limit with 100% feedback sellers who've been in the game for decades and pull stunts like this on buyers.

     

    It is my strong recommendation that people avoid purchasing items from eBay seller "coolo23".

     

    Multiple purchases of boxed games were individually sent in a paper envelope with two strips of cardboard to either side of the enclosed game (cut-down so as to be smaller than the actual box dimensions). Even though the items only had to travel about 100 miles, you can imagine the predictable results to the "package" contents from routine mail handling.

     

    Bad enough.

     

    Collective hours spent in back-and-forth over a span of days with the standard eBay seller script: "I've shipped dozens of games just like this over the past twelve years to places as far away as England, and no one has ever complained ... how I packaged the games is not the problem ... clearly there's something wrong with your local mail carriers."

     

    Finally, the seller agreed to do "whatever it took to make me happy" and directed me to return the items for a complete refund. I opted to use eBay's return process, as everything leading up to this suggested I would be a fool to trust a return outside the system.

     

    Well, the first return was delivered back to the seller, who promptly refunded me 40% of the original purchase price with the only explanation being "per eBay policy", which, no. No, that's not right.

     

    Now I get to delay posting the other returns until the dust settles on this one. More time wasted, I guess.

     

    So, please, if you see something from this seller of interest, consider passing. The only boxes I know he/she (two different names are tied to the transactions) might think to use are the one I used for the return and those torn apart to provide "secure protection" inside the manila envelopes.

     

    (I just received a "courtesy refund" from eBay for the remaining majority of the purchase price. Does anyone know whether that means the seller gets to walk off with that same amount they didn't issue back to me in the first place?)

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Atari_Bill said:

    Still, not cool selling on eBay when it’s understood that was a no no.

    I'd guess it might do harm to any relationship the seller has with CollectorVision re: supply chain, unless (a) he's getting out of the game and/or doesn't care; or (b) approval was given to list the mystery game. It went quickly at a price below what it might have obtained, so perhaps the idea was to fly it under the radar in a fire sale.

  24. Posted

    55 minutes ago, bhall408 said:

    If there is a list of games that *depend* on the 4 sprite per scanline limit, that would be handy to have. ie, the ones where if you had an F18a, you'd need to disable it for that particular game.

    I do believe Antarctic Adventure (at the least) is problematic w/ F18a present.

AtariAge
Forums
Store
General
Follow AtariAge

Copyright ©1998-2021 AtariAge

×
×
  • Create New...