ebay returns

[Tanooki]

The size of that brick would equate to a Twinkie that was thirty-five feet long and weighing approximately six hundred pounds if all the small time non-store owning sellers got sick of their shit and quit if another viable platform popped up that enforced the old rule set of even steven ebay had back in the day. Also would be great not to have to up charge on shipping to cover the shitty FVF on that too since it is a loss on top of a loss. Shame they didn't have the class to just punish the abusers.

 

I figured out with their discount what it costs to ship so up to a certain weight I just do a flat $3 which covers the usps and the fvf cut on the shipping, but around the 8-11oz mark 3.50 gets it and up to 15.9oz $4 does it under the current cost of postage.

[bojay1997]

 

It was sarcasm. However since you want to compare apples to oranges lets do that. Big credit card companies and consumer protection laws do NOT put forth laws and circumstances that make it ok for scumbag buyers to commit fraud.

 

Now for the Bold. Yes I am and that 10% eBay takes from every sale covers it! EBay makes the rules and as such they should enforce them. The rules do NOT state a buyer can take advantage of a seller. The rules do NOT state a buyer can commit fraud against sellers. The rules do NOT state a seller has to incur losses from scumbag buyers when the seller has no fault.

 

In the real world you do not get to buy an item, change your mind and return it free of charge with 100% money back guarantee unless you physically drive to a store and they verify the item is undamaged. It is very rare for the real world for an online order to fork out return shipping on a product that is not defective or not to your liking.

 

Buyer protection in the real word and getting screwed on eBay are two completely different things. You have a very poor theory and your argument is even poorer. People like you expect sellers to just take up the ass and suck it up. Sorry it doesn't work that way. If you can't be a decent honest buyer then you have no place buying merchandise in the first place.

No, I expect sellers to be reasonable and rational, just like the vast majority of buyers. Ebay doesn't allow "free" returns unless certain criteria are met. One of those criteria is that the item is not as described. Now I agree in this case that the buyer had unreasonable expectations and should have asked questions, but as others have pointed out, the writing in the manuals was substantial and something that should have been disclosed if only to avoid potential misunderstandings. In this particular situation, I sympathize with both the buyer and the seller because both seem to have acted rationally and reasonably, but ultimately, a decision will have to be made by Ebay and I don't think it's a travesty to expect that the buyer should be able to do a return here.

 

As for your other points, you have a vested interest as a regular Ebay seller in limiting consumer protections. From Ebay and the consumer perspective, protecting customers is far more important than the seller because there is simply too much incentive for sellers to commit fraud or engage in misconduct otherwise and ultimately, sellers have a financial incentive to stay with Ebay while buyers do not. Frankly, I haven't had to open a dispute in years now, but I recall some sellers who really engaged in some shady behavior attempting to strong arm me into just eating the loss. I'm sure many less sophisticated buyers just ate the loss and then never used Ebay again.

[bojay1997]

OK. "The risk that sellers have to take on in the real world"? Really? If I sell something to someone on Craigslist, the transaction is over. I don't see a risk.

"You have no business being in business". People like me who sell on there occasionally to make ends meet isn't a "business", so your argument is invalid.

"eBay needs buyers far more than it needs small time sellers". Without the sellers, eBay makes NOTHING. All their profit comes from charging SELLERS. If every "small time" seller just up and left eBay, they would shit a brick.

 

I say Good Day sir.

Great, use Craiglist then. Hopefully you won't be robbed at gunpoint or defrauded with counterfeit currency or any of the other techniques that shady buyers use that aren't possible with Ebay. Without people to bid up items and raise final value fees, Ebay would make nothing as well. Ebay's profit comes from charging fees and percentages based on what consumers are paying to sellers not just on what sellers are listing. Also, the vast majority of Ebay sellers in the current era are larger sellers and businesses. Individual sellers are certainly important to collectors, but that's not the majority of Ebay's buying or selling pool and it hasn't been for a long time now.

Edited January 8, 2018 by bojay1997

[icemanxp300]

No, I expect sellers to be reasonable and rational, just like the vast majority of buyers. Ebay doesn't allow "free" returns unless certain criteria are met. One of those criteria is that the item is not as described. Now I agree in this case that the buyer had unreasonable expectations and should have asked questions, but as others have pointed out, the writing in the manuals was substantial and something that should have been disclosed if only to avoid potential misunderstandings. In this particular situation, I sympathize with both the buyer and the seller because both seem to have acted rationally and reasonably, but ultimately, a decision will have to be made by Ebay and I don't think it's a travesty to expect that the buyer should be able to do a return here.

 

As for your other points, you have a vested interest as a regular Ebay seller in limiting consumer protections. From Ebay and the consumer perspective, protecting customers is far more important than the seller because there is simply too much incentive for sellers to commit fraud or engage in misconduct otherwise and ultimately, sellers have a financial incentive to stay with Ebay while buyers do not. Frankly, I haven't had to open a dispute in years now, but I recall some sellers who really engaged in some shady behavior attempting to strong arm me into just eating the loss. I'm sure many less sophisticated buyers just ate the loss and then never used Ebay again.

 

Are you high? Your understanding of eBay's policy's and users is sadly inaccurate. Buyers abuse the system eBay has put in place to screw sellers over on a daily basis. EBay's policies just forced me into taking a return on an nes I sold over a month ago. The buyer said it did not work, when it came back it was 100% working fine. They kept the nes lot for a month and then returned it. Maybe they played it, maybe they changed their mind? Who knows, either way eBay's policies allow buyers to abuse and manipulate sellers. I took a $9 shipping loss for no reason.

 

Sellers have zero incentive to commit fraud, what fraud can they commit w/all the buyer protection? I do believe buyers have too much protection. Hell even when you prove a buyer screwed you, you can't even tarnish their name. A buyer can lie/cheat/steal and keep buying like nothing happened. A seller can bend over backwards, go above and beyond and still get feedback that is lies.

 

Wake up buddy, this isn't 10 years ago. Buyers/scammers abuse and take advantage of sellers everyday and if sellers dispute it the buyer just leaves a negative and/or send broken or different shit back. I had a person buy a game from me and open a not as described claim and sent me back some bullshit defective game that was completely different than I sent them.

 

The fact you are arguing that buyers should be allowed to screw us over and we should take it really irritates me. You as buyer don't feel it is right to get screwed and neither do I as a seller.

 

Look up the Golden Rule! You obviously missed being raised with proper morals.

[+save2600]

Wow, this top is HOT

[Tombstone]

Wow, this top is HOT

Christmas is over, everyone is fussy again.

[RamrodHare]

Great, use Craiglist then. Hopefully you won't be robbed at gunpoint or defrauded with counterfeit currency or any of the other techniques that shady buyers use that aren't possible with Ebay. Without people to bid up items and raise final value fees, Ebay would make nothing as well. Ebay's profit comes from charging fees and percentages based on what consumers are paying to sellers not just on what sellers are listing. Also, the vast majority of Ebay sellers in the current era are larger sellers and businesses. Individual sellers are certainly important to collectors, but that's not the majority of Ebay's buying or selling pool and it hasn't been for a long time now.

I SAID GOOD DAY!

[atari181]

No, I expect sellers to be reasonable and rational, just like the vast majority of buyers. Ebay doesn't allow "free" returns unless certain criteria are met. One of those criteria is that the item is not as described. Now I agree in this case that the buyer had unreasonable expectations and should have asked questions, but as others have pointed out, the writing in the manuals was substantial and something that should have been disclosed if only to avoid potential misunderstandings. In this particular situation, I sympathize with both the buyer and the seller because both seem to have acted rationally and reasonably, but ultimately, a decision will have to be made by Ebay and I don't think it's a travesty to expect that the buyer should be able to do a return here.

 

As for your other points, you have a vested interest as a regular Ebay seller in limiting consumer protections. From Ebay and the consumer perspective, protecting customers is far more important than the seller because there is simply too much incentive for sellers to commit fraud or engage in misconduct otherwise and ultimately, sellers have a financial incentive to stay with Ebay while buyers do not. Frankly, I haven't had to open a dispute in years now, but I recall some sellers who really engaged in some shady behavior attempting to strong arm me into just eating the loss. I'm sure many less sophisticated buyers just ate the loss and then never used Ebay again.

 

long time eBay seller, yes Ebay does offer Free returns on anything, anytime. The buyer only needs to make up some bullshit reason why he doesn't want the item. Yes, bullshit reason, pretty much anything reason, Ebay deducts the cost from your account wether you agree or not.

[bojay1997]

 

Are you high? Your understanding of eBay's policy's and users is sadly inaccurate. Buyers abuse the system eBay has put in place to screw sellers over on a daily basis. EBay's policies just forced me into taking a return on an nes I sold over a month ago. The buyer said it did not work, when it came back it was 100% working fine. They kept the nes lot for a month and then returned it. Maybe they played it, maybe they changed their mind? Who knows, either way eBay's policies allow buyers to abuse and manipulate sellers. I took a $9 shipping loss for no reason.

 

Sellers have zero incentive to commit fraud, what fraud can they commit w/all the buyer protection? I do believe buyers have too much protection. Hell even when you prove a buyer screwed you, you can't even tarnish their name. A buyer can lie/cheat/steal and keep buying like nothing happened. A seller can bend over backwards, go above and beyond and still get feedback that is lies.

 

Wake up buddy, this isn't 10 years ago. Buyers/scammers abuse and take advantage of sellers everyday and if sellers dispute it the buyer just leaves a negative and/or send broken or different shit back. I had a person buy a game from me and open a not as described claim and sent me back some bullshit defective game that was completely different than I sent them.

 

The fact you are arguing that buyers should be allowed to screw us over and we should take it really irritates me. You as buyer don't feel it is right to get screwed and neither do I as a seller.

 

Look up the Golden Rule! You obviously missed being raised with proper morals.

I'm not arguing that buyers should be allowed to screw you over. What I am arguing is that ultimately in any marketplace, there has to be an inexpensive and easy way of determining disputes. You can't have a profitable and efficient marketplace if every claim is tried before a judge and jury. It's unfortunate that sometimes that means good sellers get screwed. However, if that means that the vast majority of buyers who are honest and reasonable are never screwed, that's frankly a risk I'm comfortable in supporting. As a seller you are trying to make money. Part of running a business and making money is understanding that there are risks. Obviously, you have made the calculation that the risks of Ebay are worth the additional profit you will make over Amazon or anywhere else that may offer more favorable terms to sellers or you wouldn't be using it. You can argue all you want about what's fair and what isn't. That won't change the fact that Ebay is pursuing the course that is best for its business and protecting consumers in the process.

[Tanooki]

Well the thing is ebay now forces people to use paypal. Paypal basically has all the protections and coverages of a good standard credit card company. Ebay doesn't need their archaic overreach of one (and heavy) sided handed crap they pull on sellers not allowing them any public visible way to defend themselves. Ebay doesn't need to be the arbitrator anymore at a general level allowing only buyers the right to attack and defend themselves to the eyes of the public.

 

The most damned people now are the light sellers those who may peddle a few dozen things or less a year. One twat of a buyer with some reason to pull the easy common scam you can see a 100% account drop into the 90-95% range in a single blow and that'll harm them badly in the eyes of a single glance buyer cracking their trust if they don't read why. Even if they do, you can't really defend yourself with the final word nor slap the bastard back on their account at all as the worst you can do in some cases is a neutral, usually just a positive. If you leave a positive, then write the scam in the comments, ebay will erase it every time and bust the seller for trying to warn others. There's no justice in that let alone any fairness of a level playing field between buyer and seller.

 

We have a user here Jin who is on a limited disability income who tends to flip stuff to make money to pay for his hobby, but at times just to eat food. Some asshole tried to take him for a ride and ebay ripped the money right out of his account as it drove him under (well) zero and did they give a shit up front? No. There were a few here offering to paypal him money so he wouldn't have to literally starve. Thankfully we talked him through what to do with ebay offline and they saw through the bullshit with American (not phony overseas card reading fake sympathy types) staff and put the money back in over night. He got lucky, it worked out not being scammed, but had he ran off whimpering about it to himself instead of in a sad rage bringing it up here would have likely been screwed as that case had been closed until reversed. Again another case of a shit bag scamming buyer he got taken to the poor house with to the point of potential starvation over a fucking piece of entertainment someone didn't want to pay for and just steal from a faceless ebay user. He couldn't leave any feedback to warn people or anything else leaving the guy open to do it again other than a likely faux promise of ebay to watch the guy for awhile to look for a pattern. Bah to that.

[gliptitude]

I'm not arguing that buyers should be allowed to screw you over. What I am arguing is that ultimately in any marketplace, there has to be an inexpensive and easy way of determining disputes.

 

It is NOT an inexpensive process. It is a FREE process to the buyer and it is effectively a free process for eBay, provided the sellers have done the math and realized it just doesn't make business sense to stand up for yourself in these disputes. It is only an expense to eBay if the seller wastes their time disputing it, enlisting the intervention of human customer service agents. Otherwise it is merely the software fulfilling its algorithms, which all sellers here, even those who don't seem to agree about the manual writing issue, seem to me to have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, have been designed to pigeonhole sellers.

 

It is not a free nor inexpensive process for the seller and it also is not an actual resolution to a dispute. It is an automatic default judgement. The moniker "Resolution Center" is a perceptual deterrent, i.e. only the fear and belief of its existence among the uninitiated has some effect of curbing scammers.

 

Does it make sense that THE ONLY party who ever pays for this process is THE ONLY party who doesn't stand any chance of ever winning these disputes? Do you really have a contrary way of describing that? Is that really a binary dispute to you?

 

The shipping is a significant part of the product, (especially on low cost items).. Obviously eBay agrees on this because they charge a sales commission on whatever you charge the buyer for shipping, just like they do on the listed item itself. In fact I believe it is an identical commission, so there is no capital distinction whatsover between item and shipping.

 

The way my listings have been set up, which is a way I believe I was encouraged and even pressured and yes also tricked into setting them up, I can't even account for the money I lost in this transaction. My personal property will have taken a two week long trip around the country, based on what is really only a CHANCE that John Lis will spend $30, about 19 of which would have been mine after the sum of fees and expenses, but in the end is a $10 or $12 expense to myself instead. .. Of course that $19 I would have netted wasn't all profit because I spent money to acquire these games in the past, (probably on eBay) and can longer account for that amount.

 

Is the $10 or $12 lost a lot of money to me? No not really. But it is over 50% of my expected interest in this transaction. eBay would not have made an investment under those terms. If I re-sell these at the same price and terms in the same market I will have paid to ship these three times. $30 - $3(eBay) - $1(paypal) - $15(absolute minimum 3x shipping, probably more) = $11. That is the maximum I will personally net under the same terms and it is still only a chance. If I fail the second time, my investment has vanished completely, 100% loss, third try would only be a CHANCE to break even, (provided "the market" has correctly determined the value to be $30).

 

I now know that it was a dumb risk on my part and I am not going to be offering these items under the same terms in that market again.

 

Basically I charged atariage prices but I bypassed the atariage seller protections, which for the most part is just the assumption that anyone you deal with here is your peer on some basic level. I think eBay also was previously set up as a community of peers, albeit a much less specialized one (altogether unspecialized), but it has quite decisively moved away from that. The clearest sign of that to me is the progressively declining transparency of the identities of buyers. It is practically anonymous and eBay has changed things to make it feel that way even more than it actually is that way, to the point where the buyers don't even know in their own minds whether or not they are accountable.

 

I am particularly sensitive in this case because they are Vectrex items, which I have a deep and protracted experience with. So I am kind of proned to take it personally when a stranger disregards what I know to be the value of these things, not just monetarily but also in terms of usefulness and the qualities of enlightenment that I know them to contain. I don't see how you can even be in the market for these items and not know that.

 

I believe that this buyer has disregarded me and also that he has disregarded the true value of these items and the service entailed in providing them to him.

 

Having now challenged him and had a public debate and a scrutinizing evaluation in an actual community of peers, including that individual himself, it is now my belief that this person disregarded me without intending to, that this person generally disregards other people and that this person was trained to do this without his knowledge. He was trained to simultaneously have unreasonably high standards and then also have no personal agency in attaining these high standards, expecting to attain them simply by choosing them. He was trained to do this by eBay. Now he is waiting for eBay to tell him what's right.

 

eBay is not an oracle. eBay is a perfect machine for the global devaluation of material goods and services. eBay reduces the value of material in terms of capital, by pitting virtually every merchant on the globe in competition with every other merchant on the globe, to the audience of virtually every potential customer on the globe - instantaneously.

 

The intended absolute authority of value based description and categorization, uniformly searchable on eBay, has led to an unprecedented empowerment of consumers. Coupled with the culture of Free Shipping and Free Returns, it has led to a tyranny of consumer entitlement.

 

eBay is not the sole inventor of this concept but they are one of the biggest contributors to it and have been formative in this outcome.

[bojay1997]

It is NOT an inexpensive process. It is a FREE process to the buyer and it is effectively a free process for eBay, provided the sellers have done the math and realized it just doesn't make business sense to stand up for yourself in these disputes. It is only an expense to eBay if the seller wastes their time disputing it, enlisting the intervention of human customer service agents. Otherwise it is merely the software fulfilling its algorithms, which all sellers here, even those who don't seem to agree about the manual writing issue, seem to me to have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, have been designed to pigeonhole sellers.

 

It is not a free nor inexpensive process for the seller and it also is not an actual resolution to a dispute. It is an automatic default judgement. The moniker "Resolution Center" is a perceptual deterrent, i.e. only the fear and belief of its existence among the uninitiated has some effect of curbing scammers.

 

Does it make sense that THE ONLY party who ever pays for this process is THE ONLY party who doesn't stand any chance of ever winning these disputes? Do you really have a contrary way of describing that? Is that really a binary dispute to you?

 

The shipping is a significant part of the product, (especially on low cost items).. Obviously eBay agrees on this because they charge a sales commission on whatever you charge the buyer for shipping, just like they do on the listed item itself. In fact I believe it is an identical commission, so there is no capital distinction whatsover between item and shipping.

 

The way my listings have been set up, which is a way I believe I was encouraged and even pressured and yes also tricked into setting them up, I can't even account for the money I lost in this transaction. My personal property will have taken a two week long trip around the country, based on what is really only a CHANCE that John Lis will spend $30, about 19 of which would have been mine after the sum of fees and expenses, but in the end is a $10 or $12 expense to myself instead. .. Of course that $19 I would have netted wasn't all profit because I spent money to acquire these games in the past, (probably on eBay) and can longer account for that amount.

 

Is the $10 or $12 lost a lot of money to me? No not really. But it is over 50% of my expected interest in this transaction. eBay would not have made an investment under those terms. If I re-sell these at the same price and terms in the same market I will have paid to ship these three times. $30 - $3(eBay) - $1(paypal) - $15(absolute minimum 3x shipping, probably more) = $11. That is the maximum I will personally net under the same terms and it is still only a chance. If I fail the second time, my investment has vanished completely, 100% loss, third try would only be a CHANCE to break even, (provided "the market" has correctly determined the value to be $30).

 

I now know that it was a dumb risk on my part and I am not going to be offering these items under the same terms in that market again.

 

Basically I charged atariage prices but I bypassed the atariage seller protections, which for the most part is just the assumption that anyone you deal with here is your peer on some basic level. I think eBay also was previously set up as a community of peers, albeit a much less specialized one (altogether unspecialized), but it has quite decisively moved away from that. The clearest sign of that to me is the progressively declining transparency of the identities of buyers. It is practically anonymous and eBay has changed things to make it feel that way even more than it actually is that way, to the point where the buyers don't even know in their own minds whether or not they are accountable.

 

I am particularly sensitive in this case because they are Vectrex items, which I have a deep and protracted experience with. So I am kind of proned to take it personally when a stranger disregards what I know to be the value of these things, not just monetarily but also in terms of usefulness and the qualities of enlightenment that I know them to contain. I don't see how you can even be in the market for these items and not know that.

 

I believe that this buyer has disregarded me and also that he has disregarded the true value of these items and the service entailed in providing them to him.

 

Having now challenged him and had a public debate and a scrutinizing evaluation in an actual community of peers, including that individual himself, it is now my belief that this person disregarded me without intending to, that this person generally disregards other people and that this person was trained to do this without his knowledge. He was trained to simultaneously have unreasonably high standards and then also have no personal agency in attaining these high standards, expecting to attain them simply by choosing them. He was trained to do this by eBay. Now he is waiting for eBay to tell him what's right.

 

eBay is not an oracle. eBay is a perfect machine for the global devaluation of material goods and services. eBay reduces the value of material in terms of capital, by pitting virtually every merchant on the globe in competition with every other merchant on the globe, to the audience of virtually every potential customer on the globe - instantaneously.

 

The intended absolute authority of value based description and categorization, uniformly searchable on eBay, has led to an unprecedented empowerment of consumers. Coupled with the culture of Free Shipping and Free Returns, it has led to a tyranny of consumer entitlement.

 

eBay is not the sole inventor of this concept but they are one of the biggest contributors to it and have been formative in this outcome.

This all seems to just prove my earlier point that you were never interested in a reasonable discussion at all. You came in here with a strong position that you hoped would be validated by temporarily masking your true identity as the seller. You can argue in philosophical terms from now until the end of time, but you're not going to get a lot of support for the idea that consumer protection is tryannical. I also don't agree that the buyer disregarded you. In fact, I think you disregarded the seller and the process by not taking five seconds to even accurately understand and document what it is you were selling. Had I been in the buyer's position, I wouldn't have opened a dispute or sought a return, but I sure as heck would have never bought anything from you again. The fact that you are playing this whole minor situation out on a public forum speaks to the kind of person you are and frankly doesn't reflect positively on who that might be.

[gliptitude]

This all seems to just prove my earlier point that you were never interested in a reasonable discussion at all. You came in here with a strong position that you hoped would be validated by temporarily masking your true identity as the seller. You can argue in philosophical terms from now until the end of time, but you're not going to get a lot of support for the idea that consumer protection is tryannical. I also don't agree that the buyer disregarded you. In fact, I think you disregarded the seller and the process by not taking five seconds to even accurately understand and document what it is you were selling. Had I been in the buyer's position, I wouldn't have opened a dispute or sought a return, but I sure as heck would have never bought anything from you again. The fact that you are playing this whole minor situation out on a public forum speaks to the kind of person you are and frankly doesn't reflect positively on who that might be.

 

Hmm. Honestly your comment becomes more intriguing each time I read it and I really wonder what you are committed to. You definitely do not seem to be enjoying yourself.

 

I don't see how the philosophical aspects of my statements constitute a deception or an imposition or a conflict of any kind and I know that some participants besides myself have enjoyed the discussion. I certainly do hope to keep it interesting for others and I think it's pretty impressive that a conversation of this nature has sustained as much participation as it has. A couple people have PM'd me about it.

 

I'm not arguing that "consumer protection is tyrannical" as a blanket statement. I can't tell if you are misrepresenting me on purpose or if that is actually your interpretation. I'm not talking about everything. I'm talking about the things I'm talking about. At least that's my intention. In your vague and insinuating way you seem to be threatening me with peer pressure and some sort of moral reckoning.

 

I'm not sure what kind of person I am but I think it's pretty underhanded for you to make these insinuations. I think it is to my credit and not to my detriment that I have been able to frame such a minor situation in a way that it seemed relevant to other people. Isn't the volume of participation evidence of that? That it is relevant to other people? That it isn't just about my $19? That's not even what it's about to me.

 

Obviously I would be happy for you to avoid buying from me and that's nothing for you to sass me about or expect me to be offended by. My ebay username, if you don't see it on the item page, is staple2559. My name in real life is Jason Dellinger. I don't want to be dealing with people who don't want to be dealing with me. Maybe I need to communicate more clearly to my potential buyers.

Edited January 10, 2018 by gliptitude

[icemanxp300]

Don't waste your time on Bojay, I had him filtered before this thread and honestly can't tell you what for but based on his responses here it was a good choice. He has already made it clear he is in favor of sellers getting screwed to make sure he doesn't.

[bojay1997]

Don't waste your time on Bojay, I had him filtered before this thread and honestly can't tell you what for but based on his responses here it was a good choice. He has already made it clear he is in favor of sellers getting screwed to make sure he doesn't.

Ah yes, the old "I can't handle a rational discussion so I have blocked everyone who ever has disagreed with me" and the "I will make a point of devaluing a discussion with someone I blocked by telling everyone I blocked them and that they are a waste of time". Short of bots and other spam posters, I have never blocked anyone and if I don't want to engage with others, I just won't. Frankly, anyone that makes a point of blocking someone else is really just a narcissist looking to call attention to themselves.