The Unwritten Rules of Forum Transactions

[bdrr]

Hopefully many of you recently read the ESPN article on the "unwritten rules of baseball." The article, among other things, debates whether the unwritten rules are dead due to combination increased pressue from the league office, higher player salaries, and media attention.

I've been trading online since the Beckett user pages (html) in the late 90s back before I was even a teenage drama queen. Some of you have probably been around longer than that. Over the course of development of online trading, there have been what I believe are number of unwritten rules developed that govern acceptable forum behavior. Many continue to be the topic of debate today as to exactly what their extent is, so obviously there will be disagreement with some which I describe.

However, I think it's important that we reitterate and discuss their existance and application because they are increasingly being ignored on this website. I like to joke that Blowout is the Wild West of online trading, much like the old days on the original Beckett message boards. However, like the Wild West, the unwritten rules provided structure. Without them, there is anarachy.

These "rules" are, of course, never absolute. They are understood to be modified by any number of circumstances.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, and I would hope that you will respond with both discussions of these rules as well as those which have been omitted.

Generally

All cards are assumed to be in nr-mt or better conditon

This is the standard condition cards can be expected to be pulled from packs. If you need to know whether an item is mint or gem mint, ask. Conversely, if an item is in less than nr-mt condition, it must be described.

_______Exception: where cards are generally expected to be graded

You might call this the Bowman Chrome rule. Applies to more valuable BC rookies and like products/items. Here there may be a higher standard - likely "mint." You should describe a card that you know will not grade higher than 8.5.

Who gets to buy the card

First in time is first in line.

Being first in time does not give a prospective buyer the right to purchase an item absolutely. However it does give that prospect buyer the privilege of having the first affirmative chance to purchase the item. Should that person not respond within confirmation within a reasonable amount of time, fail to pay, or otherwise not conclude the transaction then it goes to the next person in line.

Creating bidding wars from multiple claimants is unacceptable

If you post a card for sale at $X or $X OBO and a party claims to purchase for the full price $X, that person has the privilege of buying for $X first. Any subsequent claimer forms a line (see above). The seller may not ask either claiming party if they will pay more in an attempt to create a bidding war.

Snaking a purchase is unacceptable

If you see that a person has claimed an item in a thread, sending a PM with the hope that the OP has not seen the claim is unacceptable. Inquiries into whether the claimer has indeed purchased the item - as in, claiming a spot 'in line' are acceptable.

Sellers are responsible for checking time stamps

If you are a seller and have not stated a precise rule for staking a claim - as in, "first to PM" "first to post" etc. - you are responsible for checking the time stamps of PMs against posts. Where both are valid methods of claim, it doesn't become "whatever you see first."

Trades

The OP or Addressee determines the medium of exchange.

When you visit your neighbor's house you abide by your neighbor's rules. If you reply to a poster's thread or PM a user expressing interest in their card, they get to determine the medium of exchange. If you do not like the medium they choose, you do not have to trade with them. You do not get to attack that person as unreasonable.

_______ Correlary: Thou shall be consistent

If you try to switch back and forth between BV and SV depending on which gives you the best advantage, you are a PoS and should be subjected to public ridicule.

There is no trade until both parties have exchanged addresses

There is no formal agreement to make a trade until both parties have exchanged addresses. Until that time comes, either party may back out (you might still be a dick for doing so, but no more than that).

The OP gets to determine whether the expression of interest creates a line in a trade thread

Some OPs prefer to give the first responder the first chance to trade for a card. Some OPs prefer to negotiate with several responders at once. This is entirely the decision of the OP, and does not need to be stated in the thread. Any objection by a responder that they replied first or alternatively were not given a chance to make a trade offer is inherently unreasonable.


Payment and Shipment

Do not send payment information accompanying a counteroffer. Unless the difference is de minimis

Do not do this.

OP: $200 OBO
Respondant: $120
OP: $150. Plz send 2 buymyshit@dickface.com kkthx

Conversely, this is acceptable but not advised.

OP: $200 OBO
Respondant: $120
OP: $125. If interested, remit payment to justneedshipping@wereclose.com

Ideally, you should never send payment information (as in, act as if there is an agreement) until the buyer actually agrees.

Buyer has a reasonable time to pay

What is reasonable is a subject of debate. There is a consesus that it is virtually never more than 24 hours. This, of course, is specifically modifiable by agreement (I'll take it if I can pay Tuesday) or was specifically mentioned in the terms or via the offer to purchase (I need payment in the next hour).

Seller has a reasonable time to ship

Same as above. Subject to debate. Consensus of no more than three days after the date money changes hands.

If there is a delay in shipment - say something

Seriously. Inform the buyer. It's not as if they're not going to find out anyway. You know, when the package doesn't show up for two weeks and the postmark/tracking information shows exactly when you finally got around to putting it out.

Shipment must always be in a bubble mailer unless specifically agreed otherwise

It's sad that I even needed to write this one. Yes, I have had somebody mail PWE within the last six months. And after they specifically charged me for a bubble.

[thenwhatjk]

I hope you did this on the clock at the full time job

[MeetJSquared]

This would be a nice stickie.

[bdrr]

Originally Posted by thenwhatjk

I hope you did this on the clock at the full time job

I totally did, too.

[bdrr]

Added one more. That one more the reason I made this thread in the first place.

[bdrr]

Originally Posted by MeetJSquared

This would be a nice stickie.

If you want a sticky, I will totally write a Restatement of Acceptable Forum Practice complete with fancy §s and editors notes.

However, If I do so, then I become the law.

[jason122883]

Snaking happens all too often. Running Back was notorious for that move

[JMarchand1981]

This should be a sticky for sure. Btw, will you be billing BO for your consulting here?

[ssbledsoe]

Good stuff in here. Nice job OP.

[Clarka3]

Bravo.


Might want to add a bit on deal language. I.e. an ill take it means the buyer is accepting the sellers terms (price etc)

[hugh]

Originally Posted by thenwhatjk

I hope you did this on the clock at the full time job

while getting paid overtime and using work computer and work printer paper

[bdoody42]

Where did you get my email for that $150 deal you mentioned at the top?

[calculusdork]

Really disappointed that clownass.fart didn't make an appearance in the email addresses

Nice post, should be stickied.

[sheriffjoebear]

What about this scenario:

Op posts a card for $200 obo
1st responder says I'll offer you $150
2nd responder follows up immediately with I'll take it for full price

Should the card automatically go to 2nd responder? Or does 1st responder have a right of refusal at full price?

Great topic. Thanks for posting.

[Addison]

Originally Posted by sheriffjoebear

What about this scenario:

Op posts a card for $200 obo
1st responder says I'll offer you $150
2nd responder follows up immediately with I'll take it for full price

Should the card automatically go to 2nd responder? Or does 1st responder have a right of refusal at full price?

Great topic. Thanks for posting.

Full price offer supersedes best offer.

[bdrr]

Originally Posted by Addison

Full price offer supersedes best offer.

^^ Always.

[bdrr]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

Bravo.


Might want to add a bit on deal language. I.e. an ill take it means the buyer is accepting the sellers terms (price etc)

It depends a lot on the context.

Language must be unequivocal to satisfy the "first in time is first in line" rule. That is, there is no other interpretation other than "yes, I want to buy the card." Saying something like "PM me" or "interested" does not indicate a clear intent to purchase.

I think it's fair to say that such a statement, without reservation, accepts whatever terms are stated in the thread. However, sellers frequently fail to list terms - the most common being a S/H charge or shipment delay. These are really modifications and no buyer should be beholden to them. A claim does not automatically accept a possible change in material terms.

There are two theories as to whether such language via a claim or PM creates an obligation to buy.

The majority theory, which is really just basic contract law, requires a confirmation on the part of the parties agreeing to the final terms (meeting of the minds). This covers for possible pitfalls, such as the item no longer being available, additional terms, or the prospective buyer moving on to a different purchase (which happens, and is not necessarily always wrong depending on the facts).

The minority theory, which you might call the hand-shake theory, assumes that a person who indicates intent to purchase must follow through unless the terms as stated were incomplete or the item was no longer available. You'll see call-out threads on this from time-to-time. I personally don't care for this interpretation of the rule. For example, we then have to decide how long a claim has effect before it expires. As in, if buyer only has $X and claims a card from Seller A for $X how long does he have to wait for Seller A to respond before buying a card from Seller B instead? It's problematic because forcing people to wait is inefficient. Obviously, a person not waiting at all is annoying, but I think overall the harm is lower. I also think that it's unfair in that it protects the seller (to the greatest extent, he can cancel the transaction merely by not responding) but obligates the buyer.

[Cubs_rock21]

How about once mystery redemptions are reveal the seller no longer has to sell at his listed price. A buyer wouldn't pay 300 for a mystery redemption if the player turns out to be Neil Walker, but they would jump on it if the player is Kris Bryant. Thus once a lottery ticket is scratched a new value can be assigned without people whining.

[JDOE]

I was surprised to not see it listed, but you should add once the deal is done to your satisfaction, whether buyer or seller, you should leave appropriate feedback.

And buyers should always attempt to contact the sellers for issues before neg-bombing them or opening cases, calling-out, etc.

[bdrr]

Originally Posted by Cubs_rock21

How about once mystery redemptions are reveal the seller no longer has to sell at his listed price. A buyer wouldn't pay 300 for a mystery redemption if the player turns out to be Neil Walker, but they would jump on it if the player is Kris Bryant. Thus once a lottery ticket is scratched a new value can be assigned without people whining.

Well, this has more to do with the question of when a "for sale" thread lapses.

I agree that this is something that needed to be addressed; however I deliberately left it out because I only had so much time (while at work) which I could put towards quickly typing it out.

You have to break it down -

a) How long does it take for a "for sale" thread to lapse, generally, from the initial posting or from the last refresh (via a bump by OP)? I don't know if I've ever seen a long debate on this issue, but I think that it's safe to say it's about 24 hours. A price is normally valid for as long as the prohibition on bumping. After that 24 hour mark, you can make your intent to refresh the price known by bumping the thread. If a thread has not been bumped, I feel like you have to accept the possibility it might be because the OP no longer wanted to sell at that price. None of this is to say that an OP shouldn't just edit the thread to reflect a new price or that he's no longer interested in selling, nor that you should not contact the OP to see if that price is still valid. I am only describing what I believe is a possible guideline - 24 hours from post.

b) What sort of conditions are sufficient to lapse a "for sale" thread? I think in your example, it obviously lapses. A post made at 1 PM offering a mystery at price $X can no longer be valid at 8 PM after the player is revealed. However, I think that the mystery redemption example is really the less common scenario. There was a HUGE callout thread about a year ago - Yu Darvish in one of his early starts of the season was perfect through 7 innings. A member had posted an autograph RC for sale at $100 before the game started. Obviously, had Darvish completed the perfect game it would have been worth a lot more. The buyer was clearly trying to be an opportunist; but the question remained: did the price lapse? That's tough. The rules want to discourage opportunism. However, there was no guarantee Darvish was going to finish perfect - and in fact he did not. So, are we to say the price lapsed as of the 7th inning and then became valid again after the game finished? Well, that's problematic because you can't have something lapse and then rebirthed. Also, it would create a rule that a price lapses virtually any time a player happens to be in the process of having strong game that night. I think, the difference between the Mystery Redemption example and the Perfect Game hypothetical is that the former the change in condition is definite and permanent. In the latter case, it remains merely possible. I would agree that had Darvish thrown a perfect game a price from earlier that afternoon would lapse (because at that point, it is both definite and permanent). However, I would not be comfortable describing some sort of rule which exists as to what happens during the game. I don't believe that the community as a whole has really dealt with that issue in detail. I think it's actually better to leave that to be dealt with if and when it comes up.

c) Where money has exchanged hands: I'm sorry - if money exchanged hands, too bad. You made a sale, period. There is no opt out. I would say the same thing if a trade was concluded as described above. It was just unfortunate timing on your part.

[bdrr]

Originally Posted by JDOE

I was surprised to not see it listed, but you should add once the deal is done to your satisfaction, whether buyer or seller, you should leave appropriate feedback.

And buyers should always attempt to contact the sellers for issues before neg-bombing them or opening cases, calling-out, etc.

(1) Feedback

There is debate as to whether feedback should ALWAYS be left. Many people say that it is just to document a successful transaction. Others say that accurate feedback is important to gauging a transaction. Others say that sometimes the behavior of a party doesn't warrant a stigmatizing feedback (neutral/negative) but was problematic in some manner in that they don't deserve a positive. Obviously, this last theory would preclude the exchange of feedback as a rule. Rather, I suppose it would be described as a courtesy.

However - the one rule on feedback exchange I will note: sellers do not need to leave feedback immediately upon payment; traders do not need to leave feedback immediately upon receipt of their end. No feedback is ever required until the transaction is completely concluded. Such a rule would be premature in that there is plenty the other party can do to complicate the transaction after payment has been made or item was received.

(2) Dispute Resolution

Your second assertion is absolutely correct, and definitely needs to be given more attention on BO. There is a stark preference for people to take care of things privately first. Besides, until you attempt to do so (and they refuse), there isn't much grounds for the call out in the first place!

[chipmaster]

Originally Posted by jason122883

Snaking happens all too often. Running Back was notorious for that move

What is snaking?

[bdrr]

Originally Posted by chipmaster

What is snaking?

Snaking is the act of trying to steal a purchase away from another member who claimed the item as a posted price or otherwise concluded a deal, usually by trying to offer a slightly higher amount. Most frequently, the snaking member contacts the seller via pm to try and hide their actions. In extreme cases, snakers convince unscrupulous sellers to go as far as refunding a buyer of the price already paid (yes this does happen).

[MLH]

Some people are just too inconsiderate to leave feedback at all. I just bought a card (which i paid for immediately), left feedback when i received the card, and messaged the seller to let him know i got it. No feedback left for me. Some people are just dbags when it comes to itraders.

[smackvay]

Originally Posted by MLH

Some people are just too inconsiderate to leave feedback at all. I just bought a card (which i paid for immediately), left feedback when i received the card, and messaged the seller to let him know i got it. No feedback left for me. Some people are just dbags when it comes to itraders.

Some people do not think fdback is important
I ALWAYS leave fdback within 5 minutes of getting payment