Recommend
11 
 Thumb up
 Hide
417 Posts
[1]  Prev «  12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16  Next »  [17] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » Trades

Subject: Discussion Thread for the UK Maths Trade April 2019 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David M
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
davymast wrote:
Here's exactly what he said:

Quote:
The compensation is decided by the value of item(s) you sent plus the postage you paid to ship your item, rather than the value of items you were supposed to receive.


Is this right? I don't see this written in the rules. It doesn't make sense to me that this would be the rule. Surely if you're claiming compensation for a lost item, you claim the amount the item was worth. No courier would reimburse for something that was sent by someone else, to a third party. Or am I missing something?

What should I do in this situation?
I don't have a problem with this. It means you haven't lost out. You haven't "gained", but you haven't lost out. the rules are deficient in many areas, this being one.

The basic concept of insurance (for example) is to put you back in the same place you were before the "insurable event" occurred. In your case that means having the game you traded away (in the same or better condition) plus the postage you paid out.

It has long been the principle in MTs that in the event of an item being lost, the sender "makes good". "Making good" must include putting you back in the same position you were before the trade.

I know you feel you have "lost out" but you have only "lost out" in the same sense of "losing out" that happens after a re-run, although of course you got a lot closer to getting the game you wanted in this case!

I'm sure that a "rude and accusatory" message from the sender didn't help the matter on little bit, and was quite inflammatory (and why on earth s/he would have done that is beyond me - it's easy enough to check tracking with shipments by myhermes). One can be assertive without being nasty and when you have failed in your duty (even if a third party is responsible) a little humility and politeness is the minimum to be expected.

In conclusion then, the offer from the sender is compatible with "making good" even if their attitude stinks. Should they be made to cough-up some extra cash/value because of the way they went about things? No, sorry.

davymast wrote:
It seems he would be happy making a profit, as he could claim back the full value, and then send me something worth half (or less than half) of that. Plus he has the game he received in the trade.


m Hermes standard compensation is £25*. However if s/he booked the package via parcel2go for example it's likely the compensation was £0 (that's one way in which p2g can quote cheaper prices than the courier themselves).

* https://www.myhermes.co.uk/home/help/news/Parcel-Cover-Updat...

If s/he receives compensation of £25 from myhermes then s/he should pay that over to you, notwithstanding what I wrote above.


That all makes sense, thanks. Appreciate being listened to here. Sharon is overseeing things now.

Agreed, his accusatory tone and attitude of "I'm telling you exactly how this works, like it or lump it" really didn't help matters. As the rules are being updated, it would be good to have a clear outline of what happens in these situations.

Plus the patronising red highlights
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sa266 wrote:
the problem is deciding the value of the items, which the two traders disagree on.
No it isn't. The problem (if there is one) is merely deciding what "making good" means. In this case the sender cannot obtain the missing items elsewhere (a bundle of expansions).

Absent a mutual agreement between the parties there is one objectively fair option left (a) plus another option which might benefit the receiver in this case (b):

(-) replace the missing item(s)
(a) The sender replaces the game the receiver traded-away
(b) the sender claims compensation from the carrier and pays it to the receiver (if "better" than (a0)

plus paying the receiver's outgoing postage in both cases.

It is NOT the job of the moderator to divine the value of any item especially in this case where the receiver's valuation (£35) differs greatly from the actual value (£12.62 new, delivered).
Edit: The item has been available from amazon for less than £15 since January.

It Is the job of the moderator to (try to) ensure the aggrieved party is "made whole". Both (a0 and (b) do that.

Please don't discover another "unwritten rule" which flies in the face of MT principles.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
davymast wrote:
Agreed, his accusatory tone and attitude of "I'm telling you exactly how this works, like it or lump it" really didn't help matters. As the rules are being updated, it would be good to have a clear outline of what happens in these situations.

Plus the patronising red highlights
That would wind me up too. but - and I'm only suggesting this as a possibility - do allow for the fact that English might not be the writer's first language and s/he might not be familiar with how to 'soften' the tone of written language or be nuanced enough - lord knows I infuriate people with my writing and English *is* my first language
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dancj wrote:
It's unfortunate, but if you're getting back the game you sent along with money to cover the postage cost, then you haven't actually lost out. Seems reasonable to me.


I think the issue is that they HAVE lost out. What they sent at the time was worth 2-3 times what it is now. They 'cashed in' at its most valuable. So getting it back now is like selling a bottle of water in a drought and then be given back a bottle of water in payment when it's heavily raining. it's not a like-for-like exchange.

If the recompense was provide at the time of the parcel loss, that's one thing. But waiting 2 months until the compensation provided is less is the issue.

It simply isn't so simple as some are portraying.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
sa266 wrote:
the problem is deciding the value of the items, which the two traders disagree on.
No it isn't. The problem (if there is one) is merely deciding what "making good" means. In this case the sender cannot obtain the missing items elsewhere (a bundle of expansions).

Absent a mutual agreement between the parties there is one objectively fair option left (a) plus another option which might benefit the receiver in this case (b):

(-) replace the missing item(s)
(a) The sender replaces the game the receiver traded-away
(b) the sender claims compensation from the carrier and pays it to the receiver (if "better" than (a0)

plus paying the receiver's outgoing postage in both cases.

It is NOT the job of the moderator to divine the value of any item especially in this case where the receiver's valuation (£35) differs greatly from the actual value (£12.62 new, delivered).

It Is the job of the moderator to (try to) ensure the aggrieved party is "made whole". Both (a0 and (b) do that.

Please don't discover another "unwritten rule" which flies in the face of MT principles.


You're ignoring the nuance of this case and also chiming in once the moderator has already said that THEY are dealing with it. You don't get to tell the moderator what they are and are not allowed to do.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
It simply isn't so simple as some are portraying.
It mustn't be made more complicated than it is. The issue is simply one of making whole now (using basic principles of insurance) not a divination of value at some time in the past.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
enoon wrote:
sa266 wrote:
the problem is deciding the value of the items, which the two traders disagree on.
No it isn't. The problem (if there is one) is merely deciding what "making good" means. In this case the sender cannot obtain the missing items elsewhere (a bundle of expansions).

Absent a mutual agreement between the parties there is one objectively fair option left (a) plus another option which might benefit the receiver in this case (b):

(-) replace the missing item(s)
(a) The sender replaces the game the receiver traded-away
(b) the sender claims compensation from the carrier and pays it to the receiver (if "better" than (a0)

plus paying the receiver's outgoing postage in both cases.

It is NOT the job of the moderator to divine the value of any item especially in this case where the receiver's valuation (£35) differs greatly from the actual value (£12.62 new, delivered).

It Is the job of the moderator to (try to) ensure the aggrieved party is "made whole". Both (a0 and (b) do that.

Please don't discover another "unwritten rule" which flies in the face of MT principles.


You're ignoring the nuance of this case and also chiming in once the moderator has already said that THEY are dealing with it.
There are no nuances here.

negatrev wrote:
You don't get to tell the moderator what they are and are not allowed to do.
I do. I just have. She might or might not come to the same conclusion, but she will need to justify her decision in any event.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
It simply isn't so simple as some are portraying.
It mustn't be made more complicated than it is. The issue is simply one of making whole now (using basic principles of insurance) not a divination of value at some time in the past.


If that WERE the case, using the basic principles of insurance, they would recompensed for what they were supposed to receive then, not what they gave away.

Again, you can't ignore a value shift.

I tell you what. I'll buy your Discworld: Ankh-Morpork for £80. However, at any point in the future if it gets reprinted (it won't, but stay with me) I demand that you buy it back off me for £80.

Obviously you wouldn't because the time has passed and it's not worth £80 anymore.

So, if I bought this game off you, but asked to wait 2 months to pay you. Then it was only worth £30 2 months later, what money would YOU expect, £30 or £80?

The sender agreed to trade this item when it was worth £30+. They wouldn't have traded it for only £12 value. They would've instead traded it elsewhere or sold it for more. But waiting 2 months to compensate they have been denied this value. They are NOT being made whole.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:


negatrev wrote:
You don't get to tell the moderator what they are and are not allowed to do.
I do. I just have. She might or might not come to the same conclusion, but she will need to justify her decision in any event.


If you thought you were only giving advice, rather than orders, you seriously need to review HOW you say things.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
You don't get to tell the moderator what they are and are not allowed to do.
I do. I just have. She might or might not come to the same conclusion, but she will need to justify her decision in any event.
If you thought you were only giving advice, rather than orders, you seriously need to review HOW you say things.
You are quite familiar with the way I write; how you interpret what I write is a matter for you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
If that WERE the case, using the basic principles of insurance, they would recompensed for what they were supposed to receive then, not what they gave away.
Wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
The sender agreed to trade this item when it he thought it was worth £30+. They wouldn't have traded it for only £12 value.
We all know the valuation of (our) items is hugely subjective. You have accepted the aggrieved party's valuation seemingly without question.

Objectively from the BGG marketplace we can see this has never been "worth" £35 (except perhaps on 2018-06-23 11:23:06 in the US).

The "camelizer" tells us that this has been available from e.g. Amazon for less than £15 since January. The aggrieved party in this case would be best accepting either a replacement or whatever compensation the carrier pays out whichever is "better".



However, even if we can now see that the value of this item has always been less than £15 (it is not always this simple, mind), that is not the nub of the issue at hand.

The more general issue is what constitutes making good, and it has "always been":

(a) replace the missing item(s)
(b1) replace the item(s) traded away
(b2) pay over any compensation from the carrier (if agreeable)
(c) a mutual agreement

(a) and (b) can also involve the current price of the item(s).

The wheel does not need to be reinvented. The moderator only needs to engage in a "creative" or arbitrary solution when none of the above are possible. In this case (a) can't be done, (c) hasn't been achieved but (b) is possible.

The answer is (b1) or (b2) (plus the out-of-pocket postage, of course).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
The sender agreed to trade this item when it he thought it was worth £30+. They wouldn't have traded it for only £12 value.
We all know the valuation of (our) items is hugely subjective. You have accepted the aggrieved party's valuation seemingly without question.

Objectively from the BGG marketplace we can see this has never been "worth" £35 (except perhaps on 2018-06-23 11:23:06 in the US).

The "camelizer" tells us that this has been available from e.g. Amazon for less than £15 since January. The aggrieved party in this case would be best accepting either a replacement or whatever compensation the carrier pays out whichever is "better".



However, even if we can now see that the value of this item has always been less than £15 (it is not always this simple, mind), that is not the nub of the issue at hand.

The more general issue is what constitutes making good, and it has "always been":

(a) replace the missing item(s)
(b1) replace the item(s) traded away
(b2) pay over any compensation from the carrier (if agreeable)
(c) a mutual agreement

(a) and (b) can also involve the current price of the item(s).

The wheel does not need to be reinvented. The moderator only needs to engage in a "creative" or arbitrary solution when none of the above are possible. In this case (a) can't be done, (c) hasn't been achieved but (b) is possible.

The answer is (b1) or (b2) (plus the out-of-pocket postage, of course).


Obviously worth is subjective. But we weren't discussing if their particular claim of worth was valid (as this particular arbitration is with Sharon). You claimed it's always a simple 'making good'. I pointed out (with a clear example) why it isn't that simple in cases like this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
Obviously worth is subjective. But we weren't discussing if their particular claim of worth was valid (as this particular arbitration is with Sharon).
No arbitration is necessary - just a statement of the solution (b2) or (b2) in accordance with long-standing principles (not so much "unwritten" as "written by precedent").

negatrev wrote:
You claimed it's always a simple 'making good'.
I pointed out the principles. They are simple.

Problems arise only when the three basic principles cannot be met: a replacement for the missing item cannot be sourced (or the sender is unwilling so to do; a replacement for the item traded away cannot be sourced (or the sender is unwilling so to do); a mutual agreement cannot be achieved. In this case a solution is possible.

When a solution is not found (it is almost always possible though), objective measures of value must be used, not the trader's subjective valuation.

negatrev wrote:
I pointed out (with a clear example) why it isn't that simple in cases like this.
Your example was far from clear. In a case like this the solution is simple, qed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:

negatrev wrote:
I pointed out (with a clear example) why it isn't that simple in cases like this.
Your example was far from clear. In a case like this the solution is simple, qed.


So you'd been fine with me paying you less than I agreed to if I waited 2 months to pay you for something and it's value depreciated in the interim?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
I pointed out (with a clear example) why it isn't that simple in cases like this.
Your example was far from clear. In a case like this the solution is simple, qed.
So you'd been fine with me paying you less than I agreed to if I waited 2 months to pay you for something and it's value depreciated in the interim?
If we had agreed on a price (which is only peripherally related to value) then you would be paying me the agreed price not a "value" at any arbitrary point in time.

Even "futures contracts" (which is what your example is most like) are based on price, not value. The market decides the value, the contracting parties agree a price.

It's a mistake to conflate price and value.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
I pointed out (with a clear example) why it isn't that simple in cases like this.
Your example was far from clear. In a case like this the solution is simple, qed.
So you'd been fine with me paying you less than I agreed to if I waited 2 months to pay you for something and it's value depreciated in the interim?
If we had agreed on a price (which is only peripherally related to value) then you would be paying me the agreed price not a "value" at any arbitrary point in time.

Even "futures contracts" (which is what your example is most like) are based on price, not value. The market decides the value, the contracting parties agree a price.

It's a mistake to conflate price and value.


It is a mistake. Which was my point exactly.
You have decided that it's okay to give him something in return of different value than what was given away. Value <> price and that's why the case is nuanced.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
I pointed out (with a clear example) why it isn't that simple in cases like this.
Your example was far from clear. In a case like this the solution is simple, qed.
So you'd been fine with me paying you less than I agreed to if I waited 2 months to pay you for something and it's value depreciated in the interim?
If we had agreed on a price (which is only peripherally related to value) then you would be paying me the agreed price not a "value" at any arbitrary point in time.

Even "futures contracts" (which is what your example is most like) are based on price, not value. The market decides the value, the contracting parties agree a price.

It's a mistake to conflate price and value.


It is a mistake. Which was my point exactly.
You have decided that it's okay to give him something in return of different value than what was given away. Value <> price and that's why the case is nuanced.
The (extant) case is NOT nuanced! An equitable and reasoned solution exists. ((b1) or (b2) in my example above).

The general principles applicable to all cases are not nuanced; an equitable solution is almost always possible (and should be described "in the rules").

Only when the general principles cannot (rarely) be met is an "arbitration" necessary. Even then, the arbitration should follow the general principles to establishing a fair and objective solution.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil McIntyre
United Kingdom
Chesterfield
Derbyshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
To my mind, the expected game or it’s value needs to be provided.

You’ve entered a deal, you give away X and expect to receive Y. Similarly, the sender of Y expects to receive Z.

If the sender of Y somehow fails to deliver Y (for any reason), it’s entirely reasonable to expect them to provide it or it’s value. If they decided not to insure the delivery of Y, they need to own the risk of it not being delivered.

Consider, the sender of Y is receiving a game of higher value (Z), and is in turn giving a game of higher value, Y, to the sender of X. If this person is only obligated to provide recompense to the tune of X, they are ‘benefitting’ on both sides of the trade.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
I pointed out (with a clear example) why it isn't that simple in cases like this.
Your example was far from clear. In a case like this the solution is simple, qed.
So you'd been fine with me paying you less than I agreed to if I waited 2 months to pay you for something and it's value depreciated in the interim?
If we had agreed on a price (which is only peripherally related to value) then you would be paying me the agreed price not a "value" at any arbitrary point in time.

Even "futures contracts" (which is what your example is most like) are based on price, not value. The market decides the value, the contracting parties agree a price.

It's a mistake to conflate price and value.


It is a mistake. Which was my point exactly.
You have decided that it's okay to give him something in return of different value than what was given away. Value <> price and that's why the case is nuanced.
The (extant) case is NOT nuanced! An equitable and reasoned solution exists. ((b1) or (b2) in my example above).

The general principles applicable to all cases are not nuanced; an equitable solution is almost always possible (and should be described "in the rules").

Only when the general principles cannot (rarely) be met is an "arbitration" necessary. Even then, the arbitration should follow the general principles to establishing a fair and objective solution.


...so the case isn't nuanced, except in some rare cases and then the rare case you describe is exactly this...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil McIntyre
United Kingdom
Chesterfield
Derbyshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
A further thought. Say someone mistakenly trades an expensive game (Say Scythe) for a promo. What if they claim the promo never arrived. Does the sender of the promo now have to buy a replacement copy of Scythe?!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MC Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you send me £X in exchange for item Y and I fail to send you item Y, surely your expectation would be that I refund you £X? Why is it different when the currency is a used boardgame rather than £? (especially when we need rules that cover both currencies in the same trade vehicle)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay. This can't happen, but stay with me.
If I put up my game, which is OOP. I 'sell' it through the maths trade (trade it for £35).

But then before I am sent my £35 it comes up on 365 games for £10.
So the person sending me the £35 says it got lost in the post (I know this is weird). They instead buy 2 copies of the game for £20 and send me one of them so I get my game back.

They have just made £15 out of the 'lost' item. I've lost £25 because I can no longer sell it for £35, but only £10. My opportunity has been stolen from me.
Even worse, I'd never have sold the game for only £10. So sending me £10 instead of my game is even worse.

Why is it so different if the £35 I was due to receive is instead a game worth £35. I've missed out on the £35 game. If it can't be replaced, I should get £35, not £10 because the game I sent back then is NOW only worth £10.

The dispute is over this failure to agree value difference between the 2 individuals and the items each sent. It's not easy to decide what's fair based on basic rules, so the moderator helping to arbitrate is the best course.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mccrispy wrote:
If you send me £X in exchange for item Y and I fail to send you item Y, surely your expectation would be that I refund you £X? Why is it different when the currency is a used boardgame rather than £? (especially when we need rules that cover both currencies in the same trade vehicle)
Because of the very different subjective ways we value our games. Price is most often the final arbiter; what ts has sold for or what it is selling for.

Most often you'd expect to send another copy of what went missing - in this case, that can't be done. Then you'd try to come to a mutual agreement - that can't be achieved. Then you send the game the aggrieved party traded away - and he is now no worse off than he was before the day of the trade.

In this extant case, the 'discussion' seems to be about compensating the aggrieved party for what he felt the game was worth - we can't do that, especially not when there is objective evidence of wha the game was actually worth.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
mccrispy wrote:
If you send me £X in exchange for item Y and I fail to send you item Y, surely your expectation would be that I refund you £X? Why is it different when the currency is a used boardgame rather than £? (especially when we need rules that cover both currencies in the same trade vehicle)
Because of the very different subjective ways we value our games. Price is most often the final arbiter; what ts has sold for or what it is selling for.

Most often you'd expect to send another copy of what went missing - in this case, that can't be done. Then you'd try to come to a mutual agreement - that can't be achieved. Then you send the game the aggrieved party traded away - and he is now no worse off than he was before the day of the trade.

In this extant case, the 'discussion' seems to be about compensating the aggrieved party for what he felt the game was worth - we can't do that, especially not when there is objective evidence of wha the game was actually worth.


Well 'we' can't do anything because it's not our decision. However, talking about the theory behind why it's not a simple decision is one thing (no-one else said what should happen in this case except you).
You summarily deciding what the outcome should be based on your 'proof' is certainly inappropriate. The moderator is dealing with the case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16  Next »  [17] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.