Recommend
11 
 Thumb up
 Hide
417 Posts
[1]  Prev «  13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17  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]
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
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.
No, that is not acceptable. It is perfectly easy to replace the £35 lost in the post with another identical £35 or even £36 to say sorry.

In the extant case the sender cannot send the items (a bundle of expansions he'd never be able to get together) so he has to come up with another suggestion. Given that they cannot agree on a third way, the next objectively reasonable solution is to replace the game traded away..

We must assume that we are all honourable folk and not "gaming the system" (other than in the obvious ways that MTs are a bit of a game) if we are to assume that folks deliberately "game the system" in such cases as you offer then they are not honourable and the whole edifice falls down around our rears.

negatrev wrote:
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,
Yes, it is: (b1) or (b2). Having said that, if I had done a really nice trade I might send the aggrieved party an extra £5 as a "sorry for the inconvenience".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
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).
Of course we can: we are doing just that - discussing the matter.

negatrev wrote:
You summarily deciding what the outcome should be based on your 'proof' is certainly inappropriate. The moderator is dealing with the case.
The principles are clear: we don't need to step outside the long established ways of doing things and certainly not by inventing an unwritten rule. The moderator has to take into account the way things have "always been done" (and can, if she wishes, read this discussion to understand that)and should expect to be held to account if for decision if she chooses a different solution.

I summarily decide nothing: following the abc leads to a conclusion. I state the conclusions, others will decide, summarily or not, what the outcome of the extant case may be. One must hope that decision is either 1) mutually agreeable to the parties or 2) follows precedent.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MC Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
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.
You cannot be compensated for lost opportunity, you can only be restored to your previous position. You start with X, you end with X (and possibly some regret and a life lesson) anything else is seeking to make a gain/advantage from the situation.
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
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.
No, that is not acceptable. It is perfectly easy to replace the £35 lost in the post with another identical £35 or even £36 to say sorry.

In the extant case the sender cannot send the items (a bundle of expansions he'd never be able to get together) so he has to come up with another suggestion. Given that they cannot agree on a third way, the next objectively reasonable solution is to replace the game traded away..

We must assume that we are all honourable folk and not "gaming the system" (other than in the obvious ways that MTs are a bit of a game) if we are to assume that folks deliberately "game the system" in such cases as you offer then they are not honourable and the whole edifice falls down around our rears.

negatrev wrote:
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,[/] Yes, it is: (b1) or (b2). Having aid that, if I had done a really nice trade I might send the aggrieved party an extra £5 as a "sorry for the inconvenience".


...and yet again your failing on the salient point. Whether deliberate or not, whatever the case, your black and white view of things can easily result in one party benefiting from the others expense. The onus is on the sender to ensure an item gets to the recipient. It certainly shouldn't be the recipient suffering if a sender has an issue. It is very possible that the sender has done nothing wrong. But them benefiting from the error is certainly not right (and allowing them to benefit COULD lead to exploits like my example). I never said I assume people WILL exploit the system. I said it allows for it. A system is most stable, when you don't allow exploits, rather than assume no-one will use them.

I sent a game a few years ago which was damaged quite badly and it was hard to get, so I insured it on the replacement value.

It took a while (6 weeks I believe) for me to be refunded. They refunded the value of the item, but also my postage cost. If I only gave the item value. I would have actually benefited from the problem, with my only cost for that benefit being a little bit of time. Whereas the recipient was with nothing but a damaged game while waiting for the delivery agent to pull their arses out. My recipient was good enough to be patient and so I gave them the postage cost monies as well, so only they benefited from the issue and paid for it with a wait.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mccrispy wrote:
negatrev wrote:
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.
You cannot be compensated for lost opportunity, you can only be restored to your previous position. You start with X, you end with X (and possibly some regret and a life lesson) anything else is seeking to make a gain/advantage from the situation.


...and the point of the above is that they aren't ending with the same thing. They started with a game worth £35 and ended with one worth £10. The sender started having to send something worth £35 and now only has to send something worth £10. So in this case who is seeking to gain an advantage from the situation?

As I already said, I don't side with either party. But I can see why going black and white on either side could be unfair on the other party.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
It is very possible that the sender has done nothing wrong. But them benefiting from the error is certainly not right (and allowing them to benefit COULD lead to exploits like my example).
Only "very possible"? We must assume the sender has done nothing "wrong" in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

In what way does the sender benefit in this case by replacing the aggrieved party's traded-away item? I'll answer that for you: he doesn't. At least not obviously.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
It is very possible that the sender has done nothing wrong. But them benefiting from the error is certainly not right (and allowing them to benefit COULD lead to exploits like my example).
Only "very possible"? We must assume the sender has done nothing "wrong" in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

In what way does the sender benefit in this case by replacing the aggrieved party's traded-away item? I'll answer that for you: he doesn't. At least not obviously.


I said very possible because I have NO facts on the case. I don't know why they can't claim compensation and neither do you. I don't know what might have gone wrong. I make NO assumptions.

I have not once suggested a solution that should be done. I said leave it to the moderator. You're the one insisting there's only 1 right way to do it. I am pointing out that it's possible that is not fair in certain cases.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
...and the point of the above is that they aren't ending with the same thing. They started with a game worth £35
No, they didn't. They felt it was worth £35, it wasn't. It was worth ca. £15 inc postage.
negatrev wrote:
and ended with one worth £10.
No, they would end with exactly what they started with.

negatrev wrote:
The sender started having to send something worth £35
What?? How do you know what the sender valued his item at? If you look at what he got in return, probably less than £35!

negatrev wrote:
and now only has to send something worth £10. So in this case who is seeking to gain and advantage from the situation?
The sender no longer has his item*. He has to pay for the missing item. How has he gained? I'll answer that for you: he hasn't.

*If he gets compensation of - say - £25 from the carrier**, then he should send the whole amount to the aggrieved party: that's the honourable thing to do.
** By then, however, he might already have replaced the aggrieved party's item - it might be best to wait a while to see if any compensation is forthcoming. That's where the conversation between the parties should have started - I'm assuming it was sent tracked and 'insured by default' with myHermes: if yes, they will pay out.

negatrev wrote:
As I already said, I don't side with either party. But I can see why going black and white on either side could be unfair on the other party.
Putting the aggrieved party back where he starts doesn't seem to be unfair to either side.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
...and the point of the above is that they aren't ending with the same thing. They started with a game worth £35
No, they didn't.
They felt it was worth £35, it wasn't. It was worth ca. £15 inc postage.
negatrev wrote:
and ended with one worth £10.
No, they would end with exactly what they started with.

negatrev wrote:
The sender started having to send something worth £35
What?? How do you know what the sender valued his item at? If you look at what he got in return, probably less than £35!

negatrev wrote:
and now only has to send something worth £10. So in this case who is seeking to gain and advantage from the situation?
The sender no longer has his item*. He has to pay for the missing item. How has he gained? I'll answer that for you: he hasn't.

*If he gets compensation of - say - £25 from the carrier**, then he should send the whole amount to the aggrieved party: that's the honourable thing to do.
** By then, however, he might already have replaced the aggrieved party's item - it might be best to wait a while to see if any compensation is forthcoming. That's where the conversation between the parties should have started - I'm assuming it was sent tracked and 'insured by default' with myHermes: if yes, they will pay out.

negatrev wrote:
As I already said, I don't side with either party. But I can see why going black and white on either side could be unfair on the other party.
Putting the aggrieved party back where he starts doesn't seem to be unfair to either side.


You again are getting confused between my example and the actual case at hand. I'm talking about a theoretical example, so I don't see how you are deciding the values I assigned are wrong or where you are getting facts from...shake

Repeating the highlighted is in no way answering what I've stated. They aren't back where they started in my example.

As you talk about compensation. That IS fairer. However, if the items sent are worth more than the compensation, it should fall on the sender to make up the difference as it would be their fault for not insuring it enough.
Agreeing on the correct value takes us back to the beginning where I said leave that with the moderator to help them agree and you saying that's wrong...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
You again are getting confused between my example and the actual case at hand. I'm talking about a theoretical example, so I don't see how you are deciding the values I assigned are wrong or where you are getting facts from...shake
Unfortunately your theoretical examples seem to be constructed to support your view that the problem is not amenable to a rule-based solution.

In any event, putting the aggrieved party back where they started is not unfair to him or her. If you think the other party has "gamed the system" to achieve a pecuniary advantage, well - shame on them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Condon-Jones
United Kingdom
Exeter
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
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.

I get that it sucks, but that is how refunds work.

I once had to take an item of clothing (which was a gift) back to M&S because it was too tight, and replaced it with the next size up. Unfortunately, it had gone up in price in that time, so I had to pay the difference in price.

I wasn't happy, but I was given a full refund.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MC Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
mccrispy wrote:
negatrev wrote:
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.
You cannot be compensated for lost opportunity, you can only be restored to your previous position. You start with X, you end with X (and possibly some regret and a life lesson) anything else is seeking to make a gain/advantage from the situation.


...and the point of the above is that they aren't ending with the same thing. They started with a game worth £35 and ended with one worth £10. The sender started having to send something worth £35 and now only has to send something worth £10. So in this case who is seeking to gain an advantage from the situation?

As I already said, I don't side with either party. But I can see why going black and white on either side could be unfair on the other party.
The valuation is not (and should not be) financial, neither is it a financial transaction - it's goods in kind. The attempted transaction was goods X in exchange for goods Y. If Y cannot be provided, then all that can be done is to return X (regardless of the current monetary valuation placed on X or Y). If you started with X and end with X you have not lost out - if the monetary valuation placed on Y were to change, should an additional financial element be introduced to adjust for this? ("I know that when I agreed to send you my copy of Y it was worth £10, but since the agreement the Publisher has declared it OOP and its value is now £50, you now owe me £40" is not a conversation that we will ever have)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fillipe Diniz
United Kingdom
london
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I wonder if the sender would be so keen in replacing the receiver’s item if it was the opposite and the item he was supposed to deliver was significantly cheaper than the receiver’s original item.

Anyway, MT organizer is on the subject and wathever she decides will be the rule from now on.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MC Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Filliped wrote:
I wonder if the sender would be so keen in replacing the receiver’s item if it was the opposite and the item he was supposed to deliver was significantly cheaper than the receiver’s original item.

Anyway, MT organizer is on the subject and wathever she decides will be the rule from now on.
Agreed; this dialogue is part of the discussion that informs that decision.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dancj wrote:
negatrev wrote:
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.

I get that it sucks, but that is how refunds work.

I once had to take an item of clothing (which was a gift) back to M&S because it was too tight, and replaced it with the next size up. Unfortunately, it had gone up in price in that time, so I had to pay the difference in price.

I wasn't happy, but I was given a full refund.


But that's the opposite of this example. You got exactly the money you put in even though the item is now worth more. You paid £20 for it, got £20 back and if you wanted one now it would cost you £24. Even if the product was now only worth £10 they would still refund you £20 based on your receipt (albeit gift and size returns sometimes are more complicated based on store policy). In this example, because the users item is only worth £10, they are only being refunded £10 rather than £20.

Also, paying money for something far simplifies the situation. The problem is we are talking goods. If the goods were worth the same back when the trade was made, but now one is worth more or less than the other, the one 'making good' can automatically decide to always pay which one is worth less; which might not be fair. Which is why the moderator should help them decide the value.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mccrispy wrote:
negatrev wrote:
mccrispy wrote:
negatrev wrote:
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.
You cannot be compensated for lost opportunity, you can only be restored to your previous position. You start with X, you end with X (and possibly some regret and a life lesson) anything else is seeking to make a gain/advantage from the situation.


...and the point of the above is that they aren't ending with the same thing. They started with a game worth £35 and ended with one worth £10. The sender started having to send something worth £35 and now only has to send something worth £10. So in this case who is seeking to gain an advantage from the situation?

As I already said, I don't side with either party. But I can see why going black and white on either side could be unfair on the other party.
The valuation is not (and should not be) financial, neither is it a financial transaction - it's goods in kind. The attempted transaction was goods X in exchange for goods Y. If Y cannot be provided, then all that can be done is to return X (regardless of the current monetary valuation placed on X or Y). If you started with X and end with X you have not lost out - if the monetary valuation placed on Y were to change, should an additional financial element be introduced to adjust for this? ("I know that when I agreed to send you my copy of Y it was worth £10, but since the agreement the Publisher has declared it OOP and its value is now £50, you now owe me £40" is not a conversation that we will ever have)


On that. If the sender agreed to send x that was worth £10 when they sent it, but it was lost and is now worth £50, they still need to replace the item. In this case, the recipient probably only traded an item worth £10, so they will more likely be happy to receive just £10 back. So if this is the case that way round, why should they only get £10 now if the item was worth £50 before. As the sender got a £50 item for their's, so why should they only be allowed to send £10 now? They would be benefiting from this when it was their end that failed to deliver.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Condon-Jones
United Kingdom
Exeter
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
dancj wrote:
negatrev wrote:
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.

I get that it sucks, but that is how refunds work.

I once had to take an item of clothing (which was a gift) back to M&S because it was too tight, and replaced it with the next size up. Unfortunately, it had gone up in price in that time, so I had to pay the difference in price.

I wasn't happy, but I was given a full refund.


But that's the opposite of this example. You got exactly the money you put in even though the item is now worth more. You paid £20 for it, got £20 back and if you wanted one now it would cost you £24. Even if the product was now only worth £10 they would still refund you £20 based on your receipt (albeit gift and size returns sometimes are more complicated based on store policy). In this example, because the users item is only worth £10, they are only being refunded £10 rather than £20.

Also, paying money for something far simplifies the situation. The problem is we are talking goods. If the goods were worth the same back when the trade was made, but now one is worth more or less than the other, the one 'making good' can automatically decide to always pay which one is worth less; which might not be fair. Which is why the moderator should help them decide the value.


I got back what I put in. In my case it was money. In this case it was a game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dancj wrote:
negatrev wrote:
dancj wrote:
negatrev wrote:
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.

I get that it sucks, but that is how refunds work.

I once had to take an item of clothing (which was a gift) back to M&S because it was too tight, and replaced it with the next size up. Unfortunately, it had gone up in price in that time, so I had to pay the difference in price.

I wasn't happy, but I was given a full refund.


But that's the opposite of this example. You got exactly the money you put in even though the item is now worth more. You paid £20 for it, got £20 back and if you wanted one now it would cost you £24. Even if the product was now only worth £10 they would still refund you £20 based on your receipt (albeit gift and size returns sometimes are more complicated based on store policy). In this example, because the users item is only worth £10, they are only being refunded £10 rather than £20.

Also, paying money for something far simplifies the situation. The problem is we are talking goods. If the goods were worth the same back when the trade was made, but now one is worth more or less than the other, the one 'making good' can automatically decide to always pay which one is worth less; which might not be fair. Which is why the moderator should help them decide the value.


I got back what I put in. In my case it was money. In this case it was a game.


...and around we go in circles again. Yes, you got the same money back. This works fine if it's money you put in. But as I just said, your example is the opposite of the issue. The issue is that if it's not money, and the worth of the item you put in had changed significantly, is it fair that you now get the current value instead of the original value. You just said you got exactly the same money back. So the store ignored that the item had changed value in accordance with your refund.

Yet in the scenario I put forth, others are saying it's fine that they are instead now only refunded half their money because the item is worth less now.

Again, this value is subjective, variable and there is 2 values involved in every trade (usually around the same value). However, since the compensation spoken off seems to suggest that the person making amends can chose which of the 2 items in the trade to refund. They can always choose the cheaper item. So will almost always benefit from this change in the trade. That's why I put forward the question of what is truly fair in this sort of situation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
However, since the compensation spoken off seems to suggest that the person making amends can chose which of the 2 items in the trade to refund. They can always choose the cheaper item. So will almost always benefit from this change in the trade.

You need to read more carefully - the order of priorities I put forth (I cannot speak for others) was clear - the starting point is always to replace the missing item. It is not a matter of choosing the cheapest solution for the sender (that is reprehensible) but dealing with a situation where the item cannot be replaced (as in the extant case):
enoon wrote:
In the case of a lost item, the receiver needs to be "made whole"; there are three basic options:

1) Replace the game s/he should have received with one of equal or better condition
2) Replace the game/money/items s/he traded-away in exchange for the one s/he should have received from you (and compensate the postage s/he paid)
3) Agree any other arrangement (money, different game, money & game).

then, in connection with the extant case:
enoon wrote:
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.

Further developed here:
enoon wrote:

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).


The starting point should always be to replace the missing item.

If that is not possible (it is not possible in the extant case) then an alternative should be found.

A mutual agreement is obviously best, but failing that (as in the extant case) (b1) or (b2) is the remaining objectively fair solution.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
However, since the compensation spoken off seems to suggest that the person making amends can chose which of the 2 items in the trade to refund. They can always choose the cheaper item. So will almost always benefit from this change in the trade.

You need to read more carefully - the order of priorities I put forth (I cannot speak for others) was clear - the starting point is always to replace the missing item. It is not a matter of choosing the cheapest solution for the sender (that is reprehensible) but dealing with a situation where the item cannot be replaced (as in the extant case):
enoon wrote:
In the case of a lost item, the receiver needs to be "made whole"; there are three basic options:

1) Replace the game s/he should have received with one of equal or better condition
2) Replace the game/money/items s/he traded-away in exchange for the one s/he should have received from you (and compensate the postage s/he paid)
3) Agree any other arrangement (money, different game, money & game).

then, in connection with the extant case:
enoon wrote:
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.

Further developed here:
enoon wrote:

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).


The starting point should always be to replace the missing item.

If that is not possible (it is not possible in the extant case) then an alternative should be found.

A mutual agreement is obviously best, but failing that (as in the extant case) (b1) or (b2) is the remaining objectively fair solution.


You have yet again suggested that b1 is somehow a higher priority and fairer than a mutual agreement.

Which again, as I said to you at the very start is NOT necessarily fair in specific circumstances. Certainly not 'objectively' so. I said it should be left to the moderator to help them come to an agreement, which you seem to think is the lowest priority.

You have also decided it's impossible to replace the missing item. It's not impossible. Just harder. Also, why should b1 (replacing the item traded away) come before compensation for the value of the item they were supposed to receive. That's the closest to what they agreed. You sending them back their item is NOT making good. Besides all the talk around the items change in circumstance, they have their item back (which they no longer wanted) and have lost out on the postage they paid to send it away when they've done nothing wrong and held up their end perfectly.

You seem to be stuck in these rules that you have pulled out from your 'experience'. But these are NOT rules for this trade. I keep saying, let the moderator sort it, yet you refer to unaffiliated 'rules' as the final word on the subject.

Why is it that anyone tries to talk about middle ground in something, you insist on trying to make it some bi-partisan stand off?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Porter
Wales
Cardiff
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with enoon. The fairest option is to source a copy of the missing item. If this is impossible, or unreasonably difficult to achieve, then the traders need to see if they can come to an agreement. If this is not possible, then the least unfair option is to replace the item which the individual traded away.

It is very difficult to assign monetary value to board games - they are extremely variable from month to month. There is certainly no way to make an objective valuation.

But the key is to be generous to each other. This is a friendly trade community. If you feel bad for the other trader, chuck in a sweetener,’or a few extra quid. At the very least, be polite and courteous in your messages and acknowledge their genuine disappointment.

It is of course ultimately Sharon’s call. But I think the discussion here has been helpful in highlighting the issues (even if tone is sometimes a little inflammatory).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Adam78 wrote:
But the key is to be generous to each other. This is a friendly trade community. If you feel bad for the other trader, chuck in a sweetener,’or a few extra quid. At the very least, be polite and courteous in your messages and acknowledge their genuine disappointment.
I could not say it better (and indeed haven't).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
bi-partisan stand off?
bi-partisan: "of or involving the agreement or cooperation of two (political) parties that usually oppose each other's policies. "

You are exactly correct: my approach is bi-partisan.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
bi-partisan stand off?
bi-partisan: "of or involving the agreement or cooperation of two (political) parties that usually oppose each other's policies. "

You are exactly correct: my approach is bi-partisan.


...you are missing the stand-off part.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
River Song
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
I love my cats!
badge
Spoilers!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe I am missing something here, but in a maths trade you are rarely trading one for one between two people; you are usually trading A to B, B to C and C to A. So If C goes missing in the post, you need to recompense person A with the value of C that they expected to receive and not the value of A which they traded away.

If I traded an expensive game away for a cheaper one (whether by accident or on purpose because it's all about getting something you want to play in place of something you don't want), then the person sending me the cheaper item is only responsible for the item they sent. They are not responsible for my decision to trade away the expensive item.

If it were a one for one trade, and I received an item from A but the item I sent got lost, I could just send the item back to A and we'd be square.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17  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.