Topic: Rules Question

I have a trade open right now, that was accepted just short of 3 weeks ago.
My cards were sent out promptly, and the other user confirmed he got them a few days later.
After about 2 weeks of lame excuses about not having time to send out his cards, he finally marked them as shipped about a week ago.  (That part didn't bother me, I was in no rush, and do understand how busy life can be sometimes.)

As of today, I have not received the cards, but rule 4.2 says I need to wait a full 2 weeks for delivery.
So, I hadn't paid it much attention the past few days, figured I'd be patient and wait to see what happens.

However, I am just discovering tonight that the other user has since been flagged as a scammer.
Does rule 4.2 still apply in this case?

Re: Rules Question

Post in the BTR Thread about your trade. There are a number of traders in the same situation as you.

Profile  Tradelist

Re: Rules Question

Both interesting and disturbing to know.

Any admins that can confirm/deny if I'd be in the right to post a BTR now?

Re: Rules Question

100002924569461 wrote:

Both interesting and disturbing to know.

Any admins that can confirm/deny if I'd be in the right to post a BTR now?

Just post in the existing BTR thread linked by Kammikaze, no need to create a new one for this known issue.

Re: Rules Question

I thought about doing that, but the BTR Forum rules seem to suggest that's not acceptable.
Plus, when you factor in the weekend and postal holiday, there's still a chance that USPS actually has the package and just haven't delivered yet.  (Starting to doubt this, though too soon to say for sure.)
But if this actually is a scam, I don't want proceedings muddled by any mistakes in the rules on my part.
So, that's why I've been hoping for clarification from a moderator.

Re: Rules Question

100002924569461 wrote:

I thought about doing that, but the BTR Forum rules seem to suggest that's not acceptable.

Pretty sure that also being scammed by the same user falls under "relevant and important information about the case being discussed."

Re: Rules Question

Good point.