Topic: Tracking and Trade Liability

This came up awhile back, but it's become pertinent again. I really dislike the current policy that says that if a user sends with tracking and the package is lost prior to delivery, the sender is considered to have fulfilled their side of the trade and the receiver eats the loss.

The basic reasoning is that in these scenarios, someone is going to eat a loss, and the person who does so should be the person who is more-likely to have made a mistake. And I would submit that if someone sends a package that ends up being lost, it's the sender's fault rather than mine - they might have messed up the packaging, they might have put an invalid address in the system that caused the package to be kicked around, etc. From my end, I have the exact same address that I've had for all 500 of my trades.

Let me highlight some scenarios here. I've just started trading internationally. Canada seems like the easiest place to send to. But there's a lot of ways to fuck up preparing a customs slip and whatnot, I'm sure, so I recognize that there's a chance that the packages I'm sending out might have issues that cause them to be kicked around for longer, and this might lead to the packages getting lost or destroyed. If this happens, it should be my fault. Even if I don't know with 100% certainty that I fucked up some aspect of the international shipping process, it makes a lot more sense to pin the liability on me.

Another scenario is that recently someone sent me a $300 package with insurance and signature confirmation. I specifically request on my profile not to send stuff with signature confirmation unless it's absolutely necessary, as my local PO is really bad with redeliveries and it means I have to track down the package at an office somewhere. Well, this time it turns out that they haven't been able to find it so far. So if the package does end up missing and I open a case, does this mean that not only do I lose out despite the sender not following my requests (which I think was an honest mistake - he didn't realize that a package insured for over $250 would require signature confirmation, and neither did I), but that he can file an insurance claim, get the value of his cards back, *and* keep my cards? I'm afraid that the answer is "yes". I'm not saying it's going to come to this, but even the possibility of it seems ridiculous to me.

I understand that there are benefits to using tracking, but one of those benefits should not be to shift the risk of your fucking up something on your end to the receiver. People should use tracking to be able to show that something was delivered. Deckbox used to require "proof of delivery", but at some point this was changed to merely require a package to be tracked. But I think that creates some bad incentives and some serious potential feel-bad scenarios, and the rules should be changed back to how they were. I'm not sure why they were ever changed to begin with.

Thoughts?

Last edited by 9700377 (2016-02-19 19:41:37)

Re: Tracking and Trade Liability

9700377 wrote:

People should use tracking to be able to show that something was delivered. Deckbox used to require "proof of delivery", but at some point this was changed to merely require a package to be tracked. But I think that creates some bad incentives and some serious potential feel-bad scenarios, and the rules should be changed back to how they were. I'm not sure why they were ever changed to begin with.

I don't believe this was ever changed. The Trading Rules still says:

2.2. Sending cards. The sender is responsible for getting the cards to the destination. He will be held accountable for items lost in the mail if a form of tracking was not used; proof of sending is not sufficient. Tracking should show the package delivered to the proper address.

Profile  Tradelist

Re: Tracking and Trade Liability

Quoting from your profile:

" Right now I'm only looking to trade if the value is significantly (20%, or 25% if international and less than $100) in my favor. If your proposal doesn't meet this criteria I'll probably pass on it. Also, I prefer larger trades to smaller ones, and I will likely pass on trades worth less than $50 unless they are particularly attractive."

Yeah, if you're gonna shark(whether your trade partner knows the skew or not, it is sharking) a trader for 20 bucks in your favor, even if only one package out of 100 gets lost on its' way to you, you can afford to lose those cards, as you've profited enough from all the packages that arrived.

Additionally, I'm going to have to assume that if the package you sent out got lost, you'd happily keep your trade partner's cards, as tracking would show that the cards were sent.

Re: Tracking and Trade Liability

Kizudarake wrote:

Quoting from your profile:

" Right now I'm only looking to trade if the value is significantly (20%, or 25% if international and less than $100) in my favor. If your proposal doesn't meet this criteria I'll probably pass on it. Also, I prefer larger trades to smaller ones, and I will likely pass on trades worth less than $50 unless they are particularly attractive."

Yeah, if you're gonna shark(whether your trade partner knows the skew or not, it is sharking) a trader for 20 bucks in your favor, even if only one package out of 100 gets lost on its' way to you, you can afford to lose those cards, as you've profited enough from all the packages that arrived.

Additionally, I'm going to have to assume that if the package you sent out got lost, you'd happily keep your trade partner's cards, as tracking would show that the cards were sent.

Some bold assumptions here that have nothing to do with the thread. Please stay on topic.

Profile  Tradelist

Re: Tracking and Trade Liability

Kammikaze wrote:
9700377 wrote:

People should use tracking to be able to show that something was delivered. Deckbox used to require "proof of delivery", but at some point this was changed to merely require a package to be tracked. But I think that creates some bad incentives and some serious potential feel-bad scenarios, and the rules should be changed back to how they were. I'm not sure why they were ever changed to begin with.

I don't believe this was ever changed. The Trading Rules still says:

2.2. Sending cards. The sender is responsible for getting the cards to the destination. He will be held accountable for items lost in the mail if a form of tracking was not used; proof of sending is not sufficient. Tracking should show the package delivered to the proper address.

Maybe that was changed at some point. It does directly contradict the following message that you get (or used to get?) if you open a case over a lost package, however. I'll quote it:

If the sender used tracking he does not have to compensate the receiver.

If he did not use tracking, he must either re-send his cards, return the cards he has received, or send compensation via paypal.

Some number of months ago I did in fact lose a case because a package was just lost in a block hole somewhere. It was only $30, however, so I didn't protest. At the least, the policy language here is contradictory.

Yeah, if you're gonna shark(whether your trade partner knows the skew or not, it is sharking) a trader for 20 bucks in your favor, even if only one package out of 100 gets lost on its' way to you, you can afford to lose those cards, as you've profited enough from all the packages that arrived.

Yeah, not only is this a rude point to make but it's stupid. Pretty much everyone on here can "afford" to lose one out of every 100 trades. It's shitty whether it happens to me or someone else.

Re: Tracking and Trade Liability

9700377 wrote:

It does directly contradict the following message

If this is the case then Sebi needs to clear it up. I would agree that the sender needs prove that it was delivered, not just sent.

Profile  Tradelist

Re: Tracking and Trade Liability

I considered making a new thread to update my concerns here, but I decided I'd rather just bump this one. As this is essentially a continuation of the concerns explicated in the OP.

My international trading has largely been successful, but right now there are 4 trades where I've sent cards with tracking where there seems to be a hangup somewhere in the shipping process: One to Canada, one to Norway, and two to Romania. All of the trades have used the same method I've always used: stamps.com labels on bubble mailers and first-class international shipping. I interpret the recent hangups to bad luck. In one of the cases my partner's package also hasn't arrived, so maybe we'll both take a loss.

But it feels terrible to take these to cases. Everyone has the intuitive understanding of rule 2.2 that is outlined above: That senders are only protected by tracking if a package is shown as delivered. But in practice this is wrong. The language is contradictory and people get upset over it, understandably so. And it's bad for the site if people get angry at the process.

I think it's pretty obvious that the rules should work like 2.2 implies. I really think this policy should be changed ASAP for all future trades. It's not a hard policy and I can't think of anyone who would oppose it, if only because everyone assumes things work as they should.

Also, here's one additional scenario under the current system that bothers me: There are many countries I can ship to where I can get tracking but the tracking will stop at the border. The tracking will *never* show a package delivery. I think it's very odd that I would still apparently be protected in this instance. Also, the rule that requires the sender to open a formal case on a tracked package just doesn't work in many instances: Namely, on first-class international packages, you cannot open a formal case.

Basically, the verbiage on the dispute window should be brought in line with the plain meaning on 2.2, and the requirement that the sender open a case should be dropped. The current policy is advantaging me on net, but in a way that feels like shit.

If anyone has advice for me on how to try to get the PO to look into packages that have apparently been dropped in to a pit in Chicago, it would be appreciated.

[Edit]

As an update, all my packages eventually ended up arriving except the Norway one. My concerns still apply, though.

Last edited by 9700377 (2016-06-07 19:30:04)