New Rules for the Exchange forum - Feedback thread.

True. Though that is another topic altogether.

 

Yes, I think that's a problem. Some people are going to interpret that clause as an attempt to shift responsibility.

Why put anything at all about insurance in the rules?

Insurance is something a seller can buy if he'd rather do that than self-insure. If he chooses to buy insurance he can include it in the price, or he can itemize: $A for the knife + $B for shipping + $C for handling + $D for insurance + $E for wear and tear on my shoes walking to the post office + $F to pay someone to babysit my hamster while I'm gone -- whatever, it still adds up to $Z you'll have to pay me to buy my knife. Whether I itemize or just give the price including everything, I'm still going to have to deliver the knife you pay me for....

On some other website where they're selling expensive things like rifles it might make sense for the website administrators to recommend insuring all shipments, but in most transactions here, for most of us, self-insuring makes more sense. Anyway it's not something to make a rule about.

 

Hey Spark,

I noticed the new part of not having the business name as a username unless you have a dealer membership. I did have a dealer membership for all of last year and it was upon renewal that I wasn't able to afford the cost. I no longer have my website up, I no longer sell anything (unless I buy for myself), and the only thing that still works is my email address because it would be a PITA to change that to something else after having that email for so long.

I will happily change my username (I believe it's $10 usd?) when I have the funds available.

Take care, J.

Ps. As for the dealers merging with the individual for sale forums - I would prefer it to remain separate to prevent clutter. We all know we can get brand new knives from any dealer, so using the Individual for sale forums for everyone else is what makes it fun - it's always a gamble as to what kind of deal you might get from someone culling the herd on the ole collection

 

8. All ads should be placed in ONE appropriate forum. NO CROSS POSTING OF ADS IN MULTIPLE FORUMS.

Could we get clarification here please. I assume you mean more than one forum here on Bladeforums. What about advertising the same knife on more than one website? Thanks.

 

I get it now.Thanks.

 

In my opinion, anyone who buys xyz with the intent to sell/flip it is acting as a dealer - regardless of the scale (whether they went to one show or twelve and whether it's one knife or thirty).

They're obviously free to buy whatever they like and do whatever they want with it, I simply want to see them appropriately denoted as Dealers and have their wares show up in the appropriate Dealer sections.

As it stands, with one obvious exception, it's hard to tell the 'average guy' from the 'dealer' and I believe it's an important distinction for both BF and the potential buyers as I'd rather buy from an average Joe...

 

It means don't post in more than one forum on Bladeforums.

We have nothing to say about where else you post. In fact, why even mention that you have it up for sale elsewhere? That has nothing to do with your BF sale.

 

I can understand mentioning that an item is posted for sale in multiple locations to let those interested know that being the first to say "I'll take it" on one forum doesn't necessarily you're first in line from all of them. It can save the seller of a confusing hassle (as I learned myself in the past). But by no means should it be required of the seller to mention this; it's his choice.

 

I'm all in favor of spelling that out! But that has nothing to do with insurance. Insurance wouldn't pay a claim like that anyway.

 

P.S. This is already causing confusion in the thread I linked to earlier, with posts like this one. Esav Benyamin is trying to straighten people out, but notice that post was an hour and a half after Esav Benyamin's post.

 

I think the rules for sellers should be expanded as well, especially for this reason. As it stands now, it seems like a seller who lost a knife as a result of improper packaging and didn't insure by the buyer's request (or had an insurance claim denied) would still be able to argue that he is not liable.


I don't know. Maybe something about how it is the seller's property and, therefore, the seller's responsibility until it is in the hands of the buyer.

ETA: Read this post, Cougar.

Further ETA : I didn't make my post in that thread based off of what Esav said. I made it based on my reading of the rules here and then came directly back to this thread to make the above post.

 

So you are saying that a person who makes the effort and pays the expense to go to a Knife show, buys 2-3 Busses (at full retail cost) with the intent to sell 1 or 2 at a profit to perhaps defray some of the cost of the trip, should be treated (and charged) the same as someone who buys 500 knives per year at 1/2 MSRP from Moteng or BRK?

Intent is a hard thing to prove. In the end, everyone who sold any knife on BF could be accused of being a dealer by that broad stroke.

To me the easier way would be to do what many states do to classify a person as a car dealer or not--count the sales. In Alabama, I believe that you are allowed to sell ten used cars per year as an individual. But to sell eleven, you need a business license, tax ID, etc, etc.

 

I am, actually.

If a person buys a thing with the intent to sell it, regardless of why - I think they're behaving as a Dealer (part-time or otherwise, doesn't really matter to me). Whether it's to turn a huge profit or defray the costs of a trip doesn't really matter in my opinion.

Granted, I agree it's a difficult distinction to make in some cases (especially in one-off or otherwise occasional instances) - but that doesn't make it any less true, and in most cases it's blatantly obvious, especially with any sort of historical look at the person selling xyz.

And there are several of this sort who regularly do so in the Busse sales forum, and I have no personal beef with any of them, other than the fact that they're skirting the Dealer classification and the fact that it clouds up that area making it harder to determine who the 'regular guys' are.

Anyway, just an opinion...

 

Opinions are like...er make that 'opinions vary'.

 

I agree with what Darkfin said about someone turning a profit on a few knives shouldn't make them a Dealer...but I think keeping an exact count would be overkill.

I think in practice it's not going to be hard to tell a Dealer from a normal member.
A normal member is going to be doing one of two things. Selling a few knives now and then. Selling a bunch of different knives from their collection.
A dealer is going to be saying things like: "I have a case of ESEE Izulas, who wants one?"

Speaking as someone who is on a the moderation staff at another forum, I think rules should be kept as streamlined as possible. Oddly enough it often keeps things simpler and clearer for all concerned. And if you make a clear statement of INTENT rather than ultra specific technicalities, it actually cuts down on people trying to worm around the rules.

[edit]

And in responce to Doomtown's postiion: I submit that it is really not this forum's business if someone makes either a loss or a profit on any particular knife.
In fact making profit is not anywhere near the point. A Dealer could be slowly losing the shirt off his back, but if he has a store is and moving hundreds of knives a month, he is still a dealer. By the same token, I think it's silly to attempt to railroad a savy collector who makes a few good deals into ponying up the Dealer fee. How would you even determine that, demand he provide profit and loss records? It would be a nightmare for the staff to enforce...

 

Changing the rules is good and all, but what does it actually accomplish?

I read the verpus77 thread, and some guy is still out $220, and AFAIK, verpus77 is still a gold member selling knives here.

It seems like a case of "Go away, or we will taunt you some more..."