|
 |
| | | Author: | tpr  | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 03:36 | | Subject: | Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 409 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| Hi
Check out the sellers of this set for 133 and 137 quantity
Descriptive wording same for both lots
Are they the same person?
tpr
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Daver | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 03:50 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 98 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, tpr writes:
| | Hi
Check out the sellers of this set for 133 and 137 quantity
Descriptive wording same for both lots
Are they the same person?
tpr
|
Yes it looks like this is the same seller, if you look at the rest of his offered
stock, this is also quite similar.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 04:24 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 98 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, tpr writes:
| | Hi
Check out the sellers of this set for 133 and 137 quantity
Descriptive wording same for both lots
Are they the same person?
|
Very likely but probably different companies registered in different countries
for tax reasons. One in EU, one outside.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | jbroman | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 04:54 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 111 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Are they the same person?
|
|
| | Very likely but probably different companies registered in different countries
for tax reasons. One in EU, one outside.
|
The area they are from are also close to each other.
One is in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, the other is in Geneva. These are
located right next to each other.
The question is (as has been discussed recently), where is the stock located?
As Admin_Russell has stated, the stock needs to be located where you are registered.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 05:32 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 113 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, jbroman writes:
| | […]
| | | | Are they the same person?
|
|
| | Very likely but probably different companies registered in different countries
for tax reasons. One in EU, one outside.
|
The area they are from are also close to each other.
One is in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, the other is in Geneva. These are
located right next to each other.
|
Yes, the French store could be just the other side of the lake Geneva/Léman.
They also say they sometimes use Swiss Post and can ship Switzerland to Switzerland.
| | The question is (as has been discussed recently), where is the stock located?
As Admin_Russell has stated, the stock needs to be located where you are registered.
|
Indeed.
And there’s also the question of taxes and duties / abiding to local laws:
— when they go from France to Switzerland to post to Switzerland (as stated in
their terms): they are importing into Switzerland, they should declare and pay
VAT and duties to Switzerland,
— and the same if they transfer stock from Switzerland to France.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 06:58 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 117 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, jbroman writes:
| | As Admin_Russell has stated, the stock needs to be located where you are registered.
|
Which, interestingly, pretty much kills using BL as a drop shipper.
Nita Rae
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Speciale | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 16:02 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, jbroman writes:
| | In Problem, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Are they the same person?
|
|
| | Very likely but probably different companies registered in different countries
for tax reasons. One in EU, one outside.
|
The area they are from are also close to each other.
One is in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, the other is in Geneva. These are
located right next to each other.
The question is (as has been discussed recently), where is the stock located?
As Admin_Russell has stated, the stock needs to be located where you are registered.
|
what store will own 137 pices of one large set like this one ?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | MrPetovan | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 18:13 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | MrPetovan | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 18:43 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| Never mind, these listings didn't show for me because neither store ship
to me.
In Problem, peregrinator writes:
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 01:39 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, brasletty writes:
| | In Problem, jbroman writes:
| | In Problem, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Are they the same person?
|
|
| | Very likely but probably different companies registered in different countries
for tax reasons. One in EU, one outside.
|
The area they are from are also close to each other.
One is in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, the other is in Geneva. These are
located right next to each other.
The question is (as has been discussed recently), where is the stock located?
As Admin_Russell has stated, the stock needs to be located where you are registered.
|
what store will own 137 pices of one large set like this one ?
|
A retail store.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | CanadaFirst | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 13:13 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 124 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, tpr writes:
| | Hi
Check out the sellers of this set for 133 and 137 quantity
Descriptive wording same for both lots
Are they the same person?
tpr
|
The terms on one of the shops are problematic, don't think you can tell people
to buy directly from your website on bricklink,,,
https://store.bricklink.com/Technic?sID=1422407&itemID=244699387#/terms
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Speciale | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 16:07 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 101 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, tpr writes:
| | Hi
Check out the sellers of this set for 133 and 137 quantity
Descriptive wording same for both lots
Are they the same person?
tpr
|
feedback history ! https://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=Technic
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 18:03 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, brasletty writes:
ummmm ... someone please tell if that looks like what it may represent, or
if I am making an incorrect assumption there ? Like ... one side of the same
store left FB for the other side ?
Nita Rae
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | MrPetovan | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 18:09 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| Yes, I feel like it's pretty common when related stores have separate accounts.
In Problem, cosmicray writes:
| |
ummmm ... someone please tell if that looks like what it may represent, or
if I am making an incorrect assumption there ? Like ... one side of the same
store left FB for the other side ?
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 18:13 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| Are you suggesting that a store has a valid reason to leave FB for itself ?
I was always (pretty much from day 1 here) of the belief that doing that was
quite verboten.
Nita Rae
In Problem, MrPetovan writes:
| | Yes, I feel like it's pretty common when related stores have separate accounts.
In Problem, cosmicray writes:
| |
ummmm ... someone please tell if that looks like what it may represent, or
if I am making an incorrect assumption there ? Like ... one side of the same
store left FB for the other side ?
Nita Rae
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | MrPetovan | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 18:15 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| I said "related stores". Which is different stores owned by two separate people
in close business contact with each other. The case of a single person using
two different accounts is already covered by the TOS like you are saying.
In Problem, cosmicray writes:
| | Are you suggesting that a store has a valid reason to leave FB for itself ?
I was always (pretty much from day 1 here) of the belief that doing that was
quite verboten.
Nita Rae
In Problem, MrPetovan writes:
| | Yes, I feel like it's pretty common when related stores have separate accounts.
In Problem, cosmicray writes:
| |
ummmm ... someone please tell if that looks like what it may represent, or
if I am making an incorrect assumption there ? Like ... one side of the same
store left FB for the other side ?
Nita Rae
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 01:43 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, cosmicray writes:
| | Are you suggesting that a store has a valid reason to leave FB for itself ?
I was always (pretty much from day 1 here) of the belief that doing that was
quite verboten.
|
Doing it is not a problem. Getting caught is!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | macebobo | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 14:39 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, yorbrick writes:
| | In Problem, cosmicray writes:
| | Are you suggesting that a store has a valid reason to leave FB for itself ?
I was always (pretty much from day 1 here) of the belief that doing that was
quite verboten.
|
Doing it is not a problem. Getting caught is!
|
Well, there is a person, with two accounts, I have reported for doing this exact
thing, and both accounts still exist. So getting caught does not do much either.
Additionally, they tried to use one account to bypass my stop list, which is
against the rules as well. Reported, still nothing has happened.
The problem reporting system needs to have just a bit more transparency so that
people know that they can't get away with this type of behavior on BL. Otherwise,
I feel, it will be ripe venue for scammers and other con artist.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | manganschlamm | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 02:19 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | jbroman | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 18:57 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, cosmicray writes:
| | In Problem, brasletty writes:
ummmm ... someone please tell if that looks like what it may represent, or
if I am making an incorrect assumption there ? Like ... one side of the same
store left FB for the other side ?
Nita Rae
|
I can see them doing that in order to get the necessary one feedback to open
a store.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2021 19:27 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, jbroman writes:
| | In Problem, cosmicray writes:
| | In Problem, brasletty writes:
ummmm ... someone please tell if that looks like what it may represent, or
if I am making an incorrect assumption there ? Like ... one side of the same
store left FB for the other side ?
Nita Rae
|
I can see them doing that in order to get the necessary one feedback to open
a store.
|
Having two different stores is the core problem, because of BL's involvement
in tax collection. This is probably a very rare situation, other than potentially
Canadian members, who would zip across the border to ship orders to US buyers.
But that kind of got shut down by COVID, and border closings.
I guess where I begin to feel like we're edging into dangerous territory
is when, as you said above, they had to do this to get the second store verified.
That is a real slippery slope. The situation described here has to do with two
stores, which appear to be geographically close to one another. I get that. I
can envision a much worse situation, but (without having enough proof that it
is what happened to me back in August) I'm not going to describe it. Some
sleeping creatures are best left undisturbed.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Llewyn | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 04:42 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| Site admin have at least implied that having two stores may be the correct solution
for some EU sellers to deal with the two-tier distance selling VAT system, where
one type of sale counts towards the VAT threshold and another doesn't.
I don't know enough of the EU-EEA border revenue system - having never done
business with Swiss customers and now being forcibly removed from the EU - to
understand whether what they're doing is a measure to avoid BL correctly
collecting tax or one to enable it. It does seem that the seller is located where
their physical operation could be cross-border to begin with, so this might potentially
be an appropriate way to deal with tax issues correctly.
If (hypothetically) it is appropriate then there would be no real ethical problem
at least with leaving the required buyer feedback from the other store, as the
seller is already verified and simply acting to enable correct taxation.
On the other hand (even more hypothetically!) it's for tax avoidance then
that's two scummy things they've done 
In Problem, cosmicray writes:
| | Having two different stores is the core problem, because of BL's involvement
in tax collection. This is probably a very rare situation, other than potentially
Canadian members, who would zip across the border to ship orders to US buyers.
But that kind of got shut down by COVID, and border closings.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 05:13 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, Llewyn writes:
| | Site admin have at least implied that having two stores may be the correct solution
for some EU sellers to deal with the two-tier distance selling VAT system, where
one type of sale counts towards the VAT threshold and another doesn't.
|
Russell also said to talk to admins first.
And that’s for two accounts located at the same address but with two different
tax schemes, that is, one for a VAT-enabled store and one without VAT, either
for selling/buying purposes or because they sell New (with “normal” VAT) and
Used (with margin VAT, so “no-VAT” on BL).
Considering both accounts got their buying and selling priviledges removed, I
guess they never talked to admins.
| | I don't know enough of the EU-EEA border revenue system - having never done
business with Swiss customers and now being forcibly removed from the EU - to
understand whether what they're doing is a measure to avoid BL correctly
collecting tax or one to enable it. It does seem that the seller is located where
their physical operation could be cross-border to begin with, so this might potentially
be an appropriate way to deal with tax issues correctly.
|
It can only be “appropriate” if they are declaring and paying duties & taxes
themselves when they cross the border.
But it’s very easy to cross the France-Switzerland border with a few packages
in your car without properly declaring them as imports.
(AFAICT, there’s a some leeway given to frontaliers (border-dwellers)
but it’s for personal goods, not for business.)
| | If (hypothetically) it is appropriate then there would be no real ethical problem
at least with leaving the required buyer feedback from the other store, as the
seller is already verified and simply acting to enable correct taxation.
|
I think that if they had talked to the admins before setting up their second
account they wouldn’t have had to resort to that hack.
| | On the other hand (even more hypothetically!) it's for tax avoidance then
that's two scummy things they've done
|
Indeed.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 06:07 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| | | | | If (hypothetically) it is appropriate then there would be no real ethical problem
at least with leaving the required buyer feedback from the other store, as the
seller is already verified and simply acting to enable correct taxation.
|
I think that if they had talked to the admins before setting up their second
account they wouldn’t have had to resort to that hack.
|
They also left feedback for the established seller account, which is completely
unnecessary for the new store to be verified. So it looks like they were doing
more than just getting a feedback for the new store.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Llewyn | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 12:41 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, yorbrick writes:
| | They also left feedback for the established seller account, which is completely
unnecessary for the new store to be verified. So it looks like they were doing
more than just getting a feedback for the new store.
|
Urgh. It's hard to imagine how anyone could do that and think it was an acceptable
way to behave.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 08:42 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, jbroman writes:
| | In Problem, cosmicray writes:
| | In Problem, brasletty writes:
ummmm ... someone please tell if that looks like what it may represent, or
if I am making an incorrect assumption there ? Like ... one side of the same
store left FB for the other side ?
Nita Rae
|
I can see them doing that in order to get the necessary one feedback to open
a store.
|
After thinking about this a bit further, probably the most appropriate course
of action should have been (1) leave the feedback, (2) get the store verified
and opened, then (3) retract the feedback. If your analysis is correct, then
the reason for the feedback was a temporary one, and not as a permanent record
of a transaction.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 08:49 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| | | After thinking about this a bit further, probably the most appropriate course
of action should have been (1) leave the feedback, (2) get the store verified
and opened, then (3) retract the feedback. If your analysis is correct, then
the reason for the feedback was a temporary one, and not as a permanent record
of a transaction.
|
They also left feedback for the existing seller though. This was not necessary
to get registered, so they were doing more than just getting feedback to be able
to register/open a new store.
From the words used, they also made it sound like a transaction had taken place.
If it hadn't taken place, then it is feedback padding. This sort of thing
used to happen on ebay back in the early days, when feedback was not transaction
related and you could leave feedback for anyone at any time. People used to ask
for feedback swaps to increase their feedback scores without actually selling
anything.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 09:33 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, yorbrick writes:
| | | | After thinking about this a bit further, probably the most appropriate course
of action should have been (1) leave the feedback, (2) get the store verified
and opened, then (3) retract the feedback. If your analysis is correct, then
the reason for the feedback was a temporary one, and not as a permanent record
of a transaction.
|
They also left feedback for the existing seller though. This was not necessary
to get registered, so they were doing more than just getting feedback to be able
to register/open a new store.
From the words used, they also made it sound like a transaction had taken place.
If it hadn't taken place, then it is feedback padding. This sort of thing
used to happen on ebay back in the early days, when feedback was not transaction
related and you could leave feedback for anyone at any time. People used to ask
for feedback swaps to increase their feedback scores without actually selling
anything.
|
The two things that were done incorrectly here are (1) leaving FB in what appears
to be a transaction between to connected entities, and (2) the original listings
inflated the global availability of those items, which could mess with what the
PG was reporting.
Had they retracted the FB, and split their inventory between the two stores,
I'd have less issues here.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | manganschlamm | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 02:20 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, tpr writes:
| | Hi
Check out the sellers of this set for 133 and 137 quantity
Descriptive wording same for both lots
Are they the same person?
tpr
|
But what do want to do if a coupled runs two stores, each partner is formally
the owner of one of them. They will have separate accounts, separate businesses.
They can give mutual feedback to each other. They may have two places of residence
registered to both of them. Parts of the stock may be located at both. Everything
perfectly legal and not in violation of any of BL terms.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 06:14 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, manganschlamm writes:
| | In Problem, tpr writes:
| | Hi
Check out the sellers of this set for 133 and 137 quantity
Descriptive wording same for both lots
Are they the same person?
tpr
|
But what do want to do if a coupled runs two stores,
|
that's OK
| | each partner is formally the owner of one of them.
|
that's OK
| | They will have separate accounts,
|
that's OK
that's OK
| | They can give mutual feedback to each other.
|
The question here, does that constitute an arms length transaction. Did one store
hold out the same inventory to all potential buyers, at the same price and terms?
Was a package actually shipped from one to another ? I don't know the answer
to that question, and it is unlikely you do either.
| | They may have two places of residence registered to both of them.
|
That's OK
| | Parts of the stock may be located at both.
|
Co-mingling of inventory, that's where the separation between entities begins
to break down. The appearance (already mentioned up thread) is that both store-fronts
were listing the same inventory. Which suggests the inventory is jointly owned,
jointly stored, or something that blurs the separation between them.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | manganschlamm | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2021 08:00 | | Subject: | Re: Are these the same person? | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
|
| In Problem, cosmicray writes:
| | In Problem, manganschlamm writes:
| | In Problem, tpr writes:
| | Hi
Check out the sellers of this set for 133 and 137 quantity
Descriptive wording same for both lots
Are they the same person?
tpr
|
But what do want to do if a coupled runs two stores,
|
that's OK
| | each partner is formally the owner of one of them.
|
that's OK
| | They will have separate accounts,
|
that's OK
that's OK
| | They can give mutual feedback to each other.
|
The question here, does that constitute an arms length transaction. Did one store
hold out the same inventory to all potential buyers, at the same price and terms?
Was a package actually shipped from one to another ? I don't know the answer
to that question, and it is unlikely you do either.
| | They may have two places of residence registered to both of them.
|
That's OK
| | Parts of the stock may be located at both.
|
Co-mingling of inventory, that's where the separation between entities begins
to break down. The appearance (already mentioned up thread) is that both store-fronts
were listing the same inventory. Which suggests the inventory is jointly owned,
jointly stored, or something that blurs the separation between them.
Nita Rae
|
Agree, I just wanted to highlight where the definitions BL uses in their terms
cannot address the real situation any more. Even if both stores have one inventory
physically in the same place, BL will not be able to send an official for on
site inspection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom, England
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
Canada, British Columbia
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
USA, Florida
Belgium
Germany, Nordrhein-Westfalen