Unfortunately that's the chance you take when you add RC to your requests.  For whatever reason some people refuse to send books to anyone with RCs, no matter if their book meets the conditions or not.  Some may have been "burned" in the past by accepting conditions and then getting hit with a RWAP.  As long as the conditions are clear and not overly involved I'll accept if I meet them.  Most of the ones I've seen involve pets and/or smoking so I have to turn those down.  However, there was no reason for this person to have been so snooty about her response.  Possibly she's just a b**ch in real life too so I'd just let it roll off my back.

Too bad about the snarky response you got.  Look at this thread http://www.paperbackswap.com/forum/topic.php?t=164493&l=25&ls=0#p3323396

I'm sorry that this happened.  There are many people who seem to refuse requests that have RC's.  The only thing I can suggest is to make your RC's as clear and in as positive a tone as possible.  One PBS member has started a "generic" RC's thread to help us write the best possible RC's.  You might read them and add to them or adopt them.  Lots of people have trouble with RC's.  I don't defend them - and certainly not someone who is rude while refusing them.  But it remains that they have the right to refuse. I hope that you get your book soon.

Ruth

I would turn them off unless you are requesting a hardcover. 

I didn't find the senders response all that rude. I mean they could have left out the part about the book being in perfect condition.  But they didn't call you picky or go on about this being a used book site or anything. 

Getting turned down is a risk you take when you have RCS.  I've seen many posts from people on here who got an RWP on a perfectly postable book because someone had RCS and the sender thought they met them but the receiver complained anyway.  So a lot of people just refuse to deal with them especially if it's a book they think will go quickly or a WL book.

I have described tha book's condition in turning down RC's before, especially ones that I felt were worded vaguely or sounded condescending or picky.  I haven't read yours, so I'm definitely not saying they are any of those things.  I also don't turn down RCs just because they exisit.  I do err on the side of turning them down if I have any doubt or bad feeling at all.  When I describe the condition, it's usually so the person knows how I'm reading their RC.  If it's not a WL book, they can turn the RC off and request it if the condition sounds like something they can live with.

I think it's possible the sender was irritated that you put "no water damage", and wanted you to know that (s)he can read and follow rules as well as you can, so you lost out by assuming no one else follows rules but you.

That was very snarky of them and uncalled for.

Unfortunately, many people view RCs in general as an insult to their intelligence. They argue that they know what  the PBS guidelines are so no one should be issuing instructions on what's an appropriate book to swap. Harumph!

However, there are others who through ignorance or maybe spite, send out unpostable books. It happens every day.

So those who get offended at any sort of RC should understand that we do not mean to insult your intelligence by having an RC, we just want a transaction to go as smoothly as possible and for both parties to be happy. What is wrong with that?

(suiteangel):  >>and no water damage<<

The Book Condition Guidelines already say (there may be no water damage to any part of the book).  I used to have RCs that repeated some of the  Book Condition Guidelines.

But then I decided to just remove my RCs and mark a book RWAP if it didn't follow the guidelines.

The senders also want a transaction to go as smoothly as possible and for both parties to be happy.  The original PBS contract between sender/receiver without RCS is 1 credit for 1 postable book.

When you add RCs (especially subjective RCs) the original contract is altered.  From the sender's perspective it may be 1 postable book for zero credits.

 I think it's possible the sender was irritated that you put "no water damage", and wanted you to know that (s)he can read and follow rules as well as you can, so you lost out by assuming no one else follows rules but you.

I don't have RCs, but that attitude annoys me. Most of us have gotten enough damaged books to know that plenty of people don't follow the rules. Saying "no water damage please" is a general request, not a personal insult to the sender. The requester doesn't know you (general) from Jack, so they're not going to specifically accuse you of not following the rules. They have no reason to. If I would never send out a water damaged book, why should I feel defensive about a request like that? It's not aimed at me if I've never sent the requester a bad book. 

I don't understand why some people feel everything is specifically about them. An RC like that is just trying to deflect the people who do break the rules, not an insult targeted at you. There are people who send unpostable books, and they are the reason for an RC like that, not you.

Edited because I kept messing up the formatting

You should always mark water damaged books RWAP and ask for your credit back, even when you have no RCs.

you lost out by assuming no one else follows rules but you.

That attitude as well as statement are both so wrong.  Many of us have received books that clearly did not meet required criteria, so yes her assumption is correct--- there are quite a lot of members who do not follow the rules. 

There are a lot of people who send nasty damaged books, and they are the reason for an RC like that, not you.

This is true.  Unfortunately, I think many of the people who don't care about the guidelines also don't necessarily care about your RCs.  I've gotten unpostable books with my RCs turned off an turned on.  I'm not offended by RCs, but unless they are very clear like "not from a currently smoking home", "no ex library books", etc they make me slightly paranoid because I don't want to have confrontations.  For example, the no water damage RC is a restatement of the guidelines, but if I have a book that is one of those new PBs with cheap slightly wavy looking pages I would turn that down.  The book isn't water damaged and meets PBS guidelines, but I'd be afraid someone with that RC was hyper sensitive about any waviness of pages.  This is especially true for WL books.

I think anyone has a right to any RCs they want.  I have some that I almost never use myself.  But I also think that if someone haa RCsthey take the risk of getting turned down.  Just like those w/ RCs want to protect themselves from bad books, senders want to protect themselves from arguments about condition after the fact. 

I think that anyone who ignores the book posting guidelines that PBS puts up and asks you to agree to when you post a book-isn't going to care if you have RCS restating the posting guidelines.  If they ignore the warning from PBS why would they pay attention to your RCs?  I don't turn down the "please make sure it meets posting guidelines" depending on how it's worded-but I do find it quite annoying to get that RC. 

If you have RCS you have to expect to be turned down sometimes because people have the right to turn not deal with RCS.  I've turned down several where my book technically met the RCS but I found the RCS picky, vague or rudely worded.  I'm not short on credits and I'd rather wait for someone with no RCS.  I just don't make much of a comment on my denial other then "Requestors RCS are too vague or picky". 

For example, the no water damage RC is a restatement of the guidelines, but if I have a book that is one of those new PBs with cheap slightly wavy looking pages I would turn that down. 

I agree with this, since I worry about those books already. I think it's fine to have RCs and also fine to turn them down. I just can't understand reading a personal insult into an RC like that, unless the wording was actually hostile. 

 Unfortunately, I think many of the people who don't care about the guidelines also don't necessarily care about your RCs.

I've gotten several otherwise nice books that had a few water damaged pages in the middle. Not a huge problem, but definitely unpostable, and they were always books I had wanted to repost. Maybe the senders just hoped I wouldn't notice, but maybe they didn't see it themselves. I do think an RC like that might prompt some people to check more carefully, or to not try and get something past you. I agree that there's absolutely no hope for the people who send books that look like they were hit by a truck and then dropped in the river ;) But I've only gotten 1 or 2 of those, compared to several "maybe they just didn't notice" books.

It always cracks me up at people will refuse to send a book that meets the conditions.  Not me!  I want credits!  I want space in my house for more books!!

Shannon, I believe it just goes to the next wisher if it's a WL book.

Suiteangel;  If enough of us mark a sender books as RWAP/ usresolved the account will likely be suspended.  It's our PBS civic duty to do so.

Your original post didn't say that the sender said you were too picky and people with RCS cause problems. 

I'm sorry you got that response. You have to realise some people are incredibly unhappy people. If you met them in person you'd probably realise it right away and know it's not at all about yyou. Unfortunately, when your only communication is one post online, you may think it's personal. These unhappy people actually take delight in twarting other people. It's the only sense of power they have. It's also ridiculous as they are the ones who ultimately lose out by not receiving a credit.

Also, there is a concept called "Demand Resistance." It's a resistance or rebellion to perceived demands, requests or when someone requires something from them. They feel they are thwarting that demand by denying it, even if it is a reasonable, rational demand. Ultimately it's a power struggle. It usually develops during childhood as a rebellion to a controlling parent or authority figure. Now the Demand Resistance controls them. Some people even have it when they demand or require something from themselves, and thus they sabotage themselves from getting what they want. They are saying "F*** You!" to the perceived demand or request, even though they may be only spiting themselves in the process. Again, they feel that by denying the request, it gives them power.  

I just shake my head and shrug when I see people here boasting that they so proudly denied people credits even when their book met the RCs. (No, not all of them weren't burnt in the past. That's about being gun shy.) Later, one person posted, complaining they have no credits, have money & situation problems in real life, and people won't buy off their bookshelves. <rolling eyes> Was it really any wonder why this person has so many problems here and off-line?

The way I look at it is, I AM going to get my book from someone. It could have been them, but they choice not. So I don't take it personally. Ultimately, their demand resistance or refusal is about them. I'd rather my credit go to someone who wants it, and who is happy about fulfilling my request. That their sense of power is in making people happy. That's a Win-Win. The person with the demand resistance may have temporary satisfaction at the thought of (momentarily) thwarting me, but they are the ones in the end without a credit.

EveDallas

Whoa!  Thanks for posting that.

I've never heard of "Demand Resistance."  I am blown away by the description because it nails the situation going on here and the hostility towards RCs. It makes sense.

Love the entire paragraph, but this is my favorite:

The way I look at it is, I AM going to get my book from someone. It could have been them, but they choice not.

I think the same way. That's why I say, go right ahead and refuse. There are usually plenty of copies out there. I am also not afraid to just go out and purchase the durn thing either.

I have an RC that I turn off at times.  I had one book that went through three people before #4 accepted it.  I've never received a message about my RC - it's just stating that we're a non-smoking home and would prefer books that are currently in a non-smoking environment maybe that's why.

Geri.

and would prefer books that are currently in a non-smoking environment

LOL. A lot of people go ape over the word prefer. It's vague, they say.  It means if given the choice, you'd choose books from a non-smoking enviro, but you will accept books from a smoking home if there is no other choice. Therefore, the famous "theys" almost always announce they would deny the request on the spot.

I've read cyber fights over that little word.