I have RC's that state I will only accept books that meet PBS rules....I do this because I have received so many books that I could not repost.    I came up for a Wishlist book and the sender denied my request, which I have no problem with, but she cussed me out stating that I was requesting a FREE book, etc. etc.   Of course she knows I can't respond because she sent this Nasty post as the reason she denied my request...Just really frustrates me that this person can treat me this way and I cannot even respond.    The book is not free...I mailed another book to get the credit to request this one.......This just really puts a bad taste in my mouth....Thanks for letting me vent......

:)

Send a copy of this to TPTB. I would think there has to be a way for them to see who denied your request and their reason for denying it.  You should not have to put up with being cussed out for an RC.

Thanks Sandy.   I had no problem with them denying my request as it is TOTALLY their option....But wow.

:)

Hey Lisa, if she swore at you in her response, you can report it to the PBS Team to handle. There is no reason that she should treat anyone this way--even if she disagrees with their Requestor Conditions. All she needs to do is simply say "does not meet Requestor Conditions" and move on to the next person.

I've had my share of unpostable books, so I can certainly understand your reasoning for wanting to put that you only accept books that meet PBS standards. But for some reason, this really upsets a lot of members because as I've seen others post on the message boards, they know the rules and do not like having them restated. What do your RCs say, exactly? Perhaps that could be part of the reason who received such an angry response.

If you are getting unpostables, simply mark them as Received with a Problem and request your credit back. Sometimes they will give you your credit back, and sometimes they won't. If the book is WL'd and you weren't able to get the credit back, you can always offer it for a credit in the Book Bazaar. If it's a book that has many other copies in the system, you can list it in your signature as an unpostable free with an order, and someone might contact you for that book and another on your shelf.

This is my EXACT RC...

I will accept only books that meet PaperBackSwap.com criteria. No ripped, torn or water damaged books please. I only post this as I have received several books in bad condition that I could not even re-post. Thank you.

I just thought that having the RC would help me avoid having to report problems....Maybe that is just bad thinking....Thanks for the responses!

It's very possible that people might be put off or worried that if they send you a book, you'll find it to be unpostable. In my opinion, it isn't necessary to give them the "why" of your RC; just keep it short and simple for what condition you are looking for, but you may have to re-work it so that you aren't restating the PBS rules. That's where it will get tricky.

I have also noticed with my own requests that certain genres tend to be more unpostable than others. I've had bad luck with YA, middle grade, and urban fantasy titles arriving in unpostable condition due to writing, water damage, stains, and even boogers in one case (which the owner vehemently denied, claiming her child wouldn't pick her nose). 

LOL...I will remove my RC but have received many great books since I have had it up....I just hate to request a credit back and I have received some that I really wanted to read and checked received but with a problem, but not requesting credit back for that reason......I just am so careful with what I mail out....I'll remove it...

Thanks Jennifer!

Do you mostly request only WL'd titles? Or a lot of already in the system books? If WL'd, try getting on the WL early for your books. That could help, because then the books might arrive to you in new-ish condition. If they are books already in the system, try to order that book with the most recent edition, rather than older editions of it.

Many people have found that restating some of the rules (like water damage) help avoid it even though the basic existance of rules should avoid it. I say if it helps go ahead and have the RC. It does not give the sender any reason to be rude or cuss at you. You may get a few people denying the RC just because they don't like people restating the rules, it will be the cost of avoiding the hassle of requesting credits back from bad books. You chose your lesser of the two evils.

And anytime someone cusses or gets rude, send in Feedback via the Contact Us link in the lower right.  Cussing at people is not tolerated.

It is of course the senders right to decline any and all RC's if they so wish.  Rudeness is not allowed, consider submitting the pm to PBS admin.

Yes, please do. Nobody has the right to abuse another member through PMs. 

And someone here once said something that stuck with me. I pared down my own RC because of it. Something like...

Restating the postability guidelines probably never works. Anyone willing to knowingly break the rules doesn't care enough to be put off by an RC reminding them to follow the rules. And of those that know and follow the posting guidelines, many of them will turn you down simply because RCs make them nervous. You're already protected by the rules, whether the other person follows them or not. 

I am put off by an RC that just states the rules, it's like saying "You are too stupid to read the posting rules here so I'm helping you out by restating them here in my RC" and if it's worded rudely I may decline just on GPs but sending you a nasty reply isn't called for. I don't think your particular RC is worded rudely but it is still implying I'm stupid. Granted many people are but you won't piss them off, only the people who aren't stupid and send good books know enough to be offended. 

Just recently I received a pm from the sender of a book I ordered through the FIFO system saying his book had some minor water damage and he wanted to make sure it was ok before he sent it since he's had some picky people complain about his books. I replied no, it was not ok and he needed to cancel the transaction and please do not relist the book, it violates the rules and if he's sending books out like it then the people aren't being picky, they're following the rules. He didn't reply but did cancel. I don't know if he will relist it or not, hopefully if he does the receiver doesn't just accept it. Some people do think the rules don't apply to them but a "please follow the rules" RC won't stop them. 

Restating the postability guidelines probably never works. Anyone willing to knowingly break the rules doesn't care enough to be put off by an RC reminding them to follow the rules. And of those that know and follow the posting guidelines, many of them will turn you down simply because RCs make them nervous.

I actually disagree with this quite a bit. People who send out unpostable books don't want to deal with a hassle. They are going to see an RC that restates the rules and more often than not, figure that requester is going to give them a hassle and move on to someone they think they can slip their unpostable book by.  IMO, people who spaz out at RCs politely restating the rules are sending books with issues and are getting upset because they can't send them without a problem. There would be no other reason to take offense to the restatement. I have seen many members who have restated some of the most commonly broken rules in their RC (liquid, stains, writing/highlighting) state that their frequency of those problems went way down after adding it to their RC. Yes there are RC deniers out of principle and there are people who take offense to the rules being restated, IMO they are less frequent than thought.

only the people who aren't stupid and send good books know enough to be offended.

I'm not stupid and only send good books. I know enough to know an RC isn't personal and don't bother to waste effort being offended where no offense is needed. I'm just sending books. If the RC doesn't apply to my book, why waste the energy getting offended for nothing? Get rid of a book, get a credit. Seems way less stupid than getting offended and sitting there with a book I don't need and no credit.

Yup, that's exactly what I thought (and still do) Melanie, and why my RC had a line stating "please be sure your book meets PBS posting guidelines before sending" until I got convinced to just leave it out. I haven't noticed an uptick in unpostables received, but I have gotten a lot less "your RC is insulting to me so I won't give you my beautiful perfect brand new author-signed solid platinum-encased jewel-encrusted book you idiot jerk!" messages. Go figger.

Maybe the PTB could do a statistical analysis of the % RWAP with and without RC's.

I'm not buying that someone who would ignore postability and their promise when postine each book that the book is postable will magically decide to be careful with an RC.  I've seen too many "RWAP RC not met" posts in this forum to believe it.

I'm not buying that someone who would ignore postability and their promise when postine each book that the book is postable will magically decide to be careful with an RC. I've seen too many "RWAP RC not met" posts in this forum to believe it.

Of course people  are less likely to send an unpstable to someone with a RC. Even some people who say they only send postable books don't want to send books to people with RCs.

For every  "RWAP RC not met" post in the forum there are 2 from people explaining how they only send postable books but they won't accept any RCs.

I have a similar RC and rarely get my RC turned down. I just politely state that I don't want books currently from a smoking home, with water damage, stains, or writing. When I do I get reasons that there is water damage or stains so it seems that not everyone knows the standards. I think just like not everyone uses the message boards not everyone reads the book guidelines.  

Melanie wrote:  IMO, people who spaz out at RCs politely restating the rules are sending books with issues and are getting upset because they can't send them without a problem. There would be no other reason to take offense to the restatement.

Oh but there would--because, as Barb said, the requestor is implying by restating the posting rules that the sender is either 1) stupid or 2) dishonest. I don't spaz out, I don't cuss out the requestor, but I do just decline those types of RCs. I can read, I know what the posting rules are. I've been a member here for 7 years. I am not trying to send bad books and slip them by people. I've sent out over 2000 books without a problem, and I know what the rules are. I don't need to be told again. I do resent being treated like a child. While the requestor didn't write that RC 'just for me' and it's not really personal, it is MY book that's been requested, and so...to me, it is.

Cheryl