Discussion Forums - Questions about PaperBackSwap Questions about PaperBackSwap

Topic: I'm insulted

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
Page:   Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: I'm insulted
Date Posted: 4/20/2010 12:56 AM ET
Member Since: 11/30/2007
Posts: 5,014
Back To Top

I have an RC. Please take a look at it --

*If I have requested a paperback book, please send it.

*If I have requested a hardcover book, please include its dustjacket.

*Dustjackets are not necessary on cookbooks, gardening, craft books or children's books. if the cover is already illustrated.

*If you use only the PBS wrapper, do use any form of plastic wrapping to cover  the book first.


I have had this for quite a while. Today, I received an insulting rejection. Here it is.

Requestor has too many qualifications listed to send a "free" book to him. Has to have this, has to have that, can't have this, etc. Sounds like a resaler to me. This is a website for people to read books and trade them with other readers. I'd rather send it to someone who is going to READ it and repost it for someone else.

I found this to be very insulting and no reason for the comments. I am not a resaler, never have been, nor will I ever be one. I am a reader and wanted that wishlist book for a long time and will repost it. I only have 2 conditions in my RC, so don't know what she's talking about. I have received many, many books while having this RC. The first line told her right away that her paperback was fine. The plastic could have been worked around.

I think that if people want to reject RC's that they should just write, "Doesn't meet RC conditions". That's it, they don't need to write snarly remarks and accuse someone of being a resaler. Still can't figure that one out. After all, I don't have an RC for books in "pristine" or "gift". I just find these sort of comments insulting and totally unnecessary.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 1:08 AM ET
Member Since: 2/26/2006
Posts: 35,125
Back To Top

Connie, this is just one member's opinion, so please don't let it get to you.  It obviously struck a cord with them and they felt the need to rant about it.   Try to brush it off and let it go. 

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 1:27 AM ET
Member Since: 5/3/2006
Posts: 6,436
Back To Top

I don't blame you for feeling insulted. Try to write it off as someone being an idiot -- they clearly didn't even read your RCs, which are very reasonable (albeit a bit long.)

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 2:33 AM ET
Member Since: 1/21/2009
Posts: 11,898
Back To Top

Has this person been a member long? 

I have had some pretty snide remarks so try to take it in stride.  Really all one need do is say it does not meet requirements but yours are pretty darn reasonable.  Why do some people ASSUME you are a resaler?  I have gotten some really bad books but the worse was chewed by a puppy, torn and smelled like urine.   And that is out of almost 600 books I have gotten.   I have mailed out over 800 books in 15 months and have not had any problem except for wrong book sent and I took care of that ASAP.

There was some discussion about RCs on this site a while ago.  A few felt that RCs were just too much trouble  so they subsequently marked any request with an RC as not meeting requirements.  They felt that after all you are getting a free book so why be picky.  But last time I checked you had to use a credit to get a book; and I make it a point not to send books that are on their last legs, books that I would not want to get.

Lighten up everybody!  May you always get nice books, those who think RCs are a bit much.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 8:32 AM ET
Member Since: 2/25/2010
Posts: 388
Back To Top

Connie, that comment back to you was a bit over the top.  I have no problem with your RC.


What is it with people complaining about RC's?  I can understand it if they're vague and leave you worried about an RWAP or if they were hostile but otherwise...


I received an RC this morning that I had to turn down because we have 2 cats.  Yes, I'm disappointed because I would have liked to send out that book but...that's life. 

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 8:34 AM ET
Member Since: 2/25/2010
Posts: 388
Back To Top

Priscilla, 800 books??  Wow!!!  Were they all yours or was it a joint effort?  You could start your own library.  (big grin)

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 8:36 AM ET
Member Since: 12/11/2009
Posts: 219
Back To Top

I don't think your RC is unreasonable. Just try to chalk it up to someone being a jerk.

Lisa N. (LDN) - ,
Date Posted: 4/20/2010 9:25 AM ET
Member Since: 6/19/2007
Posts: 11,704
Back To Top

Your RC is reasonable and clear.  Perhaps they didn't read them and just figured each line was a different RC.  I agree that it isn't necessary to reply with snide comments, just "doesn't meet RC" is sufficient.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 9:30 AM ET
Member Since: 4/23/2007
Posts: 9,520
Back To Top

Connie your RC's are fine; however, I would suggest condensing them from

*If I have requested a paperback book, please send it.

*If I have requested a hardcover book, please include its dustjacket.

*Dustjackets are not necessary on cookbooks, gardening, craft books or children's books. if the cover is already illustrated.


My RC is for hardcover books only: please include its dustjacket; dustjacket not necessary for cookbooks, gardening, craft books or children's books, if the cover is already illustrated.

Please wrap book in plastic to protect from the rainy weather we get here!


Too many "if this, if thats" can be confusing, but does not in any way excuse the rude message you got.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 9:36 AM ET
Member Since: 8/18/2005
Posts: 7,977
Back To Top

I think the site needs to put a new rule into place that says that in RC replies no personal comments are allowed.

Expressions of honest confusion, (because some RC's are pretty muddled), reasons why the book doesn't meet the RC requirements, or even "I don't feel like it" should be okay.

But any personal comment about the Requestor, including "If you want a new book, go buy it new" should get a black mark on people's accounts.

Either a black mark or remove the anonimity of the reply so that rude remarks have a name and can be complained about directly.

It's an FIFO process, and an RC isn't personal. The reply shouldn't be personal either. I think way too many people are using the anonymity of the reply feature to be rude and bullying.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 9:41 AM ET
Member Since: 8/10/2005
Posts: 4,601
Back To Top

too many qualifications listed to send a "free" book to him.

I would be insulted too...they called you a "him!" LOL

Don't let the bnastards get ya down, Connie. I am not one who likes long RCs but I think yours is fine. The statements are separated, and they're short and clear. I do like the way you worded the part about the plastic wrap--"If you only use the PBS wrapper...." because I have turned down a few that demand wrapping in plastic. I don't use plastic, but I do use a waterproof Uline mailer, so I would have no problem mailing to you, but if "plastic wrap" is specified, sorry...I take these things literally.

I'm not sure I agree with Kathy about cutting out the part about the paperback...there have been a few people in here who said they couldn't understand why their RC for dustjackets with hardcovers were turned down when they had ordered a paperback. Turns out the decliner thought that the person meant they wanted only hardcovers and theirs wasn't, so they declined.


Date Posted: 4/20/2010 9:51 AM ET
Member Since: 8/16/2007
Posts: 15,220
Back To Top

But any personal comment about the Requestor, including "If you want a new book, go buy it new" should get a black mark on people's accounts.

It gets old and really only makes them look like an arse. Who wants a book that has that much hostility and stupidity dripped on it anyway? The word is reseller dude.


Your RC is fine. They obviously didn't read it because you only have one limited condition and a request for plastic to protect the book.

Combining all of the DJ info in one line might make it look less like a long list. But I would not remove the part that says if you requested a paperback send it. That one has eliminated the "I have a paperback"  denial when I requested paperbacks.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 10:41 AM ET
Member Since: 4/30/2007
Posts: 2,728
Back To Top

Your RC is very clear and I see no problem with it.  Some people are just rude and snarky no matter what.  You can't take it personally. I don't usually have a RC, but a couple of years ago I was trying to collect a series in trade pb, and even though the version I had WLed were the trade versions, I kept getting sent MMPBs.  So I put on a RC that said simply "Thank you for looking at my conditions.  I only ask that you verify that the ISBN of your book matches the one I have WLed, as I am collecting a series and want only the trade version of these books. Thank you!"  One person responded back and said that I was picky and there is no way they would send me a book because I might nitpick everything and they didn't want to risk sending a book that I wouldn't be happy with.  Unbelievable....but my guess is that she had posted her book incorrectly and her book in fact did not match the ISBN that I had WLed, so all the better.

Sounds like maybe you dodged a bullet with this situation too- most people who yammer on about "free" books at PBS are the ones who are posting questionable books and hoping to get away with it because they are "free".

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 10:44 AM ET
Member Since: 2/5/2007
Posts: 30,804
Back To Top

It is one insulting person's opinion.  Don't allow their thoughts to get into your mind and make you waste energy and time on such a small minded opinion.   

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 10:52 AM ET
Member Since: 8/15/2007
Posts: 3,044
Back To Top

I actually really like your RC. It clarifies the whole "you can tell when a book doesn't have a DJ" thing I was talking about in another thread. You leave no room for doubts in your RC. I would accept in a heartbeat if my book met all the conditions.

I wonder why people who deny RCs get anonymity. Why don't they show up in the transaction archive? The request still went to them, they sat on it, and decided no. It's just like if it was someone who had denied without an RC or let a request time out and those go on the Transaction Archive. It really would help because then the rude members could be reported. And in my eyes, a rude member is probably one sending out books in not so great condition anyway.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 10:57 AM ET
Member Since: 2/21/2009
Posts: 2,926
Back To Top

There are whackballs here as well as in real life - take it with a grain of salt, and just be glad you ran across them here where it's so easy to ignore, rather than in real life! Odds are slim you'll encounter them again.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 11:24 AM ET
Member Since: 2/25/2010
Posts: 388
Back To Top

I didn't know that the ones who deny RC's don't end up in the transaction archive!!  That explains a lot.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 11:34 AM ET
Member Since: 9/13/2007
Posts: 2,520
Back To Top

Once again a stellar example of why names should be attached to these messages.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 12:08 PM ET
Member Since: 3/27/2009
Posts: 25,000
Back To Top

*If I have requested a paperback book, please send it.

*If I have requested a hardcover book, please include its dustjacket.

*Dustjackets are not necessary on cookbooks, gardening, craft books or children's books. if the cover is already illustrated.

*If you use only the PBS wrapper, do use any form of plastic wrapping to cover  the book first.




Well, I guess it's still  too long  and confusing for newbies and irritating to curmudgeons. I don't see anything wrong with the RC as it is. Rewriting it would be an exercise in futility as there is little in the way to become more clear. Let's face it, there are easily confused and quick to be insulted people on this planet, we must get used to it.

Don't change a thing.



Date Posted: 4/20/2010 1:28 PM ET
Member Since: 4/16/2008
Posts: 770
Back To Top

I have never understood why people get their panties in a bunch over an RC.  Why is it so difficult for people to say "Doesn't meet the conditions" and move on?

I think that everyone has hit the nail on the head...it's the anonymity factor.  It's easy to be a big ole jerk when no one knows who you are.  The internet makes some people feel powerful when they can hide on the other side of a screen.  When you know someone will never know who you really are, I guess it's much easier for those types of people to taint what is normally a positive experience.

Connie, I am so sorry that someone responded to you like that.  Take it in stride.  You probably wouldn't have wanted their stained and smelly book anyway, lol ;)

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 1:54 PM ET
Member Since: 4/21/2007
Posts: 5,257
Back To Top

Wow what a jerkish comment. I have only been posting and swapping for a few months now (although account created in 2007) but wouldnt' view any of your RC to be more than basic PBS rules or at the least etiquette. Books with different backing have different ISBNs for a reason, if you selected the hardcover, you should get it! And the DJ thing is a personal preference, I hate DJs but keep them on a shelf while I read the book because I know others like them.

This person is just plain immature and petty IMO.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 2:18 PM ET
Member Since: 1/20/2009
Posts: 2,680
Back To Top

How much do you want to bet that if PBS took away the anonymous nature of RC responses that the rude ones would be immediately dramatically reduced?

Really, at this point, that would be a really good thing for them to do, since the issue seems to only be getting worse as the membership grows (and the number of rude, disrespectful, or irritable members grows as well). We can report people for rude or abusive PMs and RWAP responses, and they get a warning about their behavior towards other members, but not RC responses? Why? It seems like a major hole that needs plugging, since I really think that a lot of members who know they have a bad attitude deliberately use RC responses to 'let it out', I guess you could say, since they know it's the only place on the site where they can say the things they say and not get in trouble with the PBS Team for it, since it's anonymous.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 4:54 PM ET
Member Since: 4/7/2008
Posts: 15,690
Back To Top

Agree with everybody, Connie. Don't let it get to you...

I don't know why people think books on PBS are free. Everybody 'pays' 1 credit for a book. Are credits free?

I could understand why the PBS Team doesn't show names in the RC rejections - they don't want to create a back and forth as to 'why did you deny my request' etc. But they could do a few things: 

  1. Have all rejections be part of the member's account so that could be taken into account if the member gets in trouble
  2. Have a system of rating the rejection - from "polite" to "rude" and the sender can get an automatic email saying 'Please be polite when denying requests." Of course, this could cause some people to call any rejection 'rude'.


Date Posted: 4/20/2010 7:58 PM ET
Member Since: 1/17/2009
Posts: 10,125
Back To Top

I think the main issue is that people probably do not know that the message they type goes to the book requestor and NOT to PBS. If you read the rejection in the OP's post ... it sounds like they are talking to PBS and not to the book requestor.

It might seem obvious to those of us who read the forums frequently ... but I would bet that many people do not have the detailed knowledge that we do about how this works ... and they have no idea that they are answering the actual person who requested the book. Especially if they don't have RCs of their own, and thus, have not realized that there is a message that goes back to the book requestor.

Date Posted: 4/20/2010 8:32 PM ET
Member Since: 12/21/2007
Posts: 1,642
Back To Top

Another option would be to make the reason for denying RC optional. Or make it a checklist with an option for other (explain).