Out of the last 11 books that I've sent out, every single one of them had requester's conditions.   Is this normal?   Can I simply decline all requests that have requester's conditions?    Some RC's are clear:  No books currently in a smoking home.    I get that, and the reasons for it. 

Some RC's call for a judgement:  "Book must be in very good condition."     I accepted one of these, with on problem because it was a brand new book, that I didn't like, and I never finished.  But most of my books are not brand spanking new.   

So, can I automatically decline a request with RC's?  Or do you get penalized for declining these?

Just as any member is free to add any RC they would like to their requests, then anyone is free to deny any and all requests with RC's if they desire.  You will not be penalized and your account will not have any bad marks against it.

As you said, if an RC is very clear and concise and my book fits their RC, I will usually accept it.  If an RC is vague or confusing, I deny the request based upon the RC and let it move to the next member. 

There is no penalty for turning down RCs.  PBS does not count them.  It is up to you.  You may turn them all down if you so desire.  In addition, the member will see the reason you type in the box, but they do not receive any record of who you are.   The denied RC orders do not go into the transaction archive.  It is a blind transaction. 

Because of this, it is very important for the member making the RC to be very clear and polite.  No fuzzy grey areas.  Make it a clear crisp yes or no.  Edit it well.  Never ask for them to contact you if they have questions, because they can't without losing their place in the FIFO line.  (Well, they can if you include your nickname.)

Like others said, you can accept and deny any and all RC's you choose. But please try to not be rude when turning one down. A simple 'sorry' or 'does not meet your rc' is more than enough. If someone wants a new book, you (general) don't have to go into a rant about how 'this is a used book trading site and if they want new then go buy it somewhere'. 

I'm not saying this directly to you but to anyone who would turn one down. 

If you really don't know what to say, and you are required to say something when refusing a RC just put a . in the space and send.  

"just put a . in the space and send."

Actually, don't.  I did this for a long time after reading that same advice here in the forums.  Easier just to put a "." and move on than typing out a whole long explanation.  However, about 6-8 months ago I got a "handslapping" email from TPTB for doing this.  I wish I still had that email to copy and paste here (I looked, I don't.)  I no longer remember why, but I got the impression that someone I had just rejected an RC a couple days prior to that with the response "." complained to TPTB and they were lecturing me for an inappropriate response to the RC rejection.   Essentially, I was told that a "." is not sufficient.    I need to say something, even if it is just "sorry."  This part I remember with clarity - TPTB specifically said I needed to put something in there besides a "." and one of their suggestions was "sorry."  So now I type "sorry"  and move on.   Honestly, how is "sorry" any better than "."  ?????  It still doesn't say anything as to why I turned down the RC, it's just a response with 4 more characters in it than a simple "."  I'm now waiting for someone to complain that all I said was "sorry" and still didn't tell them why I rejected the RC.  Then I will get another email telling me I can't use just "sorry".

I know I'm pleased when my own smoke RC is turned down and they actually mention smokers. That shows me that it did work. I am really not pleased to get the "." ones. I'd rather the "sorry".

Maybe they can't really tell if the person is rejecting the RC with a "." or it's some kind of site glitch.

If the rejector has to type in a real word, even if it's just "sorry", then they know it's been seen and rejected and not a program going wonky.

Thanks for the information Julie.    I don't think I've ever turned down but a couple of RC's and it never caused a problem for me.  I'll use sorry from now on if that's what TPTB want.

Seriously? I kind of see that as dicating a response. I usually reject RCs because I don't feel like bothering. Thinking up a response constitutes "bothering". How annoying, not that it matters, I suppose.

I just sent a message to TPTB about the possibility of creating an option whereby members could of sending to requests with RCs entirely.  Some members simply don't want to deal with them, no matter what the RC is.  If there was an option in account settings to "reject all requests with Requestor Conditions," it would really speed up the wishlist process by bypassing all RC requests that sit at the top of the waiting list and zip right to the first person wishing that doesn't have a RC, especially when there's a whole slew of weird RCs sitting at the top of the wishlist because nobody wants to accept them, which REALLY slows down the time it takes to send out a book. 

Come to think of it, it would be kind of cool if RCs could be generically categorized, i.e., (a) no books from smoking environment, (b) no library books, (c) no highlighting, etc.  There could even be an "other" category for those quirky RCs that don't fit a generic category.  Everybody but those rejecting all RCs would get those requests.  Then, on our account settings, we could choose which types of generic RCs we're willing to send it.  Even in the FIFO process, it would pair up senders and receives and could really expedite the time it takes to move through the requesting process. 

Of course, I know nothing of computer programming, so maybe that kind of option would be prohibitively difficult to set up.  And, yes, I know that some members will get their hair on fire over the idea of being able to bypass RCs, but I can see some real potential in it. 

ETA:  No, I don't think that senders should "have" to give a reason why they're bypassing an RC.  That's a bit ridiculous.  Why is the requester entitled to an explanation?   

No, I don't think that senders should "have" to give a reason why they're bypassing an RC.  That's a bit ridiculous.  Why is the requester entitled to an explanation? 

If there's no penalty for refusing RCs, if we can choose to fulfill or not, then we shouldn't be required to give a response.  It's my choice not to fulfill it for whatever reason I want, because it doesn't meet your specific requirements, because your RC is longer than the book I'm sending, because your RC is unclear.  

I've done the period thing before, now, I guess I'll just go with sorry.

I just sent a message to TPTB about the possibility of creating an option whereby members could of sending to requests with RCs entirely. Some members simply don't want to deal with them, no matter what the RC is.

I sincerely doubt that PBS would enable something like this.

They are all about communication.

People are free to refuse RCs. It's one click, plus you type a small message. Why on earth would they write a whole bunch of programming to do the exact same thing so that people can save themselves the "bother" of reading what amounts to less than a minute of someone's request?

Sorry, but I don't see the issue at all.

If you are the kind of person who feels like people are doing you a favor by requesting your OLD BOOKS THAT YOU DON'T WANT ANYMORE and giving you credits for them ... then RCs likely don't bother you.

If you are the kind of person who feels like you are already doing people a favor by sending them your old books and they should just be grateful for that and take them any way you have them ... then RCs probably DO bother you.

It's all in how you perceive the order / send book process.

All of us have probably spent more time this month reading and answering this thread then we did on ALL of the RCs that might have come to us in that same time period.

"I sincerely doubt that PBS would enable something like this.  They are all about communication." 

The idea isn't a judgment of RCs or not wanting communication.  It's about being expeditious.  For instance, I reject all scent RCs.  I post a wishlist book.  It takes the first person on the wish list the full 48 hours to make the request, which I reject because it has a no smoking RC.  It then rolls over.  That person takes the next 48 hours.  And they have a no musty smell RC, which I also reject.  Potentially 48 hours later, I reject the third request for a no perfume smell RC.  In that period of time, with an "opt out" option, I could have mailed the book to requester number four and they could be reading it. 

I would hope that PBS wouldn't reject ANY idea out of hand without giving it due consideration.  At any rate, it just an idea that I thought could make PBS even more streamlined.  As I've said before, it's not my site and I don't make the rules... very grateful that it's here for us, though.

Right on, Sara.  How hard is it to simply type a one word polite answer if you don't want to tell the true reason you won't send the book?

It isn't hard at all.  It just shouldn't be necessary, any more than thanking someone for the book they sent you, which is optional.

This is just my opinion, of course, but I think the reason that PBS wants you to type a response is because they really don't want people rejecting RC's automatically.  I think they want the sender to think about whether their book meets the conditions.  I mean, PBS is in the business of getting books traded, so they want to encourage everyone to send their books out as long as they are postable. 

If you are going to reject a RC because you just don't want to be bothered, put the shoe on the other foot and think if someone didn't want to be bothered to send you a WL book.  I know I've said it before, but I just don't get the "reject all because I can't be bothered" mindset.

I would tend to agree with Shelia's opinion.  I think the reason box actually also provides an oppertunity for valuable feedback to the person.  They might not know there is a problem with an RC.  There's been lots of posts in the forums from members who want to edit their subjective RCs to something more concrete, and didn't even realize they were that way until someone rejected one/they had a bad experience/etc.  Even Emily's suggestion of "vague" would tell me I need to tweak how I word my RC. 

Actually, I don't reject all RCs. I just choose ot to be bothered with those that are unclear or not worth the trouble. Honestly, I think people can do whatever they wish with their own account within the parameters set by PBS. Until it is made clear via the terms of use that I am required to explain myself, I will not be doing so. If people want feedback on their RC, they can come here and request it, this is not something that is required as a response, in real time, when marking requests.

If someone doesn't want to be bothered to send me a wishlist book, as long as they are acting within site rules, that is completely okay. I mean, I'm not entitled to it. It's their book.

Honestly, how is "sorry" any better than "."  ????? 

I see this as the site administrators asking us to be polite, play nice, and treat each other with respect during a transaction.

We are all readers from different places and with different needs. The administrators tell us it's O.K. to let others know that your request is a little different from the next persons. The person who gets the order is asked to politely read the special request and to politely respond. Don't we all deserve this....  

or we all just to busy in our lives to take a second to be nice to each other? 

My response, if I choose to decline is "declined due to requester conditions" which means pretty much nothing. It doesn't tell the requestor anything they don't already know (that I declined their request) and it avoids saying whether it is because my book does not meet their conditions, or I just choose not to send because of their RC.

But, it's polite LOL.

To me, it is a matter of courtesy to reply as to why you are declining.  A period only, or even a "sorry" only response is rather rude, IMO.  As well as being very unhelpful, although at least the "sorry" response mitigates the rudeness a bit.  If I have an RC, I have placed restrictions on the books I want to receive.  If you have the book I want, but refuse to offer it to me, it is simple politeness to let me know why you won't let me have it.   The reason for refusal is an important feedback mechanism to the members who have RCs.  Even if your reason is "I do not send to requests with RCs" it provides feedback to the member with the RC valuable information to help them decide whether or not their RC is working the way they intend and helps them to decide whether their RC is working or needs work, or should be omitted entirely.

(Note to mistie: "declined due to requestor conditions" to me means that the book you have doesn't meet the conditions stated, not that you are declining because there -is- a condition...  that's just the way I read it, though.)