Discussion Forums - Questions about PaperBackSwap Questions about PaperBackSwap

Topic: Snarky note in response to RCs

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
  Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: Snarky note in response to RCs
Date Posted: 5/19/2011 4:16 PM ET
Member Since: 2/15/2009
Posts: 85
Back To Top

We have RCs due to allergies to cats and smoke.  We have another RC related ONLY to condition of children's books. Today, I received this comment:

"Sorry, I don't send books to those who make demands due to some bad previous experiences."

Am I crazy to find this response obnoxious? My husband's throat closes up from cat dander and I get sick from the smell of smoke.  

Can you block someone so you never have to deal with them?

Thanks!

 

Date Posted: 5/19/2011 4:33 PM ET
Member Since: 8/10/2005
Posts: 4,599
Back To Top

You really can't block anyone because PBS is built on the FIFO system--you can write down their name and cancel any requests to/from them if you want to.

While the comment might be a little abrupt, I don't think it's particularly nasty. It would depend too on how your RC is worded...if you mention allergies and it's short and succinct (like, "Due to allergies, please no books from smoking homes or homes with cats.") I would think people would be a bit more understanding. If you have a long, complaining paragraph about your previous bad experiences trading, then IMO that comment isn't really far off base.

Cheryl

 

Date Posted: 5/19/2011 4:36 PM ET
Member Since: 2/13/2007
Posts: 2,257
Back To Top

What Cheryl said. Don't take it personally and just move on.

Date Posted: 5/19/2011 5:06 PM ET
Member Since: 2/26/2009
Posts: 35,583
Back To Top

Not at all.

Date Posted: 5/19/2011 7:20 PM ET
Member Since: 1/17/2009
Posts: 9,709
Back To Top

No, you can't block someone.

Yes, their message is kinda rude.

Is your RC short and sweet? If it does not already have a "please" and a "thank you" in it, then add that, and if you have long reasons for what you want in it about past trades, then remove all that stuff and just list what you want in a clear and concise manner.

I have noticed that the people who seem to be bothered by RCs are the same people who feel that they are doing you a favor by mailing out a book, so they get upset by what they perceive to be as "demands".

Date Posted: 5/19/2011 8:43 PM ET
Member Since: 8/23/2007
Posts: 26,510
Back To Top

I didn't really find the response snarky at all.  It was straight and to the point.  Especially since I can't see the wording of your RC.  But I know when I get an RC that says something like "I will not accept this or that", it comes off as demanding to me.

Date Posted: 5/19/2011 10:07 PM ET
Member Since: 8/16/2007
Posts: 15,186
Back To Top

Do you refer to past experiences in your RC?  If you do, then you may want to remove that part of the RC. The response was a bit short, but if your RC does sound like you are grossing at the current sender about a bad past experience then it seems more like a truthful answer than a rude answer. If you just say you don't want books that are ____. Then the person seems just a bit pissy about RCs in general and I would just shrug it off and forget about 'em.

 

I will not accept this or that", it comes off as demanding to me. - as its been said a few times, PBS Help Center recommends wording RCs like this.

Date Posted: 5/20/2011 3:01 AM ET
Member Since: 1/5/2007
Posts: 145
Back To Top

I don't find the response rude.

It's not clear if the potential sender was referring to previous bad experiences she/he had with RCs or if she/he meant previous bad experiences the requestor had.  I think the sentence could be read either way. 

Date Posted: 5/20/2011 9:25 AM ET
Member Since: 9/8/2009
Posts: 613
Back To Top

I'd have to see the original RC before deciding whether I thought their response was out of line.

Date Posted: 5/20/2011 11:16 AM ET
Member Since: 5/15/2005
Posts: 1,328
Back To Top

The only thing that I would possibly consider being rude is the use of the word 'demand', when 'condition' might have been a better word. But I'm also one of those who cringe when I see RC's starting with "I will not accept...". I know at one time, that was an example that PBS gave, but to me that wording does sound like a demand. Other than that, they apologized and then responded honestly  on why they were denying the RC. Exactly what I'd want on an RC denial.

Edited to add - I read it a second time and can see why some would consider it snarky. It think it depends on whose bad experience she's talking about. I can understand someone who has been burned in the past declining similar or even all RC's but if I read it as the OP has no right to add an RC based on a bad experience, well I agree with the OP - that sounds a little snarky.



Last Edited on: 5/20/11 2:06 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/20/2011 12:46 PM ET
Member Since: 8/15/2007
Posts: 3,044
Back To Top

I'm with the others who think it means they don't accept RCs because they feel they've been burned by them in the past. Not rude at all, just honest. They've even said sorry.

Now if you mention past experiences in your RC, then I suppose they could be referring to you and it can be read as snarky. But even if that's the case, I don't think I'd read it as snarky...more frustrated than snarky.

Date Posted: 5/20/2011 1:44 PM ET
Member Since: 2/15/2009
Posts: 85
Back To Top

Maybe I was overly sensitive yesterday, but in my time with PBS, no one has ever objected to my RCs.  This is what it states:

           Due to allergies, we cannot accept books currently in a smoking home or a home with cats.  Sorry!  For children's books, we do not  want books with chewed edges, chewed spines or other visible bite marks. Thanks for your understanding.

I tried really hard to word my RCs in a way that was straightforward and logical. I didn't put in anything re: past experiences because I give every seller the benefit of the doubt.  Was just curious whether others thought differently than me!

Thanks for taking the time to read my post and comment! I appreciate all the responses...even those with which I don't agree!



Last Edited on: 5/20/11 1:45 PM ET - Total times edited: 2
Date Posted: 5/20/2011 1:50 PM ET
Member Since: 8/16/2007
Posts: 15,186
Back To Top

Your RC seems just fine to me.

Many will say that you do not need the part about the chewed books because it is already part of the rules. I personally have no problems with people restating parts of the rules that are important to them, but that may be what set of your original offender, they took it that you were restating the rules in your RC because you had received chewed books.

That kind of a response to that bland of an RC, I just always figure they were trying to pass of a book that wasn't postable and got in a fit because the RC caught them. There is no reason for them to take the RC so personally.

Date Posted: 5/20/2011 3:15 PM ET
Member Since: 3/27/2009
Posts: 1,516
Back To Top

Your RC sounds fine to me too.  I wouldn't take it as demanding at all.  Maybe the person who sent the response was having a bad day that day.  Hopefully your next request works out better.

Date Posted: 5/20/2011 4:20 PM ET
Member Since: 9/8/2009
Posts: 613
Back To Top
Honestly, that's one of the nicest, most polite RCs I've seen. Yeah, maybe they were having a bad day.
Date Posted: 5/20/2011 5:53 PM ET
Member Since: 8/23/2007
Posts: 26,510
Back To Top

My guess is they had someone say a book didn't meet RCs and now they're soured against them. Just like you have put up an RC about condition due to past experience, they are declining RCs due to past experience.

Date Posted: 5/20/2011 6:05 PM ET
Member Since: 1/22/2011
Posts: 2,393
Back To Top


Last Edited on: 5/20/11 6:40 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/20/2011 6:20 PM ET
Member Since: 1/5/2007
Posts: 145
Back To Top

Your RC is polite.
I think the responder must have been burned by past RC experiences. 

Date Posted: 5/21/2011 12:04 AM ET
Member Since: 8/15/2007
Posts: 3,044
Back To Top

After seeing your RC, I'll go with my first thought...it was the sender who has been burned on past swaps with RCs, so unfortunately she won't deal with them anymore. 

Don't take it personally. It sucks because one bad swap can make a person slightly prejudiced with any future swaps that seem similar, such as ones with RCs.