It took longer than it should’ve to resolve this, given the OP’s premised (and now confirmed) circumstances - AND two separate NSFE discussions on the subject, to boot - but I would submit that the result smacks strongly of ‘Original Susan’ stepping up to the plate…
‘Original Susan’ for many years exhibited a great deal of coolness under fire - but as more a few of us likely remember from certain past events, she could be rather salty if she felt the need to be so.
Given the record of SEAmod posts in the OP’s two discussions, I strongly suspect that Susan had to get somewhat salty with her replies to her colleagues in the various siloed teams who had a piece of the case-ownership pie for this situation…
I’m having some ‘search’ issues OR I imagined this.
A couple days ago SEAmod pinned a piece about what to do with buyers returning the wrong items. I tried to copy it for future use (it wasn’t perfect but not terrible) but I was stuck in a loop of pasting the wrong thing.
Now I can’t find the story! Anyone know where it went (or was I hallucinating?)
To be fair, the OP appears to be unclear on how to effectively write an AtoZ defense, and from their responses to Seamod, not the type of person to take constructive criticism or helpful advice well.
We here know that pictures are not accepted in AtoZ defenses, and that how you defend the case is as important as whether or not you are in the right when it comes to positive outcomes. From the OP’s angry posts, at least the ones I saw, there is no way to tell how effectively the OP defended this claim.
Additionally, the correct response in the OP’s case where the item returned is not the item shipped is not to refuse to refund and send a series of messages to the buyer, but rather to issue a refund with a restocking fee of 100% (I still issue 1 penny, though others have disputed the necessity of doing so) for “Materially Different.”
I agree the OP deserved to be made whole in this case, but it is not clear to me that the main failure here is Amazon’s (beyond their penchant for being awful and making the AtoZ process miserable and obtuse). It seems that the OP would have been fine with some decent advice on how to write a solid AtoZ appeal and should not have needed Seamod’s intervention at all.
The OP was someplace between a jerk and a complete ■■■.
I think her comment " This was a direct result of my escalation." was directly aimed at the OP to get a message across since telling them to NOT SHOUT at her might not have gotten the message across!
This shows also how all of the mods have lost the direct power they used to have, same with Jeff’s office. Things used to just be “done” now they have to submit cases just like us lowlifes.
Not downing Susan in this post or the last, she has always been stand up.
At some point, there has to be a method to escalate matters within support channels.
As far as support is concerned - sure Susan is great, but her unique willingness to help should not be something of standard of exemplary support - this is, in actuality, just normal support - Now, we all know that Amazon doesn’t vest in such channels or at the most has neutered such support channels.
No one should have to pay for an additional specialized support service, which , in effect, is just normal service albeit compared to regular support channels seems competent - such a standard is amazon’s way of handling things and isn’t really a seller problem - Amazon chooses to maintain silos and neuter support in such a way that things can’t be escalated or can up to a point - take my example for instance.
And look at the disjointed, conflicting answers I received throughout my ordeal including from Mods - who made assertions which were factually false.
I don’t think - any entity, organization or platform, in good conscience - should be running/operating at such low standards - especially one that has built its entire business on catering to 3rd party sellers and uses language to market itself as Partners whereas ABSA starkly differs from the PR language that Amazon uses. This can’t be seen as anything but intentional.
Sadly, I spend a LOT of time on the NSFE (or my preference, the New NOT Improved Forum) and it has always been apparent that Amazon keeps the MODS on a pretty tight leash.
They seem to have to bend over backwards to NOT offend some snowflake rookie that couldn’t be bothered to follow the rules.
I’m surprised that Susan has survived without being sent to a ‘reeducation camp.’
I’m a ‘bit’ more direct and I am always amused when I get one of these on a post that was pretty blunt and to the point! I also love that they borrowed/stole what looks a bit like a ‘swoosh.’
We remember when brands where being hijacked and titles and images about 2 years ago. With the help of SEAmod, BEA and KJ_Amazon, a process to correct hijacked listings was established. It was very easy process for submission and was working … until it didn’t. OFSE was changed to NSFE and numerous other changes were made with brand registry which has rendered the process useless at this point.
We feel that when a MOD is able to establish a path which is correct for the seller that the “team” handling that correction then muddies the waters and gets the parameters changed so the established path is no longer of use.
I have another @seamod interaction. She seems to like me for some reason.
These are in response to this thread about Amazon getting rid of small sellers –أمازون
She says that is not the case.
For SOME reason she has not come back to answer my question about what they do when a seller on a different thread was openly bragging about how well they were doing with RA on the site.
My completely worthless opinion is that sounds right.
It is usually the bank that may require the buyer make attempts to right things before proceeding with a charge back. But I don’t think Amazon has any leverage preventing buyer from attempting the charge back.
That’s adorable! Yeah they do, they have the ONLY contractual relationship with buyers.
HOWEVER, the response is kinda correct. The OP wants the chargeback declined due to “buyer contract”. The buyer has no contract that would prevent them from filing a chargeback. No where in the world are you prevented from filing a chargeback. Also, Amazon can not deny a chargeback. That is not how chargebacks work.
In the early days of PayPal, PayPal attempted to try this sort of crap. They would block users who had won a chargeback dispute unless they repaid the amount.
Both Visa and Mastercard told them to cease if they wanted to continue to use their services.
In recent weeks some of the FMT-CMT Moderators and SMEs have begun acknowledging what the old hands among the seasoned and savvy forum veterans have been espousing for many, many years (link, SAS) - i.e. that the gatekeeping 'forged documents" Amabots are likely to be triggered by submitting .pdf docs downloaded from The 'Net which don’t meet the narrow parameters Amazon uses in its verification procedures for such document submissions - but apparently the word hasn’t gotten around to all of them.
