Victoria Cross $10 Ballot

[trout]

sometimes I find the RAM criticisms very narrow minded and ridiculously unfair

WHY?
We still own this Mint (So Far as I am aware) and to send 2 of these coins to the same customer on a Ballot system is totally Unacceptable.
Just because they are "Government Employees" doesn't make them immune from criticism, On the contrary I DO believe these   lazy buggers need a good kick in the bum every now and then to stop the "Complacency" they have developed over the last few years.:angel:

[robbiegal]

jeezuz trout
do you really believe the lies of that ebay seller?
gosh mate
I have always given you more credit

how on earth could a 'duplicate' item be sent in a separate mail out 6 weeks LATER with a different mailing order number ? if it really were a duplicate then the order would only have the one number
THERE IS SIX WEEKS BETWEEN THE ITEMS BEING POSTED who is to say that he wasn't redrawn in the second round ballot?
what is to say that he is also a shoddy liar?
you have to pay before they post and then 6 weeks later to send a 'duplicate' is a tad far fetched

or have I come down in the last shower?

and by the way government workers aren't complacent and lazy - speaking for myself with 23 years of proud service and now at my age, doing two jobs for the price of one  due to 'attrition' management. The complacency sets in when moral is at zero and SOME of the public treat us like shit cause they have to kick someone in guts to make their day a better one .. such is life when you have family responsibilities

I am not the best with financial reports but page 357 indicates a self funding organisation - so I will probably be corrected
yes 'we' the Australian people own the mint but the Mint pays it's own way - not the taxpayer and there is a difference
http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2013/PBS%202013-14/Downloads/PDF/16_RAM.ashx

yeah but it more to the point that they could note this person and not give them anything in future ballots

maybe true but AC the RAM can't discriminate against customers on the basis they might list an item on ebay in a manner which might be seen as unconscionable - that sort of stuff could end up in the courts if the customer was vexatious enough and I assure you - they are out there

[Steveqld]

come on guys
be fair for God's sake

A voice of reason.  Thanks RG

:agreed:

I also don't doubt that if a concern is brought to the RAM's attention then even if they can't comment publicly they do take it on board and consider it internally.  Public concerns are probably discussed weekly at a management meeting and the relevant manager explains what they did about it.

Slightly off topic re my FOI application.  The RAM manager was having trouble providing the material within the 30 day timeframe so I unilaterally agreed to an extension of 30 days.  They were so busy with EOFY stuff that was one really grateful manager.

[robbiegal]

been thinking more about this (besides being defensive about being a public servant!!)
and I reckon the answer  is bedded in the last sentence in your reply and remembering as well, that simple invoice paperwork (which wasn't photographed) can be copied & doctored so easily these days

I don't believe that the mint has fobbed off anyone, I reckon they have been cautious in the response  



As the seller of this particular item is forthcoming with information, we suggest perhaps request that the customer provides the original 'offer to purchase' emails which were sent, which along with a unique code also included the name of the successful ballot entrant. In addition to the two individual receipts already provided.

[Robster]

The seller's use of 'error' in his sale pitch is clever but misleading at best, however he has certainly ruffled some feathers and raised the profile of the items.!
I think common sense will prevail, just another Ebay shark trying his luck.!
Possibly highlights the true problem, limited number ballot items from the RAM. IMO there will always be a small percentage of winners who will 'turn' the item over for a profit.! As always the consumer can choose to participate on not. :dodgy:

[autocoupler]

The seller's use of 'error' in his sale pitch is clever but misleading at best, however he has certainly ruffled some feathers and raised the profile of the items.!
I think common sense will prevail, just another Ebay shark trying his luck.!
Possibly highlights the true problem, limited number ballot items from the RAM. IMO there will always be a small percentage of winners who will 'turn' the item over for a profit.! As always the consumer can choose to participate on not. :dodgy:

Aggree. The only thing I would add is when a condition of participation is stated by any organisation, in this case one item per customer, most people including myself tend to take this literally. It's probably a result of being brought up to not expect any advantage over and above the next person. Sadly, there will always be a minority of those who seek to operate outside this unwritten law, while the rest of us put our trust in the ruling body to ensure compliance. Of course, when things don't go as set out, there will be cries of foul, and justifyably so. In this case, was every reasonable avenue taken to ensure maximum compliance? Maybe it was, maybe could have been done better. Other than cross referencing names, addresses, email and phone contacts, and credit cards etc, and then gonging out any duplications, I don't know what more could be done. Thinking about it, by limiting one item to any one address or phone number for example, the restriction may need re defining to one item per family. Do I hear cries of my favorite word, draconian? Well that's how it worked in the olden days:diablo::grin:

[markn]

Aggree. The only thing I would add is when a condition of participation is stated by any organisation, in this case one item per customer, most people including myself tend to take this literally. It's probably a result of being brought up to not expect any advantage over and above the next person. Sadly, there will always be a minority of those who seek to operate outside this unwritten law, while the rest of us put our trust in the ruling body to ensure compliance. Of course, when things don't go as set out, there will be cries of foul, and justifyably so. In this case, was every reasonable avenue taken to ensure maximum compliance? Maybe it was, maybe could have been done better. Other than cross referencing names, addresses, email and phone contacts, and credit cards etc, and then gonging out any duplications, I don't know what more could be done. Thinking about it, by limiting one item to any one address or phone number for example, the restriction may need re defining to one item per family. Do I hear cries of my favorite word, draconian? Well that's how it worked in the olden days:diablo::grin:

They probably took the best precautions they could within the realms of common sense.  No matter what systems they come up with those looking to make quick $$ will always find a way to game the system to their advantage.  Personally I think a couple of posters here are making a storm in a teacup over a shady eBay seller who will NEVER EVER get the money he's asking.

 As to "us owning the RAM" and them having to bend over backwards for our every request....hahahaha.  hahaha.  hahahaha.  That's why we have FOI.  If YOU don't like the answer they give you then YOU follow the procedures put in place and you will get your answer.  Shooting off emails is unlikely to get you anything unless you catch the right person in the right mood.  Griping about it on this forum just makes you sound whiny.

[purplepennyhunter]

When I posted up the link I should have commented further. I saw past the ridiculous price from a probably dodgy seller (was that the same guy selling shed job ex roll coins on eBay as errors and may also have been feeding to IAG auctions -off topic, yes another story). My point  really was same customer number, 2 coins which should not have happened in a fair process. I'm sure now the RAM knows they will look into (internally) at why the fair process failed and see it not happen again.

[purplepennyhunter]

Mark just threw a story at me. What if......


Ballot coin is won, ballot coin is paid for, ballot coin is sent. Customer pulls some sort of post office swifty or isn't asked to sign for his delivery, claims not received, the RAM does the right thing after complaint and sends another hoping for happy customer. In this case RAM did the right thing, customer is dodgy -is the customer always right? Remember there are always 2 sides to a story and what's perceived is not always the case.

Discaimer: I have no idea what's really happened.

[trout]

Mark just threw a story at me. What if......


Ballot coin is won, ballot coin is paid for, ballot coin is sent. Customer pulls some sort of post office swifty or isn't asked to sign for his delivery, claims not received, the RAM does the right thing after complaint and sends another hoping for happy customer. In this case RAM did the right thing, customer is dodgy -is the customer always right? Remember there are always 2 sides to a story and what's perceived is not always the case.

Discaimer: I have no idea what's really happened.

Sounds like quite a plausible explanation given the same customer Number is on both invoices/recepts.
I have actually had dealings with this seller and he is on by banned list for his dishonesty :ok:

[Unicorn]

:laugh2:

Just to change the focus of the thread for a tick  ....... hilarious .....

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/301270480688

Quick Trout ...... where's your punch!

[trout]

That is "Precious" :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[Unicorn]

Geez and they've only sold 6 others so far!

Obviously the extended family were in the ballot. :dodgy:

[trout]

Geez and they've only sold 6 others so far!

Obviously the extended family were in the ballot. :dodgy:

Have a look at the completed listings for this seller.
Make that 14 of these sold by this seller so far :dash1:
That makes at least 13 other collectors that missed out on this just because some scammy bugger has worked out how to "Rort" the system.:dodgy:

[autocoupler]

Geez and they've only sold 6 others so far!

Obviously the extended family were in the ballot. :dodgy:

Have a look at the completed listings for this seller.
Make that 14 of these sold by this seller so far :dash1:
That makes at least 13 other collectors that missed out on this just because some scammy bugger has worked out how to "Rort" the system.:dodgy:

Bring back the BIFF