5 ms·

I'm a little confused. In the original story, they didn't mention that: > Apparently, their machine ripped the shipping label right > off the box. And so the

I'm a little confused. In the original story, they didn't mention that: > Apparently, their machine ripped the shipping label right > off the box. And so the USPS sent me just the label in an > envelope, and proceeded to berate me to ship better next > time, even though I was the recipient. They just wrote, > As of the time of writing, February 14th, 2017 — this > package has yet to arrive. It has been stuck in the Jersey > City, NJ 07097 bulk mail processing warehouse with > absolutely no movement. I was under the impression that the package simply vanished, rather than being given evidence that something else was up, like damage to the packaging. Why not just tell me about the latter, first? It does shift blame a little...

crooked-v 10y ago
Presumably the author didn't get the label in the mail until after they made the post mentioning the NJ warehouse.
- justinator 10y ago
  The day of the first, "lost package", and receiving the letter are the same: February 14th. https://byuu.org/emulation/preservation/lost-package/ https://byuu.org/emulation/preservation/lost-package/: As of the time of writing, February 14th, 2017 — this package has yet to arrive. https://byuu.org/emulation/preservation/found-package/ https://byuu.org/emulation/preservation/found-package/ On February 14, 2017, I received the following letter from USPS: They totally left out this when making their initial post. Part of the package arrived, with a letter by USPS - the package didn't mysteriously vanish. It's a little different story. I don't know why they wouldn't have mentioned it. In the initial story, he blamed USPS for being incompetent on taking control of the delivery; in the second he blames Deutsche Post for a bad packaging job.
  - byuu 10y ago
    I received the letter with the torn off label about six hours after having published that article, and after Kotaku ran the original story. I was swamped with updates so I didn't get the chance to get to my mailbox sooner in the day.
    - justinator 10y ago
      Personally, I think that type of transparency is important, especially when you're asking for donations and you're publicly pressuring the USPS to do something. Why wait 9 days?
enzanki_ars 10y ago
At the time, the author might not have know how this package was wrapped and assumed that it was sent in one box.
- byuu 10y ago
  That is also correct. This is when I found out the sender had reused my old two boxes, on February 16th: https://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?p=38012#p38012 https://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?p=38012#p38012 In hindsight, I should have guessed from the label they sent me that it was paper wrapped. But I still received that letter after having published the lost-package article.
kevindqc 10y ago
What did they not mention? I think the ripped shipping label happened after the original post, and it was mentioned at some point. I don't remember where, but I did read about the ripped label somewhere before today.

crooked-v 10y ago

Presumably the author didn't get the label in the mail until after they made the post mentioning the NJ warehouse.

justinator 10y ago
The day of the first, "lost package", and receiving the letter are the same: February 14th. https://byuu.org/emulation/preservation/lost-package/ https://byuu.org/emulation/preservation/lost-package/: As of the time of writing, February 14th, 2017 — this package has yet to arrive. https://byuu.org/emulation/preservation/found-package/ https://byuu.org/emulation/preservation/found-package/ On February 14, 2017, I received the following letter from USPS: They totally left out this when making their initial post. Part of the package arrived, with a letter by USPS - the package didn't mysteriously vanish. It's a little different story. I don't know why they wouldn't have mentioned it. In the initial story, he blamed USPS for being incompetent on taking control of the delivery; in the second he blames Deutsche Post for a bad packaging job.
- byuu 10y ago
  I received the letter with the torn off label about six hours after having published that article, and after Kotaku ran the original story. I was swamped with updates so I didn't get the chance to get to my mailbox sooner in the day.
  - justinator 10y ago
    Personally, I think that type of transparency is important, especially when you're asking for donations and you're publicly pressuring the USPS to do something. Why wait 9 days?

enzanki_ars 10y ago

At the time, the author might not have know how this package was wrapped and assumed that it was sent in one box.

byuu 10y ago
That is also correct. This is when I found out the sender had reused my old two boxes, on February 16th: https://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?p=38012#p38012 https://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?p=38012#p38012 In hindsight, I should have guessed from the label they sent me that it was paper wrapped. But I still received that letter after having published the lost-package article.

kevindqc 10y ago

What did they not mention? I think the ripped shipping label happened after the original post, and it was mentioned at some point. I don't remember where, but I did read about the ripped label somewhere before today.