Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Leaving negative feedback about $1.41 of bits purchases you got a great discount on is definitely a crybaby move.

 Gallahad wrote:
Leaving negative feedback about $1.41 of bits purchases you got a great discount on is definitely a crybaby move.

Shots fired!

But I also agree, the negative feedback was too much. In OPs situation I would have left no feedback for the mistaken item. OP got their money back, and presumably kept the incorrect bits, so what loss was there besides time? The seller is out the money for the auction, the auction fees, as well as a negative mark on their account. The loss of the incorrect bit(s) is on the seller for mixing up their inventory, but still could be counted in the loss column. Seems pretty one-sided in term of who came out as a winner and loser here, making the negative feedback wholly unnecessary in my opinion.

I've been selling more on eBay lately, so maybe I am just grumpy because I am getting the gak-end of the stick from buyers. Had over $500 in sales just fall through in the last week because one buyer flat out decided they no longer wanted their item, and another guy just vanished after asking for specialized shipping options. Once I gave him the quote *poof* the donkey cave is gone. So, yeah, a negative over a mistaken item that was refunded? F-that!

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Gallahad wrote:
Leaving negative feedback about $1.41 of bits purchases you got a great discount on is definitely a crybaby move.

Shots fired!

But I also agree, the negative feedback was too much. In OPs situation I would have left no feedback for the mistaken item. OP got their money back, and presumably kept the incorrect bits, so what loss was there besides time? The seller is out the money for the auction, the auction fees, as well as a negative mark on their account. The loss of the incorrect bit(s) is on the seller for mixing up their inventory, but still could be counted in the loss column. Seems pretty one-sided in term of who came out as a winner and loser here, making the negative feedback wholly unnecessary in my opinion.

On the contrary.

After a rather unreasonable delay in shipping some bits were missing. Emails I sent were not returned, so I had to make a paypal claim. Eventually I got a refund, but this was still a negative experience in my book, and marked that one item as a negative on their feedback

If the Seller chooses not to respond to emails, forces buyer to make a claim, that's a Negative right there.

The entire point of the Negative is to force Sellers to respond to issues for things as small as $1.41, for every sale, no matter how big or how small. If the Seller offers an item for $1.41, then they are responsible for fulfilling that. If they refuse to do so, then that's their fault.

If it were me, I'd have only given the Neg, none of the Positive. Feth that guy.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The entire point of the Negative is to force Sellers to respond to issues for things as small as $1.41, for every sale, no matter how big or how small. If the Seller offers an item for $1.41, then they are responsible for fulfilling that. If they refuse to do so, then that's their fault.

I am not defending the seller's behavior, however I think a negative should only be left when the buyer is actually harmed in some way through a loss. Cuda didn't really lose anything and was minimally inconvenienced. To throw around accusations of cry baby behavior I agree with Galahad, it's his, and not the sellers behavior that was immature. That negative was punitive, which would be fine if the eBay system wasn't so heavily skewed against sellers, and when even a few negative marks can drasticly impact the fee structure of the site. But since eBay's feedback system is so fethed, a negative should only really be left for serious matters. In this case, I think Cuda's negative was unnecessary and kinda petty. It was within his right, but still a bs negative in my opinion.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If it were me, I'd have only given the Neg, none of the Positive. Feth that guy.

Oh, gee I am shocked that this is your outlook.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
[ OP got their money back, and presumably kept the incorrect bits, so what loss was there besides time?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
[ Cuda didn't really lose anything and was minimally inconvenienced.

If by "incorrect bits", you mean "air" then yes I kept that. They didn't send me incorrect bits, they sent me NOTHING. I also did have a loss. All the other bits I ordered were for conversions that hinged around those missing bits. Bits that are now OOP, not available anywhere else, and the company that made them are stopping production of those pieces. I now have a $50 pile of bits that can't fulfill their original purpose. Perhaps I can one day find decent substitutes, I don't know.

Okay, I apologize, I misread your OP. So you didn't keep incorrect bits. Still, you got your money back and the fact that the bits are OOP and hard to source aren't the seller's fault that your project stalled. The internet is a big place, chances are that sellers bits weren't the last of those type in circulation. And if the whole project hinged on those missing bits why didn't you demand refunds and return the rest of the order? Why keep $50 worth of bits you can't use? That doesn't make any sense.

I treat every sale as individual. If you were only allowed to make one rating per "shopping cart" that would be one thing, but since I was allowed to make 13 various ratings I didn't feel right giving 13 strikes for an order that was 93% correct. Nor did I want to pay return shipping to end up with nothing.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
It was within his right, but still a bs negative in my opinion.

No, what's BS is sellers feeling entitled to positive feedback just because positive feedback is a useful asset to have. I don't give a if a high feedback score is better for you, if you screw up my order that's a negative experience and you should expect to be rated honestly on it. I have zero obligation to let it go and pretend that everything was just fine so that you don't have to take a penalty for your failure.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The entire point of the Negative is to force Sellers to respond to issues for things as small as $1.41, for every sale, no matter how big or how small. If the Seller offers an item for $1.41, then they are responsible for fulfilling that. If they refuse to do so, then that's their fault.

I am not defending the seller's behavior, however I think a negative should only be left when the buyer is actually harmed in some way through a loss. Cuda didn't really lose anything and was minimally inconvenienced. To throw around accusations of cry baby behavior I agree with Galahad, it's his, and not the sellers behavior that was immature. That negative was punitive, which would be fine if the eBay system wasn't so heavily skewed against sellers, and when even a few negative marks can drasticly impact the fee structure of the site. But since eBay's feedback system is so fethed, a negative should only really be left for serious matters. In this case, I think Cuda's negative was unnecessary and kinda petty. It was within his right, but still a bs negative in my opinion.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If it were me, I'd have only given the Neg, none of the Positive. Feth that guy.

Oh, gee I am shocked that this is your outlook.

You shouldn't be.

I have done business on eBay and other sites for decades now, and my expectations are pretty high. A negative is warranted whenever a seller fails to do what they say the would do. If they ignore a problem, refuse to address it, then that is bad behavior that deserves a negative, regardless of whether it was $1, $100, 10,000 or $0.01. If I can be responsive within 24 hours, so can that seller. If the seller claims to be "too busy" then that's on the seller, and again, deserves whatever they get. If the seller didn't want the negative, they should have instead followed up and proactively addressed the problem, instead of hoping the buyer would give up. The seller's behavior is egregious and deserves to be made known. A legitimate negative feedback does that.

The only way it would have been a bullgak negative is if the seller had immediately offered redress, but the buyer refused with some sort of irrational demand (like the Savage Ork seller experienced). In that case, the negative would be disputed and removed.

My feedback is perfect, and I expect it to stay that way.

If a buyer has a problem, no matter how small, I address it immediately and fairly. I won't get jerked around, and I won't leave the other party hanging for days or weeks.

But if I did, and I got dinged for it, again, that'd be on me.

The real problem is that all mutual rating systems devolve into binary sytsems because people are generally lazy (and some game theory). i.e. everybody is either five stars or one, etc. Companies want to reward their best sellers/ drivers/ hosts, etc. so they offer perks for being on top, or more regularly, disincentives to being on the bottom. This further increases the rewards to leaving mutually positive feedback, especially for the seller in this case.

Cuda got his $1.4 back, and came here to complain about the seller blocking him for his "justified" negative feedback. Cuda now regrets choosing to defect (in game theory prisoners' dilemma language), because the seller doesn't want to deal with somebody that "defects" rather than colludes over such a tiny amount.

If $1.4 inventory error puts somebody in the same bucket as "took my money and didn't ship my stuff" for JohnHwang or Cuda that is fine. Leave the feedback, get your money back, you win. But then don't come to here to complain that the guy doesn't want to do business with you anymore.

Again, the point of Cuda's post is that he wants to do business with the guy again, and is upset that he got blocked.

For me personally, I reserve my negative feedback for people I don't want to do business with again, and certainly not for $1.4. The feedback sytsem works on a binary do/don't do business with kind of way. The dudes handing out negatives for tiny dollar errors just distort the signal.

 Gallahad wrote:
Again, the point of Cuda's post is that he wants to do business with the guy again, and is upset that he got blocked.

Indeed, which I don't understand. If the Seller can't be bothered to respond, why would you want to go back for more bad service? Bad service like that is often a sign that things are going wrong.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Gallahad wrote:
Again, the point of Cuda's post is that he wants to do business with the guy again, and is upset that he got blocked.

Indeed, which I don't understand. If the Seller can't be bothered to respond, why would you want to go back for more bad service? Bad service like that is often a sign that things are going wrong.

Yes but sometimes the market is limited in what retailers are on offer. So sometimes you still have to trade with a less than stella seller because they are the only person selling what you want. Another aspect is if you've traded with them before and they've got a very good track record and there is just one hiccup along the way. One mistake is one mistake, but the ban means that the chance to trade is totally gone.

If bad service over a small amount of money doesn't warrant negative feedback, then why would good service for a small amount ever warrant good feedback?

This is like having your favorite restaurant serve you utter crap one time. Sure, you complain, they apologize, and hopefully the next time you come in they learned from their mistake. If they burn you again, then it might be time to find somewhere else.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
It was within his right, but still a bs negative in my opinion.

No, what's BS is sellers feeling entitled to positive feedback just because positive feedback is a useful asset to have. I don't give a if a high feedback score is better for you, if you screw up my order that's a negative experience and you should expect to be rated honestly on it. I have zero obligation to let it go and pretend that everything was just fine so that you don't have to take a penalty for your failure.

No, what is BS is that there isn't a middle ground any more. There used to be a neutral feedback option which would be perfect for a case like this. While being ignored and having to get your money back through a Paypal dispute is annoying, and bad business on the sellers part, it isn't a colossal feth up. A large bits order was short one of twelve items. Yes, a bits seller should have a good Q/C process in place, but mistakes happen, and it wasn't like the seller did something offensive, outrageous or illegal. They dropped the ball. That an extremely punitive negative feedback is the only "option" available for buyers to express anything other than anal-exploding glee over their transaction is why Cuda is banned. The system doesn't allow for nuance which means both side go nuclear.

You've made your sense of entitlement as a consumer well known in previous threads, so I don't have an interest unpacking the last bit of your statement. Let's agree to disagree regarding the severity of the failure in this transaction. Yes, it was an unsatisfactory transaction, but was the infraction so egregious it was worth cutting off a bits source?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
If bad service over a small amount of money doesn't warrant negative feedback, then why would good service for a small amount ever warrant good feedback?

It doesn't. But, you also had the option to leave no feedback for that transaction, or for all of the transactions in that group purchase. Instead you brought a hand grenade to a fist fight and now you are banned. It sucks that an item was missed but was the bad service really *that* bad? There are so many things a seller can do to warrant negative feedback. Hostile communications, lousy packaging, misrepresenting what they are selling, are all bad practices that hurt the eBay community and are what negative feedback should highlight. Leaving out an item from an order and not responding are crappy, but they aren't necessarily intentionally bad business practices meant to harm buyers. Someone dropped the ball on your order, that is all.

Again, it was your right to leave the feedback because that is the system eBay has in place, I just think you overreacted.

The delay in shipping was annoying. That alone would not have made me give negative feedback.

Forgetting one item was annoying. That alone would not have made me give negative feedback.

Not responding to emails wouldn't necessarily elicit a negative feedback, as long as they pro-actively sent a refund.

Long shipping times, forgetting an item, refusing to respond, and forcing me to go through ebay resolution, that's what put me over the top. Short of outright fraud I don't see how this could be much worse.

And quite frankly, I feel that negative feedback isn't just for the absolute worst case scenario.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Its just a thing of ebay, as bad a taste as it leaves. One of my favorite bitz sellers recently added statements all over their site saying if you leave a negative you will be blocked from future purchases.

Surely that is against Ebay terms and conditions though?

 Ezaviel wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Its just a thing of ebay, as bad a taste as it leaves. One of my favorite bitz sellers recently added statements all over their site saying if you leave a negative you will be blocked from future purchases.

Surely that is against Ebay terms and conditions though?

How so?

It seems completely reasonable

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
No, what is BS is that there isn't a middle ground any more. There used to be a neutral feedback option which would be perfect for a case like this. While being ignored and having to get your money back through a Paypal dispute is annoying, and bad business on the sellers part, it isn't a colossal feth up. A large bits order was short one of twelve items. Yes, a bits seller should have a good Q/C process in place, but mistakes happen, and it wasn't like the seller did something offensive, outrageous or illegal. They dropped the ball. That an extremely punitive negative feedback is the only "option" available for buyers to express anything other than anal-exploding glee over their transaction is why Cuda is banned. The system doesn't allow for nuance which means both side go nuclear.

Again, so what? The seller failed to handle the transaction properly and generated a negative experience. Negative feedback is 100% accurate, and again the only reason you can come up with not to leave negative feedback is that the seller wants to have a better feedback score. And they aren't entitled to a better feedback score. Nor is failure to give them a higher than honest feedback rating "extremely punitive". If 95% of their transactions are successful then they get 95% positive feedback, even if it benefits them to have 99%.

You've made your sense of entitlement as a consumer well known in previous threads, so I don't have an interest unpacking the last bit of your statement. Let's agree to disagree regarding the severity of the failure in this transaction.

Yeah, because expecting a product to actually be delivered when I pay for it is just entitlement, and completely unreasonable of me...

Yes, it was an unsatisfactory transaction, but was the infraction so egregious it was worth cutting off a bits source?

Providing honest evaluation of a seller should not cut off a source. It's stupid that ebay allows you to block sellers in the first place, outside of dealing with scammers. Do you not see a problem with a seller saying "give dishonest feedback for my benefit or I will refuse to do business with you"?

There are so many things a seller can do to warrant negative feedback. Hostile communications, lousy packaging, misrepresenting what they are selling, are all bad practices that hurt the eBay community and are what negative feedback should highlight. Leaving out an item from an order and not responding are crappy, but they aren't necessarily intentionally bad business practices meant to harm buyers. Someone dropped the ball on your order, that is all.

No, things like misrepresenting an item should not be grounds for negative feedback. They should be grounds for being banned from the site and, in the case of misrepresenting an item (AKA mail fraud), referral to the police. Failure to deliver a product followed by failure to communicate when the buyer attempts to resolve the issue are grounds for negative feedback, because they are a negative experience and a failure by the seller. The only reason not to give negative feedback is this weird culture of entitlement ebay has, where sellers are entitled to a 100% rating unless actively engaged in criminal activities and giving honest evaluations is unacceptable as anything but a last resort. Criminal behavior gets negative feedback, poor customer service gets nothing, and adequate fulfillment of the responsibilities of a business gets you A+++++ AMAZING BEST SELLER EVER. It's insane.

After purchasing dozens of times (& several hundred dollars spent) I got banned from Horde of Bits for politely asking where my order was since it hadn't arrived after 45 days. I never got a reply from them,I sent out another very polite message a week later which also went unanswered so after two months I filed a paypal dispute. They still never communicated but uploaded tracking information showing that the item had shipped but it had disappeared in route and never made it to the Chicago hub that mail goes to before coming to my local branch. I ship stuff on ebay all the time and I know that happens so I requested that they send a replacement part or return my money but still no communication. I would have been willing to split the loss since it was due to the post office mishandling stuff. The dispute sat there unanswered without a reply so after two weeks I escalated it to a claim and again no response so paypal eventually refunded me.

It was a $17 purchase so the money wasn't a big deal and I really just needed the parts to finish my conversion so I tried to buy a second set of the heads but I'd been blocked on ebay. I hadn't left feedback for the failed transaction so it was a block put up prior to any feedback. They'd always been good about getting past orders out in a timely fashion but apparently they refuse to respond to any problems that come up, even ones that are valid. I ultimately left them a neutral feedback stating item hadn't arrived and had to file a dispute for a refund which I felt was more than warranted as I should have left a negative. A few hours after I left the feedback I get a rather angry message from HOB about leaving them "bad feedback" and I'm like wtf?? you can't bother to reply once in three months but you'll message me about leaving a neutral? (with rather hostile & profane language)

As long as everything goes well you're a welcome customer but they'll block you the instant anything goes wrong regardless of where the fault is. There's plenty of other bits sellers that I'd much rather my money go to.

I like Hordes of bits because they were cheap, had decent shipping rates, and got stuff to me fast. Customer service stinks to high heaven though. I think paying a buck more for an item might be worth not dealing with the attitude.

 Peregrine wrote:
Providing honest evaluation of a seller should not cut off a source. It's stupid that ebay allows you to block sellers in the first place, outside of dealing with scammers. Do you not see a problem with a seller saying "give dishonest feedback for my benefit or I will refuse to do business with you"?

I think you meant bidders, but no, it isn't stupid. This thread is an example of why blocking bidders is the only recourse a seller has to avoiding potentially problematic bidders. A negative mark is a serious thing for a seller to incur, so are you really surprised that they would deal with receiving one in a heavy-handed fashion?

I don't see the system as sellers demanding dishonest feedback, rather that bidders won't give honest feedback and treat anything other than exemplary service as grounds for a negative remark. By and large I think people have unrealistic expectations from eBay. I blame services like Amazon which expedited online shopping so well it has become "standard" to expect Amazon-level service for everything. I also blame eBay which bent its sellers over a barrel a few years ago and let buyers go to town by removing negative feedback consequences for bidders.

Sellers aren't demanding dishonest feedback, they are just asking not to jeopardize their margins because you got pissy with a benign mistake.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, things like misrepresenting an item should not be grounds for negative feedback. They should be grounds for being banned from the site and, in the case of misrepresenting an item (AKA mail fraud), referral to the police. Failure to deliver a product followed by failure to communicate when the buyer attempts to resolve the issue are grounds for negative feedback, because they are a negative experience and a failure by the seller. The only reason not to give negative feedback is this weird culture of entitlement ebay has, where sellers are entitled to a 100% rating unless actively engaged in criminal activities and giving honest evaluations is unacceptable as anything but a last resort. Criminal behavior gets negative feedback, poor customer service gets nothing, and adequate fulfillment of the responsibilities of a business gets you A+++++ AMAZING BEST SELLER EVER. It's insane.

Again, I don't want to go down the road of crazy that is your expectations as a consumer. I'll agree with you that there is a culture of entitlement on eBay but I'd argue it is the buyers, and not the sellers, who maintain that privileged posture. The feedback system is one-sided against sellers and many buyers know that and take advantage of that vulnerability.

It was to my great surprise and displeasure, having sold something to a buyer on eBay, that I had no choice but to accept a return. There was a problem with a sprue (it was slightly warped, and this was due to GW’s error in production, not anything I did). However, the bits on the sprue were not warped whatsoever. The buyer demanded that I give him some of his money back for selling him a faulty product. I said no, because there was essentially nothing wrong with it. Back and forth we went, but I told him I had a no refund policy and it was spelled out in the auction.

Cool story, bro. eBay gave me no choice in the matter, and I was forced to accept the return and refund his money as part of an automated feature. There was no “my side” of the issue, it was done.

I have since only had one complaint, and I don’t even remember what it was about, but as a gesture of good faith (and knowing I had essentially no recourse) I threw a few dollars his way to keep the customer happy.

Not the same issue as OP, but does go to highlight what I would call the bias favoring buyers.

I've heard of some buyers opening a PayPal dispute immediately after buying and not closing it until the item arrives with the seller having no recourse

 dekinrie wrote:
I've heard of some buyers opening a PayPal dispute immediately after buying and not closing it until the item arrives with the seller having no recourse

The Seller has the simple recourse of shipping the item exactly described.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I think you meant bidders, but no, it isn't stupid. This thread is an example of why blocking bidders is the only recourse a seller has to avoiding potentially problematic bidders. A negative mark is a serious thing for a seller to incur, so are you really surprised that they would deal with receiving one in a heavy-handed fashion?

Yes, I meant bidders. And this is just proving my point: you're calling it "problematic" that a buyer gives honest and accurate feedback on a seller's failure instead of avoiding negative marks at all costs, no matter how dishonest you have to be to avoid them. What you're saying here is that sellers should be able to only sell to dishonest people and abuse the rating system to artificially inflate their numbers.

By and large I think people have unrealistic expectations from eBay. I blame services like Amazon which expedited online shopping so well it has become "standard" to expect Amazon-level service for everything.

You're also wrong here. Amazon-level service is the minimum standard that we should expect. They don't really offer anything exceptional, but when you buy something arrives on a reasonable schedule and you can be sure that you will receive the product you order. But apparently we're supposed to tolerate a certain percentage of screwed up orders and give that a 100% positive rating?

I also blame eBay which bent its sellers over a barrel a few years ago and let buyers go to town by removing negative feedback consequences for bidders.

There is no legitimate reason to give feedback on a buyer because a buyer is not providing a service to evaluate. They click buy or place a bid, and then provide their shipping and payment information on the order page. The only possible negative actions a buyer can take are things like scamming or feedback extortion, which are properly dealt with by ebay reviewing the buyer's actions and banning them if they are found to have violated the ToS (and referring them to the police in cases of fraud). The overwhelming majority of negative feedback for buyers was revenge feedback from sellers who felt entitled to add a negative score to anyone who gave them a negative score.

Sellers aren't demanding dishonest feedback, they are just asking not to jeopardize their margins because you got pissy with a benign mistake.

IOW, sellers are demanding dishonesty because they get better margins if they dishonestly manipulate the system to keep a 100% rating that does not reflect a 100% success rating in their transactions. Sellers are not entitled to the best possible margins just because they want to make money. If a seller only completes 75% of their transactions successfully then they should have a 75% rating, and I don't give a if this cuts their profit margins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 dekinrie wrote:
I've heard of some buyers opening a PayPal dispute immediately after buying and not closing it until the item arrives with the seller having no recourse

The Seller has the simple recourse of shipping the item exactly described.

To be fair, a buyer opening a dispute immediately, before any possible grounds for a dispute could exist, would be a giant red flag that they're about to attempt a scam. There is no legitimate reason to open a dispute that quickly, and the seller should be able to cancel the sale at that point without any penalty.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're also wrong here. Amazon-level service is the minimum standard that we should expect. They don't really offer anything exceptional, but when you buy something arrives on a reasonable schedule and you can be sure that you will receive the product you order. But apparently we're supposed to tolerate a certain percentage of screwed up orders and give that a 100% positive rating?

What are you meaning by "Amazon-level service" here? I agree that abiding by your own stated terms of service is a minimum acceptable standard, but I would assume expecting all sellers to offer next-day delivery is unreasonable? Personally, I hold sellers with an Ebay shop to a higher standard - if you're running it like a business, then I'll treat you like one - no late dispatch because you were ill or on holiday or whatever. If it's a private individual, then I'll accept such delays as long as it's stated up front and communicated to me; If the listing says "all items dispatched on the following Tuesday" or whatever, fine. If I buy an item from some fellow and then get a message, "I'm sorry, but I won't get this posted until the end of the week as my child's ill", again OK. If I buy something, it doesn't turn up a week after the advertised date, and when I complain I then get the sick child story, not fine. If I order from "We Sell Bits!" and it's delayed for any reason, not OK.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
What are you meaning by "Amazon-level service" here? I agree that abiding by your own stated terms of service is a minimum acceptable standard, but I would assume expecting all sellers to offer next-day delivery is unreasonable?

It means what I said: I buy an item, the correct item arrives undamaged on the promised schedule without me having to do anything but wait for the delivery guy to show up. Obviously expecting next-day shipping is not reasonable, but the delivery estimate on ebay would clearly indicate that you aren't getting next-day delivery. I would expect the package to go in the mail the following day, within 1-2 (business) days at most, and from there it's up to the post office. The key point here is that the transaction just works. I don't have to harass the seller for information or file a paypal dispute or whatever. I buy an item, I get an item.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I agree that abiding by your own stated terms of service is a minimum acceptable standard, but I would assume expecting all sellers to offer next-day delivery is unreasonable?

If the seller commits to shipping out by the end of the next business day, then I would expect that. The Seller specifies their handling time in the listing.

Personally, I commit to shipping out by the 2nd business day, but average less than 1 business day. It's totally doable, not unreasonable at all.

If a seller has it stated that they will have a package shipped the next business day, they should.

If the auction states that packages only get mailed on Fridays more than 24 hours after an auction ends, then the buyer should understand that as well.

That being said, a number of auctions I've bid on have had the "guaranteed 2-day shipping" listed in the auction, and instead were shipped by normal snail mail.

Yeah, if you charge for expedited / Priority mail, but only ship slow mail, I'll expect something for the difference