Q~~_1.JPG?set_11.JPG?set_id=807 "mbselections00"){kind=avatar}
Yep, it certainly is scary - 2 in 12 months - open slather for the scammers and vindictive !
I've only ever had one Case opened & that was for Item Not Received. And whilst it was Case Closed WITH Seller Resolution - it still counted as a Defect ! It was my Russian Customer. No idea what delivery time frame eBay quoted, but Aust. Post told me 25 - 30 days. It had Tracking, luckily. Paid & Posted same day. Buyer opened case on day 16 by memory ! - as it was Registered International I had to ring Aust. Post every second day to track, by the day he opened the case, it was already in Russia. Every time I got up-dated info as it moved across the country, I messaged the Buyer and advised - he received the item on day 26. He left excellent Feedback, no mention of slow delivery and from what I can see and determine no 1 or 2 stars, yet still it was a Defect !!
Twas very time consuming and so frustrating trying to get this defect removed - I gave up ! But it has now mysteriously disappeared !
So yes, I get what you're saying. But really I don't honestly think we have any chance of having this Defective system changed. It's as some others have said, that's the system and we either suck it up or find somewhere else to sell. It's so sad, but I think that's just the way it is - we like it or lump it as they say 
Sorry cats, I probably didn't word my response so well. Would have been more accurate if I'd said, change the policy, rather than the system I guess. Either way, I don't think anything will change.
The problem being, it seems to me, we are very limited as to what we can do as Sellers to mitigate the risks. You know what I mean, you can offer the best customer service, post within 24 hours etc etc, but it only takes one or two disgruntled Buyers or a few Buyers to click the wrong number of stars and your gone ! That's the sort of thing I was referring to and think needs to be changed.
I have never done it myself, but have received 'notes' accompanying orders, basically explaining a Seller really only wants 4 or 5 Star Feedback and if you are considering leaving any less, to please contact the Seller. I wasn't sure if this is actually against eBay policy, thought I read somewhere it was, but even if it is OK, as with anything I think there are pros and cons.
Just a thought . . . . hopefully more along the lines of what you're looking for 
and hopefully others will come along with more and better ideas !
No worries MB just very concerned about being in a 3 strikes your off eBay position 
Gosh maybe I need to shift some eggs back to this basket, and ramp up sales on a couple of IDs again, including this one.
Noting that I am asking for the purposes of improving my protection from scammers, not to reduce my service in anyway, what quantities would I need to sell in 12 months to increase the allowable paypal case losses
To 3, to 4, to 5 ??
I went to this a few weeks ago, not sure if there is anything in it of use to you but I may as well share it around:
The options are pretty limited - as I see it, they are... send everything with proof of postage so that you can successfully defend any INR claims, and refund voluntarily for any INAD disputes if your chances are any less than 100% of being able to win it (and they always are less than 100%, unless the buyer clearly indicates that the reason for the dispute doesn't qualify for a PP case, like "I ordered the wrong size" or "it's a bit more pink than I thought" etc. and even then my faith in PP / eBay isn't 100%).
It seems to me like they basically want sellers to "voluntarily" offer a money back guarantee in almost all circumstances, except the ones where it would really count as something. 
And it's unfortunately difficult to mitigate the risks when a third party is deciding what risks to expose a business to, and how that risk plays out and/or affects said business.
@thecatspjs wrote:No worries MB just very concerned about being in a 3 strikes your off eBay position
This actually looks like an evaluation measure for Top Rated only, so the 0.3% alone shouldn't result in account suspension ?
