A rule changed under an order that was already running

Mars market mirrors

marshjhtog245vzjzcicnmv2ci6yljibvdm4pngq5kmkfvcutppboxad.onion

marsiujka6lrsaqpnxiwvknthhzsrlmq77mnl2fi62guc4lwxif65syd.onion

marsmtbwtxkohhpu34m4jkwcntian7n257wsex5tbkmsjdjrsz6me3yd.onion

Printed as supplied, in no order. Nothing here is watched or timed, so an address that opens is not proof of anything. More about the set

The amount is different from the amount you expected. Or a window that used to be long is now short. Or a dispute route that existed last time is not there any more.

The vendor gets the angry message. The vendor did not do this and in most cases found out the same way you did.

Responsible: The market. Fees, windows, escrow behaviour and dispute routes are operator settings.
Usually blamed on: The vendor, who is the visible human in the transaction and therefore absorbs the complaint.
What follows: The complaint goes to the wrong place and achieves nothing. Knowing whose setting it is tells you whether to argue at all.

What belongs to the operator

The commission taken from a sale and how it is displayed.
How long escrow holds before it releases automatically, if it does.
What a dispute can be opened about and how long the window stays open.
What a vendor must post as a bond, and what happens to it.
Which coins are accepted and how deposits are credited.
Whether a rule change applies to orders already in flight.

That final line is the one that produces the arguments. A change applied to running orders feels like a breach of contract to the buyer, and to the operator it is a configuration value. Both readings are sincere. Only one of them is enforceable, and it is not yours.

What belongs to the vendor

The price of their goods, their shipping choices, their communication and their handling time. That is a short list and it does not overlap with the one above. If your complaint is about something on the first list, the vendor cannot fix it, cannot appeal it and usually cannot explain it either.

Vendors do get told about changes, sometimes. Not always in advance. A vendor who seems surprised by a fee change is often genuinely surprised.

How to tell whose it is before you write

Ask whether the thing would be identical if you bought from a different vendor on the same market. If yes, it is the operator.
Ask whether it would be identical if the same vendor sold on a different market. If yes, it is the vendor.
If neither is clean, it is probably a market rule that the vendor has chosen how to apply.

This test takes ten seconds and it sorts almost everything. It is worth running before sending anything written in irritation.

What follows from getting it right

You aim the complaint at the party that can act, which is the only version of complaining that has ever worked. You also stop burning a relationship with a vendor over something they had no say in, and vendor relationships are one of the few assets a buyer accumulates.

The wider point is that a market is a set of rules with people operating inside them. Mistaking the rules for the people is the single most common attribution error in this whole subject, and it runs in both directions.

Reading a rule before it changes

Most of these arguments are avoidable by reading the terms page once, at the start, while nothing is at stake. Almost nobody does. The page is dull, it is written badly, and it describes situations that have not happened to you yet.

It is still the cheapest twenty minutes available. You are not memorising it. You are building a rough map of which decisions belong to the operator, so that when something surprising happens you already know which direction to look. That map survives rule changes even when the specific numbers do not.

One more thing worth knowing in advance. Find out whether the operator announces changes at all, and where. A market that announces has a channel you can check. A market that does not has told you something useful about how the next surprise will arrive.