Sorry, PittyPants, but I'm going to disagree with you - it's a problem for both sides.
Originally, the sellers had the big advantage in that eBay allowed them to wait until the buyer posted their feedback and as such, held it over a buyer's head that if a negative was posted then they'd get a negative in return. This lead to a lot of bad sellers and lots of complaints from buyers that got stuck with bad items and couldn't complain to identify these bad sellers as then they'd get low ratings and then sellers wouldn't accept their bids for items on their auctions.
The buyer is supposed to pay, and to pay promptly, usually within a certain number of days and that is what the seller's feedback is supposed to represent. The seller then is supposed to provide the listed item, as described and that is what the buyer is supposed to base their feedback on regarding the seller. If buyers pay promptly, then they should get good feedback promptly and without waiting for the buyer to recieve the item. If the buyer doesn't pay or pay promptly, then they should get unpaid hits and negative feedback ratings. If sellers don't provide the items as described and don't work out the problem then they could get a negative feedback and the only response they can have is to explain what went wrong and can't give a negative since feedback for a seller involves their responsibilities, not the buyers responsibility - which involves payment for the item.
Now of course, cheaters on both sides can misuse the system and there are cheaters on both sides, they exist everywhere - politicians, CEO's, etc. The hope is that the cheaters get exposed quickly and that the eBay/PayPal claims reviewers can fairly decide the difference when there is a legitimate problem with a transaction and that of someone gaming the system.
There's a lot of bad sellers on eBay and a lot of bad buyers. Both groups don't know how to read and write nor examine a listing properly to ensure it represents as much as it should disclose about the item listed which will lead to issues for each. Good sellers and good buyers occasionally have a problem but usually recognize and acknowledge such mistakes and correct them as best they can. Just like real businesses, there's going to be a certain amount of loss for both parties but good honest people hopefully don't take a hit too often and have many more good transactions than bad ones. Hopefully...
Unfortunately, the only way to totally eliminate NSAD or DOA, etc, is if items, after an auction is completed, are first sent to eBay to examine the item and then if they check out are then forwarded onto the buyer. Can't be done due to the expense of such a system and so the evolvement of this system continues. We can only keep trying and hoping that only good honest people use eBay and that the system will allow honest mistakes to be corrected without bad feelings for both parties, and yet, expose dishonest ones and prevent them from taking advantage of the good people making straight forward, satisfying transactions.
It's always tough for those that are usually mostly just sellers or just buyers on eBay to consider the system from both sides and often feel they're disadvantaged by the rulings.
That's not to say there aren't bad eBay/PayPal claims reviewers and that they're not doing their jobs properly, there's always workers that aren't being watched or reviewed to ensure they are carrying out their duties and the rules properly. I've encountered and read others complaints that based on their versions would lead one to say the system let them down and sided with the wrong person. Only good management can prevent this by sampling and evaluating a number of each workers final decisions and then coming back to them after an appeal and weeding out bad workers if the review shows they failed to properly research the claim.
Anyways, it's a jungle out here and complaints are good as long as one looks at both sides of the issue honestly and with understanding.
