Snake Eyes

Wonder Woman 49, 51, 63, 83, 84, 88, 124, 164, 166

What if? 108

However, common law from the mother land (Prima Dorka), does allow the self-proclaimed Nerd of Nerds to grant or withdraw the title of Dorkus Dingus at will.

vs.

Agreed. Not comfortable with it either. d) A Transaction between board members is not confined to the CGC Message Boards. Any transaction between forum members, regardless of the venue, is eligible for inclusion in the PL. If it doesn't take place on these boards, it is not a board dispute and therefore should not be listed as if it were a board tranacation problem. I don't mind revisiting this recent addition to the current PL rules. Might as well get it all refined. One suggestion would be to specify an off-board transaction qualifies if it was advertised or linked to anywhere on the boards, including the Comics Market - Sales Advertising - Ebay, Dealers, in the Comics Market - Want To Buy! section, in a sig line advertising a sale site, etc. I think that makes the most sense in order to address off-board transactions (thumbs u

Also, I just went back and looked at the poll...seems to be a pretty strong showing for approval "as is" 52% of the vote with three viable options. assuming some additional turnout since you posted your concerns Pov.

POV made fun of your trophy drawing fascination. Then he deleted it. I confess being in ignorance of what Bosco is alluding to.I would reply in jest but that would only serve to add to the considerable derailment of the purpose of this particular topic, which is the PL Rules. So at this juncture, I see the voting to be too close to call. I see Item 2d to be a true issue. Right now there is a 7% margin in favor of the rules as stated. That is very uncomfortable. What is also uncomfortable to me is that the voting increased considerably after the poll was posted in Comics General. I had decided to not post in the General Forum because I felt people genuinely interested in the Probation Forum would be checking the happenings here. Snake - that is NOT a slam on you. You took the initiative and at the core of it a good one. You showed gumption and concern and action. The Probation Discussions forum has been updating at a very frequent rate. Anyone looking at the forums would be seeing that the Probation Discussion has new posts, even with Arch not showing the number of new posts. If that is the case, then why are so many new votes coming in after the Comics General announcement? How informed are they? I don't know. I DO know there are a LOT of intelligent people here. Several of them have made some really good contributions here. Is it really so difficult to determine what is a reasonable or unreasonable extra expense? Is it really so difficult to just get purely dispassionate input into the hows and whys of rules we are trying to setup to be a self-governing body? Whatever. I did figure it would juice the voting a little bit. The thought behind it was two-fold. First, a number of folks are not the equivalent of sales thread regulars and only check the sales forum generally on a semi-regular basis. The other is a Heath-issue admittedly. The way my browser is set up, when the the Sales Forum loads, I only see links to the big five forums up top (kudos, various sales, and VCC). The ones at the bottom get short shift, and I do not check as regularly...thought others might be the same way and only check when they see or hear of a throw-down in general :shrug: Hopefully they took the time to read the debate, or at the very least the rules. You are correct, however, that the level with which each voter is truly informed will vary (and some will be quite disinterested in the debate portion and skip it entirely I would think). As far as additional input on the sticky issue of Rule 2d...I can offer an out of sorts. In my mind, we do not have to fix all problems at once. There will be a mistake made, or a loophole that is exploited within whatever structure is decided upon. Therefore, we can propose the rules one way (2d left in, 2d left out...whatever the consensus is when you end the poll) for an up or down vote for passage...you can even set the criteria at 60% if you want some sort of super majority. If it passes, it will be with the knowledge that there was debate over this issue and that some concern remains. IF 2d becomes problematic we can revisit that issue on a stand alone basis down the road. Perhaps we get lucky and everyone remains reasonable or no significant test-issue arises. If not, everyone can get together again, remember this discussion and look at where the rule as created failed (perhaps at that point crafting an option that has not been thought of to this point once we see an actual issue on the table) Anyway, just my thoughts along the lines of Rome not being built in a day...take the progress we have now and compromise on the sticky area

Posted this in general to hopefully get as good a turn-out as possible

Big old box of comics arrived without a problem...excellent prices, friendly seller...what's not to

(thumbs u Looking forward to it...when we get to that point I will cross post threads in a couple of other areas (general, gold, etc.) to try to get a good turnout

Complete agreement with this Sean In essence, I am a fan of giving folks enough rope to have earned a spot on the probation list and then making it difficult to remove themselves. I think the 7/7 rule would make for a lot of rotation/turnover and ultimately dillute the value of the PL. Along the same lines, thanks to Pov for researching chargebacks. I simply took it for granted I was still protected, but neglected to do the actual legwork. Nice to know that is definitely the case (thumbs u

Quick question Pov, Is the intent still to eventually have a poll on these rules or will they be implemented for a trial period once the suggestions die down to a dull roar?

I agree. Seconded

Not even sure what kind of response is appropriate to the past couple of pages. All I can say is that input was solicited, so I posted my feelings on how I would like to see the PL run. They are no more or less valid than anyone else's who makes use of the marketplace. Simply posted as points to consider when the eventual voting on new rules occurs. I apologize if it was read as such, but I was not accusing anyone of anything. I certainly cannot turn a phrase/craft a sentence like some on here, so if my intent was misinterpreted fault my writing. That having been said, please regard all of my comments as directed for or against hypothetical others or rules...not at a particular person. Using particular instances of listings or bad behaviors to support a point should also not be viewed as an attack on that person...simply a recounting of the circumstances as I know them This remains directed at no one in particular, just the concept being addressed. I remain a supporter of leaving the time frame alone. If items are required quicker, or time payments need to be arranged, I feel PMs or in sales-thread rules (such as what types of payments you accept) would be the best place for this. Not a fan of forcing everyone onto what is a much tighter time frame. Therefore, I remain against changing the time frame.

I would argue that the 14 day suggestion is actually way too harsh for a number of reasons. First, many boardies use media mail to ship books. Even if I ship a purchase using this option the day after receiving payment, I cannot be garaunteed that it will arrive in the next 13 days (usually it does, but there are certainly times it takes longer). Media mail is oftentimes the only viable way to sell bulk/low-grade/cheap books. Secondly, I believe the 30 day grace period is absolutely appropriate given the world wide reach of this board. We are not all Americans living in the lower-48 and oftentimes international or Alaska/Hawaii shipping will take longer. To enact a sweeping rule for 14 days start to finish on a transaction would have a chilling effect on their participation I believe. Do we really want to lose FT sales threads? Finally, and on a more personal note (when and until this rule does change)...I actually would bring it to the discussion for placing the buyer on the PL if I sold an item, and a chargeback was filed 14 days after payment was sent. As the rules currently stand, unilaterally cancelling a transaction at that point is not (in my understanding) within the sales forum rules. I certainly do not delay in shipment, but I am not a fan of imposing your own personal rules on the transaction when forum guidelines were clearly in place. What if USPS goes on strike as Canada Post did? We need to leave a little leeway in the system IMO,

Pov, I LOVE IT!!! Truly an excellent piece of wordsmithing....thanks for all the hard work and consensus building. I think the changes will eventually alleviate a good bit of confusion regarding the list

I think it's getting TOO complicated...the original list worked because it was simple. The only way this will remain simple is if you go with the original deal, and the original value. If there was no deal, there is no value to decide and if there are circumstances like the one Brad had that started this, where there is nothing in writing, it's going to make it harder. If you keep adding caveats, you are going to have reams and reams of addendum's to the rules, many people are going to think their issue is going to be an exception to the rules. That will make it difficult to just make a simple decision. As someone who managed an an office that adjudicated part of the labor law, I can tell you we had about 10 pages of law, and thousands of pages of "interpretations" we had to check before making a decision. Once a decision was made, we had hearings, and appeals because one side or the other would object. The "interpretations" were added every time there was a twist in the circumstances in a hearing or appeal. There are going to be a lot of "twists" or exceptions here as well, we are dealing with people, and emotions. The K.I.S.S. principal really does work well. You can't fix everything here...just the basics, and fixing the basics is pretty good:) I agree completely with this...the reason I keep offering suggestions is the original alteration by Pov that stated a member of the PL will be removed without exception if they state such a desire and complete restitution (the without exception and vagueness of restitution really throws me). In theory it does not seem like a large change, but it certainly set off a number of concerns with me

Well there's 20 minutes I won't get back. A hundred or so posts and Greggy's comment is the most appropriate. And entertaining. I agree Greggy's post is the most appropriate for the off-topic, nothing to do with the Probation Discussion bull. Does anyone have something to add about how to determine justified versus unjustifed expenses being levied by someone bringing an issue to the Probation Discussion? Since there has not been much comment on this specifically, I will reiterate my stance. I believe protecting the offended party should be the priority. With that being the case, it would make sense to me to allow the victim to solely determine what expenses are justified as long as all such expenses are publicly declared (I realize this will not likely be the consensus :shrug: ) However, since we are experimenting with the rules, why not fall on the side of safety? By posting the costs, hopefully some peer pressure will cause a reasonably solution to be reached. At some point, of course, this will not be the case and we can see where the system failed and add an amendment/change to the rules for removal from the PL. Snake - err - Heath - one of the things about the PL is determining who IS the "offended party". We have seen a few (at least) situations where the person bringing the claim has turned out to be the offender. So part and parcel of the PL is to determine who actually is at fault. Not just assume those who bring the problem up are automatically innocent and the gulty one is the one they accuse. Correct, but that has been determined by the time we have gotten to the point of removing someone from the list. When they are on the list and trying to get removed, it is my thinking that they are the offending party (the conversation/determination about who the offender is takes place as someone id being placed on the list, not when recompense for removal is being discussed). I think you and I may be speaking about two seperate points in time (generally speaking)

Well there's 20 minutes I won't get back. A hundred or so posts and Greggy's comment is the most appropriate. And entertaining. I agree Greggy's post is the most appropriate for the off-topic, nothing to do with the Probation Discussion bull. Does anyone have something to add about how to determine justified versus unjustifed expenses being levied by someone bringing an issue to the Probation Discussion? Since this isn't a court of law, determining monetary damages is best left to the injured party to determine. Outside of "he offered to buy the books for $XXX, and never paid", trying to determine damages, particularly punitive, probably isn't in the purview of this board. For example: Dekeuk cost me money by screwing with the time in returning the item, thus resulting in a much lower selling price. But should he owe me the difference? I don't think the board is qualified to make that decision. Others may disagree. This is right on point with where I am at on this. I do not go as far to say, perhaps, as the board is unqualified to make the decision. However, I get to the same destination since I believe the board is not the most appropriate party to make that decision. Only the injured party is. I think as long as the expenses are made public, the victim should have the right to assign any cost of the failed transaction. Perhaps something along the lines of JoeBob buying an ASM 14 slab from me that I purchased solely to resell to him at my LCS... Cost of comic $200 and the only money discussed in the transaction itself... Cost (as I would require) to remove Joe Bob from PL after failing to complete the transaction...please note that these are estimates only...no research went into these numbers which are used for demonstrative purposes only $200 (Comic) $5 Packing material (Tape, box, peanuts, etc.) $2 Extra month interest that this book resided on my credit card while we had to wait to put him on PL $5 Gas to go to the other side of town and hit the FedEx office $20 Extra Shipping cost since I will require some sort of signature verification and insurance of the package. I would also strongly consider that payment be made in the form of a money order at this point So there we are at $232...Sure I may catch heat for charging on packing material or shipping (which were free in the original transaction). I attribute this to the loss of goodwill between myself and the buyer. However, that is theoretically what it would cost to start over and complete the deal. Others may have different costs/conditions and I feel it is fair for them to determine such (with non-binding input/suggestions from the board being welcome of course). Mike is right that it can be a slippery slope. However, so is the other direction of letting the board determine associated costs of the transaction. For me, it boils down to who we wish to protect...the victim or the offender?

Well there's 20 minutes I won't get back. A hundred or so posts and Greggy's comment is the most appropriate. And entertaining. I agree Greggy's post is the most appropriate for the off-topic, nothing to do with the Probation Discussion bull. Does anyone have something to add about how to determine justified versus unjustifed expenses being levied by someone bringing an issue to the Probation Discussion? Since there has not been much comment on this specifically, I will reiterate my stance. I believe protecting the offended party should be the priority. With that being the case, it would make sense to me to allow the victim to solely determine what expenses are justified as long as all such expenses are publicly declared (I realize this will not likely be the consensus :shrug: ) However, since we are experimenting with the rules, why not fall on the side of safety? By posting the costs, hopefully some peer pressure will cause a reasonably solution to be reached. At some point, of course, this will not be the case and we can see where the system failed and add an amendment/change to the rules for removal from the PL.

No one, at any time, suggested, implied, or even hinted that forgiveness has anything whatsoever...in any conceivable way, by any possible measure...to do with anything you've just stated. In fact...if you bother to actually comprehend what is written, you will notice that complete accountability and restitution is required before even a consideration of forgiveness would be given. Forgiveness has absolutely nothing....let me repeat that....nothing...to do with concepts like "there is no wrong answer", "everyone is equal", "there should be no losers." I sure hope you don't ever need forgiveness for anything in life. I know it's difficult to comprehend but every post on these boards is not about you. The pious soap box that you preach upon does not behoove you. (thumbs u From saving Paypal Personal to removing the Sword of Damacles hanging above the head of a troubled boy on the HOS, you have the uncanny ability of being obnoxious. Before calling my comprehension skills into question, chiggity check yourself. Yes you made a post that took the conversation in a different direction but every comment made thereafter does not require a response from you. I was referring to the post that Comix made about placing some responsibility on a minor and making the completely logical connection that many, but not all, minors who act out in a criminal manor continue that behavior into adulthood. My response, not to you, was that the behaviors instilled in children nowadays seems to foster a sense of entitlement that I believe adds to the occurrence of negative actions which are compleyely self fulfilling to the detriment of others. I apologize for not quoting your comment and responding directly but I felt Comix did a superb job, which is why I was responding to his post. My goodness Mike A serious post??? No mention of monkeys in cowboy costumes, mekrab, or inappropriate uses for Batman's utility belt. I stand in complete and utter Seriously though, you make an excellent point above about the evolution/entrenchment of such behavioral patterns

Right you are Pov (Pover? P-Row?? Rowinator???) I kid...I kid The name is Heath...pleased to meetcha. Anyway, you are absolutely correct about various rules not being to the liking of all. I guess my thought is that the 30 day rule is already in place (with exceptions of course ). Therefore, the community has spoken and as a group this is how it decided to move forward on the issue. However, this issue of being complete as a result of the transaction is up for grabs, so I am essentially lobbying for a victim's rights model. Understandably, this may not be the route everyone goes. I just see greater good coming from giving the aggrieved party the final say in what makes them whole, than allowing others to determine such for them. It's just what I would want, if I was writing the rules myself (thumbs u Plenty of other valid concepts and structures out there (i.e. the voting Sharon mentioned). Mine does lead to the possibility of being more punitive, whereas others might lead to more repeat offenses). The truth is, no one plan is going to alleviate everyone's concerns and please all boardies Instead, with a wealth of input hopefully we can all reach an agreeable compromise

This is not something I could support. I have simply known too many manipulative people that can put on a show for a period of time in order to achieve a larger end (i.e. re-ingratiating themselves here and have access to the marketplace). I understand that others hold different views and I am going apples/oranges here (with not so serious funny books versus violent crime), but there is a valid reason in my mind that felons/sex offenders do have certain rights limited even after serving their time and paying their fines. Part of the consequence of the egregious behavior remains as a warning/safegaurd to the community even after the time is served. Perhaps it sounds overly selfish, but I did not join this community to provide this type of rehabilitation to repeat/egregious offenders and perhaps become a future target (talking HOS here, not PL where I see the need to remove folks that have resolved their issue). Interesting discussion this afternoon though + 1 For someone to go down the path of the HOS, you really had to go out of your way to force board members to go down this path. And Capfreak was a 4-time probation list member before he landed where he did. It didn't help any when he thumbed his nose at everyone, daring them to put him on the list. That HOS honor should be for a lifetime to set the tone for others what not to do in these situations. You really think someone like Cap Freak, who is STILL a stupid kid, should be on this HOS his ENTIRE LIFE? That 10 or 20 years from now, he couldn't even POTENTIALLY have grown up and cleaned up his act? Really...? What a depressing, unforgiving world you live in. Saw this and had to respond I do believe he can potentially clean up his act and reform. In fact, at some point in his life, it is even likely. However, I will not ever place my name on the line for him. I see no need to invite that sort of risk or responsibility for this unknown factor into my life. Risk/reward there for what is meant to be an entertaining hobby and website is too high. Again, I just do not see myself as being here to perform social rehabilitation for repeat offenders. There are other communities/groups where such is a more appropriate goal (at least from my viewpoint).

We are generally in agreement on everything else in your post. Generally, you are correct that there tends to be a burn-out in anti-social behaviors as one ages. Additionally, they do often move to greener/more fertile pastures if they do not find success with their manipulations. I guess I was looking at your statement from a more personal viewpoint (thus my comment about my post perhaps being selfinsh). By personal, perhaps I am identifying myself as the boardie that does not forgive once HOS status is achieved. Quite honestly, there is nothing I can conceive of an example like CapFreak doing as to earn my support to remove him from the list. No matter how noble he may become or what good deeds transpire from this point onward. I view his placement on the HoS as appropriate and permanent. Sure he could come back and post (if he got un-banned). I could even carry out a conversation with him and be completely civil. However, I see absolutely no reason to remove him from the list. It is the consequence for his actions, and should serve as a constant reminder that such behavior is not only possible, but actually occurred with this individual. However, in saying that I do recognize that you are right in the area of due dilligence...at some point people do have to take responsibility for themselves....this is just a simple way to assist them I guess. :shrug: Perhaps we are just touching on my personal beliefs regarding recidivism combined with a disinterest in helping these particular folks out if they wish to reform. Anyway, time to wrap things up here at work and get ready to head to dinner

I considered making a similar recommendation with possibly up to 6 members allowed to make changes. They were all voted in by a poll in this thread. It was very time consuming and democratic Also quite interesting...might certainly curtail some potential problems where folks are not quite up to speed on all of the rules once they are put into place.