Snake Eyes

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

I am all for visibility in the conditions, as it promotes accountability and compliance on both ends without terms meandering over time. Further, I have no problem at all with their being discussion on the validity of such terms. However, I would limit my acceptance to discussion only. Ultimately, as long as the decision regarding terms resides with the offended party I am on-board. However, if the board discussion on the validity of terms morphs into the board itself (or several vocal members in the discussion) attempting to usurp the offended party and dictate terms (as if some sort of forced mediation) I am not so much on-board anymore

As written, I have absolutely no objection to this statement (thumbs u There is grey area when it comes to "their satisfaction." isn't there? Yep, that's a good point. And that was the grey area I am comfortable with. As Pov stated, it ultimately remain's the offended party's right to determine what their satisfaction is, and that is what I was looking for. The statement above does somewhat limit sour grapes or flip-flopping on the part of the listing party, however. If I say I am satisfied, regardless of changing my mind in the future or board input the offender comes off the PL (by my reading of the statement above)

As written, I have absolutely no objection to this statement (thumbs u

I agree with your thoughts on this on a theoretical level. On a more practical level, however, do we leave the terms of finalizing the transaction up to the offended party (referencing the examples I provided above, this could lead to additional charges or acts requested of the PL inductee...thinking FT's five good transaction policy to remove someone from the list was absolutely inspired). Ultimately, if we leave that discretion in the hands of the offended party, spite or some unachievable task will be worked into some solutions for ultimately resolving the transaction. Nonetheless, I still believe that the original victim should ultimately have say in the process (if they are around to provide such input). Perhaps requiring them to post the required means to resolve the transaction publicly (where some peer pressure can be used to tamp down less reasonable terms). However, ultimately I do not think it is the collective board's place to set the conditions...only provide guidance to the orginally victimized party :shrug: Seems somewhat vague/circular...am I making sense with this stuff?

Interesting and moving in the right direction I think. Paypal kind of concerns me on this front though. Let's say I place someone on the PL for refusal of payment. They respond to this within the seven days and fire off a paypal payment. The book is shipped and arrives safely. They then return said book to secure their funds back (buyer's remorse, spite, etc.). Paypal will, of course, force the refund. In a case such as this are they in the clear from PL status now? Sounds like a manipulative person (sorry, I work daily with psychopaths and have learned to look for loopholes :doh: ) could pretty easily take advantage of the seven-day allowance and repeatedly engage in bad behavior. :shrug: I have found myself wishing several times in the past that I had a complete probation list (those who are on, and those that have been removed). I do understand the PL is meant to insure smoother transactions, but also would like to see it continue to be used as a strong warning to folks. Perhaps I am in the minority, but some of the transactions I have read about (although later resolved in some way) would be a one-strike and you are out for me. Perhaps too draconian, but just do not see sense in inviting trouble into my life when there are so many others who can follow what are pretty simple guidelines Unfortunately, nothing we craft can address all future, potential pitfalls. However, I do think your suggestions above are a significant step in the right direction over the original formulation that was posted (thumbs u Just my long-winded, wall-of-text, two cents SE

Yep, Sharon more eloquently discussed what I was trying ham-fistedly to get at with the examples above. The rule, as written stated... Full restitution can be read to be simply being made whole at the buying price. I would like to see the buyer determine what restitution is (which may exceed the original purchase price of the comic or not even be monetary in nature). Ultimately the thought that removal is not subject to the wishes of the accuser really rubs me the wrong way and strikes me as dangerous. It looks like we are on the same page to Speedy with you indicating restitution should be worked out between the two parties (my reading of the rule did not elaborate upon this being the definition of restitution). I just see a number of potential situations where restitution may not be possible or desireable by both parties depending on the nature of the offense :shrug: And perhaps you are right about the one free pass after your first violation and serving a sentence of the PL of sorts. Maybe you get that get out of jail card after being a boardie in good standing for one year? And thank you for the hard work Pov...very good start to codifying the various rules surrounding this process...back in the day I used to be a political science major...was always fascinated by the consensus building process and the crafting of policy/law (I know could I be any more geeky???) :doh:

tried to stay away from the discussion earlier...we definitely did not need another cook in the kitchen so to speak. I have a couple of thoughts on the direction the discussion is headed, now that things have cooled down a bit. First, I think there should be some sort of mechanism to determine if the majority of buyers and sellers are in favor of the proposed rule modifications before we ask for them to be implemented and stickied...perhaps a vote over the course of a week with simple majority deciding on ratifying the proposal or tabling it for further discussion. Secondly, I have some concerns about the proposed rule set...in order to avoid what I would see as some potential serious complications, it probably needs to be made clear that these new rules only apply to transactions first implemented after they are accepted. Finally, I have a pretty significant problem with this proposal... For sake of argument here is where I see it breaking down. Joe Bob on my X-Men 94. He fails to pay...following the above rules I have him placed on the probation list after multiple attempts to contact, discussion in the PL thread etc., etc. Example 1: I need the cash for the book, so I then sell it to someone else or auction it off. Restitution in my mind, at that point, may not be possible. What if I sell the book for more, he simply apologizes and gets removed since I have cash in pocket? Example 1b: I again sell the book. This time it goes for $95 when I agreed to $100 with Joe Bob. He simply sends me $5 and gets off the list? :shrug: Again, this would be an unacceptable resolution in my mind. I would not feel that this is sufficient for a lesson to be learned and would wish for future boardies to continue to be warned of this individual. Example 2: I retain the book, but have no further desire to sell it to or communicate with this individual. Some transactions get quite ugly, and after Joe Bob defaults, I should not be forced back into a transaction with what I consider a high risk for further shenanigans Example 3: Who gets to decide what restitution is. What if I purchased another book intending to use the proceeds from the PL sale to pay for the item? Now I no longer have the money I anticipated. If I back out, how can I be recompensed for the damaged relationship. Or what if I use my credit card, can I then include the interest I accrue? What about my time, effort, and emotional investment in dealing with the PL situation? Do I get to decide on appropriate recompense for that I guess to be blunt, I am not a fan of others deciding for me when a personal transaction is resolved or not. There is opportunity for them to voice concern prior to inclusion of the offending party on the PL. I do, however, see the concern of the complaining party no longer being an active boardie and someone on the PL wanting another shot. In a limited circumstance like that I would be in favor of the rule above. However, I strongly believe that it should remain solely the right of the person placing the offending party on the list to remove said person (again if they remain an active boardie).

Yep you contact all of us...public discussion, opportunity for offending party to respond, etc. etc. Typically, HOS has to be an incredibly grevious or multiple offense bad guy (not just failing on one transaction). Also, of late it seems that I have noticed board wide votes being taken before someone is placed on that hallowed list of ne'er-do-wells. Anyway, first step is to just post the details right here in this thread.

Superman/Batman 2003 #1, 2, 13 Turner, 13 variant Lee, up to two copies of each if you have them (thumbs u

Supergirl 2005 #0vf $0.75

Not a chance in this place Good thing you moved quick.

Unless there are multiples you did Congrats though...very nice snag (thumbs u

Strangers in Paradise Vol #1 #2,3 Up to three copies of each please

Thanks for filling in the blanks and responding to my post. Your taking the time to provide so much info is defintiely appreciated. I am thinking about switching over to Gerbers for my keeper books...it would be a pricey proposition but definitely considering it (thumbs u With all the drek you buy Heath, the Gerbers would be more valuable than the books! ouch baby, very ouch

Thanks for filling in the blanks and responding to my post. Your taking the time to provide so much info is defintiely appreciated. I am thinking about switching over to Gerbers for my keeper books...it would be a pricey proposition but definitely considering it (thumbs u

Irrelevant. Please read the entire thread. To you perhaps...I did read the entire thread over the last several days so perhaps I missed something. Quite simply it is relevant to how I will process the information, so I still would prefer to know. I do appreciate your trying to decide what may or may not be useful information for me to consider though

Very interesting, although admittedly a little bit over my head with some of the technical jargon. Nonetheless, the information here may affect how I choose to store my comics going forward. That leads to a question...folks asked a number of times who Ken was prior to Drew's call. I am glad that is clear now, as I believe one must consider the source of information. Having taken several graduate classes in statistics, I did learn that numbers can pretty much be manipulated in a way that the same data set can yield very differing conclusions based on the statistician processing it. So that leads to my question on the other side of the equation. I notice in Drew's signature line is a link to a sales thread selling Gerber products. So to keep the argument fair, I was curious if you could discuss what relationship you have, if any with that company (direct employ, resale, nothing, etc., etc.). Anyway, appreciate all the information you guys are providing and it certainly has given me food for thought (thumbs u

Starslayer 1982 #5vf- (2nd Groo)

I know FT came up with a unique situation in this case. He essentially offered his blessing for the probation lister to engage in transactions with his approval. Then when he received confirmation that a certain number of deals went off without problem he removed the boardie from the list despite the item being sold to another party long in the past after the initial failed deal. As for a seller who has become completely inactive...I am sure the collective braintrust could come up with some sort of idea if it was a first time offender and there appeared to be a genuine desire to correct the previous bad acts.

Spider-man Adventures 10 Spider-man 2099 43,45,46 Last issue goodness

Spawn 123 Up to two copies if you have duplicates

Sleepwalker 32

Got it...thanks (thumbs u