Mr.Mcknowitall

On 9/13/2018 at 10:07 AM, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

27.5% of members voting (11) have voted no. They all must be backing the wrong horse and sticking their necks out and defending wrongly. 

Update: 16 have voted no.

Just now, seanfingh said:

I'm sorry - sarcasm is the last resort of a witty and humorous intellect. But sometimes I just can't help it. 

Fixed

The last one has Newton Rings....

5 minutes ago, Pirate said:

Please delete thread as nothing will be done.  

 We should have a Poll.......

6 minutes ago, Mystafo said:

I wish I could just copy and paste the HoS list to my Ignored Users list...boom, problem solved!

I find the people here pretty forgiving about a lot of things until said wrongdoer continues their behavior and/or doesn't apologize for screwing up / make amends.  Anyone who belongs on that list doesn't have ANY knowledge or opinions I care to read...unless I want to learn how to scam folks.

Lot of "I"s there and it sounds pretty self serving I'm sure, but what else can one state but their own feelings.

I don't think it is self serving at all.

1 minute ago, TwoPiece said:

I guess I voted hastily. I just considered that if I personally hosted a site where a member was in a Hall of Shame for spurning members out of goods or money, I would revoke their PM status or ban them to protect the community. I understand that CGC doesn't verify transactions and stuff, but I thought they'd be more interested in keeping things 'clean'.

I also understand that the site is more than just buying and selling comics, and that's what changes my POV. I don't think that bans for HOS are appropriate. I'm torn on revoking PMs, though. I don't see many reasons for PMing other than for offers, and trading personal info for transactions. Unless two insufficiently_thoughtful_persons wanna argue with each other without getting warnings on the public board lol.

A good Post and reflection, in my opinion. I actually agree, except  PMs can also be private info about family, the health of another member or their particular difficulties, that they would not like shared, seeking advice or opinion on a matter that the person might not want to be known, and of course the ever popular reason....talking about another member, which of course is going to happen. 

39 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

 

Thank you...I have taken that in the spirit intended. Your question is both sound and logical. There are reasons. 

11 minutes ago, Architecht said:

Hi all,

This issue isn't a new one, and has been addressed before. Just for reference, if you're curious about past discussions - here is one thread (among many by the community in general) where moderation treatment was outlined.

The most relevant portion of that thread in terms of moderation policy is probably this:

The buy/sell area isn't monitored or policed by moderation in terms of transaction success / failure. Posting guidelines are enforced, but not more than that. There are a number of reasons for that.

1. CGC isn't responsible for transactions, and can't verify what did or didn't happen between parties in a transaction. For the legal version of this, please see our terms of use - as I don't want to misword the actual limitations. In general, though, we can see what has been posted, but we can't tell what happened away from the boards. The boards are an advertising venue in that regard, not a transaction processor. Transactions are the responsibility of the parties of the transaction.
    
2. The HOS and probation lists are great community-run tools to "review" buyers and sellers, but they have never been mandatory for all transactions on the boards. That's not just a moderation rule, it has been a community conclusions as well. Some people don't mind working with HOS / probation list members. That's their decision - wise or unwise.
    
3. A person's inability to transact responsibly doesn't mean they are incapable of being a contributing poster, which is why we don't ban them for what may or may not have happened in a transaction.
    
4. We think that providing relevant factual information on a buy/sell thread - dispassionately and simply, is something the community can do without running afoul of moderation guidelines - meaning on either a buy or sell post, one simply reminder that this person has a history on the HOS or probation lists is appropriate. But it doesn't need to get nasty, it doesn't need to be all over the boards - marketplace only please - and it doesn't need to be repetitive.

Are there exceptions to this? Yes.

If, for example, law enforcement verifies that a person has engaged in criminal activity related to the comics community, we may ban them because a trusted authority has established the facts. CGC may ban someone based on its own verified knowledge of the actions of an individual, but it's not related to being on or off the HOS or probation list directly. We also have banned specific individuals when the community disruption is too significant to tolerate - but others causing the disruption may go with them - judged on a case by case basis.

 

Regarding the PM issues

Again, members are buying and selling at their own risk, but we encourage everyone to take full advantage of the community knowledge of the reliability and honesty of various members based on past actions and make their own judgments. PMs are not just a tool to discuss buying and selling on the boards, though. I get it. Someone on the HOS list who PMs a newer user may conduct buys and sells without anyone alerting the newer user to the community tools, or to a particular person's status on them. It's something worth thinking about.

That is a very clear guide, and very logical. I certainly appreciate this clarity.

I forgot to add:

On 9/10/2018 at 1:18 PM, Pirate said:

If you post that the person is on the HOS list per cgcmod8 in a thread they are posting in, you can be charged with trollling and be moderated.

 

On 9/10/2018 at 1:23 PM, Pirate said:

Credit to Mr. McKnowitall for the idea of a poll.

All members are encouraged to vote, regardless of opinion or why voting, since it effects the entire community. 

It is of course up to the Host what happens and what Rules should or should not be added/enforced/etc. 

Nobody knows what members have bought/sold and or participated in commerce in any manner with other members, and what manner the participation venue is or was. and it does not negate the value of a member's opinion.

Such issues should never exclude an opinion by any member. To suggest that  an opinion by any member should be barred/excluded is contrary to the entire idea of a public Board and is exclusionary, haughty, and clique centered for personal reasons, such as dislike of an individual, social haughtiness, or superiority complex, to name a few.

My opinion, of course.

Well.........never mind.

On 9/14/2018 at 1:04 PM, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

PL List is not a part of the vote Poll, at the moment. So, which is it, the couple you know about are on the PL List or the HOS List, or both? If it is the HOS List, wouldn't you want to be as diligent as Andrew has been, in naming those individuals? Seems to me that would be the proper response given your comments on the subject. 

Any opinions concerning the other aspects of my Cool Books Posts? I would be interested.

 

This is why, Mr. Logan. You are the person that stated you know of members that are doing so, yet you did not follow the example of Andrew, and disclose the names.

On 9/14/2018 at 12:20 PM, Logan510 said:

I wonder if the 14 members who voted "no" regularly conduct business privately with PL / HOS members?

 

I know of at least a couple who do.

To refresh your memory. 

It is not about "a" member (singular). The Poll is not about "a" member" (singular), even though I understand you may prefer it be. It is about Rules being applied for ALL members. Trying to restrict it to one member, in a Javertian manner, without regard to addressing the entire issue, settles nothing.

If a member (me) is invited to a PM conversation, and states....what you label a 'contrarian" opinion.....an opinion about the over and over and over posts concerning Mr. Cataldo, and then is accused of backing the wrong horse, sticking my neck out, and DEFENDING the person's behavior.....and that member know clearly the actions were not being defended..... and suggests a Poll..... and the PM conversation clearly proves this and the member is asked to release the PMs after getting permission of the other 2 participants, and the PMs are never released, yet that member does not admit lying and characterizing my reasons for a "contrary" opinion, then yes, I am a "contrarian". I do not appreciate being portrayed in an untrue vein, and depicted as lying.

So, are you going to publicly release the names of the members that you know are engaging in PM buying and selling and are on the HOS list? How about the members that are not on the List that are doing business by PM with those on the HOS List? Should they be outed? Any double standard there?

I hope this addresses your curiosity. BTW, I am a member also. 

10 minutes ago, JollyComics said:

I am very happy you recognized . To many persons would not.

Your priorities are straight..

But, back to the original question you asked. there is only one answer: YES!!!!!! Twinky approved, as a shout out to porcupine, MIA.

Sheridan (Buzz) replies to Tosawi (Cataldo). Sherman (Mod) takes it under advisement. Custer complies with Orders from Sheridan. That did not end well, either.

13 hours ago, JollyComics said:

So I can use Dranzer anywhere here?

That is a Dranzer of a Post!!

Congratulations....well done.

On 9/11/2018 at 9:33 AM, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Poll Breakdown so far: (note:*= same person-a,b,c,etc.)

Allow Post: 1*a .....total vote =  1

Allow to berate: 1*a....total vote = 1

Not berate: 1*b.....total vote 1 = 1

Warn in selling thread: 1*b....total vote =1

Not allowed to post if HOS listed: 1 + 1*c....total vote =  2

Can't pm: 1*c + 1*e....total vote =  2

Maybe custom title: 1*d + 1*c...total vote =  2

No posting-ban: 1

Ban but rejoin after taking appropriate contrition steps: 1*c....total vote = 1

So, 7 individual responses, 5 persons responded with more than 1 response choice.

At this point, in my opinion, there is not enough membership response to form a consensus.

Update: 40 Yes. 15 No 27.27%)

 (As a sideline, I wonder if the 15 voting No are sticking their neck out, backing the wrong horse, and wrongly defending Mr. Cataldo (all of which I was accused of by Buzz. We will probably never know without PM disclosure but that is not the point. It does not really matter. People will have to make up their own minds).

The rest of the above Poll Breakdown remains the same, except for one added change because another member posted a reason:

8 individual responses, 5 persons responded with more than response choice (known responses by persons that it is assumed voted and stated their reasoning/choice).

The added response choice: Yes if includes members not on HOS List that are dealing with HOS listed members: 1

We don't know the reasons for the choice by the remaining 47 member votes that voted without public comment.

On 9/12/2018 at 9:42 AM, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

The Urban Dictionary defines Dranzer as a person who power abuses because of his real life insecurities.(No I did not make it up).

It is also a Beyblade thing.

3 hours ago, Logan510 said:

I wonder if the 14 members who voted "no" regularly conduct business privately with PL / HOS members?

 

I know of at least a couple who do.

Have you thought any more about posting the names? Were you able to find out if they are on the PL List or the HOS List?  I think that Buzz would say that posting the names is the right thing to do. I would bet he would agree, because he mentioned that the names should be disclosed if the persons are using PMs to conduct business.

Shouldn't that apply to active members that are not on the PL or HOS Lists, but are using PMs to conduct buy/sell deals on the Host Boards with members that are on the HOS List? That would seem to be an equal example of what Buzz has presented as a reason to stop PMs from HOS persons that are engaged in buying and selling using PMs or is this an exception and is acceptable? 

1 hour ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

as of now, in the present Poll, 14 members have voted No in the present Poll. Would you characterize or describe those votes as backing the wrong horse, sticking their neck out, or being wrong ?  I completely understand that any of those No votes could possibly be from members on the HOS List, and have an obvious reason to vote No. Common sense tends to favor the conclusion that, while certainly the possibility exists, it is a minor number of members at best, when reviewing the dates that members were added to the List. 

PL List is not a part of the vote Poll, at the moment. So, which is it, the couple you know about are on the PL List or the HOS List, or both? If it is the HOS List, wouldn't you want to be as diligent as Andrew has been, in naming those individuals? Seems to me that would be the proper response given your comments on the subject. 

Any opinions concerning the other aspects of my Cool Books Posts? I would be interested.

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

It is more of a movement to disallow them the ability to PM others.

A question, Andrew: as of now, in the present Poll, 14 members have voted No in the present Poll. Would you characterize or describe those votes as backing the wrong horse, sticking their neck out, or being wrong ?  I completely understand that any of those No votes could possibly be from members on the HOS List, and have an obvious reason to vote No. Common sense tends to favor the conclusion that, while certainly the possibility exists, it is a minor number of members at best, when reviewing the dates that members were added to the List. 

Another question: when the Poll is deemed complete, the date of which is not stated anywhere and noting that votes as of now are  rather low in quantity, what exactly happens? There has been many comments that there is no firm established Rules, that Moderation favors self policing, Moderation has opinions concerning what constitutes trolling and what doesn't, that Moderation has abdicated responsibility in regard to the present situation and left it in limbo, and whether or not the PL List is or is not a separate situation. Note that the present Poll does not state PL....just HOS.

So, what happens?

What happens if a new Poll that is based on the Grass Roots movement you espouse is  established (with an end date)? What then?

2 issues come to mind, that have been raised. A member that is on the PL List, has returned and it is my understanding that the member asked to be left on the PL List. The member stated that all previous issues have been settled. I do not have any idea if that is fact or not. It has been suggested that the member is an exception, because the member is contributing, via a recently popular Thread. What do you suggest could be a method to address this?

I have been informed that a person that posted in the previous now locked divorce thread, included multiple posts by a banned member, who is not on the HOS or PL List. He continuously pops up, and members that have been very clear in their opinions that PL and HOS listed persons should not be allowed any privileges, actually replied to his posts, and in fact you actually thanked him for his opinion and comment concerning you. That seems a bit odd, and could be construed as a double standard. Any suggestions on how members should handle such issues?

On 9/11/2018 at 9:33 AM, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Poll Breakdown so far: (note:*= same person-a,b,c,etc.)

Allow Post: 1*a .....total vote =  1

Allow to berate: 1*a....total vote = 1

Not berate: 1*b.....total vote 1 = 1

Warn in selling thread: 1*b....total vote =1

Not allowed to post if HOS listed: 1 + 1*c....total vote =  2

Can't pm: 1*c + 1*e....total vote =  2

Maybe custom title: 1*d + 1*c...total vote =  2

No posting-ban: 1

Ban but rejoin after taking appropriate contrition steps: 1*c....total vote = 1

So, 7 individual responses, 5 persons responded with more than 1 response choice.

At this point, in my opinion, there is not enough membership response to form a consensus.

Here you go, Andrew. Seems the Poll should be cancelled and re-worded to accommodate your grass roots movement suggestion. Otherwise, nothing at all is accomplished by the present Poll, and is a waste of time and confusing.

56 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

It is more of a movement to disallow them the ability to PM others.  Chip said that he was not trying to conduct business.  I stated that he lied referencing two inquiries I had regarding Chip's status and accounts of him trying to purchase items through PM.  One of the two members came forth to support my claim and the Chip admitted that he was "only trying to buy" items. 

I can't remember his name but there was a foreign variant collector who was banned from the forum by the mods years ago.  I was told that he too sticks to PMs and continues to buy and trade through PM.  

So the question is, at least to me, whether or not the ability to PM should be removed from the individuals who are in the Hall of Shame. In the case of Chip, he has actually admitted that he has attempted to conduct business with other members through the messaging system. 

However, Andrew, that is not the basis of the Poll. I understand that you are in favor of the Grass Roots movement to move the needle, and there certainly nothing wrong with that. If that is what members want, then the present Poll should be cancelled, and start over with a new Poll, because previous member votes were not based on your movement. In fact, the early voting had members actually voting in a certain manner that was multi-faceted as to their opinions.

I will next post an example of this, previously posted.

14 minutes ago, D84 said:

Mods, it's time to lock this thread.

Exactly what Buzz would appreciate. 

6 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

perhaps allowing the tribe to speak freely when those parties attempt to ingratiate themselves back into the fold would be a fair compromise in place of more permanent action. Many les

The 'tribe" has a Poll. What do you think should be the action by Moderation when the Poll is completed...realizing there is no stated end date and doubtful there will ever be, mainly because of the interpretation of what is being voted on, doubt there ever would be......an issuance of a List of Board Rules?

6 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

perhaps allowing the tribe to speak freely when those parties attempt to ingratiate themselves back into the fold would be a fair compromise in place of more permanent action. 

 

That is definitely happening already.

4 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Or, at the very least, consider self-policing of these worst offenders to be exempt from the standard anti-trolling moderation action

That appears to be underway already, for the last 2 days at least, repetitively, over and over and over.

6 minutes ago, seanfingh said:

It appears to me that there is a grass-roots movement to convince the mods to ban HOS members, or disable their ability to post at the least.

I see. I truly did not get that. Now that you plainly state it, it is very clear. In that sense, the needle is being moved, because I can not find any Rule supporting what some mebers state is factual in that regard.

Thanks. I need to be more aware of the behind the scenes reasons, and not go with common sense interpretation of posts.

Very appreciated. You taught me something.