crassus

+1, unless the HOS is kept for just the most egregious incidents, it looses it's bite. I didn't vote either, I watch this forum but I got sidetracked and missed it, which is why I'd like the votes to be in CG, with a specific header, Proposal for So and So to enter the HOS, with the thread bumped so more people can see it. The more people who see it and vote, the more relevant any decision becomes. But I don't think it will work without a lead statement, stating exactly what the HOS is for. I think there are newer people who think it equates to being told to sit in the corner in school. It's just that easy for new people to nagivate...or SOT either it seems;) It might be a lack of experience or perspective, as many of the folks advocating most strongly for HOS in the last couple of incidents were not even here for most of the HOS member's inductions much less witnessed their actions first hand. That might be the disconnect as if they don't realize there were full on 5 figures scams and criminal acts amongst those earlier inductees they make think that the PL list is a "jerk list" and the HOS is a "mega jerk list" The red rocks and solarcadet inductions were the furthest afield we'd traveled. It departed from flat out theft and wanton forum destruction to more civil issues, borderline fraud, and simply lying. All are bad actions, but the HOS was carved out as a place mostly for those beyond (or not desirous of) rehabilitation. The argument for including those that thumbed their nose at the lies and misdeeds and the forum in general. That made sense. They didn't want to be here, conform to the laws of civility here, and do right by others here, so it was ensured they would get their wish and not be welcome here. RR and Solar seemed mostly of this ilk. The new breed of unrepentant guys who don't care to conform to the rules set up or to take seriously their duties to others. I get that. It was a stretch from what the HOS started out at, but I got how the discussion went that way. The Menace situation doesn't give me any sense of why or how this fits in with all the other "rogues". Even if ineffective and slow, he seems to be responding and attempting to fix his issues. This leap, from Alleybat (for example), to Solarcadet, to Menace seems to have lost something in translation and it doesn't seem for the better. I used to assume that the HoS was like the "Hall of Fame for Scoundrels" and that I'd know a bona fide candidate when I saw one, kind of like how there is often a clear consensus on certain athletes that they are headed for the Hall of Fame. But I can see this analogy is not sufficient. Neither Solarcadet nor Menace are in any sense Hall of Fame scoundrels, not even close. So make a poll calling for a vote to get them off the list Speaking for myself only, my reluctance is thinking through the consequences of such a poll. Any poll that so quickly reverses an existing poll will sow further doubts about the validity of the system, and of course one vote to be removed could be followed by another to put him back on, and so on forever until one group is exhausted. My other concern is that each case would be different. I'm not sure where Solarcadet is in this process, but supposing he were on the list and then removed it also sends a dangerous message. I may not think he deserves to be in the Hall of Shame, but equally there is no harm in him being there, and getting him off may be read as endorsing his behaviour. Which is why there is really no substitute for getting it right the first time.

+1, unless the HOS is kept for just the most egregious incidents, it looses it's bite. I didn't vote either, I watch this forum but I got sidetracked and missed it, which is why I'd like the votes to be in CG, with a specific header, Proposal for So and So to enter the HOS, with the thread bumped so more people can see it. The more people who see it and vote, the more relevant any decision becomes. But I don't think it will work without a lead statement, stating exactly what the HOS is for. I think there are newer people who think it equates to being told to sit in the corner in school. It's just that easy for new people to nagivate...or SOT either it seems;) It might be a lack of experience or perspective, as many of the folks advocating most strongly for HOS in the last couple of incidents were not even here for most of the HOS member's inductions much less witnessed their actions first hand. That might be the disconnect as if they don't realize there were full on 5 figures scams and criminal acts amongst those earlier inductees they make think that the PL list is a "jerk list" and the HOS is a "mega jerk list" The red rocks and solarcadet inductions were the furthest afield we'd traveled. It departed from flat out theft and wanton forum destruction to more civil issues, borderline fraud, and simply lying. All are bad actions, but the HOS was carved out as a place mostly for those beyond (or not desirous of) rehabilitation. The argument for including those that thumbed their nose at the lies and misdeeds and the forum in general. That made sense. They didn't want to be here, conform to the laws of civility here, and do right by others here, so it was ensured they would get their wish and not be welcome here. RR and Solar seemed mostly of this ilk. The new breed of unrepentant guys who don't care to conform to the rules set up or to take seriously their duties to others. I get that. It was a stretch from what the HOS started out at, but I got how the discussion went that way. The Menace situation doesn't give me any sense of why or how this fits in with all the other "rogues". Even if ineffective and slow, he seems to be responding and attempting to fix his issues. This leap, from Alleybat (for example), to Solarcadet, to Menace seems to have lost something in translation and it doesn't seem for the better. I used to assume that the HoS was like the "Hall of Fame for Scoundrels" and that I'd know a bona fide candidate when I saw one, kind of like how there is often a clear consensus on certain athletes that they are headed for the Hall of Fame. But I can see this analogy is not sufficient. Neither Solarcadet nor Menace are in any sense Hall of Fame scoundrels, not even close.

I'll be the first to admit that public voting, which I feel personally is more just, is going to suffer from technical problems. Even if there is a separate thread, one vote one post for each member voting, it still leaves open big questions: As of now a poll is 2 weeks. Will a separate thread be "open" for 2 weeks for members to post their vote? If so does that mean a member can go back after voting and delete or change (edit) their vote anytime before the 2 weeks is up? The public vote idea cannot be a single event like a vote in a council room or something. I admit this may be a fatal complication to the idea. The blind poll at least is technically simple, you vote once that is it, you are done.

+1 Not to mention, the people who would be the absolute best choices for "council" members are those who would never take the position. And I'd probably be leery of those people who would lobby for themselves to get the position. It was said earlier, and it bears repeating because it would be true, the vote for who would be in the group would simply turn into a popularity contest. A few undeserving candidates would get in, and the whole thing would turn into a farce. And for those complaining that the polls simply turn into the "pitchfork and torches mob" where members simply vote one way or the other do to the mob mentality, the answer is simple. Polls can be set up so that the results can't be seen until the time limit of the poll expires. Do the polls this way, and nobody will know where the vote stands until the time for the poll is finished. This seems like a better idea than the "public" voting idea, which would simply turn into a flame-war gone wild. + 2 I REALLY like the idea of keeping a poll secret until a set time, so folks don't lean towards a trend. I don't think I've seen an HOS poll done that way before. +3 (or whatever increment we are on). It is a simple (obvious now that it has been expressed) idea with no downside I can see. Let me say first that I agree, of the two options a blind poll is the simplest solution as it requires no elaborate rule changes and is technically easy. It will indeed have some good effect slowing down a mob mentality. That said there is always a downside in allowing people to pass judgment on a person and remain hidden in doing so. There is no virtue in this. The HoS is condemning a person, its not like voting out a public official. I don't see why, if one really truly believes a person should be condemned, they cannot have the courage of their convictions and say so in public. The polls we have now are just as anonymous as what's being proposed. The only difference is that the results won't be visible until the poll is ended. :shrug: Yes and that is my problem, I think anonymity is one of the weaknesses of this method. Its a lot tougher to do something when you have to stand out and be seen doing it, and the HoS should be tougher to do.

+1 Not to mention, the people who would be the absolute best choices for "council" members are those who would never take the position. And I'd probably be leery of those people who would lobby for themselves to get the position. It was said earlier, and it bears repeating because it would be true, the vote for who would be in the group would simply turn into a popularity contest. A few undeserving candidates would get in, and the whole thing would turn into a farce. And for those complaining that the polls simply turn into the "pitchfork and torches mob" where members simply vote one way or the other do to the mob mentality, the answer is simple. Polls can be set up so that the results can't be seen until the time limit of the poll expires. Do the polls this way, and nobody will know where the vote stands until the time for the poll is finished. This seems like a better idea than the "public" voting idea, which would simply turn into a flame-war gone wild. + 2 I REALLY like the idea of keeping a poll secret until a set time, so folks don't lean towards a trend. I don't think I've seen an HOS poll done that way before. +3 (or whatever increment we are on). It is a simple (obvious now that it has been expressed) idea with no downside I can see. Let me say first that I agree, of the two options a blind poll is the simplest solution as it requires no elaborate rule changes and is technically easy. It will indeed have some good effect slowing down a mob mentality. That said there is always a downside in allowing people to pass judgment on a person and remain hidden in doing so. There is no virtue in this. The HoS is condemning a person, its not like voting out a public official. I don't see why, if one really truly believes a person should be condemned, they cannot have the courage of their convictions and say so in public.

Bear in mind that no system will be perfect and there will always be cases that are divisive and which leave some feeling no justice was done, you can never eliminate that completely. The main isssue is how do you fix mistakes? (And I realize not everybody thinks its a mistake.) In most systems there is an appeal, but here the only recourse seems another vote, which may not bring any more consensus or satisfaction than the first vote. I am not assuming that a public vote might not produce the same result, but generally it is very odd to have these kinds of serious things decided by secret ballot. Voting in and out of office public officials is not the same as passing judgment, condemning a person. Secret ballot in this context looks too much like the abuses that come from "secret informants".

I agree Hector. If the buyer is indeed a saavy collector, as the OP has suggested, he should have known the risks. Shipping international needs a trackable and insured service, if the buyer wants to roll the dice the buyer should deal with the loss. My advice is to write that into the terms of any future sales. Even safer is to not make the international sale at all without the proper shipping service.

Yes, if he's been buying from the "big auction houses" as jop said, I would think he would be accustomed to paying for shipping with tracking. I doubt they would ship without tracking. Yeah, but they do so much business with carriers like FedEx that they get better rates. (At least that's how I think it works.) My last package from Heritage had three slabs and a raw delivered to my work address in Australia for US$40. That is about the same amount (possibly even less) than what Clink charges me for a comparable order shipped to Montreal, Canada. How long did it take for your order to arrive? Just curious.

Just to clarify: did you at the first offer/quote him the more expensive but trackable options? If you did, did he refuse them and insist on the cheapest shipping?

I've posted this for a friend and unfortunately it's not. The buyer has been here less than 4 months. I've let my friend know that I've put the situation (without the details) here for discussion. I'll allow him to provide any details he feels comfortable with. The last time I shipped to Asia, and the buyer opted for no tracking, non-insured, postage, I made it part of the formal terms that I assumed no responsibility for lost or damaged goods. I realize this would not protect a seller from a buyer filing a paypal dispute anyway, but in the case where responsibility is clearly spelled out in the agreement, at least the seller could bring a complaint here and call out the buyer.

I'm not that big on that because the process to vote people on to that committee is gonna end up being a popularity contest. This isn't life or death but there are way too many vocal people here that are vengeful, vindictictive sociopaths. I like those people to be out in the open for anyone paying attention to spot. And quite honestly, who wants the responsibility? Clearly a public vote has issues but it will eliminate some obvious issues with an anonymous vote. You can't think of anyone you'd nominate for the position because you respect their opinions? I don't think the boardies interested in being popular would be interested in being responsible. Yes, those kind of responsibilities are often a one way ticket to unpopularity.

Spend enough time here and you'll have those lists...and they'll be laminated. And honestly, if someone's a scammer, and they've got someone willing to go so far to defend them as to not deal with people then they are probably doing those people a favor. Someone who would defend a scammer is a scammer once removed, basically. In this place, much as in non-digital life, everyone's not going to get along. I agree completely. The risk of making enemies exists in any debate, and even if the voting is kept secret its not going to prevent the people who actually debate it in public from falling on one side or the other of someone's hate list. This is a danger but for me personally its not a reason to reject public voting. How would public voting work? The idea is that the debate about the merits of the case would go on here as usual, but there would be a separate devoted thread where people would post their votes, presumably yes or no, to inclusion. This is what I understood to be Park's suggestion in an earlier post. If I have it wrong I'm sure I will be corrected. Speaking personally I like the idea because I feel that if you really (really) believe someone is so far gone that the HoS, which for me is like impeachment and conviction, is righteous and just, than you should have at least the courage of your convictions to say you think so in public.

Spend enough time here and you'll have those lists...and they'll be laminated. And honestly, if someone's a scammer, and they've got someone willing to go so far to defend them as to not deal with people then they are probably doing those people a favor. Someone who would defend a scammer is a scammer once removed, basically. In this place, much as in non-digital life, everyone's not going to get along. I agree completely. The risk of making enemies exists in any debate, and even if the voting is kept secret its not going to prevent the people who actually debate it in public from falling on one side or the other of someone's hate list. This is a danger but for me personally its not a reason to reject public voting.

I would support public votes for HoS, I think there is a lot of merit to that idea, but we would have to consider some of the likely consequences. I think one possible consequence would be far fewer people voting. That can be good if there is legitimate fear of a mob mentality, but fewer voting can also be a problem for the legitimacy of the poll itself.

You have to find the button first.

Look, this is nothing personal with me any way you slice it. I'm new here. I love it here. I love buying and selling books here. I plan and hope to be a part of this community for the indefinite future, if you'll have me. In my estimation, this issue we're discussing is an important one. Look at the issues it's causing out there in the marketplace...I'm not causing those issues, the current location rules dynamics are. Because I love this place, I'm suggesting that we might want to address this. But again...here come the comments that trivialize the issue...a few books here and there, etc...I hear you, but it's not that simple...look out there at the issues that are arising. Further, I don't know how much more clear I can be about this: I DON'T CARE WHETHER WE HAVE THE RULE ABOUT SEPARATE LOCATIONS. REMOVE IT...RETURN TO AN ALL MIXED SALES FORUM. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT IF WE HAVE A RULE, MAKE IT CLEAR AND EASY TO ENFORCE. OTHERWISE GET RID OF IT. OK, enough from me again...back to my cabinets... Aside from the specific month that Bronze turns to Copper, the rules are clear...and enforcement is not in our purview. Hump the notify button if you see something out of place and you just can't stand it, and let a mod move it if they're so inclined. What's the big deal here? If your thread gets moved and someone else's doesn't...there are greater injustices in this world...there are greater injustices in this thread...there are greater injustices in some of the grammar in this thread...there are probably greater injustices in some of the grammar in this post! But, but, he's found a cause he can get behind gosh darn it! It sure seems like such a little issue to get worked up into such a lather over. In fairness to Ed, his bottom line argument is that clarity in the rules might mean less drama and therfore less disruption. This is not unreasonable or hysterical.

I think there is a large consensus that the rule is necessary and that rules must be fairly and consistently enforced, and so I agree Ed that the issue narrows down to clarifying the existing rule. Personally I think your proposed wording is fine, but I have no knowledge of the process involved here so someone will have to clarify what the next step is.

I'll chime in again, since the discussion is continuing. We need to have either one of two scenarios, and frankly, at this point I don't care which one we have...but we need to decide which one it's going to be, and the "board guidelines" need to be updated to reflect which one it is: Scenario 1: We decide that the "separate age" structure of the marketplace will exist. Acknowledge that there is difference of opinion about start/end dates of the ages. This difference of opinion does not prevent the codification of a rule. The earliest interpretation of the beginning of the Copper age that I know of is 1980, and the latest is 1986...so, that would be where the "enforcement" could begin and end...books after 1985 in the G/S/B thread are in the wrong place; books before 1980 in the C/M thread are in the wrong place. So, here is but one example of how the rule could be written: "In the marketplace, books are to be listed in the correct sub-forum. It is acceptable to list books published before 1986 in G/S/B, and it is acceptable to list books published after 1979 in C/M." I would go along with Scenario 1. I personally don't think there needs to be universal theological agreement on the cut off dates, and your formula takes that into account. The cut off dates don't have to be dogma, just a community decision to have functional categories of separation.

For me the problem with measuring percentages is that it is not a static metric, threads unfold over time, %% of this or that will vary depending upon how a thread is organized and when you measure.

thought I saw the OP who nominated him got a refund. let me dig and see... nope cant find it anywhere. guess its still open. I think the original nominator was J DUB and he got his refund it's a post or two after this. I think this was in reference to the unfulfilled obligations from his sketch opportunities offered on the boards and inability to complete the responsibilities that would get all those people the books for which they prepaid. Yes, I was hoping that since JDub received his refund quickly after posting here that the paperwork would be sent to the artist just as quickly for the opp. I guess if nobody nominates him for that then we wait for the inevitable mob. If I remember correctly hasn't a mob already formed and started an HoS poll that is ticking down as we speak?

It looks like I was also a victim of somebody humping my sales thread in GSB and it was moved to Mixed today. The vast majority of the books are bronze. And I'll agree that some of the books are borderline bronze at best and one or two were outliers. But it seems kind of harsh to me. I'm selling a couple books that are clearly Copper and Modern and I started a separate thread for those two. I'd rather just be told clearly the date age cut-offs for each section. And good luck with that because there will never be a universally accepted definition of Gold, Silver, and Bronze. Or like it's been here for years, people can resist the urge to hit the notify button for minutiae. It was addressed to moderation as to why some can do this and others can't... and again, a request for an answer was ignored. I think what we are seeing now is the answer, there will be a period of stepped up enforcement, to create confidence that it is impartial. Whether it lasts is another matter. Whether it should last is another matter. Moderation cannot really come up with a consistent answer if we ourselves here cannot. It is certainly not an issue that can be handled with mathematical precision.

I agree, its about keeping the terms of transactions as simple and straightforward as possible. I am asking x and you can pay me with y.

I think he is quoting this: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7262586#Post7262586

Its not my practice either, but in fairness to those who do it, it is the nature of the marketplace that expenses are passed on to the consumer. And even if most do not ask for +3% on a Paypal transaction, I have to believe they have already factored that into their asking price, or, at least, their bottom line discount. But considering the boards don't take a 10%+ cut like e-bay does, they should just suck it up and not charge the additional 3%. It's almost like they're not smart enough to just "build it into" the costs. Let me ask you then, if they didn't ask for +3% for Paypal, but rather gave "3% off" for those buyers that don't use Paypal, would it be less offensive, or the same thing? What about this one: Paypal (you pay fees) Money Order (3% off) Cashiers Check (3% off) Personal Check (must clear first) Local Pick up (5% off) I hate the +3% and feel its part of doing online business. Your example above seems to have the buyer using Paypal suffering even more than a 3% surcharge, so if the BIN on an item is say $100, the MO is paying $97 and the Paypal is paying $103, do I have this right?

Its not my practice either, but in fairness to those who do it, it is the nature of the marketplace that expenses are passed on to the consumer. And even if most do not ask for +3% on a Paypal transaction, I have to believe they have already factored that into their asking price, or, at least, their bottom line discount. But considering the boards don't take a 10%+ cut like e-bay does, they should just suck it up and not charge the additional 3%. It's almost like they're not smart enough to just "build it into" the costs. Let me ask you then, if they didn't ask for +3% for Paypal, but rather gave "3% off" for those buyers that don't use Paypal, would it be less offensive, or the same thing?