EC ed

mrwoogieman: The thing of it is, that's sincerely what I'm trying to do. I don't know how many different ways I can try to say that that is my intention. However, it seems that every time I come into a discussion thread and attempt to help steer the discussion in what seems to me to be a more substantive direction, my attempts get characterized by some as pot-stirring, torch-carrying, inciting controversy, etc. I tell you what - it just seems that I haven't figured out how to substantively contribute to a discussion thread around here without someone characterizing my attempted contribution in this fashion. I'll keep trying, but it's proving difficult. Take this latest discussion...I come in and try to offer an alternative way of thinking about a potential solution to a debate that has apparently been going on here for years that was already being actively discussed in this thread, and I'm suddenly stirring the pot. Geesh.

Again, I'm not advocating anything at this point...I'll leave that discussion to those of you who have been discussing this for years already. As I said, hopefully seeing the PL activity summary will be helpful when that discussion recurs. edit: also, notice that I intentionally didn't label this analysis as a "list" - I certainly didn't suggest that any connotation be attached to it, such as "Tool Shed", "Problem Children", "Scarlet Letter Recipients", or anything like that...it's just a neutral summary of what has factually happened on the PL since inception. In fact, if you read back you'll see that I brought this up as as an alternative to such lists that were being suggested. I will say, however, that it seems like the principle at issue here is one of information transparency. Should this information be transparent or opaque? I think it's an overstatement to say that making the historical PL activity transparent will prevent people from moving on. For example, seeing a long-time member on there years ago would not have any effect on my willingness to deal with them (as an aside, one of my large early purchases on these boards was from one such boardie that is involved in this discussion). There are comparisons/analogies that can be drawn between this and criminal records out in real society, but I'll leave those for the lawyers...

I didn't know this until I did that historical activity summary...did you? Someone had to do it if we wanted to see the situation. Otherwise, we'd just continue on this issue without information that was relevant to the discussion. So....there it is. I think it's pretty clear that I'm not carrying a torch on this one.

Also he was never on PL list was he, I thought he was HOS? Indeed he was on the PL....added to the PL on 12/6/13; moved from the PL to the HOS on 12/21/13; removed from the HOS (and not put back on the PL) on 1/9/14.

Just to be clear...this isn't something I'm trying to start. Back on page 2145 or so of this thread, a serious conversation was brewing (started by other people) about starting a third list of past offenders, etc., or even somehow branding such people with scarlet letters (I agree with you that this idea seems to resurface from time to time). I simply pointed out that a less abrasive step would be to simply summarize the historical PL removal activity. Some people seemed to think that would be a useful step (one that might also satisfy the "scarlet letter" contingent). I just went ahead and carried out that summary from the documented activity in the PL thread...it's just a regurgitation of information that's already out there. I don't see how summarizing this information keeps someone in the mud. Anyway, it's just something to try to advance that conversation by showing what things would start to look like...actually, one of the findings is that repeat offenses actually don't happen all that often, so what some perceive to be a problem might not really be a problem at all. In any event, if we don't want to even maintain this summary of PL activity, it's hard to argue that we would want to take a harsher step like a third list or something along those lines...

For Menace, should have been 1/9/14 removal (not 1/9/13)...typo..fixing it now...

Should the bottom primeinvestibles be added to the top comicseekers/primeinvestibles? Perhaps...tricky to present the ones with the aliases...this particular presentation just reports all the removal instances as they were classified at the time. I suppose people didn't realize that primeinvestibles was an alias for Comicseekers until after the fact, then the alias was added to the Comicseekers entry in the list. There's definitely some room for cleaning up this presentation....

So, I finished this little side project....I slogged through all 109 pages of the Probation List thread and parsed out all of the removals (that was a great lesson in board history). Here are the results, sorted alphabetically by boardie name: PROBATION LIST REMOVALS (through 1/14/14) Boardie1 added 6/30/2013 removed 9/17/2013 ( 80 days on PL) Boardie2 added 5/23/2008 removed 6/26/2009 ( 400 days on PL) * moved to HOS Boardie2 added 3/24/2009 removed 11/27/2009 ( 249 days on PL) Boardie3 added 9/19/2008 removed 11/8/2008 ( 51 days on PL) Boardie5 added 9/14/2012 removed 3/30/2013 ( 198 days on PL) Boardie6 added 5/5/2008 removed 5/6/2008 ( 2 days on PL) Boardie6 added 5/21/2009 removed 6/26/2009 ( 37 days on PL) * moved to HOS Boardie7 added 10/22/2007 removed 10/25/2007 ( 4 days on PL) Boardie8 added 7/1/2011 removed 7/3/2011 ( 3 days on PL) Boardie9 added 5/10/2009 removed 6/2/2009 ( 24 days on PL) Boardie9 added 7/19/2009 removed 8/12/2009 ( 25 days on PL) Boardie9 added 9/14/2010 removed 11/18/2012 ( 797 days on PL) * moved to HOS Boardie10 added 10/28/2008 removed 6/26/2009 ( 242 days on PL) * moved to HOS Boardie11 added 10/12/2008 removed 4/9/2009 ( 180 days on PL) Boardie12 added 1/8/2011 removed 3/23/2011 ( 75 days on PL) Boardie13 added 12/7/2007 removed 1/16/2008 ( 41 days on PL) Boardie14 added 12/17/2011 removed 11/27/2012 ( 347 days on PL) Boardie15 added 12/11/2012 removed 12/16/2012 ( 6 days on PL) Boardie16 added 11/7/2007 removed 2/20/2008 ( 106 days on PL) Boardie17 added 11/5/2008 removed 6/26/2009 ( 234 days on PL) * moved to HOS Boardie18 added 10/22/2007 removed 10/25/2007 ( 4 days on PL) Boardie19 added 3/27/2007 removed 6/26/2009 ( 823 days on PL) * moved to HOS Boardie20 added 2/2/2008 removed 2/6/2008 ( 5 days on PL) Boardie21 added 12/9/2008 removed 12/30/2008 ( 22 days on PL) Boardie22 added 4/7/2013 removed 5/17/2013 ( 41 days on PL) Boardie23 added 2/14/2008 removed 3/24/2010 ( 770 days on PL) Boardie24 added 8/9/2007 removed 8/16/2008 ( 374 days on PL) Boardie24 added 11/2/2010 removed 11/3/2010 ( 2 days on PL) * moved to HOS Boardie25 added 2/2/2008 removed 2/20/2008 ( 19 days on PL) Boardie26 added 11/4/2009 removed 11/5/2009 ( 2 days on PL) Boardie26 added 10/23/2010 removed 10/28/2010 ( 6 days on PL) Boardie27 added 2/14/2008 removed 2/14/2008 ( 1 days on PL) Boardie28 added 12/6/2013 removed 1/9/2014 ( 45 days on PL) Boardie29 added 3/18/2010 removed 6/10/2010 ( 85 days on PL) Boardie30 added 1/24/2009 removed 6/24/2012 ( 1248 days on PL) Boardie31 added 11/18/2013 removed 11/23/2013 ( 6 days on PL) Boardie32 added 10/18/2007 removed 5/20/2008 ( 216 days on PL) Boardie33 added 12/7/2007 removed 5/22/2008 ( 168 days on PL) Boardie34 added 12/1/2013 removed 12/30/2013 ( 30 days on PL) Boardie35 added 5/23/2012 removed 11/22/2012 ( 184 days on PL) Boardie36 added 12/29/2008 removed 12/30/2010 ( 732 days on PL) Boardie37 added 7/6/2010 removed 7/9/2010 ( 4 days on PL) Boardie38 added 11/14/2013 removed 11/26/2013 ( 13 days on PL) Boardie39 added 2/21/2008 removed 8/9/2008 ( 171 days on PL) Boardie40 added 6/2/2009 removed 6/26/2009 ( 25 days on PL) * moved to HOS Boardie41 added 1/11/2008 removed 7/9/2010 ( 911 days on PL) Boardie42 added 7/21/2010 removed 8/12/2010 ( 23 days on PL) * moved to HOS Boardie43 added 12/15/2009 removed 12/15/2009 ( 1 days on PL) Boardie44 added 3/12/2009 removed 3/12/2009 ( 1 days on PL) Boardie44 added 6/23/2009 removed 4/25/2011 ( 672 days on PL) Boardie45 added 11/4/2009 removed 12/8/2009 ( 35 days on PL) Boardie46 added 8/16/2012 removed 9/14/2012 ( 30 days on PL) Boardie47 added 5/17/2013 removed 7/7/2013 ( 52 days on PL) A couple interesting observations...turns out that repeating PL offenses is not that common...and when repeat offenders raise their heads, they typically wind up being upgraded to the HOS in pretty short order. Now, what we do with this summary is the next question...just file it away for personal use, or put it in a publicly accessible thread somewhere and maintain it going forward... EDIT (1/17/14): I edited out actual Boardie names from this list. Until such time that the community decides definitively whether and how we want to make this information transparent, I thought it would be better to remove actual names, to avoid any negative connotations that might arise with respect to people that happen to show up in this history. This information exists in raw form out in the Probation List thread, if anyone chooses to access it for whatever reason. You can still see here that repeat offenders are relatively uncommon, and when they occur, they tend to wind up moving to HOS. Specifically, since the beginning of the PL in 2007, there have been 8 repeat offenders (6 highlighted in orange above, plus two who are currently on the PL that have previous PL visits). Of these 8 repeat offenders, 4 are currently in the HOS. These facts alone should be useful in the debate of whether we should have a repeat offender "list", should the debate recur.

This thing wouldn't need to be structured as a "scarlet letter" list that people are "added" to. It would accomplish the same end if we just kept the institutional memory of the probation list historical activity in an easy to access summarized location. That is, simply keep a documented "list" of probation list removals. Simply something like this: Stickie this thing at the top of the discussion area, just next to the thread that contains the actual PL. If this was easy to access, it would be trivial for me to see that Boardie X has been on the PL twice, and I can use that information as I see fit. Tough to argue with simply trying to summarize instutional history. This wouldn't have the connotation of putting someone on a list, but the info is there nonetheless. I agree, it would be hard to object to the existence of a list such as this, which merely restates existing facts. If the list were ordered alphabetically rather than by date it would achieve the objective, yes? Sounds like a good idea to me. Back on this idea for a minute...I just spent some time going back through the PL thread starting at its inception in October 2007, and started compiling a spreadsheet of all the PL removals...so far, made it through the first 50 pages (roughly the beginning of 2010). Here's what it would look like through that point (of course, we could format this better, sort it by name, etc., but you get the idea...): PROBATION LIST REMOVALS (THROUGH 12/31/09) Boardie18 added 10/22/2007 was removed 10/25/2007 ( 3 days on PL) Boardie7 added 10/22/2007 was removed 10/25/2007 ( 3 days on PL) Boardie13 added 12/7/2007 was removed 1/16/2008 ( 40 days on PL) Boardie20 added 2/2/2008 was removed 2/6/2008 ( 4 days on PL) Boardie27 added 2/14/2008 was removed 2/14/2008 ( 0 days on PL) Boardie25 added 2/2/2008 was removed 2/20/2008 ( 18 days on PL) Boardie16 added 11/7/2007 was removed 2/20/2008 ( 105 days on PL) Boardie6 added 5/5/2008 was removed 5/6/2008 ( 1 days on PL) Boardie32 added 10/18/2007 was removed 5/20/2008 ( 215 days on PL) Boardie33 added 12/7/2007 was removed 5/22/2008 ( 167 days on PL) Boardie39 added 2/21/2008 was removed 8/9/2008 ( 170 days on PL) Boardie24 added 8/9/2007 was removed 8/16/2008 ( 373 days on PL) Boardie3 added 9/19/2008 was removed 11/8/2008 ( 50 days on PL) Boardie21 added 12/9/2008 was removed 12/30/2008 ( 21 days on PL) Boardie44 added 3/12/2009 was removed 3/12/2009 ( 0 days on PL) Boardie11 added 10/12/2008 was removed 4/9/2009 ( 179 days on PL) Boardie9 added 5/10/2009 was removed 6/2/2009 ( 23 days on PL) Boardie6 added 5/21/2009 was removed 6/26/2009 ( 36 days on PL) *moved to HOS Boardie10 added 10/28/2008 was removed 6/26/2009 ( 241 days on PL) *moved to HOS Boardie17 added 11/5/2008 was removed 6/26/2009 ( 233 days on PL) *moved to HOS Boardie19 added 3/27/2007 was removed 6/26/2009 ( 822 days on PL) *moved to HOS Boardie40 added 6/2/2009 was removed 6/26/2009 ( 24 days on PL) *moved to HOS Boardie2 added 5/23/2008 was removed 6/26/2009 ( 399 days on PL) *moved to HOS Boardie9 added 7/19/2009 was removed 8/12/2009 ( 24 days on PL) Boardie26 added 11/4/2009 was removed 11/5/2009 ( 1 days on PL) Boardie2 added 3/24/2009 was removed 11/27/2009 ( 248 days on PL) *moved to HOS Boardie45 added 11/4/2009 was removed 12/8/2009 ( 34 days on PL) Boardie43 added 12/15/2009 was removed 12/15/2009 ( 0 days on PL) Potentially useful? If so, I'll continue.... EDIT (1/17/14): I edited out actual Boardie names from this list. Until such time that the community decides definitively whether and how we want to make this information accessible, I thought it would be better to return this to anonymity, to avoid any negative connotations that might arise. This information exists in raw form out in the Probation List thread, if anyone chooses to access it for whatever reason.

This thing wouldn't need to be structured as a "scarlet letter" list that people are "added" to. It would accomplish the same end if we just kept the institutional memory of the probation list historical activity in an easy to access summarized location. That is, simply keep a documented "list" of probation list removals. Simply something like this: Stickie this thing at the top of the discussion area, just next to the thread that contains the actual PL. If this was easy to access, it would be trivial for me to see that Boardie X has been on the PL twice, and I can use that information as I see fit. Tough to argue with simply trying to summarize instutional history. This wouldn't have the connotation of putting someone on a list, but the info is there nonetheless.

Yep, and now that crassus mentions it, someone might as well post Arch's rules template citing rule #11. Or, is that one too trivial? (Sorry, but I'm still trying to figure out which rules are too trivial to enforce, and which ones are worth enforcing )

Here are my 3 Foxes, all SOTI books....

That is creepy...especially since it's clear that she's had her throat slit

Sweet mother.

Just bought a lower grade raw TFTC 42 from Barton - book is better than expected! Awesome transaction, great communication, boxed priority shipping for 1 raw book - that tells the story right there! KUDOS!!

Just bought two sweet old label FF slabs (38 + 51) from Ted - smoooooth transaction. Fast, secure shipping + great communication + sweet books = KUDOS!!

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6820947&fpart=1 too slow...

I hope so! This transparency should be helpful to him. Hopefully he takes Sharon's very sage advice.

I didn't think it was too nice when he posted a lowball offer on a book right in Trevor's thread, then said he was just joking...if he was nice after that, it's because he saw the pain coming from that lowball nonsense.

Another question about this "hidden poll" approach - is there a way to know how many people have voted in this poll? Can the creator of the poll (i.e., DiceX) see that info? I don't think it'll be an issue for this particular Menace poll, but in general here's what's on my mind...I'd hate to see an HOS decision made based on extremely low turnout....what if an HOS poll runs its course and we then find out only 12 people voted, or something like that? Related to this is another thing I was thinking...in addition to the poll duration requirement, should there be a quorum requirement? For example, at least 50 (or some such number, TBD) members must vote for a HOS vote to be binding...

Actually not said in jest at all, Steve - I was quite sincere. However, Hector, I get your point...voters can be uninformed regardless of their membership duration...I agree with that. Not sure how to address the "uninformed veteran voter" issue. Just thinking out loud, in any event...

Although I'm a 2013 noob myself, I'm afraid there's probably some truth to this statement...I was thinking about this when reading the thread the other day. There are posts in this discussion from at least one noob essentially admitting that they voted in an uninformed fashion (i.e., didn't realize the meaning of the HOS). It's similar to the dangers of uninformed voters out there in real society. Makes me think we should discuss some sort of membership duration requirement for voting in HOS polls (similar to the discussion about new members starting sales threads)...although I suspect the technological demands to enforce would be a difficult hurdle. At minimum, maybe this should alert you veterans to how important it is for you to turnout in these polls to overcome the very real "uninformed voter" problem.