EC ed

When?

Nah...but you can't just find one whenever you want one, either.

Me three. Like the Blackstone...here's my copy:

Yes. I was just thinking of the dozens upon dozens (hundreds upon hundreds?) of board members who never insert themselves into these discussions, and how serene their board experience must be as a result.

I agree...I'm just having trouble getting my head around the notion of having a serious discussion take place in CG

Implying that the process is clear right now? What is your suggestion? Leave things as they are...towards the more subjective end of the spectrum (i.e., the "we'll know it when we see it" approach)? Not saying that would be an invalid opinion...sincerely asking....

When did I bring up non-transactional lying? You brought that up, right? I brought it up? You were the first one to use the phrase "non-transactional"...I suppose I see how my phrase "in any form" could have been interpreted to include non-transactions, although in my head I was only contemplating "transaction-based lying in any form." Whichever one of us brought it up, I think it was a valuable insertion into the discussion of any new rules, and we both agree that non-transaction based lying should not be included. Others may want non-transaction-based lying included? We'll see

Yes, Menace was who I was thinking of. Actually, when I was looking at the record a while back, I thought Menace was not removed from the PL until 1/19/14....now, the history shows him removed from the PL as of his HOS installation date (perhaps some revisionism, or my error?), which would have suggested a separate action to remove him from the PL (as it should be)

I do not think HOS inclusion should remove you from the PL, as I outlined in my earlier post...if we have been doing that in the past, I think that is a mistake. I think I saw one instance in the past where someone was on both lists...I'll have to go back and find it....

When did I bring up non-transactional lying? You brought that up, right?

DR.X, we pretty much agree here - I detest a liar...and I don't need a board-supplied list to keep track of someone who has lied to me. (thumbs u Having said that, the question for the group in the bigger context (since we're trying to also discuss what rules should exist) is should "lying" in any form be grounds for HOS nomination? edit: I mean, we could hard code it right in there: b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender. Lying. Non-transaction based lying will earn someone a HOS nomination? Is that what you're saying here? I'm not saying anything. I'm asking, an an effort to try to keep the discussion moving along. We're trying to discuss the rules for these two lists. Should we make "lying" part of it? If so, should we limit it to "lying in the course of a transaction", or should we expand it to "lying to a boardie about anything?" Personally, I think things either on the PL or HOS should be limited to transactions, so my answer would be "lying in the course of a transaction" (thumbs u

DR.X, we pretty much agree here - I detest a liar...and I don't need a board-supplied list to keep track of someone who has lied to me (or has lied to others, when I can see it). (thumbs u Having said that, the question for the group in the bigger context (since we're trying to also discuss what rules should exist) is should "lying" in any form be grounds for HOS nomination? edit: I mean, we could hard code it right in there: b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender. Lying.

Let me take a stab, based on the way I see it (or at least the way it "should" be). Looking at a PL offense as being "upgraded" to the HOS is not the way to look at it. A PL addition stems from an individual boardie taking issue with an individual transaction. When that boardie is satisfied, the boardie removes the offender from the PL, period. If that offense was so egregious, or if the offender has shown a pattern of repeat offenses, that the community (not the individual) feels the need to step in with an HOS nomination, that is a separate decision. At that point, the two actions are functionally independent...the two things are not linked together. For example, then, it is possible that a boardie can be put on the PL by an individual, then voted to the HOS by the community, then removed from the PL by the individual, but remain on the HOS. Or, a boardie can be voted onto the HOS without being put on the PL first. That is, suppose the individual didn't want to put a boardie on the PL, but behavior was egregious...the community can still pursue an HOS action. The two things are distinct, and pursued by different parties...an individual vs. the community. There is no "upgrading"...if someone is on the PL, putting them on the HOS does/should not remove them from the PL..the HOS is never a mere "upgrade" that takes you off the PL...the individual has to explicitly remove them from the PL via satisfaction of their initial individual offense. That is, a boardie can be on the PL (from the individual) and on the HOS (from the community) at the same time. edit: What I'm saying is that there are two separate questions (that should necessarily be discussed in conjunction with one another): 1) What offense should qualify for a "valid" PL nomination by an individual? 2) What offense should qualify for an "HOS" poll by the community? Hopefully we'll continue to get input over in jaybuck43's CG thread...

Technically, I think it's the opposite. The way I see it, anyone can write up and post an HOS poll and call for a vote on any one at any time. Now, if you do that and it's a frivolous nomination, you should be ridiculed, and receive 10 demerits.

This is not a crazy idea, actually. edit: and, we'd sit a jury for each HOS case, and their decision is binding...no other voting necessary

They never give up do they? double

+1 OK...I was just trying to flesh out what the formulaic approach would look like. Remember, a few pages back I elaborated a less formulaic approach, which was criticized for being too subjective. So, too much subjectivity is a problem, and too much of a formulaic approach is a problem. So, we're back to the line drawing problem...where to draw the line, in particular.

Under the structure below, an individual PL nominator would not need to bear the burden of protecting the rest of the community before removing the person from the PL...that's not intended by the scope of the PL process, anyway. Rather, if there were 2 other aggrieved parties, they could/should have separately nominated Adonis to the PL, and he would have hit his 3 strikes, requiring placement on the HoS and community vote removal. Seems cleaner.

Let me push on this ^, in the context of the following idea (posted earlier): Hypothetically, if his "prosecutable" board-related transgressions are limited to the issue that got him on the PL, and he resolves that in such a manner that the nominator removes him, why is something further warranted? If there are more board-related transgressions that are PL worthy, those people should separately nominate him to the PL. If he hits 3, then he automatically goes on the HoS and the community needs to remove him, by vote. No subjectivity involved.

I've skipped maybe 40 pages of discussion, so I'm probably missing something, but you seem to be ruling out the possibility of someone being voted directly into the HoS after a particularly egregious violation even if the person had not previously been on the PL. Do we want to do that? Well, let's think how a "particularly egregious" violation would play out here...I'll invent a hypothetical. Suppose I bought a $10,000 book from Boardie A...sent him a personal check ( ). He never sends me the book...instead, he sends me a PM saying "so long, sucker" and he later posts a picture of himself lounging on the beach in the Caymans with my book in his hand. I then nominate him for the PL...he's there forever, or until he repays my $10,000. In other words, he will be on the PL forever. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, there is no effective difference in marketplace practical terms between being on the PL or the HoS...so, why would this person need to be on the HoS, rather than perpetual PL? If he shows back up 5 years later and repays me my $10,000 + interest, he comes off the PL. Fine. So, let's ask ourselves...what's wrong with this?

So, aside from the specific HusTruck situation, I'm attempting to push the more meta-discussion about what these lists represent, and how one should be added. Here was my first take at offering a thought alternative. Although not rational, I suppose I see the concern that this HoS mechanism raises concern about people getting voted on for less than objective reasons. So, let me alter those definitions to propose another thought alternative towards the other end of the spectrum: Probation List: a tool for an individual boardie to use to enforce a specific transaction...keep the membership and removal criteria and process exactly the same as they are now. If a boardie has been jerked around on a transaction, they should have the PL mechanism as a remedy...doesn't matter whether the book is $10 or $100. If the aggrieved boardie wants to enforce the transaction, so be it - that is the purpose of the PL. Our interpretation of what it means to be on the PL is then straightforward - a PL member is a member that has failed to fulfill his/her commitment under an agreed upon transaction. Period. Hall of Shame: You are added to the HoS by operation of rule when you are placed on the Probation List a third time. There is no community vote to put you on the HoS. Once you have your third PL appearance, you are on the HoS, period. After a mandatory 6-month waiting period, you may petition for removal from the HoS, which will be put to a community vote, majority rules. That's what HoS means, period. How's that? This way, there is basically no subjectivity whatsoever in putting someone on the HoS. In fact, there is not vote needed or allowed for putting someone there. They are there automatically if they have had 3 PL appearances. After that, if they get voted off the HoS, any subsequent PL additions (i.e., their 4th) gets them straight back on the HoS, with another 6 month minimum. Under this approach, nothing outside the forum marketplace matters for putting someone on the HoS. That's probably as it should be, anyway. They can lie, cheat, steal from anyone out in society...but if it didn't relate to something that happened in a transaction with a boardie that got them on the PL 3 times, it doesn't matter. No vote needed. No subjectivity. No super-villian status required. It's definitional...3 PL strikes puts you on the HoS...no other way to get there. How's that?

The bolded section isn't exactly true. Fair enough...I was taking some poetic license.

Everyone keeps saying this. I just don't get the concern. I don't understand how it could turn into a popularity contest. I must be missing something...

(thumbs u Back to my earlier analogies from 4-5 days ago...I'm just saying that perhaps we should mentally "redefine" the HoS as not only place for the "felonies", but also a place for the "misdemeanors"...you still have to have evidence to "prove" the misdemeanors, though. (thumbs u And...would this be watering down the HoS? Of course it would...by definition...because all we've had on there to date are the irredeemable felons. But, why should we be stuck on that point, if "prosecuting the misdemeanors" is important to the community.

(thumbs u Back to my earlier analogies from 4-5 days ago...I'm just saying that perhaps we should mentally "redefine" the HoS as not only place for the "felonies", but also a place for the "misdemeanors"...you still have to have evidence to "prove" the misdemeanors, though. (thumbs u