EC ed

Where did I say that there didn't need to be infraction criteria? Of course there needs to be specific, tangible infractions. That's what I meant by keeping the procedure the same as now. Someone would outline the infractions, and we vote on it - that's what we do now. How did you read my definition as not including infraction criteria? Let me re-post my post from 4 days ago: There would need to be egregious acts behind any nomination, they just wouldn't have to rise to super-villian status (i.e., misdemeanor-level acts, rather than felonies). HusTruck is a good example of that. No one is suggesting that he be added to any list because of his personality (annoying, though it is)...it's because of his specific acts (nicely outlined in Jaybuck's post a couple days ago). I think a majority of us can remain objective enough to "enforce" this.

Where did I say that there didn't need to be infraction criteria? Of course there needs to be specific, tangible infractions. That's what I meant by keeping the procedure the same as now. Someone would outline the infractions, and we vote on it - that's what we do now. How did you read my definition as not including infraction criteria?

All this nashing of teeth about what the lists mean, the lists are being watered down, etc... Look...here's all that necessary to reconcile current events...define the purpose of the lists as follows: 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: a tool for the community at large...not an individual...but the community at large, to declare that a boardie's behavior has been shameful and deserving of community-imposed censure. Doesn't have to be a super-villian...just deserving of community-imposed censure. Procedure is the same as now - vote them on, and vote them off if they seem rehabilitated. That's what it means to be on the HoS. Period. I know that these views of the lists don't exactly gel with how they have historically been used/viewed, but times they are a changin'. The relevant question is, 'In the present day, what is the most functional use for these two lists.' In my opinion, these are they.

Actually, I just re-read the rules...there is a method of removal (which actually makes me feel better): 5) Probation List versus Hall Of Shame a) The Probation List is for transactions that have not been fulfilled as promised. 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. c) The Hall Of Shame candidate is subject to all of the above rules. d) Inclusion in the Hall Of Shame must be decided by a poll. e) Removal from the Hall Of Shame must be decided by a poll. (edit: written while Crassus was writing his just above there (thumbs u )

Banning someone is not a requirement for HOS. I think you are more or less correct - the practical effect is similar whether you are on the HOS or PL...that is, you are supposed to be shunned in the marketplace. As you point out, the other noteworthy difference is that we have not codified a route to removal from the HOS...once you are on there, you are seemingly stuck there forever. Perhaps if we are no longer reserving the HOS for the all-time villains, we should think about formulating a path for HOS removal...perhaps, a similar majority voting process.

This is a recurring discussion here, and it fascinates me each time. Is there really a difference between a seller saying: 1) Book costs $1030, but take a $30 discount if paying cash or check; vs 2) Book costs $1000, but add $30 if paying via fee-based PayPal; The only difference is mental, right? Why does the phrasing in #2 bother us so much more than #1? This is just a rhetorical question, of course...just one of the vagaries of human psychology, I suppose...fascinating.

I agree...refreshing. Although, it's likely that there are many "collecting-based non-profit maximization" type transactions that are not visible, whereas the profit maximization behavior is more readily visible...which skews the view a little bit. I know that much of my buying and selling lately goes on via PM with other boardies who are on the collector end of the spectrum...you never see those sales threads, by construction.

Moving this out of Claudio's sales thread and over here for more discussion, if so desired: The whole concept of the seller choosing the bidder he prefers is alien to me, never seen an auction like this before! Link back to Claudio's sales thread: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8295722#Post8295722 I thought the idea was interesting, but definitely brings back into focus the previous discussion in this here thread about auction rules, etc...

I thought the idea was clever...I liked it. (thumbs u I was just pointing out that no one can question you (or anyone else) about violating auction rules, because there essentially are no rules.

As long as you follow the implicit "rule" of declaring a BIN, it seems that you can do whatever you want to in an auction, because there are no explicit auction rules here. Refer to the Auction Discussion Thread , ad nauseam ...many of us were saying that if Arch is indeed going to allow auctions, we need to specify some rules and put them in their own forum...but that never went anywhere, for reasons I don't understand...so, for now....can of worms.

jaybuck43 did this a couple days ago...seems like a good head start:

There would need to be egregious acts behind any nomination, they just wouldn't have to rise to super-villian status (i.e., misdemeanor-level acts, rather than felonies). HusTruck is a good example of that. No one is suggesting that he be added to any list because of his personality (annoying, though it is)...it's because of his specific acts (nicely outlined in Jaybuck's post a couple days ago). I think a majority of us can remain objective enough to "enforce" this.

It's not clear in the rules...rule just says "multiple offenders." That's why I suggested that if we keep things as they are, we at least need to clarify that point...hard code the "3 times" right there in the rules, so there's no slippage because of misunderstanding/ambiguity. Of course, escapes are also possible because PL history (entrances and exits) is not systematically tracked...so, it's hard to know when the "multiple" happens. I tried to organize that information here once, and it didn't go over well (some of you might remember that hell-raising).

Using another legal analogy...what we currently have is something akin to only being able to charge a lawbreaker with a felony or nothing at all...i.e, we are structurally not giving ourselves a misdemeanor option. Thus, if the lawbreaker's offense doesn't rise to the level of a felony, we do nothing, rather than pursue the misdemeanor charge. We need to give ourselves the misdemeanor option.

This relates directly to mine and Sharon's discussion above. If we want to preserve the historical meaning of the HoS as exclusively housing the super-villians, then putting the merely untrustworthy on there waters it down. If we want to "re-calibrate" the HoS to include all incorrigibles, which would include both super-villians and lesser villians, then we need to decide that...noting that it would reflect an intentional shift in the scope of the HoS. As I mentioned, an alternative would be to put the incorrigibles somewhere else, like the PL based on community vote. Doing neither approach seems to leave us with some sort of self-imposed inabililty to adequately address the lesser villians.

So, what do you think about something like this: Save the HOS for the super-villians as has always been the case (and we should clarify in the rules what a "multiple offender" is...for example, "3 times on the PL"...at least then it will not be ambiguous), and revise the Probation List rules to add a path to the PL via community vote (keeping the current PL path via individual nomination in place, of course)? So, two ways to get on the PL: 1) Individual, transaction-based path, as currently implemented. If put on the PL via this route, to get off you have to satisfy the individual, just as it is done now. 2) Community-vote path, for someone who is not an all-timer, but needs to be censured. Would require majority vote (or something like that). If put on the PL via this path, how do you get off? Well, I could think of a few alternatives, but all would require a community vote to take you back off (perhaps after some minimum waiting period). One example: If/when the person thinks they are sufficiently rehabilitated, they can petition the community for a removal vote, and explain why they feel rehabilitated. Then, we vote. Think of it like a parole hearing.

^ Sums it up nicely. Let me also digress with a general thought - I think we should re-examine the notion of thinking of the HOS as some sort of "trophy wall" of the "worst of the worst" in the history of the boards - this notion seems to always cause hesitation by longer-term members in these types of matters, and I understand that (although, HOS is not the worst that can happen to a boardie...banning is worse). Rather, I think the HOS would be a more effective tool for the community if viewed as a mechanism for public censure - meaning, a vote to the HOS indicates that, in the eyes of the community, a boardie's aggregate behavior has become so reprehensible that it warrants an "official" public shaming. If, for historical continuity, we want to indeed maintain the HOS as a "trophy wall of the worst in board history," then we should create another list that can serve the public censuring role I describe above...echoing back to an earlier comment of mine, we need a mechanism to formally send a message that someone's behavior is unacceptable in this community - it's important, not just for HusTruck, but for all the other "HusTruck-types" who will come along. We could flesh this out in a stand-alone discussion, of course...another idea for this would be (rather than creating another list) to broaden the scope of the Probation List to allow two paths to the PL: 1) the current PL mechanism, where an individual boardie pursues a PL nomination based on a specific transaction, or 2) a community vote based on someone's aggregate reprehensible behavior...

Your ability to make up horse mess never ends, does it? Please go away. And stay gone.

^ Good point. Here's something I posted just about a week ago in the General Discussion thread (before the fake photo came to light): How much more need happen before we can just go ahead and pursue an HOS nomination? Have his multiple transgressions not been "multiple enough" yet? I raised that inquiry based on the existing language in the HOS "rules": 5) Probation List versus Hall Of Shame a) The Probation List is for transactions that have not been fulfilled as promised. 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. Now, take a look at Jaybuck's post from yesterday: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8287753#Post8287753 If this clown isn't a "multiple offender", someone will have to explain to me what a "multiple offender" is. Is that term limited to someone who has been on the PL multiple times? Is that what we want it to mean? I think a message needs to be sent that you can't roll into this community off eBay (or Instagram, or wherever) and behave this way.

Happy for you - awesome when this happens.

SMILIN' ED ! I love them! Your collection continues to astonish me. Just unreal. Thanks for sharing.

Raze recently bought a couple raw books from me (a GA Panic and a SA X-Men) when I responded to his WTB post. It was smooth and easy - fast payment and great communication, including promptly letting me know that he was happy with the books when they arrived. KUDOS (thumbs u

Love that Fat and Slat!

In yo FACE, Ed!