wombat

I voted before 11PM.

It was crazy. Three people got banned after things got out of control.

I was thinking more along the lines of "persona non grata".

When did the sale on the CGC forum take place?

I'm assuming that this guy Evan is the owner of the last paypal account he tried to make payment with. EDIT: Maybe not. Did the ebay seller say the last paypal address did not match up to the shipping address?

You're right. I don't know. I am simply stating one possibility which is just as likely. My logic is that the buyer is not out any money. I also do not see any lies to complete a sale. That's not correct. He is out the benefit of the bargain. The difference in price between the agreed upon price and the replacement value of the book. Contracts 101 Revenue is not cost avoidance. Accounting 101 But profit is. If I save myself expense I have more profit.

So what would happen if someone did another write up and posted a poll? I'm still confused on that part of the process. What has to happen for a HOS poll to be considered legit?

Personally I see no difference in this case in lying not to lose money and lying to gain money. From what was posted I think he tanked the deal to buy the ebay book on purpose to avoid losing money on the flip.

So what exactly is the process for even determining if a HOS poll will be posted? Clearly some people think HOS is warranted and others do not.

I think you misunderstand the debate. It's not over whether or not the vote is overwhelming enough (it is by a long shot, heck 51% probably would be too) its wheter or not the "underlying charges" are enough to sustain the indictment. Those of us against it are saying there should have never been a vote because the actions don't meet the qualifications of a hos nomination and that this should have remaineda pl issue. Or that it shouldn't have been rushed and we had more material before nominating such as your pms. So how does it get decided if there is enough evidence to even have a vote? If people disagree on that does it go to a vote?

He just had a wide stance. Jeez.

Is there really going to be another vote? Why not just use the first one?

Good catch on the price.

I'm getting confused. I thought the message that was posted from the ebay seller said he never sent the book because of the shady attempts to pay for it.

Isn't someone due a comic?

So is there now going to be a vote to see if the first vote is valid?

Its hard to get past his attempt to send a personal check to someone that he only put his initials on. To me there are only two reasons someone would do this. The first is an outright attempt to commit some kind of fraud. The second is a complete lack of intelligence. Personally I don't think either explanation makes for someone who should be involved in transactions here. I will admit I'm probably on the harsher side of things and I'm not much on second chances and pretty much never on the side of any more after that.

I thought as long as the person that nominated someone for the PL asked for them to be taken off they would be. Is that not the case?

From what I've read IMHO the only reason he hasn't outright stolen money from people is that he isn't smart enough to pull it off.

The debate is not about defending him, its about whether his offenses, such as they are, warrant the HoS. As for the fake photo, that has been alleged, but have the original email or PM communications showing him do so been posted? I am aware that another Board member shortly after reported the same thing, but in this case also I do not think they posted the original communication. Hustruck had every opportunity to address that allegation.

He could have just not acted like a d bag. This is his own doing.