DiceX

The only recorded sale was for $99 this past July. You did ok.

I guess it depends on how much you paid for it.

I want one of those in a bad way.

Congrats! I just sent mine off to CGC. I am hoping for 9.4.

Quick payment and no problems. Thanks again! (thumbs u

I've never seen that book remotely close to 9.8 before.

How about this one? What?! What did you say about What?! $325 for a grubby 3rd print? That's what! Who you callin' grubby?

Nice book, dork. (thumbs u

Even if someone was negotiating a transaction openly with a HOS, you are not allowed to point out their status. It is upon all members to reference the HOS-PL. I assume one could still PM the Boardie with a personal FYI, yes? I was not warned against that.

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... Really, man. Drop it.

That stick you're holding. The one with fire on one end. That's a torch.

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... Exactly right, the information is there. There's no need to dig it up. People who have pulled themselves out of trouble should have the ability to keep their noses clean. You said yourself that there are few repeat offenders. Why do you and your torch-carrying villagers feel the need to keep your boot on their necks? You're not allowing for circumstances or context. You're making a list of names and lumping them all together. Dice, you're right that a list without context isn't worth much, in fairness to Ed a guy who goes through 100 pages or so to document it isn't exactly the torch and pitchfork crowd. It's become so cutthroat in the probie list that there aren't enough people on the list to satisfy the lust for blood. Let's dig up everyone who's ever been on it. Oh yes! Blood! YES YES YES!

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... Exactly right, the information is there. There's no need to dig it up. People who have pulled themselves out of trouble should have the ability to keep their noses clean. You said yourself that there are few repeat offenders. Why do you and your torch-carrying villagers feel the need to keep your boot on their necks? You're not allowing for circumstances or context. You're making a list of names and lumping them all together.

I have a few Maxx books.

So he felt because of this statement, there should be no special message posted in any thread to warn fellow forumites about a HOS-PL member. So "buyer beware" Unfortunately for now, yes. FYI, I was given a verbal warning from a mod for a friendly reminder in a HoS member's sales thread and was told that I would be given a strike if I ever did it again.

This idea has already been attempted and was shot down. Start what you're attempting to start and just see how effective the list is at getting differences resolved. If you're going to keep people in the mud, there will be little effort from someone to get their name off of it, rendering it completely useless.

Problem free transaction. Treco is good people. Thanks again!

Because they're harder to find than the first print. It's a key that's on the verge of blossoming. The book isn't very hard to find so the money is creating it's own scarcity by gravitating to the printings that are less common.

Poll is over. So let it be done.

You can't bump a poll. It is where it is. All you can do is post links to it.

Ditto (thumbs u

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... I meant that when I brought it up my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek Regardless, now that everyone is more informed of the details and are aware of the intent of the HOS list, let's see how the new poll shakes out.

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. Ed, I guess you missed my post where the people who went through with this, who started the poll and who convinced the original request from PL to HOS were members who have been here for quite some time. What about all the non noobs members who said that they didn't vote as they weren't sure what was going on. It seems this "noob" argument is a poor excuse for the real failure here. I assure you it was said in jest.

Does he need to be raked over the coals a little for his actions? Probably. Is he a crook, con man, and the worst of the worst on these boards? Absolutely not. I have no skin in the game and I'm not one of his buddies, but I hate seeing the guy lumped in with actual thieves. The guy isn't a thief. If he is, nobody has stepped up to prove it yet. The Hall of Shame is a serious charge and shouldn't be handled so flippantly. You started the poll already. And with the details that have come up over the past week, it is predictable what will come of it. But this all started because Menace did not follow through on a service he was expected to deliver. It should have been PL-worthy only, and he be allowed the time to resolve it. He earned that much from what I was able to finally read through the noise. So mocking folks over their frustration with a service they did not receive only distracts from what needs to happen here. But I do understand why you are a little annoyed. I'm not mocking anyone. By all means give him hell over it. But the guy isn't a Hall of Shamer. He should not be on that list.