PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[thehumantorch]

So provide a decision mechanism of expunging the record versus simple reversal of status.

 

Roughly translates to:

 

Rock Paper Sissors, Spungebob Squarepants, LP, backup, situation. :shrug:

[CAP Freak]

He wants us to create a decisive criteria to choose which records of probation should be completely eliminate and which should be kept around with easily ability to find.

 

Like my inability to pay for items in the past, and the time I failed to send people their books but repaid everybody

[JohnT]

Man, I'm tired of this thread...

[BrianR]

While I'm in here, I move that Chi Bamm be removed from any mention on the list.

If he was put on it because he was called to duty in Iraq, I care nothing about associating with anyone that insists the very mention of his name in this thread. That's probably the saddest thing I've ever heard of in my life.

 

 

Boy, you really need to get out more . . . Chi Bamm wasn't put on the list because he was called to duty, he was taken off the list because he was called to duty He hasn't been on the list since August 2007 and he was taken off the minute that was mentioned by anyone

 

I suggest you actually read before you

 

The person who placed him on the list didn't know why he wasn't responding to PMs.

Once informed he and everyone agreed to remove him.

 

I believe Dice is saying his name being adding to the list was a accident and his name should not ever have been or ever be there.

 

Far be it from me to speak for the Dice man.

 

 

I was the person at the time who wanted him on the list before I found out he was called to duty and was unable to respond to PMs and send the book. I haven't been around much and am trying to catch up around here and saw this. I agree to permanently removing Chi from the list, He shouldn't have been put on there after the facts were laid out. I felt bad then and when I see it, I feel bad now. If I had known at the time he was called to duty and unable to respond I would have never asked for him to be put on the list.

[mrwoogieman]

i've read that six times and still have no idea what you're talking about. talk less smart so us plebes can comprehend your proclamations

 

He said, "w00t!"

 

[Sal]

i know what he's saying. i also know that he probably has an idea of what he's asking for, and that's what i want clarification on

[nocutename]

While I'm in here, I move that Chi Bamm be removed from any mention on the list.

If he was put on it because he was called to duty in Iraq, I care nothing about associating with anyone that insists the very mention of his name in this thread. That's probably the saddest thing I've ever heard of in my life.

 

 

Boy, you really need to get out more . . . Chi Bamm wasn't put on the list because he was called to duty, he was taken off the list because he was called to duty He hasn't been on the list since August 2007 and he was taken off the minute that was mentioned by anyone

 

I suggest you actually read before you

 

The person who placed him on the list didn't know why he wasn't responding to PMs.

Once informed he and everyone agreed to remove him.

 

I believe Dice is saying his name being adding to the list was a accident and his name should not ever have been or ever be there.

 

Far be it from me to speak for the Dice man.

 

 

I was the person at the time who wanted him on the list before I found out he was called to duty and was unable to respond to PMs and send the book. I haven't been around much and am trying to catch up around here and saw this. I agree to permanently removing Chi from the list, He shouldn't have been put on there after the facts were laid out. I felt bad then and when I see it, I feel bad now. If I had known at the time he was called to duty and unable to respond I would have never asked for him to be put on the list.

 

It is noted that he was called for active duty. Just to play devil's advocate, what happens if the same scenerio repeats itself, at least someone will know that it is possible he was called again to duty.

 

If we keep picking and choosing who should stay on a history list, it makes the entire process invalid. I admit that one name was removed because to mark a personal notation of its kind would be cruel. But if someone falters and is put on the probation list, they should be added to the history list once removed. Again, these are only my opinions.

[szelim]

While I'm in here, I move that Chi Bamm be removed from any mention on the list.

If he was put on it because he was called to duty in Iraq, I care nothing about associating with anyone that insists the very mention of his name in this thread. That's probably the saddest thing I've ever heard of in my life.

 

 

Boy, you really need to get out more . . . Chi Bamm wasn't put on the list because he was called to duty, he was taken off the list because he was called to duty He hasn't been on the list since August 2007 and he was taken off the minute that was mentioned by anyone

 

I suggest you actually read before you

 

The person who placed him on the list didn't know why he wasn't responding to PMs.

Once informed he and everyone agreed to remove him.

 

I believe Dice is saying his name being adding to the list was a accident and his name should not ever have been or ever be there.

 

Far be it from me to speak for the Dice man.

 

 

I was the person at the time who wanted him on the list before I found out he was called to duty and was unable to respond to PMs and send the book. I haven't been around much and am trying to catch up around here and saw this. I agree to permanently removing Chi from the list, He shouldn't have been put on there after the facts were laid out. I felt bad then and when I see it, I feel bad now. If I had known at the time he was called to duty and unable to respond I would have never asked for him to be put on the list.

 

It is noted that he was called for active duty. Just to play devil's advocate, what happens if the same scenerio repeats itself, at least someone will know that it is possible he was called again to duty.

 

If we keep picking and choosing who should stay on a history list, it makes the entire process invalid. I admit that one name was removed because to mark a personal notation of its kind would be cruel. But if someone falters and is put on the probation list, they should be added to the history list once removed. Again, these are only my opinions.

I like the idea of retaining reinstated people on an easy to find list with notations explaining special circumstances. (thumbs u

 

It may be better that way for all interested parties.

 

[shiverbones]

He wants us to create a decisive criteria to choose which records of probation should be completely eliminate and which should be kept around with easily ability to find.

 

Like my inability to pay for items in the past, and the time I failed to send people their books but repaid everybody

 

I have not been repaid.

[Mac Man]

While I'm in here, I move that Chi Bamm be removed from any mention on the list.

If he was put on it because he was called to duty in Iraq, I care nothing about associating with anyone that insists the very mention of his name in this thread. That's probably the saddest thing I've ever heard of in my life.

 

 

Boy, you really need to get out more . . . Chi Bamm wasn't put on the list because he was called to duty, he was taken off the list because he was called to duty He hasn't been on the list since August 2007 and he was taken off the minute that was mentioned by anyone

 

I suggest you actually read before you

 

The person who placed him on the list didn't know why he wasn't responding to PMs.

Once informed he and everyone agreed to remove him.

 

I believe Dice is saying his name being adding to the list was a accident and his name should not ever have been or ever be there.

 

Far be it from me to speak for the Dice man.

 

 

I was the person at the time who wanted him on the list before I found out he was called to duty and was unable to respond to PMs and send the book. I haven't been around much and am trying to catch up around here and saw this. I agree to permanently removing Chi from the list, He shouldn't have been put on there after the facts were laid out. I felt bad then and when I see it, I feel bad now. If I had known at the time he was called to duty and unable to respond I would have never asked for him to be put on the list.

 

It is noted that he was called for active duty. Just to play devil's advocate, what happens if the same scenerio repeats itself, at least someone will know that it is possible he was called again to duty.

 

If we keep picking and choosing who should stay on a history list, it makes the entire process invalid. I admit that one name was removed because to mark a personal notation of its kind would be cruel. But if someone falters and is put on the probation list, they should be added to the history list once removed. Again, these are only my opinions.

 

I'm one who advocated for including a historical record of past offenders; however, I will say that in the instance of Chi Bam who was called away on a deployment, I know there are US Federal laws that affords certain protective measures for service members from financial institutions, bill collectors, etc, that arise as a result of being deployed--The US Soldier Sailor Act to be specific. While I recognize it can be problematic qualifying which historical records are kept and which aren't, I'd say playing devil's advocate, if it's good for the entire country... perhaps it's something we as a community ought to consider as well. :shrug:

[lookwhoitis]

He wants us to create a decisive criteria to choose which records of probation should be completely eliminate and which should be kept around with easily ability to find.

 

Like my inability to pay for items in the past, and the time I failed to send people their books but repaid everybody

 

You have not repaid me. Paypal repaid me after you stole my money, and they shorted me 44c.

 

You took my money without having said books for sale in a premeditated scam to make yourself some pocket cash.

 

You belong in the Hall of Shame indefinitely and should be barred from selling OR purchasing on the boards.

[Bosco685]

He wants us to create a decisive criteria to choose which records of probation should be completely eliminate and which should be kept around with easily ability to find.

 

Like my inability to pay for items in the past, and the time I failed to send people their books but repaid everybody

 

I have not been repaid.

[Pitboss]

He wants us to create a decisive criteria to choose which records of probation should be completely eliminate and which should be kept around with easily ability to find.

 

Like my inability to pay for items in the past, and the time I failed to send people their books but repaid everybody

 

You have not repaid me. Paypal repaid me after you stoled my money , and they shorted me 44c.

 

You took my money without having said books for sale in a premeditated scam to make yourself some pocket cash.

 

You belong in the Hall of Shame indefinitely and should be barred from selling OR purchasing on the boards.

 

Absolutely... I take it personally that no apology has ever been offered either here or through PM.Unforgivable.

[divad]

So provide a decision mechanism of expunging the record versus simple reversal of status.

 

I made a few attempts at incorporating a probational record . . . but they didn't seem fair or accurate. The list must allow for an individual to make good and not carry a one or two-strike stigma for eternity.

 

However, I do feel that three strikes are inexcusable and establish a pattern and practice of carelessness (or recklessness) at best, and should provide auto-election into the Hall of Shame.

[Forbush-Man]

i know what he's saying. i also know that he probably has an idea of what he's asking for, and that's what i want clarification on

 

Something about an X-Sponge (I guess it's some kind'a mutant sponge or something).

[Forbush-Man]

He wants us to create a decisive criteria to choose which records of probation should be completely eliminate and which should be kept around with easily ability to find.

 

Like my inability to pay for items in the past, and the time I failed to send people their books but repaid everybody

 

Right, so that means we should make notations of things. Kind of like little quotes like these recent ones from the Events Forum:

 

Do you guys listen to what I am saying or what is going on or do you just block it out. Everyone is payed back, except for two people whining about $1.00 and 44 cents, respectfully.

 

Total lack of remorse

 

I do not mean to even attempt to "work my way back in with folks" nor do I even want to.

 

Total lack of Respect for Board Members

 

Oh, and Shiverbones said he still has not been paid back.

[slym2none]

Oh, and Shiverbones said he still has not been paid back.

 

Yep - $35 isn't just a few cents or a dollar....

 

 

 

-slym ("whining" - )

[skypinkblu]

While I'm in here, I move that Chi Bamm be removed from any mention on the list.

If he was put on it because he was called to duty in Iraq, I care nothing about associating with anyone that insists the very mention of his name in this thread. That's probably the saddest thing I've ever heard of in my life.

 

 

Boy, you really need to get out more . . . Chi Bamm wasn't put on the list because he was called to duty, he was taken off the list because he was called to duty He hasn't been on the list since August 2007 and he was taken off the minute that was mentioned by anyone

 

I suggest you actually read before you

 

The person who placed him on the list didn't know why he wasn't responding to PMs.

Once informed he and everyone agreed to remove him.

 

I believe Dice is saying his name being adding to the list was a accident and his name should not ever have been or ever be there.

 

Far be it from me to speak for the Dice man.

 

 

I was the person at the time who wanted him on the list before I found out he was called to duty and was unable to respond to PMs and send the book. I haven't been around much and am trying to catch up around here and saw this. I agree to permanently removing Chi from the list, He shouldn't have been put on there after the facts were laid out. I felt bad then and when I see it, I feel bad now. If I had known at the time he was called to duty and unable to respond I would have never asked for him to be put on the list.

 

It is noted that he was called for active duty. Just to play devil's advocate, what happens if the same scenerio repeats itself, at least someone will know that it is possible he was called again to duty.

 

If we keep picking and choosing who should stay on a history list, it makes the entire process invalid. I admit that one name was removed because to mark a personal notation of its kind would be cruel. But if someone falters and is put on the probation list, they should be added to the history list once removed. Again, these are only my opinions.

 

I'm one who advocated for including a historical record of past offenders; however, I will say that in the instance of Chi Bam who was called away on a deployment, I know there are US Federal laws that affords certain protective measures for service members from financial institutions, bill collectors, etc, that arise as a result of being deployed--The US Soldier Sailor Act to be specific. While I recognize it can be problematic qualifying which historical records are kept and which aren't, I'd say playing devil's advocate, if it's good for the entire country... perhaps it's something we as a community ought to consider as well. :shrug:

 

I don't have a problem with him not paying if he was redeployed, but my question is, when you are redeployed, is it a surprise? Do you have only 24 hours notice?

 

Did he let people know? This thread is too convoluted for me to find it.

Edited July 3, 2009 by skypinkblu

[rtarturo]

He wants us to create a decisive criteria to choose which records of probation should be completely eliminate and which should be kept around with easily ability to find.

 

Like my inability to pay for items in the past, and the time I failed to send people their books but repaid everybody

 

I haven't been repaid, nor had a response to my last PM. We're only talking $4.64 since but since you're claiming to have repaid everybody I thought I'd mention it.

[slym2none]

He wants us to create a decisive criteria to choose which records of probation should be completely eliminate and which should be kept around with easily ability to find.

 

Like my inability to pay for items in the past, and the time I failed to send people their books but repaid everybody

 

I haven't been repaid, nor had a response to my last PM. We're only talking $4.64 since but since you're claiming to have repaid everybody I thought I'd mention it.

 

Just remember - it's not necessarily the amount, it's the principle.....

 

 

 

 

-slym