PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[ashsaytr]

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.

... odds are he had longer then 24hrs... these are extended deployments... which means everything gets taken care of prior to deploying... or i guess in this case not~

[Boozad]

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 had no intention of sending people their books but Junkenstein bailed me out by taking a book he no longer wanted so some poeple could get some of their money back.

 

Fixed that for ya.

[jeBailey]

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.

... odds are he had longer then 24hrs... these are extended deployments... which means everything gets taken care of prior to deploying... or i guess in this case not~

 

Just for the record. I was deployed before with only 8 hours notice and did not return to the states for 23 months.

 

This isn't the norm but has happened in the pasted.

John

[nocutename]

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.

 

Someone I knew was in the reserves and he was called away and not given too much notice either. There are alot of personal affairs that need to be tended to and am sure that paying for a comic was at the bottom of the list.

 

[nocutename]

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.

 

David, do you not want to include historical data? Yes I understand how members may feel like it is a permanent strike against them but isn't that a good deterrent to make someone stop and think before entering into a transaction that they cannot afford or offering books that they may not have in their possession?

 

Should we run a poll over in General and see the outcome? I don't really know the answer here so I am looking for suggestions.

[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 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.

That's 2 non-refunds, plus 2 not-fully-refunded transactions (PayPal fees deducated from refund).

 

Connor must have lost track after all this time. Go figure!

[Forbush-Man]

I vote for a running historical record. This will be added incentive for a person to make sure they never get on the list. If you've made the list, it means you were a problem in getting a resolution, so you deserve to remain listed. Just MHO.

[nocutename]

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.

That's 2 non-refunds, plus 2 not-fully-refunded transactions (PayPal fees deducated from refund).

 

Connor must have lost track after all this time. Go figure!

 

So far, two people did not get repaid in the Cap_Freak disaster?

Edited July 3, 2009 by nocutename

[Mr.Diggler]

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

[Bosco685]

That's 2 non-refunds, plus 2 not-fully-refunded transactions (PayPal fees deducated from refund).

 

Connor must have lost track after all this time. Go figure!

 

So far, two people did not get repaid in the Cap_Freak disaster?

I know, I didn't realize that either.

[Bosco685]

I vote for a running historical record. This will be added incentive for a person to make sure they never get on the list. If you've made the list, it means you were a problem in getting a resolution, so you deserve to remain listed. Just MHO.

I agree!

 

We need this for ease of reference when potentially looking to purchase from someone. Having a historical snapshot would ease the challenges of extensive research through the entire probation thread.

[User 01001010]

just an update...

 

i paid connor the remaining balance yesterday so if anyone is owed, he should pay everyone back now.

 

j

Edited July 3, 2009 by Junkenstein99

[Bosco685]

just an update...

 

i paid connor the remaining balance yesterday so if anyone is owed, he should pay everyone back now.

 

j

Way to go J!

 

So Connor has money on his account now. Some buyers will be happy.

[Sal]

I vote for a running historical record. This will be added incentive for a person to make sure they never get on the list. If you've made the list, it means you were a problem in getting a resolution, so you deserve to remain listed. Just MHO.

 

Doesn't that also mean it's less of an incentive to be removed from the "active" list, if you're just going to stay on the "inactive" list?

 

 

Let's be frank. There are two types of people who get on the probation list. People who care they're on there, and people who don't. Keeping an inactive list punishes the former, and doesn't affect the latter.

 

.02

[Forbush-Man]

I vote for a running historical record. This will be added incentive for a person to make sure they never get on the list. If you've made the list, it means you were a problem in getting a resolution, so you deserve to remain listed. Just MHO.

 

Doesn't that also mean it's less of an incentive to be removed from the "active" list, if you're just going to stay on the "inactive" list?

 

 

Let's be frank. There are two types of people who get on the probation list. People who care they're on there, and people who don't. Keeping an inactive list punishes the former, and doesn't affect the latter.

 

.02

 

People who care (don't want to be on the probation list) try to do everything they can to not get on the list. It takes 30 days of doing nothing to get on there.

 

This is similar to how locks on doors work: they keep out honest people. Crooks will get in. If you know that screwing someone over will get you on the list, and having a reference later, is added incentive to make sure you stay off. That simple.

[shiverbones]

I have now been refunded. Thanks Connor.

[slym2none]

I have now been refunded. Thanks Connor.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[CAP Freak]

I have now been refunded. Thanks Connor.

They don't care. They only like it when information comes out that is bad so that they can completely trash the other person like he or she is a complete scumbag.

[universal soldier]

I have now been refunded. Thanks Connor.

They don't care. They only like it when information comes out that is bad so that they can completely trash the other person like he or she is a complete scumbag.

 

 

[Point Five]

I have now been refunded. Thanks Connor.

They don't care. They only like it when information comes out that is bad so that they can completely trash the other person like he or she is a complete scumbag.

No one has trashed your rep worse than you did yourself, fella.