PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 20 20

[Snake Eyes]

I agree with your thoughts on this on a theoretical level. On a more practical level, however, do we leave the terms of finalizing the transaction up to the offended party (referencing the examples I provided above, this could lead to additional charges or acts requested of the PL inductee...thinking FT's five good transaction policy to remove someone from the list was absolutely inspired). Ultimately, if we leave that discretion in the hands of the offended party, spite or some unachievable task will be worked into some solutions for ultimately resolving the transaction.

 

Nonetheless, I still believe that the original victim should ultimately have say in the process (if they are around to provide such input). Perhaps requiring them to post the required means to resolve the transaction publicly (where some peer pressure can be used to tamp down less reasonable terms). However, ultimately I do not think it is the collective board's place to set the conditions...only provide guidance to the orginally victimized party :shrug:

 

Seems somewhat vague/circular...am I making sense with this stuff?

[Bosco685]

I agree with your thoughts on this on a theoretical level. On a more practical level, however, do we leave the terms of finalizing the transaction up to the offended party (referencing the examples I provided above, this could lead to additional charges or acts requested of the PL inductee...thinking FT's five good transaction policy to remove someone from the list was absolutely inspired). Ultimately, if we leave that discretion in the hands of the offended party, spite or some unachievable task will be worked into some solutions for ultimately resolving the transaction.

 

Nonetheless, I still believe that the original victim should ultimately have say in the process (if they are around to provide such input). Perhaps requiring them to post the required means to resolve the transaction publicly (where some peer pressure can be used to tamp down less reasonable terms). However, ultimately I do not think it is the collective board's place to set the conditions...only provide guidance to the orginally victimized party :shrug:

 

Seems somewhat vague/circular...am I making sense with this stuff?

 

I agree and then have mixed feelings at the same time.

 

What FT did to make a point of validating someone was an improved buyer worked out well. But what if he had been vindictive, and took it to the level of how much the person had to spend, and who to buy from, and what they bought?

 

Just saying it could get out of hand if the offended party takes it to the extreme. This should be rare, as I would hope folks would call them on this. Maybe guiding them to spell out ahead of time a reasonable resolution will avoid any issues.

[sufunk]

I had PMd Arch and he said when we get the Probation List Rules solidified he would make it a Sticky.

 

 

I've been silent for a bit here to think and also see any new input. Almost everything is pretty clear. A couple of main issues remain.

 

I'd like to get some take on the first issue before mixing it in with the others.

 

The question is, does the accuser have the right to insist someone remain on the PL after the transaction has ultimately been finalized through the PL process?

 

To me the purpose of the PL is two-fold:

 

1) To let people know about problem members with transactions to be completed

2) To to induce the finalization of an outstanding transaction.

 

I feel the removal from the PL after a transaction is finalized should be universally applied. I do not feel it should be used as a vehicle to express spite or anger against someone who makes good via the PL process.

 

If somneone is forced to permanently remain on the PL list after the transaction is made good, then there is no difference to them between being on the HOS and the PL.

 

Thoughts?

 

I say definitely NOT. Once the transaction has been finalized and the person made whole, the boardie should be taken off the PL list no matter what. I've seen a BUNCH of times where someone has been immediately taken off the list for some pretty bad transgressions because they were buddies with the people screwed over(deafmutecomics comes to mind).

 

If people in situations like that can immediately come off the list once they make things right, everyone should. Otherwise, it perpetuates the good ole boy stereotype and leaves people open to staying on the list endlessly for no reason other than the person who put them on is pissed off.

[Bosco685]

I've seen a BUNCH of times where someone has been immediately taken off the list for some pretty bad transgressions because they were buddies with the people screwed over(deafmutecomics comes to mind).

 

Jay was removed from the list once he made things right with every impacted member - isn't that right?

 

If I'm confused with that situation, please let me know. But he didn't come off that list instantly, because I remember impacted buyers checking with each other to make sure everyone was made whole.

[PovertyRow]

I agree with your thoughts on this on a theoretical level. On a more practical level, however, do we leave the terms of finalizing the transaction up to the offended party (referencing the examples I provided above, this could lead to additional charges or acts requested of the PL inductee...thinking FT's five good transaction policy to remove someone from the list was absolutely inspired). Ultimately, if we leave that discretion in the hands of the offended party, spite or some unachievable task will be worked into some solutions for ultimately resolving the transaction.

 

Nonetheless, I still believe that the original victim should ultimately have say in the process (if they are around to provide such input). Perhaps requiring them to post the required means to resolve the transaction publicly (where some peer pressure can be used to tamp down less reasonable terms). However, ultimately I do not think it is the collective board's place to set the conditions...only provide guidance to the orginally victimized party :shrug:

 

Seems somewhat vague/circular...am I making sense with this stuff?

 

Snake - you hit some of the remaining things yet to be worked out. The concept of what consitutes finalization beyond the details of the original transaction, extra expenses incurred etc. is the most difficult. But that is not the point of what I brought up.

 

Quite simply, I am am adressing: If it is stated by the accuser that the transaction has been finalized to their satisfaction, then the accused is removed. There is no grey in that specific rule.

 

The whole "what consittutes a finalization" is a separate issue yet to be finalized. It may never be and we may end up with something as simple as "if the original transaction is fulfilled but the accuser feels additional compensation in some form is required, due to special circumstances, this will be discussed by the forum at large".

 

An example of this could be the accuser saying "The accused has now fulfilled the original terms of the transaction. However, it costs me an extra for xyz and I want compensation for that."

 

But I have to disagree about "ultimately I do not think it is the collective board's place to set the conditions...only provide guidance to the orginally victimized party". The board has already set conditions regarding transactions here. Following that logic somone can come on here and say "It has only been a week and I know the boards state 30 days. But I want to put this up here now as I should have the final say on my own transaction."

 

 

 

[Green]

I also think we need a rule for sellers who refuse to sell a book after it's been taken with if there isn't one already.

 

I'm just getting thru my 3rd time of a seller who will not sell me a book and I'm getting tired of just dropping it.

 

Am I the only one this happens to? It's not random people either, everyone would be shocked if I posted 2 of the 3 names. Pretty sure everyone knows the other that reneged on me.

 

Hey Green. Believe me I am sympathetic on this point with you. Just curious, what reasons were given to you by the seller to justify his actions.

Case A, no reason given, multiple pms read and ignored. I later saw the book had been CGCed and sold on the forums.

 

Case B deal was made via pm and a few hours afterward the seller got full ask on a few of the books in one of the threads. I was told that since i didnt go back thru the 3 threads that were involved in the deal and place the "ill takeits" that the deal wasnt final.

 

The last and most recent is just like the first, except ive bought from the seller multiple times before. There is still a chance that seller might complete the transaction. The last reminder i sent on 5/31 was read but no response.

[Snake Eyes]

Quite simply, I am am adressing: If it is stated by the accuser that the transaction has been finalized to their satisfaction, then the accused is removed. There is no grey in that specific rule.

 

As written, I have absolutely no objection to this statement (thumbs u

 

 

[skypinkblu]

I had PMd Arch and he said when we get the Probation List Rules solidified he would make it a Sticky.

 

 

I've been silent for a bit here to think and also see any new input. Almost everything is pretty clear. A couple of main issues remain.

 

I'd like to get some take on the first issue before mixing it in with the others.

 

The question is, does the accuser have the right to insist someone remain on the PL after the transaction has ultimately been finalized through the PL process?

 

To me the purpose of the PL is two-fold:

 

1) To let people know about problem members with transactions to be completed

2) To to induce the finalization of an outstanding transaction.

 

I feel the removal from the PL after a transaction is finalized should be universally applied. I do not feel it should be used as a vehicle to express spite or anger against someone who makes good via the PL process.

 

If somneone is forced to permanently remain on the PL list after the transaction is made good, then there is no difference to them between being on the HOS and the PL.

 

Thoughts?

 

The offended party should make the call, however in the interest of fairness, if the offender states they have completed the transaction, he/she should have the right to request a poll.

 

What do you think of that?

 

 

I don't think there is an "old boys" network...if there is, I missed something entirely...but there certainly are friendships and while those people may mean well, sometimes their enthusiasm for a friend might be a little forceful.

[Bosco685]

Quite simply, I am am adressing: If it is stated by the accuser that the transaction has been finalized to their satisfaction, then the accused is removed. There is no grey in that specific rule.

 

As written, I have absolutely no objection to this statement (thumbs u

 

 

There is grey area when it comes to "their satisfaction." isn't there?

[comicdonna]

Quite simply, I am am adressing: If it is stated by the accuser that the transaction has been finalized to their satisfaction, then the accused is removed. There is no grey in that specific rule.

 

As written, I have absolutely no objection to this statement (thumbs u

 

 

There is grey area when it comes to "their satisfaction." isn't there?

Yep, that's a good point.

[Bosco685]

The offended party should make the call, however in the interest of fairness, if the offender states they have completed the transaction, he/she should have the right to request a poll.

 

What do you think of that?

 

 

I don't think there is an "old boys" network...if there is, I missed something entirely...but there certainly are friendships and while those people may mean well, sometimes their enthusiasm for a friend might be a little forceful.

 

Sharon gave a recommendation that I think keeps the playing field level. I like it!

 

Hey - she went all green on me. And lime green at that.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Bosco685

[Snake Eyes]

Quite simply, I am am adressing: If it is stated by the accuser that the transaction has been finalized to their satisfaction, then the accused is removed. There is no grey in that specific rule.

 

As written, I have absolutely no objection to this statement (thumbs u

 

 

There is grey area when it comes to "their satisfaction." isn't there?

Yep, that's a good point.

 

And that was the grey area I am comfortable with. As Pov stated, it ultimately remain's the offended party's right to determine what their satisfaction is, and that is what I was looking for.

 

The statement above does somewhat limit sour grapes or flip-flopping on the part of the listing party, however. If I say I am satisfied, regardless of changing my mind in the future or board input the offender comes off the PL (by my reading of the statement above)

Edited July 5, 2011 by Snake Eyes

[PovertyRow]

Quite simply, I am am adressing: If it is stated by the accuser that the transaction has been finalized to their satisfaction, then the accused is removed. There is no grey in that specific rule.

 

As written, I have absolutely no objection to this statement (thumbs u

 

 

Cool. I had planned to bring up the sticky concept of what is finalization next. But the more I think about it, the more I realize this can never conver all contingencies.

 

I think it is fair for ther accuser to state their requirements for satisfaction should things get beyond the conditions of the original transaction. I think it is fair for there to be a discussion on the validity of the conditions. (how often have we seen things like "yeah, they finally came through but I am ticked and do not want to remove them" kind of posts?

 

The thing is, once the rules are finalized they are not retroactive but apply from the time of finalization. And to allay the nitpickers, we can even say something like "The Probation Lists Rules are posted here. They will go in force in 2 weeks time (or even a month's time). If you disagree with them you are free to keep your items up for sale but if you wish to take your issue to the Probation Discussion you must adhere to the PL Rules."

[skypinkblu]

One thing has been troubling me and I just haven't figured out how to say this without possibly hurting someone's feelings, but I think it needs to be said, so forgive me, please.

 

 

I don't want to step on toes, or seem ungrateful to the people who have been making changes...they are all community minded and are only making the changes to help...but the list started with Divad and there were less issues when he controlled updating the list.

 

PovertyRow is another member who has been very active and he really HAS made a study of the process....

 

Personally, I'd love to see just the two of them, making changes unless neither are available for some reason...and then perhaps we could have one alternate.

 

If just anyone can update, it tends to be less organized, and more changes are made.

[Bosco685]

One thing has been troubling me and I just haven't figured out how to say this without possibly hurting someone's feelings, but I think it needs to be said, so forgive me, please.

 

 

I don't want to step on toes, or seem ungrateful to the people who have been making changes...they are all community minded and are only making the changes to help...but the list started with Divad and there were less issues when he controlled updating the list.

 

PovertyRow is another member who has been very active and he really HAS made a study of the process....

 

Personally, I'd love to see just the two of them, making changes unless neither are available for some reason...and then perhaps we could have one alternate.

 

If just anyone can update, it tends to be less organized, and more changes are made.

 

Well, I was trying to organize it - even inserted that statement at the top of the list so folks wouldn't chat in the probation list thread. But then I had it thrown back at me for trying to help out.

 

So I agree on limiting it to a few folks. But it also shouldn't become a board rub over who is helping maintain the list when they are donating their own free time.

[PovertyRow]

The offended party should make the call, however in the interest of fairness, if the offender states they have completed the transaction, he/she should have the right to request a poll.

 

What do you think of that?

 

 

I don't think there is an "old boys" network...if there is, I missed something entirely...but there certainly are friendships and while those people may mean well, sometimes their enthusiasm for a friend might be a little forceful.

 

Sharon gave a recommendation that I think keeps the playing field level. I like it!

 

Hey - she went all green on me. And lime green at that.

 

That green made the infant amoeba weep.

 

I have no objection to Sharon's idea at all. Think it is fine.

[Snake Eyes]

I think it is fair for ther accuser to state their requirements for satisfaction should things get beyond the conditions of the original transaction. I think it is fair for there to be a discussion on the validity of the conditions. (how often have we seen things like "yeah, they finally came through but I am ticked and do not want to remove them" kind of posts?

 

I am all for visibility in the conditions, as it promotes accountability and compliance on both ends without terms meandering over time. Further, I have no problem at all with their being discussion on the validity of such terms. However, I would limit my acceptance to discussion only. Ultimately, as long as the decision regarding terms resides with the offended party I am on-board. However, if the board discussion on the validity of terms morphs into the board itself (or several vocal members in the discussion) attempting to usurp the offended party and dictate terms (as if some sort of forced mediation) I am not so much on-board anymore

 

 

[boomtown]

I've seen a BUNCH of times where someone has been immediately taken off the list for some pretty bad transgressions because they were buddies with the people screwed over(deafmutecomics comes to mind).

 

Jay was removed from the list once he made things right with every impacted member - isn't that right?

 

If I'm confused with that situation, please let me know. But he didn't come off that list instantly, because I remember impacted buyers checking with each other to make sure everyone was made whole.

 

If the point of this thread is to warn new buyers & sellers of people to avoid, why in the world would a mass offender ever be removed from the list completely(wasn't he the one who stiffed a bunch of friends)?

 

I can understand having a notation that they were shamed into making things right & to deal with at your own risk, but personally, the names should remain on a list as a warning to new members.

 

 

[Bosco685]

I've seen a BUNCH of times where someone has been immediately taken off the list for some pretty bad transgressions because they were buddies with the people screwed over(deafmutecomics comes to mind).

 

Jay was removed from the list once he made things right with every impacted member - isn't that right?

 

If I'm confused with that situation, please let me know. But he didn't come off that list instantly, because I remember impacted buyers checking with each other to make sure everyone was made whole.

 

If the point of this thread is to warn new buyers & sellers of people to avoid, why in the world would a mass offender ever be removed from the list completely(wasn't he the one who stiffed a bunch of friends)?

 

I can understand having a notation that they were shamed into making things right & to deal with at your own risk, but personally, the names should remain on a list as a warning to new members.

 

 

I hear where you are coming from on the topic. But based on current probation list board norms, if the offending parties all came back and said they were made whole and to remove him, the name comes off the list.

 

I think at one point Count or POV recommended maintaining historic probation list members, but that was given a no-go by the group.

[PovertyRow]

I've seen a BUNCH of times where someone has been immediately taken off the list for some pretty bad transgressions because they were buddies with the people screwed over(deafmutecomics comes to mind).

 

Jay was removed from the list once he made things right with every impacted member - isn't that right?

 

If I'm confused with that situation, please let me know. But he didn't come off that list instantly, because I remember impacted buyers checking with each other to make sure everyone was made whole.

 

If the point of this thread is to warn new buyers & sellers of people to avoid, why in the world would a mass offender ever be removed from the list completely(wasn't he the one who stiffed a bunch of friends)?

 

I can understand having a notation that they were shamed into making things right & to deal with at your own risk, but personally, the names should remain on a list as a warning to new members.

 

 

Any real mass offender should end up in the HOS. There they remain until the boards are only a dusty memory.

 

The Probation List is called "Probation" for a reason. They are On Probation until the mater is resolved. That was the basic motivation behind it in the first place.

 

Also, all of the probation lists remain on the boards, unaltered. Each list is an updating of the previous one.