PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

 

Emphatically NO.

 

There is a reason we don't send people guilty of stealing a loaf of bread to jail for the rest of their lives.

 

This board needs to show forgiveness and compassion to a MUCH, MUCH higher degree than it currently shows, and taking people off who have..watch me now...successfully resolved any and all outstanding claims against them is part of that process.

 

Once someone has paid their debt to society, they shouldn't then have to wear a scarlet letter forever.

[Lebowski]

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.

 

Well, maybe if you weren't such a wanker...

[N/A]

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.

 

I considered making a similar recommendation with possibly up to 6 members allowed to make changes. They were all voted in by a poll in this thread. It was very time consuming and democratic

[RockMyAmadeus]

And even people on the HOS should have the opportunity to fix things....

 

And yes, the opportunity should be far, far, far above and beyond the original infractions...but if Dan, or Cap Freak, or whomever showed up and made a serious, compelling, and persistent effort to clear their names, yes, even they should be removed.

 

 

[Snake Eyes]

And even people on the HOS should have the opportunity to fix things....

 

And yes, the opportunity should be far, far, far above and beyond the original infractions...but if Dan, or Cap Freak, or whomever showed up and made a serious, compelling, and persistent effort to clear their names, yes, even they should be removed.

 

 

This is not something I could support. I have simply known too many manipulative people that can put on a show for a period of time in order to achieve a larger end (i.e. re-ingratiating themselves here and have access to the marketplace). I understand that others hold different views and I am going apples/oranges here (with not so serious funny books versus violent crime), but there is a valid reason in my mind that felons/sex offenders do have certain rights limited even after serving their time and paying their fines. Part of the consequence of the egregious behavior remains as a warning/safegaurd to the community even after the time is served.

 

Perhaps it sounds overly selfish, but I did not join this community to provide this type of rehabilitation to repeat/egregious offenders and perhaps become a future target (talking HOS here, not PL where I see the need to remove folks that have resolved their issue).

 

Interesting discussion this afternoon though

[Snake Eyes]

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.

 

I considered making a similar recommendation with possibly up to 6 members allowed to make changes. They were all voted in by a poll in this thread. It was very time consuming and democratic

 

Also quite interesting...might certainly curtail some potential problems where folks are not quite up to speed on all of the rules once they are put into place.

[thehumantorch]

And even people on the HOS should have the opportunity to fix things....

 

And yes, the opportunity should be far, far, far above and beyond the original infractions...but if Dan, or Cap Freak, or whomever showed up and made a serious, compelling, and persistent effort to clear their names, yes, even they should be removed.

 

 

Sorry, can't agree. There is nobody on that list that I could

ever trust again.

[Bosco685]

And even people on the HOS should have the opportunity to fix things....

 

And yes, the opportunity should be far, far, far above and beyond the original infractions...but if Dan, or Cap Freak, or whomever showed up and made a serious, compelling, and persistent effort to clear their names, yes, even they should be removed.

 

 

This is not something I could support. I have simply known too many manipulative people that can put on a show for a period of time in order to achieve a larger end (i.e. re-ingratiating themselves here and have access to the marketplace). I understand that others hold different views and I am going apples/oranges here (with not so serious funny books versus violent crime), but there is a valid reason in my mind that felons/sex offenders do have certain rights limited even after serving their time and paying their fines. Part of the consequence of the egregious behavior remains as a warning/safegaurd to the community even after the time is served.

 

Perhaps it sounds overly selfish, but I did not join this community to provide this type of rehabilitation to repeat/egregious offenders and perhaps become a future target (talking HOS here, not PL where I see the need to remove folks that have resolved their issue).

 

Interesting discussion this afternoon though

 

+ 1

 

For someone to go down the path of the HOS, you really had to go out of your way to force board members to go down this path.

 

And Capfreak was a 4-time probation list member before he landed where he did. It didn't help any when he thumbed his nose at everyone, daring them to put him on the list.

 

That HOS honor should be for a lifetime to set the tone for others what not to do in these situations.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And even people on the HOS should have the opportunity to fix things....

 

And yes, the opportunity should be far, far, far above and beyond the original infractions...but if Dan, or Cap Freak, or whomever showed up and made a serious, compelling, and persistent effort to clear their names, yes, even they should be removed.

 

 

This is not something I could support. I have simply known too many manipulative people that can put on a show for a period of time in order to achieve a larger end (i.e. re-ingratiating themselves here and have access to the marketplace). I understand that others hold different views and I am going apples/oranges here (with not so serious funny books versus violent crime), but there is a valid reason in my mind that felons/sex offenders do have certain rights limited even after serving their time and paying their fines. Part of the consequence of the egregious behavior remains as a warning/safegaurd to the community even after the time is served.

 

Perhaps it sounds overly selfish, but I did not join this community to provide this type of rehabilitation to repeat/egregious offenders and perhaps become a future target (talking HOS here, not PL where I see the need to remove folks that have resolved their issue).

 

Interesting discussion this afternoon though

 

As you noted, we are not dealing with violent criminals. As *I* implied, there ARE people who we do lock up and throw away the key.

 

Neither of these circumstances apply here.

 

As I also stated, the effort would have to be so serious as to be beyond question by even the most unforgiving board member there is. The vast, vast majority of manipulators...and I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know...eventually get bored with trying to prove that they have rehabilitated, and move on to much easier marks. The effort necessary would be far beyond even the most dedicated of manipulators effort...

 

....AND...the usual caveat emptor would still be in place. Buyers/sellers must take normal and regular precaution in dealing with anyone. That respnsibility isn't abdicated by the Prob/HOS.

 

I regularly see buyers and sellers engage in risky business dealings ALL THE TIME here, and that is utter foolishness. People who don't insure packages, people who buy again from sellers they have already received overgraded books from, people who are fly by night but have "killer" books...all sorts of nonsense that could avoid 95% of the problems if people simply paid attention.

 

No one is asking anyone to "provide" rehabilitation to anyone. However..the very fact that such a list exists in the first place means that while the process for condemnation exists, so too, should the process for rehabilitation.

 

We are NOT talking about violent criminals, after all. We are talking about petty and grand theft.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And even people on the HOS should have the opportunity to fix things....

 

And yes, the opportunity should be far, far, far above and beyond the original infractions...but if Dan, or Cap Freak, or whomever showed up and made a serious, compelling, and persistent effort to clear their names, yes, even they should be removed.

 

 

This is not something I could support. I have simply known too many manipulative people that can put on a show for a period of time in order to achieve a larger end (i.e. re-ingratiating themselves here and have access to the marketplace). I understand that others hold different views and I am going apples/oranges here (with not so serious funny books versus violent crime), but there is a valid reason in my mind that felons/sex offenders do have certain rights limited even after serving their time and paying their fines. Part of the consequence of the egregious behavior remains as a warning/safegaurd to the community even after the time is served.

 

Perhaps it sounds overly selfish, but I did not join this community to provide this type of rehabilitation to repeat/egregious offenders and perhaps become a future target (talking HOS here, not PL where I see the need to remove folks that have resolved their issue).

 

Interesting discussion this afternoon though

 

+ 1

 

For someone to go down the path of the HOS, you really had to go out of your way to force board members to go down this path.

 

And Capfreak was a 4-time probation list member before he landed where he did. It didn't help any when he thumbed his nose at everyone, daring them to put him on the list.

 

That HOS honor should be for a lifetime to set the tone for others what not to do in these situations.

 

You really think someone like Cap Freak, who is STILL a stupid kid, should be on this HOS his ENTIRE LIFE? That 10 or 20 years from now, he couldn't even POTENTIALLY have grown up and cleaned up his act?

 

Really...?

 

What a depressing, unforgiving world you live in.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And even people on the HOS should have the opportunity to fix things....

 

And yes, the opportunity should be far, far, far above and beyond the original infractions...but if Dan, or Cap Freak, or whomever showed up and made a serious, compelling, and persistent effort to clear their names, yes, even they should be removed.

 

 

Sorry, can't agree. There is nobody on that list that I could

ever trust again.

 

That you guys shut off even the POSSIBILITY of rehabilitation goes a longgggggg way towards explaining the suspicious, defensive, hostile, and unforgiving general attitude this board has.

 

And just because YOU couldn't trust them, doesn't mean that nobody should ever trust them again, as long as they live.

[Green]

And even people on the HOS should have the opportunity to fix things....

 

And yes, the opportunity should be far, far, far above and beyond the original infractions...but if Dan, or Cap Freak, or whomever showed up and made a serious, compelling, and persistent effort to clear their names, yes, even they should be removed.

 

I agree.

[Bosco685]

You really think someone like Cap Freak, who is STILL a stupid kid, should be on this HOS his ENTIRE LIFE? That 10 or 20 years from now, he couldn't even POTENTIALLY have grown up and cleaned up his act?

 

Really...?

 

What a depressing, unforgiving world you live in.

 

No depressing world here - and I can be very forgiving. But I also realize when someone keeps showing the same poor character flaws there is a very strong potential for that activity to get worse - not better.

 

And after all he did, and folks still kept forgiving him - including Divad who tried to pull him off the probation list - he then goes and screws over Steve Borock and his business by tampering with his business cell phone message.

 

So it is a world of reality. Sorry to hit you with a dose of it.

[Snake Eyes]

As I also stated, the effort would have to be so serious as to be beyond question by even the most unforgiving board member there is.

 

We are generally in agreement on everything else in your post. Generally, you are correct that there tends to be a burn-out in anti-social behaviors as one ages. Additionally, they do often move to greener/more fertile pastures if they do not find success with their manipulations.

 

I guess I was looking at your statement from a more personal viewpoint (thus my comment about my post perhaps being selfinsh). By personal, perhaps I am identifying myself as the boardie that does not forgive once HOS status is achieved. Quite honestly, there is nothing I can conceive of an example like CapFreak doing as to earn my support to remove him from the list. No matter how noble he may become or what good deeds transpire from this point onward. I view his placement on the HoS as appropriate and permanent. Sure he could come back and post (if he got un-banned). I could even carry out a conversation with him and be completely civil. However, I see absolutely no reason to remove him from the list. It is the consequence for his actions, and should serve as a constant reminder that such behavior is not only possible, but actually occurred with this individual. However, in saying that I do recognize that you are right in the area of due dilligence...at some point people do have to take responsibility for themselves....this is just a simple way to assist them I guess. :shrug:

 

Perhaps we are just touching on my personal beliefs regarding recidivism combined with a disinterest in helping these particular folks out if they wish to reform. Anyway, time to wrap things up here at work and get ready to head to dinner

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

You really think someone like Cap Freak, who is STILL a stupid kid, should be on this HOS his ENTIRE LIFE? That 10 or 20 years from now, he couldn't even POTENTIALLY have grown up and cleaned up his act?

 

Really...?

 

What a depressing, unforgiving world you live in.

 

No depressing world here - and I can be very forgiving. But I also realize when someone keeps showing the same poor character flaws there is a very strong potential for that activity to get worse - not better.

 

And after all he did, and folks still kept forgiving him - including Divad who tried to pull him off the probation list - he then goes and screws over Steve Borock and his business by tampering with his business cell phone message.

 

So it is a world of reality. Sorry to hit you with a dose of it.

 

Pay very close attention to the words I am about to type, Bosco, because they are incredibly important and bear a TREMENDOUS amount of weight to this situation:

 

CAP FREAK IS A KID.

 

He's, what, 19 now?

 

Are you even aware that people do not finish developing (man, I sound like a wacky liberal) until their mid 20's?

 

Cap Freak, like all kids, got away with what he got away with because people trusted him with more than he was capable of handling (obviously!)

 

Stupid kids deserve the right to grow up.

 

If he was 30, I would agree with you. He is not. He was a kid.

 

Should he be given a VERY short leash? Oh, you betcha. Should he be made to provide restitution to everyone he wronged, to THEIR satisfaction? Oh, you betcha. Should he be trusted with ANYTHING until he has demonstrated consistently, over a VERY long period of time, that he's capable of that trust? Hell no!

 

Does he deserve to be on the HOS when he's 40?

 

Please.

[Snake Eyes]

And even people on the HOS should have the opportunity to fix things....

 

And yes, the opportunity should be far, far, far above and beyond the original infractions...but if Dan, or Cap Freak, or whomever showed up and made a serious, compelling, and persistent effort to clear their names, yes, even they should be removed.

 

 

This is not something I could support. I have simply known too many manipulative people that can put on a show for a period of time in order to achieve a larger end (i.e. re-ingratiating themselves here and have access to the marketplace). I understand that others hold different views and I am going apples/oranges here (with not so serious funny books versus violent crime), but there is a valid reason in my mind that felons/sex offenders do have certain rights limited even after serving their time and paying their fines. Part of the consequence of the egregious behavior remains as a warning/safegaurd to the community even after the time is served.

 

Perhaps it sounds overly selfish, but I did not join this community to provide this type of rehabilitation to repeat/egregious offenders and perhaps become a future target (talking HOS here, not PL where I see the need to remove folks that have resolved their issue).

 

Interesting discussion this afternoon though

 

+ 1

 

For someone to go down the path of the HOS, you really had to go out of your way to force board members to go down this path.

 

And Capfreak was a 4-time probation list member before he landed where he did. It didn't help any when he thumbed his nose at everyone, daring them to put him on the list.

 

That HOS honor should be for a lifetime to set the tone for others what not to do in these situations.

 

You really think someone like Cap Freak, who is STILL a stupid kid, should be on this HOS his ENTIRE LIFE? That 10 or 20 years from now, he couldn't even POTENTIALLY have grown up and cleaned up his act?

 

Really...?

 

What a depressing, unforgiving world you live in.

 

Saw this and had to respond

 

I do believe he can potentially clean up his act and reform. In fact, at some point in his life, it is even likely. However, I will not ever place my name on the line for him. I see no need to invite that sort of risk or responsibility for this unknown factor into my life. Risk/reward there for what is meant to be an entertaining hobby and website is too high. Again, I just do not see myself as being here to perform social rehabilitation for repeat offenders. There are other communities/groups where such is a more appropriate goal (at least from my viewpoint).

 

 

[PovertyRow]

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

 

 

Snake Eyes (may I call you Snake? Eyes? SE?)

 

Anyway, the thing is we already have conditions setup that a person may not agree with.

 

For example, one of the terms is a 30 day wait. What if the offended party feels that 30 days is too long and feels it is their right, as the offended one, to lay the issue out in a week's time? Do we allow it because the offended has the right to make final decisions?

 

The biggest hurdle we have in this whole discussion is indeed this "what comprises satisfaction on the part of the offended". It is actually the only real hurdle left. The rest is all getting the right language down for clarity. Then a final vote on the new rule set.

 

I have no personal stake in it. There are arguments on both sides because it IS a very grey area and it is actually impossible to foresee all scenarios and account for them in a set of rules. (If anything, this process is making me reluctantly respect why laws and legal documents are so filled with complexity and length).

 

I think if it is demonstrated factually that unavoidable extra expenses were incurred then that should be taken as part of fulfilling the original obligation. And in that case, once those expenses are met then the name comes off automatically.

 

But what about avoidable extra expenses? Can someone go too far in trying to get a deal completed? Even intentionally spending extra money to get the deal completed, feeling they can then recap the unecessary extra expenses? I think at that point board intervention and consensus is needed.

 

I wish more folks would chime in on the whole extended culpability thing.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

And even people on the HOS should have the opportunity to fix things....

 

And yes, the opportunity should be far, far, far above and beyond the original infractions...but if Dan, or Cap Freak, or whomever showed up and made a serious, compelling, and persistent effort to clear their names, yes, even they should be removed.

 

 

Sorry, can't agree. There is nobody on that list that I could

ever trust again.

 

That you guys shut off even the POSSIBILITY of rehabilitation goes a longgggggg way towards explaining the suspicious, defensive, hostile, and unforgiving general attitude this board has.

 

And just because YOU couldn't trust them, doesn't mean that nobody should ever trust them again, as long as they live.

 

Not you, Torchy, I do think you're the bees knees. Don't want you to get the wrong impression...I don't mean you personally. I mean, in general, this attitude bleeds over to the boards all the time.

 

People say something, for example, that someone doesn't like and 5 years, 10 years, 20 years down the line, it's stil thrown back in their face.

 

That's NOT healthy, and it's NOT something that should be encouraged.

[divad]

That's NOT healthy, and it's NOT something that should be encouraged.

 

True 'dat

[Snake Eyes]

Right you are Pov (Pover? P-Row?? Rowinator???)

 

I kid...I kid

 

The name is Heath...pleased to meetcha.

 

Anyway, you are absolutely correct about various rules not being to the liking of all. I guess my thought is that the 30 day rule is already in place (with exceptions of course ). Therefore, the community has spoken and as a group this is how it decided to move forward on the issue. However, this issue of being complete as a result of the transaction is up for grabs, so I am essentially lobbying for a victim's rights model. Understandably, this may not be the route everyone goes. I just see greater good coming from giving the aggrieved party the final say in what makes them whole, than allowing others to determine such for them.

 

It's just what I would want, if I was writing the rules myself (thumbs u Plenty of other valid concepts and structures out there (i.e. the voting Sharon mentioned). Mine does lead to the possibility of being more punitive, whereas others might lead to more repeat offenses). The truth is, no one plan is going to alleviate everyone's concerns and please all boardies

 

Instead, with a wealth of input hopefully we can all reach an agreeable compromise