PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[thirdgreenham]

 

 

Speaking of FAIL:

 

This thread is to allow general discussion of the community run probation issues and cases so that the main thread can remain dedicated to the core facts and updating of the list rather than the surrounding debates and speculation.

 

 

Please guys.

 

If you want to continue talking about something that isn't probation related, please go to this thread:

 

Are post counts important to you?

 

Please.

 

 

[PovertyRow]

 

Speaking of FAIL:

 

This thread is to allow general discussion of the community run probation issues and cases so that the main thread can remain dedicated to the core facts and updating of the list rather than the surrounding debates and speculation.

 

 

Please guys.

 

If you want to continue talking about something that isn't probation related, please go to this thread:

 

Are post counts important to you?

 

Please.

 

 

I agree. yes, I added a little of my own banter. Mainly to show I wasn't being a stick in the mud about working the PL.

 

'But this has gone way past the line and it is also damned insulting to the others trying to accomplish something.

[N/A]

You guys are all retards.

 

xoxo

 

greggy

 

Well there's 20 minutes I won't get back. A hundred or so posts and Greggy's comment is the most appropriate. And entertaining.

[PovertyRow]

You guys are all retards.

 

xoxo

 

greggy

 

Well there's 20 minutes I won't get back. A hundred or so posts and Greggy's comment is the most appropriate. And entertaining.

 

I agree Greggy's post is the most appropriate for the off-topic, nothing to do with the Probation Discussion bull.

 

Does anyone have something to add about how to determine justified versus unjustifed expenses being levied by someone bringing an issue to the Probation Discussion?

[skypinkblu]

The only thing I can see is a difference between the agreed upon price and the price that the seller ultimately sold the book or books for (including any added fees).

 

Now I might have to apologize, because I skipped a few pages and if someone suggested that already, I'm sorry.

 

Thanks for doing all this work, Michael...and everyone!

[Snake Eyes]

You guys are all retards.

 

xoxo

 

greggy

 

Well there's 20 minutes I won't get back. A hundred or so posts and Greggy's comment is the most appropriate. And entertaining.

 

I agree Greggy's post is the most appropriate for the off-topic, nothing to do with the Probation Discussion bull.

 

Does anyone have something to add about how to determine justified versus unjustifed expenses being levied by someone bringing an issue to the Probation Discussion?

 

Since there has not been much comment on this specifically, I will reiterate my stance. I believe protecting the offended party should be the priority. With that being the case, it would make sense to me to allow the victim to solely determine what expenses are justified as long as all such expenses are publicly declared (I realize this will not likely be the consensus :shrug: )

 

However, since we are experimenting with the rules, why not fall on the side of safety? By posting the costs, hopefully some peer pressure will cause a reasonably solution to be reached. At some point, of course, this will not be the case and we can see where the system failed and add an amendment/change to the rules for removal from the PL.

[mikenyc]

The problem with the expense aspect is that you are adding new variables to what would otherwise be a clean problem. Now, instead of deciding whether a party is in the wrong for a particular book sale or purchase, you now must decide whether on not an expense or perceived expense actually occurred and if it did occur, is the causality there to justify that expense as being part of the transaction.

 

i.e.

 

Brad sets up a meet with HolyGhost through PM to check out some books. Brad leaves work early, drives a couple hours to see the books. On the way he grabs lunch and then meets with HG. After agreeing on a price for the books Brad drives back home. Next day HG calls Brad and says sorry friend books were sold to someone else, no harm no foul.

 

Now Brad lost a few hours at work, gas money, mileage on his car, food bill, cost of his time, etc. He did incur some expenses to make the trip without anything to show for it. But what if Brad did the same thing and when he saw the books thought they were overpriced and overgraded and decided to walk away.

 

I can see bringing in a whole new set of circumstances as being a slippery slope.

 

If the expense is a direct correlation to the transaction, shipping, insurance, supplies, etc, that would be predetermined, it can be included in the cost of making the damaged party whole. But to arbitrarily allow anyone to add expenses they feel are associated would grind this thing down even further.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Speaking of FAIL:

 

This thread is to allow general discussion of the community run probation issues and cases so that the main thread can remain dedicated to the core facts and updating of the list rather than the surrounding debates and speculation.

 

 

Please guys.

 

If you want to continue talking about something that isn't probation related, please go to this thread:

 

Are post counts important to you?

 

Please.

 

 

I agree. yes, I added a little of my own banter. Mainly to show I wasn't being a stick in the mud about working the PL.

 

'But this has gone way past the line and it is also damned insulting to the others trying to accomplish something.

 

 

Yes, me too. I'm terribly sorry for the off-topic posting, even though it grew entirely out of ON-topic posting. Forgive me, forgive me, mea MAXIMA culpa.

 

 

(I kid. Mostly. I love you GooglyMoogly!)

[RockMyAmadeus]

You guys are all retards.

 

xoxo

 

greggy

 

Well there's 20 minutes I won't get back. A hundred or so posts and Greggy's comment is the most appropriate. And entertaining.

 

I agree Greggy's post is the most appropriate for the off-topic, nothing to do with the Probation Discussion bull.

 

Does anyone have something to add about how to determine justified versus unjustifed expenses being levied by someone bringing an issue to the Probation Discussion?

 

Since this isn't a court of law, determining monetary damages is best left to the injured party to determine. Outside of "he offered to buy the books for $XXX, and never paid", trying to determine damages, particularly punitive, probably isn't in the purview of this board.

 

For example: Dekeuk cost me money by screwing with the time in returning the item, thus resulting in a much lower selling price. But should he owe me the difference? I don't think the board is qualified to make that decision.

 

Others may disagree.

[PovertyRow]

As Mikenyc88 brought up - and I am changing the names to Jasper for the buyer and Anthony for the seller:

 

"Jasper sets up a meet with Anthony through PM to check out some books. Jasper leaves work early, drives a couple hours to see the books. On the way he grabs lunch and then meets with Anthony. After agreeing on a price for the books Jasper drives back home. Next day Anthony calls Jasper and says "Sorry friend, books were sold to someone else, no harm no foul. Now Jasper lost a few hours at work, gas money, mileage on his car, food bill, cost of his time, etc. He did incur some expenses to make the trip without anything to show for it. But what if Jasper did the same thing and when he saw the books thought they were overpriced and overgraded and decided to walk away."

 

I DO think this is a valid expense. Why? Because the other party agreed to the terms, Jasper left feeling he had a sealed deal, then Anthony backed out.

 

The fact that Anthony agreed to the deal makes it a valid transaction. By backing out of an agreed upon deal, Anthony, in my opinion, should be responsible for the expenses incurred by Jasper.

 

Mikenyc88 brought up a second counter point: "But what if Jasper did the same thing and when he saw the books thought they were overpriced and overgraded and decided to walk away.

 

I can see bringing in a whole new set of circumstances as being a slippery slope. "

 

I don't see a slippery slope here. Jasper SHOULD ASK FOR SCANS of books so he could assess their condition and compare them to the advertised condition. If upon seeing the scans Jasper decides the books are overgraded he could stay at home and say "No deal."

 

BUT - if upon arriving it is obvious the scans are not correct, had been retouched or not even of the same individual book, then Jasper would have a case. Why? He was deceived into paying extra expenses based on a lie.

[N/A]

I completely disagree. Jasper's expenses were not incurred as a result of the deal. It should only be a valid expense if it is incurred as a result of the deal. If a second trip to meet the seller was planned to pick up the books but met with "sorry,sold" then fine.

 

[mikenyc]

Two other points.

 

First is where do you draw the line?

 

Now let's say that Jasper contacts Anthony about some books he has. Jasper asks for scans. Anthony obliges and sends them. Jasper replies to Anthony and asks to meet up so he can purchase the books. Anthony drives, eats, etc, but when he gets to the meeting Jasper is unhappy with the books in hand, and changes his mind.

 

At some point there is a cost of doing business. Call it overhead, call it what you will, but not every transaction works out exactly in your favor, or equally for both parties. The possible scenarios are endless and are to open ended to be decided to that level of detail on these forums.

 

Second is how do you assign a dollar value to the damages?

 

What is the value of someones time? If I drive for three hours only to have a sale go bad is my time worth the same as someone who makes a fraction of what I do? What about mileage on my car vs. a car that is much nicer or worse?

 

These boards are clearly not equipped, nor should they be, to make judgements and assign value to those judgements in any sort of consistent fashion.

 

I think you're spot on in clearly defining the time frame before a person is put up for discussion and the amount of time after the person is put up to defend themselves before they are added to the list. How to come off is much more convoluted.

[mikenyc]

I completely disagree. Jasper's expenses were not incurred as a result of the deal. It should only be a valid expense if it is incurred as a result of the deal. If a second trip to meet the seller was planned to pick up the books but met with "sorry,sold" then fine.

 

I tend to agree with this as well. If a transaction was not concluded that day, for whatever reason, the trip was a fact finding mission. If you had the intention of buying the books the money should have been in hand and the deal concluded. No transaction took place so how can you say that the expenses were the result of something that never occurred.

 

 

[Bosco685]

I would reject the "I lost money because I had to sell for less" argument.

 

I would also reject the "The board is not qualified to judge" since we already are judging HOS transaction candidates, which carry a much higher stigma than the PL.

 

+ 1

 

I also reject POV deleting posts that are valid points. Too late, Mr. POV.

[PovertyRow]

I would reject the "I lost money because I had to sell for less" argument.

 

I would also reject the "The board is not qualified to judge" since we already are judging HOS transaction candidates, which carry a much higher stigma than the PL.

 

+ 1

 

I also reject POV deleting posts that are valid points. Too late, Mr. POV.

 

It was Bosco made me do it. Actually I reworded a few things. Here it is. But dang y9ou are quick.

 

You guys are all retards.

 

xoxo

 

greggy

 

Well there's 20 minutes I won't get back. A hundred or so posts and Greggy's comment is the most appropriate. And entertaining.

 

I agree Greggy's post is the most appropriate for the off-topic, nothing to do with the Probation Discussion bull.

 

Does anyone have something to add about how to determine justified versus unjustifed expenses being levied by someone bringing an issue to the Probation Discussion?

 

Since this isn't a court of law, determining monetary damages is best left to the injured party to determine. Outside of "he offered to buy the books for $XXX, and never paid", trying to determine damages, particularly punitive, probably isn't in the purview of this board.

 

For example: Dekeuk cost me money by screwing with the time in returning the item, thus resulting in a much lower selling price. But should he owe me the difference? I don't think the board is qualified to make that decision.

 

Others may disagree.

 

I will ask you - you say "I don't think the board is qualified to make that decision." What makes you different form "the board"? Are you not part of the board? Currently the HOS is determined by Board consensus. Will you not vote in the poll since you feel the board is not qualified?

 

As a buyer you should be going in with the means to support accusations.

 

As far as "I lost money because the book doesn't sell for as much now"? That is an apparent sticky wicket but it would open up the gate for "I sold ASM xxx" for $100 but now it is going for $1000". Is THAT a valid case?

 

The Probation List is not here to determine market value of books. There really is no such thing. Market value is best perceived as what someone will pay. That varies tremendously from one individual to another.

 

What the PL is here for is to determine the results of a predetermined transaction. Not to determine the net value of a book at any particular time.

 

I would reject the "I lost money because I had to sell for less" argument. It was your choice to sell it for less. If you decided to not really seek out the price you wanted, then mea culpa.

 

I do reject the "The board is not qualified to judge" since we already are judging HOS transaction candidates, which carry a much higher stigma than the PL.

[Bosco685]

BUT - if upon arriving it is obvious the scans are not correct, had been retouched or not even of the same individual book, then Jasper would have a case. Why? He was deceived into paying extra expenses based on a lie.

 

Good point!

[RockMyAmadeus]

I would reject the "I lost money because I had to sell for less" argument.

 

That's not the argument.

 

The argument is "I lost money because the buyer screwed up returning the item in a timely manner, and by the time it showed up, the iron was cold."

 

BIG difference, and it is very much a valid argument in civil court.

 

I would also reject the "The board is not qualified to judge" since we already are judging HOS transaction candidates, which carry a much higher stigma than the PL.

 

There's a difference between putting someone on a list, and determining actual monetary damages.

[PovertyRow]

I completely disagree. Jasper's expenses were not incurred as a result of the deal. It should only be a valid expense if it is incurred as a result of the deal. If a second trip to meet the seller was planned to pick up the books but met with "sorry,sold" then fine.

 

I tend to agree with this as well. If a transaction was not concluded that day, for whatever reason, the trip was a fact finding mission. If you had the intention of buying the books the money should have been in hand and the deal concluded. No transaction took place so how can you say that the expenses were the result of something that never occurred.

 

 

OK - In this case where I changed the names, Jasper's expenses to get there were a part of the deal. The books were apparently OK to Jasper,. He and Anthony made a deal and Jasper was to deliver the $$$. When Jasper contacted Anthony about delivering th $$$, Anthony said "sorry, we made the deal with someone else." I see that as a valid expense.

 

Jasper was willing to include that expense in the deal. Apparantly the books were OK to him. Also, he did not ask Jasper for expenses to go there and see the books. The deal was sealed. Then the seal was broken.

 

It is the breaking of the seal that the PL is about.

 

[mikenyc]

BUT - if upon arriving it is obvious the scans are not correct, had been retouched or not even of the same individual book, then Jasper would have a case. Why? He was deceived into paying extra expenses based on a lie.

 

Good point!

 

To play devils advocate, in this scenario now you have to decide that the scans were not a true representation of the books. How do you do that if you don't physically have the books in hand. You can't just take someone's word for it. Let's say you do that, now you have to decide if there were damages, if there were then you have to assign a value to those damages.

 

I know there are plenty of smart guys and gals, with plenty of time on their hands, but there is not a proper framework for this level of detail to operate in. Compare it to a court of law with a definitive final word, Judge, two sole voices presenting cases, prosecuting and defending council, and 12 silent witnesses, who then deliberate amongst themselves. There are endless rules and regulations that govern conduct, there is case law and, so on and so forth. If the outcome is not to your liking there are at least channels that exist for appeals. You are asking way to much of an Internet chat board, IMHO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PovertyRow]

I would reject the "I lost money because I had to sell for less" argument.

 

That's not the argument.

 

The argument is "I lost money because the buyer screwed up returning the item in a timely manner, and by the time it showed up, the iron was cold."

 

BIG difference, and it is very much a valid argument in civil court.

 

I would also reject the "The board is not qualified to judge" since we already are judging HOS transaction candidates, which carry a much higher stigma than the PL.

 

There's a difference between putting someone on a list, and determining actual monetary damages.

 

So Rocky, are you volunteering to be the Board Fact Finder and search all of the Civil Court Cases in every state these transactions occur? Because unless someone IS willing to do this, and provide proper citations, that point is moot.

 

You brought up yuour objection (which I am heavenly grateful to see folks readdressing this). But I would hope that folks who bring such specific objections would be willing to supply the needed references.If they are not, then they are stirring the bucket but not willing to filter the contents. (I still love ya!)