PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[Bosco685]

every time someone renegs on their X Force 1 book sale.

 

 

You heard about this?

 

Who told you?

 

::

This is how the Off Topic effluence begins. As was previously brought up, this is a forum for discussing Probation issues. Lets keep it that way.

No, it is just enjoying each other's company while working out the various topics. Like you and Snake joking with each other throughout this thread.

 

No harm done.

[Bosco685]

Klingon translator applied:

 

Item involved in offense sells, but later on the offender wants to make things right. Can't buy the book - does something else to make good. Their name remains on list, but a color is used to note their efforts.

Sorry - I was distracted playing the "Jump To Conclusions" game, and thought you meant they pay any difference between what it originally sold for, and what it later sold for. You did, right?

No, I said what you said previously. I just meant they do something else to make up for the offense since the book sold already. They stay on the list - it is noted they made the effort by changing the text color.

 

By the way - you landed on "Go Wild" on your game.

Oh shucks - my bad. I think I see what you meant. We just need to figure out what is a "fair restitution" if the thing sold, and they have to do something else to make up for the offense.

 

But let me finish this game first. Anyone know how to get over to "Jump Again" by chance?

I finished the game and am back now.

 

So - what are the ground rules for making up for an offense, but the item sold already to someone else? Maybe Sharon's suggestion of donation to a charity?

 

I may have a problem leaving their name on the list - color-coded or otherwise - if they did something to make up for the offense. But let me think on it.

 

[mikenyc]

In honor of Sharon, if a transaction cannot be completed due to non payment after purchasing a book, then subsequently, after x amount of time the seller resells the book, the member who renegged will permanently be on the list. But if it's important enough to them to try and make right by the boards, then after meeting agreed upon criteria, there name is changed to a color to differentiate then from other PL members and a notation is made next to their ID.

 

 

I actually do have a problem with this. If we enforce it then we are making ourselves the judges of a book's value. I know it sucks on the surface to say that. I do understand the permutations.

 

But I will continue to stipulate that the PL process is to oversee the transactions themselves, not the future outcome.

 

For example, suppose Jethro sells Granny a book for $300. Granny delays the sale. A month has gone by. Another couple of weeks have gone by before Granny admits her mistake.

 

In that time the book has gone from $300 to $200. Granny pays the $100 difference to stay off the PL. She gets the book.

 

Fast forward a few months months later. Due to whatever circumstances: a new movie, a hitherto undiscovered "first appearance", whatever - the book is now steadily going for $600.

 

Does Jethro have the right to say "Yes, Granny paid me the $100 loss I took on trying to sell the book, but now it is going for $600 and Granny got it for that book. I want more compensation."?

 

We cannot, as a group, dictate prices or make ANY decision beyond what was in the original deal. If we do that we are in for some very muddy water.

 

This is what I said twenty posts ago that you disagreed with. I said decide expenses and assign a dollar amount and it would be slippery slope. Different words same meaning. The original deal doesn't include gas money, food, a spelunking kit, or anything else other than the two people and the books in question. That is it. And furthermore it should only be on transactions that occur on these boards.

 

 

 

As far as transactions only on these boards - that has been gone through and it was agreed upon that that transactions between board members, regardless of the venue, are subject to the PL. If if you want to go through the changing or clarifcation of the process, as you can witness here, then get the agreed upon rules changed - please feel free to do so.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but you wanted to leave it up to the accuser to make the conditions as far as extra expenses go. (If I am wrong please let me know and I will gladly retract.)

 

I see no difference there, as this requires the board members to agree on that condition. Which means the board members will have to agree to any condition set forth by the proven offended party. That is a slippier slope.

 

As far as the rest I need to read back.

 

Well I started to read back but too much crapola in their.

 

Can you please encapsulate your take and my objection?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Yes I was part of the mental midget crew bickering with RMA but that is over, apologies were given and now the conversation will be constructive. I am trying to listen to what everyone is saying. Here POV, I think that we are on the same page, your end result was my beginning points so I think we are in agreement.

[Speedy-D]

Is this really so complicated?

[mikenyc]

Is this really so complicated?

 

I just work here.

[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 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.

 

This is right on point with where I am at on this. I do not go as far to say, perhaps, as the board is unqualified to make the decision. However, I get to the same destination since I believe the board is not the most appropriate party to make that decision. Only the injured party is. I think as long as the expenses are made public, the victim should have the right to assign any cost of the failed transaction. Perhaps something along the lines of JoeBob buying an ASM 14 slab from me that I purchased solely to resell to him at my LCS...

 

Cost of comic $200 and the only money discussed in the transaction itself...

 

Cost (as I would require) to remove Joe Bob from PL after failing to complete the transaction...please note that these are estimates only...no research went into these numbers which are used for demonstrative purposes only

 

$200 (Comic)

$5 Packing material (Tape, box, peanuts, etc.)

$2 Extra month interest that this book resided on my credit card while we had to wait to put him on PL

$5 Gas to go to the other side of town and hit the FedEx office

$20 Extra Shipping cost since I will require some sort of signature verification and insurance of the package.

I would also strongly consider that payment be made in the form of a money order at this point

 

So there we are at $232...Sure I may catch heat for charging on packing material or shipping (which were free in the original transaction). I attribute this to the loss of goodwill between myself and the buyer. However, that is theoretically what it would cost to start over and complete the deal.

 

Others may have different costs/conditions and I feel it is fair for them to determine such (with non-binding input/suggestions from the board being welcome of course). Mike is right that it can be a slippery slope. However, so is the other direction of letting the board determine associated costs of the transaction. For me, it boils down to who we wish to protect...the victim or the offender?

 

 

 

[skypinkblu]

Is this really so complicated?

 

I think it's getting TOO complicated...the original list worked because it was simple. The only way this will remain simple is if you go with the original deal, and the original value.

 

If there was no deal, there is no value to decide and if there are circumstances like the one Brad had that started this, where there is nothing in writing, it's going to make it harder.

 

If you keep adding caveats, you are going to have reams and reams of addendum's to the rules, many people are going to think their issue is going to be an exception to the rules. That will make it difficult to just make a simple decision.

 

As someone who managed an an office that adjudicated part of the labor law, I can tell you we had about 10 pages of law, and thousands of pages of "interpretations" we had to check before making a decision. Once a decision was made, we had hearings, and appeals because one side or the other would object. The "interpretations" were added every time there was a twist in the circumstances in a hearing or appeal. There are going to be a lot of "twists" or exceptions here as well, we are dealing with people, and emotions.

 

The K.I.S.S. principal really does work well.

 

You can't fix everything here...just the basics, and fixing the basics is pretty good:)

[Comicopolis]

Is this really so complicated?

 

Can't you rephrase that question and spread it over 10 lengthy paragraphs?

[mikenyc]

Is this really so complicated?

 

Can't you rephrase that question and spread it over 10 lengthy paragraphs?

 

Please stop!!!!!! :sumo:

 

This is very very very, that's right a three very, serious business.

 

 

[Point Five]

Is this really so complicated?

 

I think it's getting TOO complicated...the original list worked because it was simple. The only way this will remain simple is if you go with the original deal, and the original value.

 

If there was no deal, there is no value to decide and if there are circumstances like the one Brad had that started this, where there is nothing in writing, it's going to make it harder.

 

If you keep adding caveats, you are going to have reams and reams of addendum's to the rules, many people are going to think their issue is going to be an exception to the rules. That will make it difficult to just make a simple decision.

 

As someone who managed an an office that adjudicated part of the labor law, I can tell you we had about 10 pages of law, and thousands of pages of "interpretations" we had to check before making a decision. Once a decision was made, we had hearings, and appeals because one side or the other would object. The "interpretations" were added every time there was a twist in the circumstances in a hearing or appeal. There are going to be a lot of "twists" or exceptions here as well, we are dealing with people, and emotions.

 

The K.I.S.S. principal really does work well.

 

You can't fix everything here...just the basics, and fixing the basics is pretty good:)

(thumbs u Simple is better.

 

 

[Boozad]

I think it's getting TOO complicated...the original list worked because it was simple. The only way this will remain simple is if you go with the original deal, and the original value.

 

Indeed. If any case/s deviates from the tried and tested method (which works very well as is at the moment) then treat it/them on a case by case basis.

 

Just my tuppence worth. Fell free to ignore at will.

[mikenyc]

I think it's getting TOO complicated...the original list worked because it was simple. The only way this will remain simple is if you go with the original deal, and the original value.

 

Indeed. If any case/s deviates from the tried and tested method (which works very well as is at the moment) then treat it/them on a case by case basis.

 

Just my tuppence worth. Fell free to ignore at will.

 

I agree 100 percent. I would also like to see only transactions that occur on or through these boards.

 

Not your lemonade stand deal gone bad.

[Boozad]

I would also like to see only transactions that occur on or through these boards.

 

Not your lemonade stand deal gone bad.

 

That's the only grey area I see. If someone advertises an eBay listing through the boards (which they can do freely), the deal is sort of tied to the boards.

 

Also, I know eBay has it's own feedback structure and buyers should not find themselves in a position where they can't get their money back these days, but I'm thinking more of sellers who can get royally screwed via eBay. I've known this happen and it's been brought up quite a few times, sometimes that can (and has) involved boardies.

 

[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.

 

Snake - err - Heath - one of the things about the PL is determining who IS the "offended party". We have seen a few (at least) situations where the person bringing the claim has turned out to be the offender.

 

So part and parcel of the PL is to determine who actually is at fault. Not just assume those who bring the problem up are automatically innocent and the gulty one is the one they accuse.

 

 

Correct, but that has been determined by the time we have gotten to the point of removing someone from the list. When they are on the list and trying to get removed, it is my thinking that they are the offending party (the conversation/determination about who the offender is takes place as someone id being placed on the list, not when recompense for removal is being discussed). I think you and I may be speaking about two seperate points in time (generally speaking)

[Snake Eyes]

Is this really so complicated?

 

I think it's getting TOO complicated...the original list worked because it was simple. The only way this will remain simple is if you go with the original deal, and the original value.

 

If there was no deal, there is no value to decide and if there are circumstances like the one Brad had that started this, where there is nothing in writing, it's going to make it harder.

 

If you keep adding caveats, you are going to have reams and reams of addendum's to the rules, many people are going to think their issue is going to be an exception to the rules. That will make it difficult to just make a simple decision.

 

As someone who managed an an office that adjudicated part of the labor law, I can tell you we had about 10 pages of law, and thousands of pages of "interpretations" we had to check before making a decision. Once a decision was made, we had hearings, and appeals because one side or the other would object. The "interpretations" were added every time there was a twist in the circumstances in a hearing or appeal. There are going to be a lot of "twists" or exceptions here as well, we are dealing with people, and emotions.

 

The K.I.S.S. principal really does work well.

 

You can't fix everything here...just the basics, and fixing the basics is pretty good:)

 

I agree completely with this...the reason I keep offering suggestions is the original alteration by Pov that stated a member of the PL will be removed without exception if they state such a desire and complete restitution (the without exception and vagueness of restitution really throws me). In theory it does not seem like a large change, but it certainly set off a number of concerns with me

[Bosco685]

Is this really so complicated?

 

I think it's getting TOO complicated...the original list worked because it was simple. The only way this will remain simple is if you go with the original deal, and the original value.

 

If there was no deal, there is no value to decide and if there are circumstances like the one Brad had that started this, where there is nothing in writing, it's going to make it harder.

 

If you keep adding caveats, you are going to have reams and reams of addendum's to the rules, many people are going to think their issue is going to be an exception to the rules. That will make it difficult to just make a simple decision.

 

As someone who managed an an office that adjudicated part of the labor law, I can tell you we had about 10 pages of law, and thousands of pages of "interpretations" we had to check before making a decision. Once a decision was made, we had hearings, and appeals because one side or the other would object. The "interpretations" were added every time there was a twist in the circumstances in a hearing or appeal. There are going to be a lot of "twists" or exceptions here as well, we are dealing with people, and emotions.

 

The K.I.S.S. principal really does work well.

 

You can't fix everything here...just the basics, and fixing the basics is pretty good:)

 

I agree completely with this...the reason I keep offering suggestions is the original alteration by Pov that stated a member of the PL will be removed without exception if they state such a desire and complete restitution (the without exception and vagueness of restitution really throws me). In theory it does not seem like a large change, but it certainly set off a number of concerns with me

 

I think once it started heading down the path of determining damages in a situation where either the buyer or seller had additional expense, the confusion set in.

 

Other than that, it's been an educational discussion. It also shows why folks in the legal profession have to go through so much schooling and on-the-job experience before they can really tackle this topic. It is definitely not easy!

[mschmidt]

I agree 100 percent. I would also like to see only transactions that occur on or through these boards.

 

Not your lemonade stand deal gone bad.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

People use this board to announce their ebay, clink, pedigree, etc, listings all the time; if I go through one of these outside venues to complete a deal, it's still a deal being done between two board members, which means that it's still relevant for the board to be informed if one party doesn't live up to their end of the deal.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

I agree 100 percent. I would also like to see only transactions that occur on or through these boards.

 

Not your lemonade stand deal gone bad.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

People use this board to announce their ebay, clink, pedigree, etc, listings all the time; if I go through one of these outside venues to complete a deal, it's still a deal being done between two board members, which means that it's still relevant for the board to be informed if one party doesn't live up to their end of the deal.

I agree on both points. It is hard to make a call on an off board transaction without being able to see any evidence. But obviously since we can advertise our books here, we should still be held accountable for off forum transactions.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The K.I.S.S. principal really does work well.

 

You can't fix everything here...just the basics, and fixing the basics is pretty good:)

 

I especially relate to the last "S."

[mikenyc]

I agree 100 percent. I would also like to see only transactions that occur on or through these boards.

 

Not your lemonade stand deal gone bad.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

People use this board to announce their ebay, clink, pedigree, etc, listings all the time; if I go through one of these outside venues to complete a deal, it's still a deal being done between two board members, which means that it's still relevant for the board to be informed if one party doesn't live up to their end of the deal.

I agree on both points. It is hard to make a call on an off board transaction without being able to see any evidence. But obviously since we can advertise our books here, we should still be held accountable for off forum transactions.

 

I agree with the agreement. ::

 

The problem, for which there is no ideal workaround, is reputation becomes the crux of the argument for most transactions that occur outside the posts on these boards. This in and of itself is not bad, quite the opposite, but it does open up the perception of playing favorites, good 'ol boy network that others have referenced.