PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[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.

 

Wholeheartedly sounds so severe.

[Green]

This thread was way better when biorupp was having a meltdown.

[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.

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.

 

Without going back. If Jasper travelled to look at the books then that part of the deal was satisfied. He looked at the books. From an accounting perspective the travel expenses are not associated to the purchase agreement. Jasper traveling around the country looking for a collection to purchase is overhead while the gas used to pickup the purchased books is an allocation to the cost of product. There was no promise to purchase that prompted Jasper to go look at the books. He would have had the cash to pay and the amount to be paid already agreed upon.

[N/A]

Also the rather lengthy discussion seems to be determining a way to have someone removed from the PL. How often does the injured party actually refuse to remove the offending party? Has there ever been a case? Seems most people are removed rather quickly after dealing directly with the person who put them on the list?

 

Why spend so much time trying to figure out a formula for expenses etc when the scenario is unlikely. Just put an open ended comment added to the line that states the accuser removes the accused from the PL??

[mrwoogieman]

I think "restitution" needs to mean only the agreed upon purchase price of the book and shipping (if that was part of the deal).

 

Any other costs associated with a deal gone bad have to be considered as a cost of doing business and eaten by the wronged party. This board cannot substitute for a court of law in determining compensatory damages, nor should it.

 

Ultimately, the wronged party had a choice of venue to buy/sell and chose this one, with all of its accompanying limitations.

 

 

 

EDIT: I should add also that an aggrieved party who is of a mind to seek "full restitution" has the option of bringing the other party to court (if such an option makes economic sense to them to attempt).

Edited July 7, 2011 by mrwoogieman

[Bosco685]

Also the rather lengthy discussion seems to be determining a way to have someone removed from the PL. How often does the injured party actually refuse to remove the offending party? Has there ever been a case? Seems most people are removed rather quickly after dealing directly with the person who put them on the list?

 

Why spend so much time trying to figure out a formula for expenses etc when the scenario is unlikely. Just put an open ended comment added to the line that states the accuser removes the accused from the PL??

 

FT's situation with a board member took a little bit before he decided to give him an option to come off the list. The way FT finally dealt with the situation (5 solid transactions with other board members) was very interesting, and it turned out well for both parties.

 

So it has occurred at least in the past year.

[PovertyRow]

I made some changes.

 

HOS and Probation List Rules

 

1) The 30-Day Rule

a) If a transaction between board members is not completed within 30 days, the offended party may submit the offender's name for inclusion to the HOS/Probation List (hereafter called the PL)

 

b) If the transaction is agreed on by both parties to take longer than 30 days - for example, a transaction involving time payments over a longer time, the 30 day clock begins from the time the agreed upon conditions were violated.

 

c) The 30-day rule is suspended if the accused refuses to complete the transaction or if the transaction cannot be completed due to, for example, the item being sold to someone else.

 

d) A Transaction between board members is not confined to the CGC Message Boards. Any transaction between forum members, regardless of the venue, is eligible for inclusion in the PL.

 

2) Notification on the Probation Discussion Thread

a) After the 30 Day Rule is fulfilled, the accuser will send a PM to the accused informing them the issue is being submitted to the Probation Discussion Thread for their inclusion in the PL. This should be a new PM and not part of an existing PM chain.

 

b) After the PM is sent the accuser may submit the accused for inclusion in the PL via the Probation Discussion Thread.

 

c) The accuser should outline as completely as possible the circumstances surrounding the transaction in dispute. Where possible include hyperlinks to board transactions and contact attempts along with dates.

 

d) If reasonable additional expenses are incurred the accuser may include them as part of the resolution. The validity of "reasonable additional expenses" may be subject to discussion.

 

e) If completing the transaction is no longer possible, the accuser may outline a proposed path to resolution.

 

3) Being Placed On The PL

a) After a 72-hour waiting period, if the accused does not respond they will be placed on the PL.

 

b) If the accused responds in the Probation Discussion Thread and it is determined the conditions of the transaction was not met, they will be added to the PL.

 

c) If the accused is not available during that 72-hour period and is placed on the PL, they are free to later respond in the Probation Discussion Thread and present their side.

 

d) If the accused has not responded in the Probation Discussion Thread but continues to post on the boards, a reply can be made informing them they are being considered for placement on the PL.

 

4) Removal From The PL

a) If the accuser requests the accused be removed form the PL, the accused will be removed.

 

b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

c) If multiple accusers are involved, and full restitution is satisfactorily made to all accusers, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

5) Probation List versus Hall Of Shame

a) The Probation List is for transactions that have not been fulfilled as promised.

 

b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender.

 

c) The Hall Of Shame candidate is subject to all of the above rules.

 

d) Inclusion in the Hall Of Shame must be decided by a poll.

 

e) Removal from the Hall Of Shame must be decided by a poll.

 

Edited July 7, 2011 by Povertyrow

[Bosco685]

Amazing job!

 

[Bosco685]

d) If the accused is not available during that 72-hour period and is placed on the PL, they are free to later respond in the Probation Discussion Thread and present their side.

 

This was a nice touch to account for folks that only log in randomly.

[JazzMan]

A small clarification to 2 a) After the 30 Day Rule is fulfilled, the accuser will send a new and unique PM to the accused informing them the issue is being submitted to the Probation Discussion Thread for their inclusion in the PL.

 

The reason I put this is because if someone removes themselves from the conversation it will show read but actually not delivered.

[PovertyRow]

Thank you Bosco. 2d and 4b are the most significant changes that cover the majority of the discussions.

 

I hope people discuss these or at least say if they are satisfied. Note I DID retain the concept of automatic removal from the PL if the accuser is satisfied.

 

This would eliminate, or potentially eliminate, being left on out of spite or anger, which is not what it should be about.

 

 

[PovertyRow]

Thanks JazzMan - I modified 2a to include a new PM outside of an existing PM chain.

[JazzMan]

Looks good to me. (thumbs u

 

But just wait until RMA comes and shreds it.

[PovertyRow]

d) If the accused is not available during that 72-hour period and is placed on the PL, they are free to later respond in the Probation Discussion Thread and present their side.

 

This was a nice touch to account for folks that only log in randomly.

 

Thanks. I was also thinking of people who may be away on vacation etc.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

I just wanted to update on the issue with Eric and myself. The E-check is still pending, but I ask that he be removed. I have good faith that all will be well, and that there never really was reason for the flaming that happened here. I apologize to all parties who bothered to read it all, and to Eric. I can understand how things can be frustrating, and we can all let our tempers get the best of us.

 

Hopefully it is a lesson to all who read through how KEY communication is between all parties.

 

 

Pat-

[JazzMan]

[Bosco685]

 

Today is going to be a good day in the probation thread.

 

Which hopefully means no new business.

[PovertyRow]

I just wanted to update on the issue with Eric and myself. The E-check is still pending, but I ask that he be removed. I have good faith that all will be well, and that there never really was reason for the flaming that happened here. I apologize to all parties who bothered to read it all, and to Eric. I can understand how things can be frustrating, and we can all let our tempers get the best of us.

 

Hopefully it is a lesson to all who read through how KEY communication is between all parties.

 

 

Pat-

 

Hooyah. I have updated the PL to reflect this.

[Snake Eyes]

Pov,

 

I LOVE IT!!!

 

Truly an excellent piece of wordsmithing....thanks for all the hard work and consensus building. I think the changes will eventually alleviate a good bit of confusion regarding the list

[mschmidt]

4) Removal From The PL

a) If the accuser requests the accused be removed form the PL, they will be removed.

 

b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, they will be removed from the PL.

 

There are several PL members who committed transgressions against multiple board members - how would it work if they tried to get themselves removed from the PL? I'm assuming that all the accusers would have to consent for it to happen?