PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[Bio-Rupp]

RMA is not the only person to sell to PL people, I have seen a few :takeit:'s in threads by people on the list. The way I look at it is that it's up to the sell if he/she wants to sell to people on the list. If he wants to, that's RMA's choice. You don't have to like it or respect it, but it's still his choice.

 

 

 

 

Maybe we should have a little doucherag list.

kitsune

 

 

 

Never thought I would read a post by Jimmy that actually made sense...... Then the Jimmy I have read popped back!

Every time someone does a transaction with someone on the PL, they're making it that much less likely the person who put them on the PL will get restitution. That's what's wrong with it.

 

[skypinkblu]

Every time someone does a transaction with someone on the PL, they're making it that much less likely the person who put them on the PL will get restitution. That's what's wrong with it.

 

That's a bingo!

 

There is no pressure to resolve a transaction if PL/HOS buyers and sellers can continue on either privately or publicly. That's a problem.

 

Anyone can sell to anyone they want as long as CGC does not make a rule, we cannot physically stop someone, however many members of the community will not do business with someone who has been identified as selling to Probation/HOS members.

 

There will always be a few exceptions, because collectors sometimes make decisions based on what someone is selling, but chances are, the person ignoring the community is going to have less customers, The problem is some people don't realize the implications until it's explained here, so I'm glad it's being explained.

 

Hopefully it will create a little more "peer" pressure. That won't change everyone's minds, because there are always people who need to be "special" or who see themselves as above the crowd, but it will help.

 

Not all the nominations/non nominations will be perfect, but overall, it's helpful.

 

[Speedy-D]

RMA is not the only person to sell to PL people, I have seen a few :takeit:'s in threads by people on the list. The way I look at it is that it's up to the sell if he/she wants to sell to people on the list. If he wants to, that's RMA's choice. You don't have to like it or respect it, but it's still his choice.

 

 

This has became quite the quandary....

 

Let's take RMA's name out of the equation for a minute and just say "anyone who sells to PL members".

 

If you sell to anyone on the PL list... thus knowingly ignoring what it stands for ... how can you justify using the same PL to punish or threaten someone when one of your failed sales qualifies you to be able to use it?

 

 

Have we seen anyone but RMA do this? What's the point of a general hypothetical, about which no one is talking, that applies specifically to a single instance?

[Speedy-D]

RMA is not the only person to sell to PL people, I have seen a few :takeit:'s in threads by people on the list. The way I look at it is that it's up to the sell if he/she wants to sell to people on the list. If he wants to, that's RMA's choice. You don't have to like it or respect it, but it's still his choice.

 

 

 

 

Maybe we should have a little doucherag list.

kitsune

 

 

 

Never thought I would read a post by Jimmy that actually made sense...... Then the Jimmy I have read popped back!

Every time someone does a transaction with someone on the PL, they're making it that much less likely the person who put them on the PL will get restitution. That's what's wrong with it.

 

Sorry, what's this? I've finally seen the light? I've been making the same exact post for years. :shrug:

[Speedy-D]

RMA is not the only person to sell to PL people, I have seen a few :takeit:'s in threads by people on the list. The way I look at it is that it's up to the sell if he/she wants to sell to people on the list. If he wants to, that's RMA's choice. You don't have to like it or respect it, but it's still his choice.

 

 

This has became quite the quandary....

 

Let's take RMA's name out of the equation for a minute and just say "anyone who sells to PL members".

 

If you sell to anyone on the PL list... thus knowingly ignoring what it stands for ... how can you justify using the same PL to punish or threaten someone when one of your failed sales qualifies you to be able to use it?

 

 

Have we seen anyone but RMA do this? What's the point of a general hypothetical, about which no one is talking, that applies specifically to a single instance?

Sorry, now I sound like I'm picking a fight with you...

[Mr.Diggler]

RMA is not the only person to sell to PL people, I have seen a few :takeit:'s in threads by people on the list. The way I look at it is that it's up to the sell if he/she wants to sell to people on the list. If he wants to, that's RMA's choice. You don't have to like it or respect it, but it's still his choice.

 

 

This has became quite the quandary....

 

Let's take RMA's name out of the equation for a minute and just say "anyone who sells to PL members".

 

If you sell to anyone on the PL list... thus knowingly ignoring what it stands for ... how can you justify using the same PL to punish or threaten someone when one of your failed sales qualifies you to be able to use it?

 

 

Have we seen anyone but RMA do this?

Yes.

[Green]

At this point I basically consider the pl worthless. If kitsune dodges it ( like so many have since all the extensive rules were added) and only a dozen or so ppl ever remember this instance, once again it is doing the community no good as a warning system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bio-Rupp]

RMA is not the only person to sell to PL people, I have seen a few :takeit:'s in threads by people on the list. The way I look at it is that it's up to the sell if he/she wants to sell to people on the list. If he wants to, that's RMA's choice. You don't have to like it or respect it, but it's still his choice.

 

 

This has became quite the quandary....

 

Let's take RMA's name out of the equation for a minute and just say "anyone who sells to PL members".

 

If you sell to anyone on the PL list... thus knowingly ignoring what it stands for ... how can you justify using the same PL to punish or threaten someone when one of your failed sales qualifies you to be able to use it?

 

 

Have we seen anyone but RMA do this? What's the point of a general hypothetical, about which no one is talking, that applies specifically to a single instance?

Sorry, now I sound like I'm picking a fight with you...

 

I know you aren't Speed

 

It does make a great meme tho ...

 

 

Then we get all cleaned up and hit the town... like VICE !

 

[Iceman399]

At this point I basically consider the pl worthless. If kitsune dodges it ( like so many have since all the extensive rules were added) and only a dozen or so ppl ever remember this instance, once again it is doing the community no good as a warning system.

 

Had he not offered to pay for the books and make good on the I would agree. However he realized that by making signs and not following through he was going nowhere in the community due to the PL, thus it served its purpose. He can only do so much to make restitution and should he do it again I don't think many would hesitate to say HOS.

Edited July 24, 2013 by iceman399

[RockMyAmadeus]

One more time...

 

1. The Probation List is severely flawed. People avoid it...like kitsune...on technicalities...other people have landed on it for no other reason than "well, he put me on it, so I'll put him on it, too!"

 

2. Attempting to shame people into following the PL, when clearly the entire community is not of one mind about it (see Green above), is immoral.

 

3. I have never actually sold to anyone on the PL. Yes, I understand that this is meaningless due to my stance, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Other people HAVE done actual business with people on the PL.

 

4. Kitsune offered to pay...and offered to pay...and offered to pay...and offered to pay...without actually showing any signs of...you know...paying. So these comments of "well, he offered to pay, what else is he supposed to do?" are without merit. What he was supposed to do was pay. Nothing was stopping him from paying at any point after 6/21.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

If you sell to anyone on the PL list... thus knowingly ignoring what it stands for ... how can you justify using the same PL to punish or threaten someone when one of your failed sales qualifies you to be able to use it?

 

As much as you want it to be, it's not that black and white.

 

My terms are quite clear: I will sell to members on the PL on a case by case basis, and they must pay PRIOR TO claiming anything.

 

Just like the American justice system, each case is handled individually. Not everyone charged with (insert crime here) is guilty, nor is each case the same.

 

That there are people on the PL, and even the HOS, because they simply got frustrated...rather than working it out, they just walked, is proof of that. Dan (what's her face's husband) is an excellent example of that. In my experience, he's not a bad guy...but he got such public drubbing, he said forget it.

 

Doesn't make what he did right...not at all...but it's certainly not the same as, say, ComicSupply or CapFreak.

 

There are very, very few people with the stomach for the high holy righteous wrath many of you are capable of, especially when you're in mob mode.

 

We do not throw out the entire American justice system simply because the innocent are sometimes convicted, while the guilty sometimes go free.

 

Are most of the people on the PL/HOS there because they deserve to be? Without a doubt. Are ALL of them? No. Which is why we consider things case by case, and do not apply monolithic "justice" to everyone with an issue.

 

Kitsune, who absolutely without a doubt embodies the spirit of those who thumb their noses at the community and deserves to be on the list will not be...though with all this sturm and drang, I may reconsider not selling to him to see if he'll actually pay. I have my doubts. But he absolutely embodies the PL, but won't be on it.

 

How many of you want to put me on th PL? Yet I have done nothing to merit it, according to its own rules (sorry, "unwritten rules" have no merit.)

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Back in April I tried to stir up some interest/feedback in the discussion thread after the "Sales thread by PL member -threadkrapping strike"

 

In my years of buying and selling on here, my understanding is:

 

1) If someone has landed on the PL or HOS, it was because they did not follow through with one or more transactions that impacted fellow board members. So someone is out money either due to an item not being paid for, or after mailing a collectible a chargeback or some other approach led to money being taken back or not paid.

 

Knowing a fellow board member has been impacted:

 

2) It is highly encouraged not to deal with that person on the PL/HOS in order to force their hand to complete the transaction with the offended party, or to move along so others do not experience the same fate.

 

What's so hard to comprehend or support with that community expectation? This has nothing to do with personal feelings or dislike of a board member. It is a community norm to act as one body to force a positive result for one another, whether a buyer or a seller.

 

Look at the words used here. "force a positive result." "act as one body." "community expectation" "force their hand."

 

Folks, this is classic language of the demagogue. We are all individuals, not "one body." They are dangeous words, because instead of respecting the individual and individual rights, they turn the monolithic weight of "the community" on anyone who does not conform to whatever "the community" dictates, by shaming or worse.

 

It is antithetical to everything that made America great: the idea that each individual should be free to pursue his or her own happiness as they see fit, so long as they weren't harming others.

 

Look at the appeal to emotion used here: "Knowing a fellow board member has been impacted:"

 

The underlined "fellow board member" being a highly charged appeal to emotion "won't someone think of the children!" type call, without ever actually investigating if that "fellow board member" has always been impacted, and to what degree. You're a bad person, you see, if you ignore the fact that a fellow board member has suffered, and what is wrong with you that you would so callously treat your board member brethren in such a way...?

 

This is the very definition of demagoguery: appeals to emotion, rather than reason.

 

What right does anyone have here to "force" anyone to do anything? If someone has not paid, fine, "this person never paid." But FORCE? If someone has committed a crime, there are legal avenues of justice...which this board is NOT...to address that. No one here has the right to "force" anyone to do anything if they are not a party to a transaction. Yet, that's the language that is used. Manipulation and coercion, rather than restitution, is the frame of reference.

 

Some of you think this is acceptable, right, and good. This has been a clarifying experience for me, that some of you think the PL should be, and is, a blunt instrument of threat to compel people...again, through public shaming...to resolve a transaction.

 

I don't want Kitsune on the PL as a means to coerce him to complete the transaction. I want him on the list for what he has already done, which is not paying for an item he claimed, and doing so in a manner that was completely disrespectful.

 

I don't want him to be there to compel him to DO something. I want to WARN OTHER PEOPLE about what he has ALREADY DONE.

 

But some of you (many of you?) think the list should be used to manipulate, coerce, force people to resolve the issue...?

 

"For your own good", you see.

 

"Positive results" which are "forced" are never positive.

 

Folks, all sorts of really fine sounding arguments can be made for forcing conformity on everyone. "It's for your own good!" is the rallying cry used to convince everyone to "go along to get along."

 

Eventually, though, everyone is forced to conform to whatever the ones with the power dictate is acceptable, on penalty of shaming or worse...and the majority ends up in chains.

 

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual.)" - Ayn Rand

[Jimmy Linguini]

I still want to know how the probation list has integrity when mods don't acknowledge it.

 

case and point, giving strikes for "threadcrapping" to people calling out probation list members selling threads.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The truth of the PL is that it allows us to be lazy.

 

"Whoop, you're on the PL/HOS, no soup for you!"

 

...without ever having to do any investigative work on our own, to make the decision whether or not to do business with someone individually.

 

It's ever so much easier to just refer to "the list",

 

Do most of the people on the list deserve to be there? Without a doubt.

 

Does everyone?

 

No.

 

But it really is so much easier to just refer to the handy, ready made....ETERNAL...list of offenders.

 

Most people convicted of crimes are given a specific sentence. Once their debt to society is paid...whether they make restitution or not...they are freed.

 

"But they can appeal if they want to, and make it right! If they do that, they can come off!"

 

We don't require that of anyone except the absolute worst criminals.

 

..and the HOS/PL.

 

I know, this is mostly academic anyways. The majority of people on the list deserve to be there...if not forever...and have no desire nor intention of ever trying to get off.

 

 

[bababooey]

[DR.X]

[RockMyAmadeus]

*

[DiceX]

 

 

 

[Bosco685]

Back in April I tried to stir up some interest/feedback in the discussion thread after the "Sales thread by PL member -threadkrapping strike"

 

In my years of buying and selling on here, my understanding is:

 

1) If someone has landed on the PL or HOS, it was because they did not follow through with one or more transactions that impacted fellow board members. So someone is out money either due to an item not being paid for, or after mailing a collectible a chargeback or some other approach led to money being taken back or not paid.

 

Knowing a fellow board member has been impacted:

 

2) It is highly encouraged not to deal with that person on the PL/HOS in order to force their hand to complete the transaction with the offended party, or to move along so others do not experience the same fate.

 

What's so hard to comprehend or support with that community expectation? This has nothing to do with personal feelings or dislike of a board member. It is a community norm to act as one body to force a positive result for one another, whether a buyer or a seller.

 

Look at the words used here. "force a positive result." "act as one body." "community expectation" "force their hand."

 

Folks, this is classic language of the demagogue. We are all individuals, not "one body." They are dangeous words, because instead of respecting the individual and individual rights, they turn the monolithic weight of "the community" on anyone who does not conform to whatever "the community" dictates, by shaming or worse.

 

It is antithetical to everything that made America great: the idea that each individual should be free to pursue his or her own happiness as they see fit, so long as they weren't harming others.

 

Look at the appeal to emotion used here: "Knowing a fellow board member has been impacted:"

 

The underlined "fellow board member" being a highly charged appeal to emotion "won't someone think of the children!" type call, without ever actually investigating if that "fellow board member" has always been impacted, and to what degree. You're a bad person, you see, if you ignore the fact that a fellow board member has suffered, and what is wrong with you that you would so callously treat your board member brethren in such a way...?

 

This is the very definition of demagoguery: appeals to emotion, rather than reason.

 

What right does anyone have here to "force" anyone to do anything? If someone has not paid, fine, "this person never paid." But FORCE? If someone has committed a crime, there are legal avenues of justice...which this board is NOT...to address that. No one here has the right to "force" anyone to do anything if they are not a party to a transaction. Yet, that's the language that is used. Manipulation and coercion, rather than restitution, is the frame of reference.

 

Some of you think this is acceptable, right, and good. This has been a clarifying experience for me, that some of you think the PL should be, and is, a blunt instrument of threat to compel people...again, through public shaming...to resolve a transaction.

 

I don't want Kitsune on the PL as a means to coerce him to complete the transaction. I want him on the list for what he has already done, which is not paying for an item he claimed, and doing so in a manner that was completely disrespectful.

 

I don't want him to be there to compel him to DO something. I want to WARN OTHER PEOPLE about what he has ALREADY DONE.

 

But some of you (many of you?) think the list should be used to manipulate, coerce, force people to resolve the issue...?

 

"For your own good", you see.

 

"Positive results" which are "forced" are never positive.

 

Folks, all sorts of really fine sounding arguments can be made for forcing conformity on everyone. "It's for your own good!" is the rallying cry used to convince everyone to "go along to get along."

 

Eventually, though, everyone is forced to conform to whatever the ones with the power dictate is acceptable, on penalty of shaming or worse...and the majority ends up in chains.

 

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual.)" - Ayn Rand

 

If you are going to use the word "demagogue" when quoting me, make sure you also point out I did not create this this list, nor do I manage it. What I pointed out are the common expectations on this forum how this PL/HOS method is used to encourage community norms leading to much more positive transactions.

 

A lot of what you inserted sounded like true demagoge statements, where you are trying to make an emotional appeal how following community norms detracts from freedom and individual decision-making. Such is not the case. But your post comes across so empassioned, I think you may have lost focus on what the intent is of the PL/HOS.

 

If we want a free-for-all environment, where anything goes related to sales (the majority would say otherwise), over time CGC would have to eliminate this feature from its forum because it would become a detractor tied to its brand. But they have kindly allowed forum members to self-police such activity unless it becomes a legal or partner-impacting situation (e.g. CapFreak and Borock's phone message).

 

Positive results that are forced with the right care and management are positive. How do you think individuals and teams push themselves to achieve greater goals than they would have as a standalone unit? Someone helped them down a different path than they would have gone otherwise. It's the same with community behavior and social norms when dealing with financial matters that could be quite damaging to an individual.

 

Eventually, though, everyone is forced to conform to whatever the ones with the power dictate is acceptable, on penalty of shaming or worse...and the majority ends up in chains.

 

What power? The power to encourage positive transactions, and ensuring if things don't go smoothly initiatially there is some form of recourse for those in a tough situation? Again, I think you are so busy giving the stump speech about how you would like things, you forget what the intent and general experience has been with this method to resolve issues. And it involves the leadership of the community - not one individual or a designated small group.

 

Is it flawed? Sure it is. It would be nice if someone like Kitsune could go on a warning list, to alert people dealing with him may be hit or miss (or pure miss from two transactions). But rallying against any recourse system so we can all go off and do "whatever" is then going down the path of forgetting why this entire system was implemented in the first place.

 

I didn't implement this system. But I respect the intent, recognize the majority of the benefit it brings, and don't try and work around it so I can focus on how much more money I can make without a care about fellow forumites that have been burned.

[RockMyAmadeus]

A lot of what you inserted sounded like true demagoge statements, where you are trying to make an emotional appeal how following community norms detracts from freedom and individual decision-making.

 

This needs to be quoted, so it is not lost in the mix.

 

Appealing to freedom and individual decision-making is the antonym of demagoguery.

 

Appeals to emotion...and passionate appeals to reason...are two completely different things.

 

And you have made a vital distinction, probably without being aware of it: "following community norms."

 

That is, voluntarily, of one's own free will, choosing to do what the community has deemed is appropriate...

 

...which is different from being forced to by public pressure, or worse.

 

One is freedom. The other is tyranny.

 

I highly recommend Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, for better explanations of these ideas than I can make.