PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[PovertyRow]

So anyone voting yes in the HOS is essentially deaf, blind or incapable of independent thought?

 

As regards this particular nomination, it would appear so. Deaf and blind to the idea that HOS nomination details should be confined to actual transgressions - yes, absolutely. That nomination started reading like Morton Downey Junior.

 

Incapable of independent thought? Apparently so in this case, although I am not the only one to comment on this particular nomination.

[crassus]

Stupid question and I should know but what are the different ramifications between PL and HOS other than greater shame? Once on HOS, is there no remedy like there is for PL which is to make things right with the wronged party(s) and have them then give tye thumbs up for removal? Is banning a requirement to put on HOS which I don't think it is?

 

I look at them the same as far as who I am willing with.

 

While they are the same in the sense that people on either list should be "refused service" so to speak in the sales area, they are not meant to be the same in the big picture of standing in the community.

 

Someone on the PL can be there simply because they made an honest mistake, or messed up in a minor sense, and haven't met an obligation. By meeting the obligation they can come off the PL and start again. It is not punishment and whether its judgment depends on the case.

 

The HoS is more like "high crimes and misdemeanors" of the kind that mark a Board member as unworthy of the community. It can only come about by a majority vote and it can only be removed by a majority vote.

 

So like Ed said above too, effectually as far as sales board transactions, there is no difference. Just to be clear I'm not advocating changes,s, there is no difference, i.e., buyer/seller beware if dealing with these folks. The only differences then are no method of removal from HOS which seems to be sound as the "crime" is voted most egregious plus it is more publicly shameful.

 

Just to be clear I'm no advocating changes, I had just wondered why some advocated so much for HOS when to me I had treated them more or less the same but given, that HOS is permanent, I can more readily understand.

 

Thanks.

 

Just to clarify, the HoS is not permanent in the sense of irreversible. A majority vote in favour of removal from the HoS is possible, and in my time here has been at least one case of a member going on and then coming off the HoS.

[EC ed]

The only differences then are no method of removal from HOS which seems to be sound as the "crime" is voted most egregious plus it is more publicly shameful.

 

Actually, I just re-read the rules...there is a method of removal (which actually makes me feel better):

 

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.

 

 

(edit: written while Crassus was writing his just above there (thumbs u )

 

Edited January 10, 2015 by edowens71

[DeadpoolJr.]

So anyone voting yes in the HOS is essentially deaf, blind or incapable of independent thought?

 

As regards this particular nomination, it would appear so. Deaf and blind to the idea that HOS nomination details should be confined to actual transgressions - yes, absolutely. That nomination started reading like Morton Downey Junior.

 

Incapable of independent thought? Apparently so in this case, although I am not the only one to comment on this particular nomination.

Are you saying repeated transgressions are not HOS worthy?

[jaybuck43]

So anyone voting yes in the HOS is essentially deaf, blind or incapable of independent thought?

 

As regards this particular nomination, it would appear so. Deaf and blind to the idea that HOS nomination details should be confined to actual transgressions - yes, absolutely. That nomination started reading like Morton Downey Junior.

 

Incapable of independent thought? Apparently so in this case, although I am not the only one to comment on this particular nomination.

Are you saying repeated transgressions are not HOS worthy?

 

Except that's the thing. He's trash but he doesn't have any transgressions. Everyone who has ever bought from or sold to him has been paid or received their stuff. Should he be on the PL for his listing a book and then not selling it after he agreed to the terms and rules in the sale? Yes absolutely in my book (I'm curious about POV's book). Does he belong in the HoS? No. That's why I voted no.

 

I do think we as a community need to have a discussion about the purpose of each of the lists and maybe make some alterations to the rules to make it clearer. Please note that many of the "older guard" i.e. those who were here when the discussion took place about making the PL and HoS rules have a very different view of what the HoS and PL should be versus those of us in the "new guard" who weren't here when the discussion took place. Maybe something is lacking and we need to improve the wording in the rules section to improve that.

[jaybuck43]

So anyone voting yes in the HOS is essentially deaf, blind or incapable of independent thought?

 

As regards this particular nomination, it would appear so. Deaf and blind to the idea that HOS nomination details should be confined to actual transgressions - yes, absolutely. That nomination started reading like Morton Downey Junior.

 

Incapable of independent thought? Apparently so in this case, although I am not the only one to comment on this particular nomination.

Are you saying repeated transgressions are not HOS worthy?

 

This particular nomination and all the extra fluff going into it are not HOS worthy. I mentioned the problem with the PL before and it shows up here. Boardies are looking for a place to put Hustruck who is much worse than someone not paying after posting for a $10 book. The latter, for me, shouldn't even be PL worthy and I suspect if it were not then HT haters would already be happy with his PL inclusion.

 

Jeff, I'm curious. What do you see the point of the PL being? For me, if you bust a deal you spin the wheel (to borrow from Mad Max) and end up on the PL. Doesn't matter if it is $10 or $1,000.

[MetalPSI]

Wow, 15 shills. This guy keeps it together. Maybe he really has cured 60% cancer. Or he is cancer. I can never get that one straight

They cured 60% when they kicked him from the team.

 

14. I voted "No" in protest of some of the points made in the original HOS nomination which had absolutely nothing to do with comic selling, scams etc. and, in my opinion, denigrated the intent of the HOS. If some of those criteria were actually valid there would be more people on HOS than the PL.

 

Falling on deaf ears I'm afraid.

 

Or is it blind eyes?

 

Both.

 

Also delight in being part of a mob. Being able to relinquish the effort of thinking for oneself.

 

He's a scammer, liar and general doosh. I voted yes. I'll agree that bs posted about non board related stuff was bs, but the lies upon lies should be dealt with.

 

If it came to just lying got you on HoS, then yes, there wouldn't be enough room to put everyone on there. Its a bit more than that. I think. In all reality this is just the internet and people can pretty much do as they please without any repercussions. I think this has been proven time and again by PL members on a daily basis

[skypinkblu]

So anyone voting yes in the HOS is essentially deaf, blind or incapable of independent thought?

 

As regards this particular nomination, it would appear so. Deaf and blind to the idea that HOS nomination details should be confined to actual transgressions - yes, absolutely. That nomination started reading like Morton Downey Junior.

 

Incapable of independent thought? Apparently so in this case, although I am not the only one to comment on this particular nomination.

Are you saying repeated transgressions are not HOS worthy?

 

Except that's the thing. He's trash but he doesn't have any transgressions. Everyone who has ever bought from or sold to him has been paid or received their stuff. Should he be on the PL for his listing a book and then not selling it after he agreed to the terms and rules in the sale? Yes absolutely in my book (I'm curious about POV's book). Does he belong in the HoS? No. That's why I voted no.

 

I do think we as a community need to have a discussion about the purpose of each of the lists and maybe make some alterations to the rules to make it clearer. Please note that many of the "older guard" i.e. those who were here when the discussion took place about making the PL and HoS rules have a very different view of what the HoS and PL should be versus those of us in the "new guard" who weren't here when the discussion took place. Maybe something is lacking and we need to improve the wording in the rules section to improve that.

 

This...exactly.

 

In case anyone is wondering...I don't think the people who voted yes are whatever someone accused the people of voting no of being. I think they are just voting with their hearts, not just looking at the specific facts.

 

 

[HarveySwick]

Wow, 15 shills. This guy keeps it together. Maybe he really has cured 60% cancer. Or he is cancer. I can never get that one straight

They cured 60% when they kicked him from the team.

 

14. I voted "No" in protest of some of the points made in the original HOS nomination which had absolutely nothing to do with comic selling, scams etc. and, in my opinion, denigrated the intent of the HOS. If some of those criteria were actually valid there would be more people on HOS than the PL.

 

I didn't want to write it. Several were calling for it and no one else was stepping forward and volunteering to do it so I just "took one for the team."

 

Anyone is always welcome to post any info that should be added - I can always edit the write-up. (thumbs u

[HarveySwick]

So anyone voting yes in the HOS is essentially deaf, blind or incapable of independent thought?

 

No, just the majority. (thumbs u

Post count!

[skypinkblu]

Wow, 15 shills. This guy keeps it together. Maybe he really has cured 60% cancer. Or he is cancer. I can never get that one straight

They cured 60% when they kicked him from the team.

 

14. I voted "No" in protest of some of the points made in the original HOS nomination which had absolutely nothing to do with comic selling, scams etc. and, in my opinion, denigrated the intent of the HOS. If some of those criteria were actually valid there would be more people on HOS than the PL.

 

I didn't want to write it. Several were calling for it and no one else was stepping forward and volunteering to do it so I just "took one for the team." So you voted "no" and essentially cut off your nose to spite your face?

 

Anyone is always welcome to post any info that should be added - I can always edit the write-up. (thumbs u

 

Justin thank you for making the effort to propose the vote, but can you please explain what you are saying here? What do you mean by "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?I must be missing something. Why would there be anything wrong with someone voting no? Or voting yes for that matter?

 

I also thought that there had been some discussion about not showing the results of the polls until after the polls were finished, just for this very reason, so people wouldn't just vote because they thought that was what the majority believed, or wanted.

 

What ever happened to that?

 

This vote seems to be a done deal and I'm certainly not going to fight it..but I'm a little confused by some of the statements being tossed around.

 

There are always going to be yes and no votes, doesn't mean there is something wrong with either side, it's just what the voter believes to be correct...that's what voting is about..

 

Edited January 10, 2015 by skypinkblu

[HarveySwick]

I had deleted the statement. I hadn't caught up with everything yet when I wrote that and took offense to complaints about the write-up. I had deleted it out when I read everything. I'm drinking and watching the Pats. I should and just unplug.

 

I think HusTruck's actions are increasingly fraudulent and deceitful and despite usually arguing against the call for the HOS, I think he belongs on there and think it's prudent now to nip it in the bud rather than waiting for him really to screw someone over our if a lot of money before then dealing with it.

[jaybuck43]

Sha,

My guess is Justin is referring to this:

I voted "No" in protest of some of the points made in the original HOS nomination which had absolutely nothing to do with comic selling, scams etc. and, in my opinion, denigrated the intent of the HOS.

 

Which could be read as "I thought he belonged in the HoS, but because there were other things that weakened the HoS I voted no anyway". That's my guess for the comment about cutting one's nose off to spite their face.

[skypinkblu]

I had deleted the statement. I hadn't caught up with everything yet when I wrote that and took offense to complaints about the write-up. I had deleted it out when I read everything. I'm drinking and watching the Pats. I should and just unplug.

 

I think HusTruck's actions are increasingly fraudulent and deceitful and despite usually arguing against the call for the HOS, I think he belongs on there and think it's prudent now to nip it in the bud rather than waiting for him really to screw someone over our if a lot of money before then dealing with it.

 

 

If only saving people were that easy, but unfortunately I don't think it is.

 

Enjoy the Pats.

 

If anyone does propose any rule changes, I suggest we only have closed votes and that the votes are done in CG.

 

I backed off making more statements at the beginning, because I did not want to influence anyone (being old guard and all;)

 

but I did see quite a few other statements being made.

 

[CAHokie]

I agree with the poster who said that perhaps there is some misunderstanding about who should and should not be on the HOS vs PL then. PL list seems like a place to fix things, while HOS seems like a place for those always trying to run a scam on the boards. I disagree with the comment that whomever dealt with H got their money or their books. What about the boardies shilled on ebay auctions or the guy waiting for a book he never owned? They will not be receiving anything and he lied and used fake pictures from the boards to try and further the deception.

 

I respect people's opinions on why they voted yes or no. If you believe that it doesnt fit the threshold for the HOS then by all means vote no. Too bad the opposing view for those voting yes is not as tolerant of other's opinions or reasoning.

[HarveySwick]

Sha,

My guess is Justin is referring to this:

I voted "No" in protest of some of the points made in the original HOS nomination which had absolutely nothing to do with comic selling, scams etc. and, in my opinion, denigrated the intent of the HOS.

 

Which could be read as "I thought he belonged in the HoS, but because there were other things that weakened the HoS I voted no anyway". That's my guess for the comment about cutting one's nose off to spite their face.

 

(thumbs u

[Hado]

Where do we stand on a third list?

 

With all the confusion on what is and isn't HOS behaviour. Wouldn't it be easier to have the PL for small easily remedied issues, the HOS for people constantly having issues, and Arkham. Where you put the criminals who can't be reformed.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Hado

[Beige]

So anyone voting yes in the HOS is essentially deaf, blind or incapable of independent thought?

 

As regards this particular nomination, it would appear so. Deaf and blind to the idea that HOS nomination details should be confined to actual transgressions - yes, absolutely. That nomination started reading like Morton Downey Junior.

 

Incapable of independent thought? Apparently so in this case, although I am not the only one to comment on this particular nomination.

 

That would be me I guess - and I would reiterate again my point that I tried to make.

HusTruck being nominated wasn't a concern per se, the nomination containing irrelevant information about alleged actions at school, and a possibly homophobic post was. These 'incidents' have nothing to do with the CGC boards or a comic transaction.

I believe I am correct in saying HusTruck has never been on the probation list?

So this is quite a move, putting a boardie (and believe me, I thought the 'cracked case' picture was poor form) direct to HOS.

He may well belong with the Neeleys, but don't put him there because of a possible incident at school.

That has no place in this discussion.

I'd also agree with Pov and Jeff - there are a couple of people, wether well intentioned or not, who seem to thrive on whipping people up into a mob - which is wholly inappropriate for a HOS nomination.

 

[HarveySwick]

I believe I am correct in saying HusTruck has never been on the probation list?

 

He's on the Probation List right now.

[Jimmy Linguini]

I believe I am correct in saying HusTruck has never been on the probation list?

 

He's on the Probation List right now.

 

You can't go on the HOS for the same thing you went on the PL for.