PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[Awax]

 

Some on that list I never knew were on at some point but are now removed.

[DiceX]

Now, what we do with this summary is the next question...just file it away for personal use, or put it in a publicly accessible thread somewhere and maintain it going forward...

 

This idea has already been attempted and was shot down.

Start what you're attempting to start and just see how effective the list is at getting differences resolved.

If you're going to keep people in the mud, there will be little effort from someone to get their name off of it, rendering it completely useless.

 

 

[Bosco685]

When I engaged recently with Arch and CCGMod0 on this topic, here's the feedback I received that I don't think he would have a problem sharing.

 

That is the purpose of having this at the top of every marketplace board, and after each first post:

 

------------------------

Forum only selling notice

 

 

GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE NOTICE ON POSTING GUIDELINES

 

Note that the members of this board are encouraged to POLITELY point out posts that violate the marketplace posting guidelines, and to notify the moderators.

 

Thread starters: If you disagree that the guidelines have been violated and have reasons, then take it to the discussion thread and hash it out there. But please take the time to read the guidelines.

 

A probation list for bad transactions is maintained by the community. You are still responsible for your own transactions.

----------------------

 

This helps to avoid conflict between members over that kind of thing.

 

So he felt because of this statement, there should be no special message posted in any thread to warn fellow forumites about a HOS-PL member.

 

So "buyer beware"

 

Unfortunately for now, yes.

[DiceX]

When I engaged recently with Arch and CCGMod0 on this topic, here's the feedback I received that I don't think he would have a problem sharing.

 

That is the purpose of having this at the top of every marketplace board, and after each first post:

 

------------------------

Forum only selling notice

 

 

GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE NOTICE ON POSTING GUIDELINES

 

Note that the members of this board are encouraged to POLITELY point out posts that violate the marketplace posting guidelines, and to notify the moderators.

 

Thread starters: If you disagree that the guidelines have been violated and have reasons, then take it to the discussion thread and hash it out there. But please take the time to read the guidelines.

 

A probation list for bad transactions is maintained by the community. You are still responsible for your own transactions.

----------------------

 

This helps to avoid conflict between members over that kind of thing.

 

So he felt because of this statement, there should be no special message posted in any thread to warn fellow forumites about a HOS-PL member.

 

So "buyer beware"

 

Unfortunately for now, yes.

 

FYI, I was given a verbal warning from a mod for a friendly reminder in a HoS member's sales thread and was told that I would be given a strike if I ever did it again.

 

 

[EC ed]

This idea has already been attempted and was shot down.

Start what you're attempting to start and just see how effective the list is at getting differences resolved.

If you're going to keep people in the mud, there will be little effort from someone to get their name off of it, rendering it completely useless.

Just to be clear...this isn't something I'm trying to start. Back on page 2145 or so of this thread, a serious conversation was brewing (started by other people) about starting a third list of past offenders, etc., or even somehow branding such people with scarlet letters (I agree with you that this idea seems to resurface from time to time). I simply pointed out that a less abrasive step would be to simply summarize the historical PL removal activity. Some people seemed to think that would be a useful step (one that might also satisfy the "scarlet letter" contingent). I just went ahead and carried out that summary from the documented activity in the PL thread...it's just a regurgitation of information that's already out there. I don't see how summarizing this information keeps someone in the mud. Anyway, it's just something to try to advance that conversation by showing what things would start to look like...actually, one of the findings is that repeat offenses actually don't happen all that often, so what some perceive to be a problem might not really be a problem at all. In any event, if we don't want to even maintain this summary of PL activity, it's hard to argue that we would want to take a harsher step like a third list or something along those lines...

[Iceman399]

I guess ppls just don't learn how to try and dig themselves out of a hole

[crassus]

This idea has already been attempted and was shot down.

Start what you're attempting to start and just see how effective the list is at getting differences resolved.

If you're going to keep people in the mud, there will be little effort from someone to get their name off of it, rendering it completely useless.

Just to be clear...this isn't something I'm trying to start. Back on page 2145 or so of this thread, a serious conversation was brewing (started by other people) about starting a third list of past offenders, etc., or even somehow branding such people with scarlet letters (I agree with you that this idea seems to resurface from time to time). I simply pointed out that a less abrasive step would be to simply summarize the historical PL removal activity. Some people seemed to think that would be a useful step (one that might also satisfy the "scarlet letter" contingent). I just went ahead and carried out that summary from the documented activity in the PL thread...it's just a regurgitation of information that's already out there. I don't see how summarizing this information keeps someone in the mud. Anyway, it's just something to try to advance that conversation by showing what things would start to look like...actually, one of the findings is that repeat offenses actually don't happen all that often, so what some perceive to be a problem might not really be a problem at all. In any event, if we don't want to even maintain this summary of PL activity, it's hard to argue that we would want to take a harsher step like a third list or something along those lines...

 

I think your analysis is good Ed. I think the other issue has less to do with your analysis than with the fact that sometimes history is best forgotten. That is the strange place this is at, to me anyway, without the sense of history there is no clarity on the problems, but for the system to work the history itself may be better forgotten.

[DiceX]

This idea has already been attempted and was shot down.

Start what you're attempting to start and just see how effective the list is at getting differences resolved.

If you're going to keep people in the mud, there will be little effort from someone to get their name off of it, rendering it completely useless.

Just to be clear...this isn't something I'm trying to start. Back on page 2145 or so of this thread, a serious conversation was brewing (started by other people) about starting a third list of past offenders, etc., or even somehow branding such people with scarlet letters (I agree with you that this idea seems to resurface from time to time). I simply pointed out that a less abrasive step would be to simply summarize the historical PL removal activity. Some people seemed to think that would be a useful step (one that might also satisfy the "scarlet letter" contingent). I just went ahead and carried out that summary from the documented activity in the PL thread...it's just a regurgitation of information that's already out there. I don't see how summarizing this information keeps someone in the mud. Anyway, it's just something to try to advance that conversation by showing what things would start to look like...actually, one of the findings is that repeat offenses actually don't happen all that often, so what some perceive to be a problem might not really be a problem at all. In any event, if we don't want to even maintain this summary of PL activity, it's hard to argue that we would want to take a harsher step like a third list or something along those lines...

 

Exactly right, the information is there. There's no need to dig it up.

People who have pulled themselves out of trouble should have the ability to keep their noses clean.

You said yourself that there are few repeat offenders. Why do you and your torch-carrying villagers feel the need to keep your boot on their necks?

 

You're not allowing for circumstances or context. You're making a list of names and lumping them all together.

 

 

[crassus]

This idea has already been attempted and was shot down.

Start what you're attempting to start and just see how effective the list is at getting differences resolved.

If you're going to keep people in the mud, there will be little effort from someone to get their name off of it, rendering it completely useless.

Just to be clear...this isn't something I'm trying to start. Back on page 2145 or so of this thread, a serious conversation was brewing (started by other people) about starting a third list of past offenders, etc., or even somehow branding such people with scarlet letters (I agree with you that this idea seems to resurface from time to time). I simply pointed out that a less abrasive step would be to simply summarize the historical PL removal activity. Some people seemed to think that would be a useful step (one that might also satisfy the "scarlet letter" contingent). I just went ahead and carried out that summary from the documented activity in the PL thread...it's just a regurgitation of information that's already out there. I don't see how summarizing this information keeps someone in the mud. Anyway, it's just something to try to advance that conversation by showing what things would start to look like...actually, one of the findings is that repeat offenses actually don't happen all that often, so what some perceive to be a problem might not really be a problem at all. In any event, if we don't want to even maintain this summary of PL activity, it's hard to argue that we would want to take a harsher step like a third list or something along those lines...

 

Exactly right, the information is there. There's no need to dig it up.

People who have pulled themselves out of trouble should have the ability to keep their noses clean.

You said yourself that there are few repeat offenders. Why do you and your torch-carrying villagers feel the need to keep your boot on their necks?

 

You're not allowing for circumstances or context. You're making a list of names and lumping them all together.

 

 

Dice, you're right that a list without context isn't worth much, in fairness to Ed a guy who goes through 100 pages or so to document it isn't exactly the torch and pitchfork crowd.

[DiceX]

This idea has already been attempted and was shot down.

Start what you're attempting to start and just see how effective the list is at getting differences resolved.

If you're going to keep people in the mud, there will be little effort from someone to get their name off of it, rendering it completely useless.

Just to be clear...this isn't something I'm trying to start. Back on page 2145 or so of this thread, a serious conversation was brewing (started by other people) about starting a third list of past offenders, etc., or even somehow branding such people with scarlet letters (I agree with you that this idea seems to resurface from time to time). I simply pointed out that a less abrasive step would be to simply summarize the historical PL removal activity. Some people seemed to think that would be a useful step (one that might also satisfy the "scarlet letter" contingent). I just went ahead and carried out that summary from the documented activity in the PL thread...it's just a regurgitation of information that's already out there. I don't see how summarizing this information keeps someone in the mud. Anyway, it's just something to try to advance that conversation by showing what things would start to look like...actually, one of the findings is that repeat offenses actually don't happen all that often, so what some perceive to be a problem might not really be a problem at all. In any event, if we don't want to even maintain this summary of PL activity, it's hard to argue that we would want to take a harsher step like a third list or something along those lines...

 

Exactly right, the information is there. There's no need to dig it up.

People who have pulled themselves out of trouble should have the ability to keep their noses clean.

You said yourself that there are few repeat offenders. Why do you and your torch-carrying villagers feel the need to keep your boot on their necks?

 

You're not allowing for circumstances or context. You're making a list of names and lumping them all together.

 

 

Dice, you're right that a list without context isn't worth much, in fairness to Ed a guy who goes through 100 pages or so to document it isn't exactly the torch and pitchfork crowd.

 

It's become so cutthroat in the probie list that there aren't enough people on the list to satisfy the lust for blood. Let's dig up everyone who's ever been on it.

Oh yes! Blood! YES YES YES!

 

 

[jsilverjanet]

For Menace, should have been 1/9/14 removal (not 1/9/13)...typo..fixing it now...

 

Also he was never on PL list was he, I thought he was HOS?

[Logan510]

Now, what we do with this summary is the next question...just file it away for personal use, or put it in a publicly accessible thread somewhere and maintain it going forward...

 

This idea has already been attempted and was shot down.

Start what you're attempting to start and just see how effective the list is at getting differences resolved.

If you're going to keep people in the mud, there will be little effort from someone to get their name off of it, rendering it completely useless.

 

 

So some of those people getting off after being on it for over 200 days is useful?

[EC ed]

For Menace, should have been 1/9/14 removal (not 1/9/13)...typo..fixing it now...

 

Also he was never on PL list was he, I thought he was HOS?

 

Indeed he was on the PL....added to the PL on 12/6/13; moved from the PL to the HOS on 12/21/13; removed from the HOS (and not put back on the PL) on 1/9/14.

[EC ed]

You said yourself that there are few repeat offenders.

I didn't know this until I did that historical activity summary...did you? Someone had to do it if we wanted to see the situation. Otherwise, we'd just continue on this issue without information that was relevant to the discussion. So....there it is.

 

Why do you and your torch-carrying villagers feel the need to keep your boot on their necks?

I think it's pretty clear that I'm not carrying a torch on this one.

[Bosco685]

I think it's pretty clear that I'm not carrying a torch on this one.

I think the biggest challenge with this consolidated historic list (which has been talked about for a few years) would be the hard feelings it can cause, which you are experiencing right now.

 

When reviewing that list, there are long-time forum members that show up once years ago. So when they see their one-time incident being brought up after all these years, naturally they are not going to appreciate this.

 

If any list is posted (including the one you created), better to drop the one-timers just to be fair. Otherwise, how do we ever let people move on when they never had another issue ever again?

[EC ed]

I think the biggest challenge with this consolidated historic list (which has been talked about for a few years) would be the hard feelings it can cause, which you are experiencing right now.

 

When reviewing that list, there are long-time members that show up once years ago. So when they see their one-time incident being brought up after all these years, naturally they are not going to appreciate this.

 

If any list is posted (including the one you created), better to drop the one-timers just to be fair. Otherwise, how do we ever let people move on when they never had another issue ever again?

Again, I'm not advocating anything at this point...I'll leave that discussion to those of you who have been discussing this for years already. As I said, hopefully seeing the PL activity summary will be helpful when that discussion recurs.

 

edit: also, notice that I intentionally didn't label this analysis as a "list" - I certainly didn't suggest that any connotation be attached to it, such as "Tool Shed", "Problem Children", "Scarlet Letter Recipients", or anything like that...it's just a neutral summary of what has factually happened on the PL since inception. In fact, if you read back you'll see that I brought this up as as an alternative to such lists that were being suggested.

 

I will say, however, that it seems like the principle at issue here is one of information transparency. Should this information be transparent or opaque? I think it's an overstatement to say that making the historical PL activity transparent will prevent people from moving on. For example, seeing a long-time member on there years ago would not have any effect on my willingness to deal with them (as an aside, one of my large early purchases on these boards was from one such boardie that is involved in this discussion). There are comparisons/analogies that can be drawn between this and criminal records out in real society, but I'll leave those for the lawyers...

Edited January 15, 2014 by edowens71

[Speedy-D]

No more lists. If someone keeps showing up on the PL (not a huge concern), nominate them for the HoS or leave it be.

[DiceX]

I think it's pretty clear that I'm not carrying a torch on this one.

 

That stick you're holding. The one with fire on one end. That's a torch.

 

 

[DiceX]

I think the biggest challenge with this consolidated historic list (which has been talked about for a few years) would be the hard feelings it can cause, which you are experiencing right now.

 

When reviewing that list, there are long-time members that show up once years ago. So when they see their one-time incident being brought up after all these years, naturally they are not going to appreciate this.

 

If any list is posted (including the one you created), better to drop the one-timers just to be fair. Otherwise, how do we ever let people move on when they never had another issue ever again?

Again, I'm not advocating anything at this point...I'll leave that discussion to those of you who have been discussing this for years already. As I said, hopefully seeing the PL activity summary will be helpful when that discussion recurs.

 

edit: also, notice that I intentionally didn't label this analysis as a "list" - I certainly didn't suggest that any connotation be attached to it, such as "Tool Shed", "Problem Children", "Scarlet Letter Recipients", or anything like that...it's just a neutral summary of what has factually happened on the PL since inception. In fact, if you read back you'll see that I brought this up as as an alternative to such lists that were being suggested.

 

I will say, however, that it seems like the principle at issue here is one of information transparency. Should this information be transparent or opaque? I think it's an overstatement to say that making the historical PL activity transparent will prevent people from moving on. For example, seeing a long-time member on there years ago would not have any effect on my willingness to deal with them (as an aside, one of my large early purchases on these boards was from one such boardie that is involved in this discussion). There are comparisons/analogies that can be drawn between this and criminal records out in real society, but I'll leave those for the lawyers...

 

Really, man. Drop it.

 

 

[Jeffro.]

When I engaged recently with Arch and CCGMod0 on this topic, here's the feedback I received that I don't think he would have a problem sharing.

 

That is the purpose of having this at the top of every marketplace board, and after each first post:

 

------------------------

Forum only selling notice

 

 

GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE NOTICE ON POSTING GUIDELINES

 

Note that the members of this board are encouraged to POLITELY point out posts that violate the marketplace posting guidelines, and to notify the moderators.

 

Thread starters: If you disagree that the guidelines have been violated and have reasons, then take it to the discussion thread and hash it out there. But please take the time to read the guidelines.

 

A probation list for bad transactions is maintained by the community. You are still responsible for your own transactions.

----------------------

 

This helps to avoid conflict between members over that kind of thing.

 

So he felt because of this statement, there should be no special message posted in any thread to warn fellow forumites about a HOS-PL member.

 

So "buyer beware"

 

Unfortunately for now, yes.

 

FYI, I was given a verbal warning from a mod for a friendly reminder in a HoS member's sales thread and was told that I would be given a strike if I ever did it again.

 

 

So pointing out a HoS member in their sales thread is strike worthy? I'm sorry but that's up.