PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[PovertyRow]

There is way too much debate here. If the buyer is overcharged on shipping, whether or not it was sent first class or priority, he should get a refund. Plain and simple.

 

What was the shipping quote and what was the shipping cost? If there is more than a few dollars discrepancy the seller should refund the difference.

 

 

Bottom line is if a seller lists a charge for shipping that may be high but with no qualifiers such as insurance etc, then it is up to the buyer to determine that value.

 

But if the seller lists an item with a charge for shipping that may be high that INCLUDES certain criteria such as Priority and/or insurance and does not fulfill that, at the very least a refund for some of the shipping cost should be made. Otherwise I do see that as a PL offense.

[CAHokie]

 

 

oceanavekid Removed from The Probation List

 

Exactly why was Oceanavekid removed?

 

I am still trying to understand the why on that question. It was a bunch of legalese mumbo jumbo.

[CAHokie]

Folks can we step away for a second and have a larger conversation. I could care less whether Ocean is added or not added to the PL. What I DO care about are rules and order. So I just took my lunch break (had a blue cheese burger and fries, it was delicious if anyone cares) and read through that entire week's postings in Probation(05/02/2014) (ugh my brain hates me right now) Jawn posted a nomination on 5/2. There was dozens of discussions mostly with baba and Branget over whether or not it should be added, HOWEVER a nomination WAS made. Per the rules, there is no need to discuss the validity of the nomination UNLESS (per rule Rule 3B) the nominee responds. At that time whether the aspects of the transaction are lacking can be discussed. In other words, Branget and Baba's discussion was Dicta. At no time during the 72 hour waiting period did Ocean make ANY statement. As per Rule 3(a) he was added to the PL. As to his removal, under rule 3© ocean is free to later make a statement if he was unavailable. As such his statement was/is that the thread was closed and he was moving the books to eBay. Ok, fine. Taking his statement at face value, he should now be removed from the PL and I am going to do just that, however his original addition was (and is) still valid under board rules. as I read them.

 

You may now feel free to flame away on me.

 

 

 

 

Yes Based off a strict reading of the rules it moves as follows. Rule 3(a) says that after the 72 hour period, if the accused has not responded they are added to the PL. if the accused has not reponded within 72 hours, they are free to take advantage of rule 3© which says they can come later and present their side. If (when) they present their side that triggers rule 3(b) which states "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." The key word there is added. That means until it is determined the conditions have not been met, the accused should be removed from the PL.

[PovertyRow]

 

Yes Based off a strict reading of the rules it moves as follows. Rule 3(a) says that after the 72 hour period, if the accused has not responded they are added to the PL. if the accused has not reponded within 72 hours, they are free to take advantage of rule 3© which says they can come later and present their side. If (when) they present their side that triggers rule 3(b) which states "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." The key word there is added. That means until it is determined the conditions have not been met, the accused should be removed from the PL.

 

I would like to address these one at a time in separate posts.

 

The rules were expressly set in a particular order. That order is as follows:

 

1) someone makes a valid PL nomination

2) if no response after 72 hours they go on the PL

3) if return after 72 or more hours they can state their case

 

After stating their case they can be removed if it turns out the nomination is invalid or a mutual resolution is reached. That is how it has been since the rules were created.

 

There is no "c triggers b".

 

 

[PovertyRow]

Folks can we step away for a second and have a larger conversation. I could care less whether Ocean is added or not added to the PL. What I DO care about are rules and order. So I just took my lunch break (had a blue cheese burger and fries, it was delicious if anyone cares) and read through that entire week's postings in Probation(05/02/2014) (ugh my brain hates me right now) Jawn posted a nomination on 5/2. There was dozens of discussions mostly with baba and Branget over whether or not it should be added, HOWEVER a nomination WAS made. Per the rules, there is no need to discuss the validity of the nomination UNLESS (per rule Rule 3B) the nominee responds. At that time whether the aspects of the transaction are lacking can be discussed. In other words, Branget and Baba's discussion was Dicta. At no time during the 72 hour waiting period did Ocean make ANY statement. As per Rule 3(a) he was added to the PL. As to his removal, under rule 3© ocean is free to later make a statement if he was unavailable. As such his statement was/is that the thread was closed and he was moving the books to eBay. Ok, fine. Taking his statement at face value, he should now be removed from the PL and I am going to do just that, however his original addition was (and is) still valid under board rules. as I read them.

You may now feel free to flame away on me.

 

I would like to address the 2 parts I put in bold.

 

First the validity of a nomination requires full adherence to the rules. Saying " there is no need to discuss the validity of the nomination UNLESS (per rule Rule 3B) the nominee responds" is patently wrong. There have been MANY nominations that did not go through because they were not valid based on the rules. One does not just make a PL nomination and it is automatically valid. I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

 

Second, simply because someone replies to the PL nomination does not get them removed from the list. Saying " his statement was/is that the thread was closed and he was moving the books to eBay. Ok, fine. Taking his statement at face value, he should now be removed from the PL" makes no sense, especially combined with the acknowledgement that "his original addition was (and is) still valid under board rules". It is up to the person making the PL nomination to request removal as stated in rule 4:

 

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.

 

I have re-added oceanavekid to the PL List and put it to Jawn: Do you want oceanavekid on or off the list?

[mikenyc]

Folks can we step away for a second and have a larger conversation. I could care less whether Ocean is added or not added to the PL. What I DO care about are rules and order. So I just took my lunch break (had a blue cheese burger and fries, it was delicious if anyone cares) and read through that entire week's postings in Probation(05/02/2014) (ugh my brain hates me right now) Jawn posted a nomination on 5/2. There was dozens of discussions mostly with baba and Branget over whether or not it should be added, HOWEVER a nomination WAS made. Per the rules, there is no need to discuss the validity of the nomination UNLESS (per rule Rule 3B) the nominee responds. At that time whether the aspects of the transaction are lacking can be discussed. In other words, Branget and Baba's discussion was Dicta. At no time during the 72 hour waiting period did Ocean make ANY statement. As per Rule 3(a) he was added to the PL. As to his removal, under rule 3© ocean is free to later make a statement if he was unavailable. As such his statement was/is that the thread was closed and he was moving the books to eBay. Ok, fine. Taking his statement at face value, he should now be removed from the PL and I am going to do just that, however his original addition was (and is) still valid under board rules. as I read them.

You may now feel free to flame away on me.

 

I would like to address the 2 parts I put in bold.

 

First the validity of a nomination requires full adherence to the rules. Saying " there is no need to discuss the validity of the nomination UNLESS (per rule Rule 3B) the nominee responds" is patently wrong. There have been MANY nominations that did not go through because they were not valid based on the rules. One does not just make a PL nomination and it is automatically valid. I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

 

Second, simply because someone replies to the PL nomination does not get them removed from the list. Saying " his statement was/is that the thread was closed and he was moving the books to eBay. Ok, fine. Taking his statement at face value, he should now be removed from the PL" makes no sense, especially combined with the acknowledgement that "his original addition was (and is) still valid under board rules". It is up to the person making the PL nomination to request removal as stated in rule 4:

 

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.

 

I have re-added oceanavekid to the PL List and put it to Jawn: Do you want oceanavekid on or off the list?

 

Has it been determined that ocean violated any rules? It seems that there was no agreement that he did.

 

I certainly don't think he did and there needs to be some standards brought back to prevent members who feel slighted from creating a list that is unmanageable and lacks any relevancy.

[mikenyc]

There should also be a minimum number of participants required to make a nomination poll valid.

[N/A]

He did violate a rule and there was a discussion that had him added. Jaybuck should not have removed him.

 

Thanks POV! Visit more often please.

[mikenyc]

He did violate a rule and there was a discussion that had him added. Jaybuck should not have removed him.

 

Thanks POV! Visit more often please.

 

What rule was that?

[bababooey]

You do realize that there was a poll on Friday where an overwhelming majority 82% (currently 31 of 38) feel oceanavenuekid does NOT deserve to be on the list - that's four out of five & you can pretty much name those who voted for him to stay on.

 

You can vote, like everyone else HERE. (I know POV hates that one so I'll add )

 

I'm not saying that taking him off was within any defined rules but I don't feel his addition was done fairly in the first place - the poll was to correct a mistake. Restricting removal to 4 a/4 b in cases where the nomination was invalid, rushed or done because some people feel the transition from nominated party to PL is inevitable - IF you don't *throw money* at your accuser to save your rep.

 

If the method to your madness is to empower jawn & give him the opportunity to rescind an unpopular nomination that he didn't care about.....then good luck, it would be the first virtuous act by either party, both of whom are noticeably absent from this debate.

Edited June 15, 2014 by bababooey

[N/A]

Give Jawn an opportunity. When he went to recommend removal he was already off.

 

Silent majority doesn't mean much. That has been discussed at length.

[N/A]

He did violate a rule and there was a discussion that had him added. Jaybuck should not have removed him.

 

Thanks POV! Visit more often please.

 

What rule was that?

 

We obligate both buyers and sellers to follow through. (thumbs u

[mikenyc]

So just to be clear, this is how that went down after a few days of discussion where the 10 or so people who commented were split on whether or not there was a violation

 

 

 

Recently Oceanavekid decided to leave the boards for awhile when we started a probation discussion. That raises a red flag for me.

 

A runs away instead of trying to make amends.

The 72 Hour period is up, right? Oceanavekid needs to be added to the PL right?

 

Jay...

 

 

 

 

Recently Oceanavekid decided to leave the boards for awhile when we started a probation discussion. That raises a red flag for me.

 

A runs away instead of trying to make amends.

The 72 Hour period is up, right? Oceanavekid needs to be added to the PL right?

 

Jay...

 

It has been 72hrs, this is the nomination:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7658964#Post7658964

 

 

Added. Thanks for the link. (thumbs u

[mikenyc]

There shouldn't have to be this much work put into removing someone who never should have been added in the first place.

 

This is called putting the cart before the horse. Let's be more selective before the fact and not allow anyone to rush and add someone to the list, without a vote or without it being filtered through POV or someone who has been proven to be rational.

[N/A]

You have an opinion. Others had another opinion.

[mikenyc]

You have an opinion. Others had another opinion.

 

36 other members share my opinion compared to the 7 who don't.

 

This world functions by majority rule.

[A.Romeo]

maybe there are too many hands in the probation list cookie jar? If I'm wrong let me know. But maybe there should only be two people who can add/delete people from the prob/HOF list? Seems as though everyone isn't on the same page with the rules

[HarveySwick]

[troydivision1]

I believe it is important that when a probation list incident (re: jawn v oceanavekid) occurs which causes such active debate amongst the community there also has to include a discussion of the areas of opportunity so the source incident does not continue to reoccur.

 

There was recently a poll about (which I cannot find) asking about Closing / Expiry dates.

What was the consensus?

Does another, more refined vote need to take place for clarification?

[bababooey]

Here's that poll....

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=163911&Number=7769027#Post7769027

 

 

Edit - I'm not sure if the choices give us the answers we want - of the people who voted "forever, close your damn threads" - I'd guess most are just saying close your threads.

 

With 68% voting 7 days or less, it's may be reasonable to conclude - 7 days is the standard if not otherwise stated - since it's only clear that two people felt it should be longer.

 

That would be my take on those votes but it might make sense to do a CG vote put up by someone who isn't arguing in the oceanave PL mess.

 

Edited June 15, 2014 by bababooey