PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[jsilverjanet]

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

to be fair, Jaybuck and HarveySwick have done a great job keeping up the list, following up when nominations are up or removed and updating the list overall with links. While I may not agree with this nomination, their work has been great.

 

The issue here is not who's updating the list, it's the nomination. Like Baba pointed out, neither the buyer/seller has really bothered to come in here to discuss in a rational way.

 

If Ocean is on, then maybe Jawn should be added as well.

[CAHokie]

Bragnet and I had a pm with them to try and resolve the issue prior to Ocean suddenly being taken off the list. We had gotten to the point where they both expressed their views but while they will never see eye to eye, agreed to disagree and move forward. I think the only reason they did not come back to the thread at that point is because Ocean had already been taken off the list. I wish that instead of just taking Ocean off, we would have given Jawn those couple of hours to come here and request he being taken off himself so there would be no more debate about on or off. Arbitrarily putting people on and off can give the impression that the list is weak. I agree that Jaybuck and Swickey have been doing a good job.

 

I will ask Jawn to come here and formally ask to take him off the list, if that is what he wants to do.

[bababooey]

I think Swick & Jaybuck both mean well but their eagerness to either "start the poll" or "update the list" has created some questionable results here.

 

...the goodwill they earned from doing those hyperlink thingies in the PL/HOS thread is almost used up...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jawn]

Ocean and I will continue to have a difference of opinion on this but have agreed to move on. Ocean can be removed from the list at this time. My thanks to CAHokie, and HarveySwick, and anyone else who aided in the process which was new to me. They are both assets to the boards and the type of people it seems that I would talk to at a convention or my LCS.

Edited June 15, 2014 by jawn

[Chaseman210]

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.

 

That's what happened here. Buyer asked for priority/insurance, was charged for that method, and received the package with no insurance and not priority. He let it slide because of the "I've got bills, etc." exchange with the seller. Buyer bought more books to help out, same request for the shipping. Again, the method was different than paid for/requested.

[PovertyRow]

Ocean and I will continue to have a difference of opinion on this but have agreed to move on. Ocean can be removed from the list at this time. My thanks to CAHokie, and HarveySwick, and anyone else who aided in the process which was new to me. They are both assets to the boards and the type of people it seems that I would talk to at a convention or my LCS.

 

I have removed oceanavekid from the list. Thanks for making the decision, jawn!

[joe_collector]

 

 

oceanavekid Removed from The Probation List

 

Exactly why was Oceanavekid removed?

 

Because enough people commented that the nomination was a bit of a crock, and that the precedent of a antagonistic buyer playing games, and forcing you on the PL, was a bad one.

 

P.S. I hate to agree with the naysayers, but the fact that you arbitrarily re-added him, against the forum wishes, really makes the PL an official joke.

[A.Romeo]

 

 

oceanavekid Removed from The Probation List

 

Exactly why was Oceanavekid removed?

 

Because enough people commented that the nomination was a bit of a crock, and that the precedent of a antagonistic buyer playing games, and forcing you on the PL, was a bad one.

 

P.S. I hate to agree with the naysayers, but the fact that you arbitrarily re-added him, against the forum wishes, really makes the PL an official joke.

 

again..too many people have access to add/remove people from the PL. Needs to be better organization

[N/A]

 

 

oceanavekid Removed from The Probation List

 

Exactly why was Oceanavekid removed?

 

Because enough people commented that the nomination was a bit of a crock, and that the precedent of a antagonistic buyer playing games, and forcing you on the PL, was a bad one.

 

P.S. I hate to agree with the naysayers, but the fact that you arbitrarily re-added him, against the forum wishes, really makes the PL an official joke.

 

again..too many people have access to add/remove people from the PL. Needs to be better organization

 

Beating

Dead

Horse

[thirdgreenham]

 

 

oceanavekid Removed from The Probation List

 

Exactly why was Oceanavekid removed?

 

Because enough people commented that the nomination was a bit of a crock, and that the precedent of a antagonistic buyer playing games, and forcing you on the PL, was a bad one.

 

P.S. I hate to agree with the naysayers, but the fact that you arbitrarily re-added him, against the forum wishes, really makes the PL an official joke.

 

again..too many people have access to add/remove people from the PL. Needs to be better organization

 

Beating

Dead

Horse

[N/A]

 

You going to Heroes?

[PovertyRow]

 

P.S. I hate to agree with the naysayers, but the fact that you arbitrarily re-added him, against the forum wishes, really makes the PL an official joke.

 

JC, you are an official censored joke. There was nothing arbitrary about it. When I saw the explanations they were based on misinterpretations of the PL/HOS Rules, I responded to that (didn't see you in that mix). As others have said, you pick and choose very selectively.

Please let me add you edit the facts like a Reader's Digest editor just hired by Penthouse.

 

Now the rules as they exist state:

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.

 

Now if you wish to propose changing the rules I am all for it. Seeing the various misinterpretations of what had been clear when we formulated them in 2011, it is apparent that a lot of new folk are here who were not involved in the several weeks it took to formulate the rules. And as such are at a disadvantage in their interpretations.

 

Since you feel the PL is a joke, would you volunteer to head up the rule change process?

[mikenyc]

There should be changes to the rules. In no particular order.

 

1. If a person is nominated to be placed on the PL a formal vote must be taken with a poll lasting for a predetermined period with the majority number of votes deciding the outcome.

 

2. If a person is nominated and doesn't respond, they should not automatically be added to the list after 72 hours if the majority of voters in a poll don't agree that it is PL worthy.

 

3. If there isn't any evidence presented, i.e. PMs, Emails, Texts etc, and only one side of the story is posted due to the lack of a response by the accused, then there should be a conditional addition to the list.

 

4. If a person was added to the PL without majority votes in a poll, a person should be able to be removed by a majority vote agreement in a poll.

 

Allowing anyone to nominate someone else for any reason and not have a vote where the less vocal members can express their opinion as well, the list is too arbitrary to be taken seriously.

 

There will clearly be cases of gross misconduct where it seems obvious that a person should be added, a vote to support the assumption should still be mandatory. In cases where there is not a clear right or wrong answer a vote is even more important.

 

There should also be a minimum number of overall participants in the poll in order for it to be valid.

 

 

[Park]

There should be changes to the rules. In no particular order.

 

1. If a person is nominated to be placed on the PL a formal vote must be taken with a poll lasting for a predetermined period with the majority number of votes deciding the outcome.

 

2. If a person is nominated and doesn't respond, they should not automatically be added to the list after 72 hours if the majority of voters in a poll don't agree that it is PL worthy.

 

3. If there isn't any evidence presented, i.e. PMs, Emails, Texts etc, and only one side of the story is posted due to the lack of a response by the accused, then there should be a conditional addition to the list.

 

4. If a person was added to the PL without majority votes in a poll, a person should be able to be removed by a majority vote agreement in a poll.

 

Allowing anyone to nominate someone else for any reason and not have a vote where the less vocal members can express their opinion as well, the list is too arbitrary to be taken seriously.

 

There will clearly be cases of gross misconduct where it seems obvious that a person should be added, a vote to support the assumption should still be mandatory. In cases where there is not a clear right or wrong answer a vote is even more important.

 

There should also be a minimum number of overall participants in the poll in order for it to be valid.

 

 

Votes and polls typically end up being popularity issues. Silent or not.

[mikenyc]

There should be changes to the rules. In no particular order.

 

1. If a person is nominated to be placed on the PL a formal vote must be taken with a poll lasting for a predetermined period with the majority number of votes deciding the outcome.

 

2. If a person is nominated and doesn't respond, they should not automatically be added to the list after 72 hours if the majority of voters in a poll don't agree that it is PL worthy.

 

3. If there isn't any evidence presented, i.e. PMs, Emails, Texts etc, and only one side of the story is posted due to the lack of a response by the accused, then there should be a conditional addition to the list.

 

4. If a person was added to the PL without majority votes in a poll, a person should be able to be removed by a majority vote agreement in a poll.

 

Allowing anyone to nominate someone else for any reason and not have a vote where the less vocal members can express their opinion as well, the list is too arbitrary to be taken seriously.

 

There will clearly be cases of gross misconduct where it seems obvious that a person should be added, a vote to support the assumption should still be mandatory. In cases where there is not a clear right or wrong answer a vote is even more important.

 

There should also be a minimum number of overall participants in the poll in order for it to be valid.

 

 

Votes and polls typically end up being popularity issues. Silent or not.

 

I don't completely disagree but I feel that it would be called out in the PL environment.

 

Using the jawn/oceankid scenario, there was a debate surrounding whether or not there was a PL worthy offense. Some felt it was and some felt it wasn't. After a couple of days the member was added as if there was a definitive outcome to the debate. When the situation was revisited a month later there were still members arguing for and against the nomination. A poll was taken with an overwhelming majority of votes to remove him from the PL.

 

I don't think in situations where someone can have their reputation ruined that members would be so flippant as to simply vote for their friend or favorite.

 

Maybe I'm naive and expect to much from an Internet forum.

[Aces]

There should be changes to the rules. In no particular order.

 

1. If a person is nominated to be placed on the PL a formal vote must be taken with a poll lasting for a predetermined period with the majority number of votes deciding the outcome.

 

2. If a person is nominated and doesn't respond, they should not automatically be added to the list after 72 hours if the majority of voters in a poll don't agree that it is PL worthy.

 

3. If there isn't any evidence presented, i.e. PMs, Emails, Texts etc, and only one side of the story is posted due to the lack of a response by the accused, then there should be a conditional addition to the list.

 

4. If a person was added to the PL without majority votes in a poll, a person should be able to be removed by a majority vote agreement in a poll.

 

Allowing anyone to nominate someone else for any reason and not have a vote where the less vocal members can express their opinion as well, the list is too arbitrary to be taken seriously.

 

There will clearly be cases of gross misconduct where it seems obvious that a person should be added, a vote to support the assumption should still be mandatory. In cases where there is not a clear right or wrong answer a vote is even more important.

 

There should also be a minimum number of overall participants in the poll in order for it to be valid.

 

 

I do like the spirit of number 4.

If someone is on the PL and is trying to get off of it but the person who nominated them is no longer active on the boards they should be able to be voted off.

 

[N/A]

Polls are useless. It's just a popularity contest with a chance of multiple shill accounts.

[Park]

There should be changes to the rules. In no particular order.

 

1. If a person is nominated to be placed on the PL a formal vote must be taken with a poll lasting for a predetermined period with the majority number of votes deciding the outcome.

 

2. If a person is nominated and doesn't respond, they should not automatically be added to the list after 72 hours if the majority of voters in a poll don't agree that it is PL worthy.

 

3. If there isn't any evidence presented, i.e. PMs, Emails, Texts etc, and only one side of the story is posted due to the lack of a response by the accused, then there should be a conditional addition to the list.

 

4. If a person was added to the PL without majority votes in a poll, a person should be able to be removed by a majority vote agreement in a poll.

 

Allowing anyone to nominate someone else for any reason and not have a vote where the less vocal members can express their opinion as well, the list is too arbitrary to be taken seriously.

 

There will clearly be cases of gross misconduct where it seems obvious that a person should be added, a vote to support the assumption should still be mandatory. In cases where there is not a clear right or wrong answer a vote is even more important.

 

There should also be a minimum number of overall participants in the poll in order for it to be valid.

 

 

Votes and polls typically end up being popularity issues. Silent or not.

 

I don't completely disagree but I feel that it would be called out in the PL environment.

 

Using the jawn/oceankid scenario, there was a debate surrounding whether or not there was a PL worthy offense. Some felt it was and some felt it wasn't. After a couple of days the member was added as if there was a definitive outcome to the debate. When the situation was revisited a month later there were still members arguing for and against the nomination. A poll was taken with an overwhelming majority of votes to remove him from the PL.

 

I don't think in situations where someone can have their reputation ruined that members would be so flippant as to simply vote for their friend or favorite.

 

Maybe I'm naive and expect to much from an Internet forum.

 

Yes to the naïveté.

 

The situation with jawn/ocean actually worked out in the end as it probably should have. And I hope, as I know I did, that many here got a window into dealing win both buyer and seller. That is more valuable than the PL itself. I pay attention to some grievances and offer an opinion. Others I don't say much or really delve into.

 

There are going to be ambiguous situations where a poll may be the answer but requiring it in every situation will lead to a more drawn out process than it already is.

 

The overabundance of rules and the black and white application of the rules may be missing the point of the probation list in the first place. Trying to make a rule for every situation is mental masturbation to the nth degree.

 

Less may be more and I think a poll for every decision will make the PL process useless for many reasons.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Park

[PovertyRow]

Hi Mike! It is good to see some actual formal suggestions. I have made my own observations in blue beneath each point. These are simply my perceptions.

 

There should be changes to the rules. In no particular order.

 

1. If a person is nominated to be placed on the PL a formal vote must be taken with a poll lasting for a predetermined period with the majority number of votes deciding the outcome.

 

Someone posts then never pays. Someone pays and never receives the book. Someone pays for a book and a different one is sent, or a Time Magazine is sent. Someone bids on a NM and a VG is received. I don't see these kinds of things requiring a vote. The majority of PL nominations are clearcut.

 

2. If a person is nominated and doesn't respond, they should not automatically be added to the list after 72 hours if the majority of voters in a poll don't agree that it is PL worthy.

 

I think this is a bit dangerous because it DOES play into popularity or a lack of popularity. The popular ones may well get a pass, and the unpopular ones may well get an undeserved nomination. This also hooks into your point 3 below.

 

3. If there isn't any evidence presented, i.e. PMs, Emails, Texts etc, and only one side of the story is posted due to the lack of a response by the accused, then there should be a conditional addition to the list.

 

Any addition to the PL is already conditional, especially the one where the person fails to respond after 72 hours. The whole basis of PL vs HOS is a conditional basis: either the damage is made up for or, upon presentation of evidence by the accused, the person is removed. There have actually been some instances where the accuser ended up being put on the PL.

 

4. If a person was added to the PL without majority votes in a poll, a person should be able to be removed by a majority vote agreement in a poll.

 

Again, the difference between the PL and HOS is individual vs board. The PL is for an individual or individuals with a complaint against another. It was designed from inception to be between the two parties.

 

Allowing anyone to nominate someone else for any reason and not have a vote where the less vocal members can express their opinion as well, the list is too arbitrary to be taken seriously.

 

There will clearly be cases of gross misconduct where it seems obvious that a person should be added, a vote to support the assumption should still be mandatory. In cases where there is not a clear right or wrong answer a vote is even more important.

 

There should also be a minimum number of overall participants in the poll in order for it to be valid.

 

 

I do think, as we have seen lately, the rules need to be better clarified and expanded. I was shocked to see some interpretations (the 3a/b/c in particular). But I do think a vote for every PL nomination is too far.

[PovertyRow]

 

I do like the spirit of number 4.

If someone is on the PL and is trying to get off of it but the person who nominated them is no longer active on the boards they should be able to be voted off.

 

I think this makes a lot of sense. Especially (but not exclusively) in the circumstance of a person actually being banned who has someone on the PL.