PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[Hado]

......and it's only a matter of time before he defrauds someone out of a lot of money

 

You don't KNOW this and I hope we can both agree you can't convict someone on what you THINK they're going to do.

 

Let's say someone is threatening to shoot someone else, but they haven't done it yet, does that mean you just ignore that person until they really shoot someone?

If Hustruck said he was going to defraud someone in the future, your analogy would make more sense.

[Awax]

I have my own list of not wanting to do business with......

 

So do I. I also have a list of those I will do business with even though they are on the list.

 

So you should not care either way.

[seanfingh]

Where was everyone a week ago when this was being discussed?

 

Valid question. The last several HOS nominations have been because the nominees acted like steel-belted douchevalves. It's very easy to say yes, because they are so unsavory.

[seanfingh]

Where was everyone a week ago when this was being discussed?

 

Daddy was busy. Sorry kid.

 

You are not the daddy.

[wombat]

From what I've read IMHO the only reason he hasn't outright stolen money from people is that he isn't smart enough to pull it off.

[A.Romeo]

......and it's only a matter of time before he defrauds someone out of a lot of money

 

You don't KNOW this and I hope we can both agree you can't convict someone on what you THINK they're going to do.

 

Let's say someone is threatening to shoot someone else, but they haven't done it yet, does that mean you just ignore that person until they really shoot someone?

 

Your example is so far from logical that I have no idea why anyone would entertain it.

 

It makes sense to me, you take care of a problem before it turns into something more. Sorry if that wasn't clear I will no longer use analogies since they can't be comprehended

[jsilverjanet]

Where was everyone a week ago when this was being discussed?

 

Daddy was busy. Sorry kid.

 

Is this one of those "little bombs"?

[Awax]

This isn't murder

[jsilverjanet]

This isn't murder

meat is murder

[Awax]

This isn't murder

meat is murder

 

Leave Morrissey out of this.

[EC ed]

All this nashing of teeth about what the lists mean, the lists are being watered down, etc...

 

Look...here's all that necessary to reconcile current events...define the purpose of the lists as follows:

 

Probation List: a tool for an individual boardie to use to enforce a specific transaction...keep the membership and removal criteria and process exactly the same as they are now. If a boardie has been jerked around on a transaction, they should have the PL mechanism as a remedy...doesn't matter whether the book is $10 or $100. If the aggrieved boardie wants to enforce the transaction, so be it - that is the purpose of the PL. Our interpretation of what it means to be on the PL is then straightforward - a PL member is a member that has failed to fulfill his/her commitment under an agreed upon transaction. Period.

 

Hall of Shame: a tool for the community at large...not an individual...but the community at large, to declare that a boardie's behavior has been shameful and deserving of community-imposed censure. Doesn't have to be a super-villian...just deserving of community-imposed censure. Procedure is the same as now - vote them on, and vote them off if they seem rehabilitated. That's what it means to be on the HoS. Period.

 

I know that these views of the lists don't exactly gel with how they have historically been used/viewed, but times they are a changin'. The relevant question is, 'In the present day, what is the most functional use for these two lists.' In my opinion, these are they.

[CAHokie]

 

You don't charge someone with murder, attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon because they threatened to do so.

 

That is correct, but in a lot of states you would charge them with Felony Criminal Threats.

[skypinkblu]

As for Robert and Sharon (since both of you are here at the moment) you believe there shouldn't have been a vote based on the offenses? Am I understanding that correctly?

 

 

 

 

 

You ask hard questions, I've been trying to figure out how to answer this. I was fine with him being on the probation list. He's on there, I won't deal with him.

 

As far as the HOS, I would have liked to see the PMs first, before there was a vote, I said that all along.

 

I saw a lot of information in Harvey's post. Some of it was very good information, but none that I thought would rise to the level of the HOS.

 

The PMs might have provided that.

 

[A.Romeo]

......and it's only a matter of time before he defrauds someone out of a lot of money

 

You don't KNOW this and I hope we can both agree you can't convict someone on what you THINK they're going to do.

 

Let's say someone is threatening to shoot someone else, but they haven't done it yet, does that mean you just ignore that person until they really shoot someone?

 

Your example is so far from logical that I have no idea why anyone would entertain it.

 

It makes sense to me, you take care of a problem before it turns into something more. Sorry if that wasn't clear I will no longer use analogies since they can't be comprehended

 

You don't charge someone with murder, attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon because they threatened to do so.

 

I guess people are allowed to pull off multiple scams on the board until something is done....

 

My point is once a scammer always a scammer, and although it may not have been a big scam that was pulled, its only going to get worse. This is not the first or last time Hustruck has been brought up in here. I feel bad for you that you can't recognize that he is a problem and can only hope he won't take advantage of you someday.

[jaybuck43]

All this nashing of teeth about what the lists mean, the lists are being watered down, etc...

 

Look...here's all that necessary to reconcile current events...define the purpose of the lists as follows:

 

Probation List: a tool for an individual boardie to use to enforce a specific transaction...keep the membership and removal criteria and process exactly the same as they are now. If a boardie has been jerked around on a transaction, they should have the PL mechanism as a remedy...doesn't matter whether the book is $10 or $100. If the aggrieved boardie wants to enforce the transaction, so be it - that is the purpose of the PL. Our interpretation of what it means to be on the PL is then straightforward - a PL member is a member that has failed to fulfill his/her commitment under an agreed upon transaction. Period.

 

Hall of Shame: a tool for the community at large...not an individual...but the community at large, to declare that a boardie's behavior has been shameful and deserving of community-imposed censure. Doesn't have to be a super-villian...just deserving of community-imposed censure. Procedure is the same as now - vote them on, and vote them off if they seem rehabilitated. That's what it means to be on the HoS. Period.

 

I know that these views of the lists don't exactly gel with how they have historically been used/viewed, but times they are a changin'. The relevant question is, 'In the present day, what is the most functional use for these two lists.' In my opinion, these are they.

 

Sorry but I can't get behind your HoS definition. There is no criteria for inclusion. The HoS in your definition just becomes the uncool kids group. Basically if enough people decide they don't like me for any reason I can be voted in. There needs to be some level of infractions JUSTIFYING the communities need for community imposed censure.

 

 

[BeachBum]

......and it's only a matter of time before he defrauds someone out of a lot of money

 

You don't KNOW this and I hope we can both agree you can't convict someone on what you THINK they're going to do.

 

Let's say someone is threatening to shoot someone else, but they haven't done it yet, does that mean you just ignore that person until they really shoot someone?

 

Your example is so far from logical that I have no idea why anyone would entertain it.

 

It makes sense to me, you take care of a problem before it turns into something more. Sorry if that wasn't clear I will no longer use analogies since they can't be comprehended

 

You don't charge someone with murder, attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon because they threatened to do so.

 

Hold on I think I see something...

 

[EC ed]

Sorry but I can't get behind your HoS definition. There is no criteria for inclusion. The HoS in your definition just becomes the uncool kids group. Basically if enough people decide they don't like me for any reason I can be voted in. There needs to be some level of infractions JUSTIFYING the communities need for community imposed censure.

 

Where did I say that there didn't need to be infraction criteria? Of course there needs to be specific, tangible infractions. That's what I meant by keeping the procedure the same as now. Someone would outline the infractions, and we vote on it - that's what we do now. How did you read my definition as not including infraction criteria?

[A.Romeo]

All this nashing of teeth about what the lists mean, the lists are being watered down, etc...

 

Look...here's all that necessary to reconcile current events...define the purpose of the lists as follows:

 

Probation List: a tool for an individual boardie to use to enforce a specific transaction...keep the membership and removal criteria and process exactly the same as they are now. If a boardie has been jerked around on a transaction, they should have the PL mechanism as a remedy...doesn't matter whether the book is $10 or $100. If the aggrieved boardie wants to enforce the transaction, so be it - that is the purpose of the PL. Our interpretation of what it means to be on the PL is then straightforward - a PL member is a member that has failed to fulfill his/her commitment under an agreed upon transaction. Period.

 

Hall of Shame: a tool for the community at large...not an individual...but the community at large, to declare that a boardie's behavior has been shameful and deserving of community-imposed censure. Doesn't have to be a super-villian...just deserving of community-imposed censure. Procedure is the same as now - vote them on, and vote them off if they seem rehabilitated. That's what it means to be on the HoS. Period.

 

I know that these views of the lists don't exactly gel with how they have historically been used/viewed, but times they are a changin'. The relevant question is, 'In the present day, what is the most functional use for these two lists.' In my opinion, these are they.

 

I think the PL should be for a first offense, gives someone ONE chance to change their character

 

HOS should be considered for any and all people who have been on the PL once already and are involved in a second offense. There should definitely be a vote involved as well.

[jsilverjanet]

As for Robert and Sharon (since both of you are here at the moment) you believe there shouldn't have been a vote based on the offenses? Am I understanding that correctly?

 

 

 

 

 

You ask hard questions, I've been trying to figure out how to answer this. I was fine with him being on the probation list. He's on there, I won't deal with him.

 

As far as the HOS, I would have liked to see the PMs first, before there was a vote, I said that all along.

 

I saw a lot of information in Harvey's post. Some of it was very good information, but none that I thought would rise to the level of the HOS.

 

The PMs might have provided that.

 

 

I could have been a lawyer

 

Maybe there needs to be a discussion period once the nomination is made before the poll is created. The discussion would allow for these conversations to take place and possibly shape the nomination (some pointed those out after this nomination was made) or remove it all together

 

It's obvious based on what people are saying the process doesn't work as well as it should

[Hado]

......and it's only a matter of time before he defrauds someone out of a lot of money

 

You don't KNOW this and I hope we can both agree you can't convict someone on what you THINK they're going to do.

 

Let's say someone is threatening to shoot someone else, but they haven't done it yet, does that mean you just ignore that person until they really shoot someone?

 

Your example is so far from logical that I have no idea why anyone would entertain it.

 

It makes sense to me, you take care of a problem before it turns into something more. Sorry if that wasn't clear I will no longer use analogies since they can't be comprehended

 

You don't charge someone with murder, attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon because they threatened to do so.

 

Hold on I think I see something...

 

A red ball?