PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[seanfingh]

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

 

Daddy was busy. Sorry kid.

 

Is this one of those "little bombs"?

 

I have no idea. Unlike Sean, I do not believe this to be a valid question. I responded accordingly.

 

It is valid because it is fairly easy to Monday morning quarterback a Friday night lynch mob.

[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...

 

A red ball?

 

No - Someone about to be HUSTRUCKED

[jsilverjanet]

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

 

Daddy was busy. Sorry kid.

 

Is this one of those "little bombs"?

 

I have no idea. Unlike Sean, I do not believe this to be a valid question. I responded accordingly.

 

:thumbsup:

[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.

 

I really don't like the idea of a seller being backed up for being a "bad" seller. I would hope for a better class of seller that allows for some buyers to change their mind. I know that there are quite a few sellers like that here. To blindly add a buyer becuse they changed their mind is silly to me.

 

Some sellers overprice their books...big time. Sometimes buyers have life getting the way. I do not think the community should support punishing a buyer for changing their mind. I also don't think buyers or sellers should just continually walk away. They should make the PL on a case by case basis.

 

Thanks for answering this Jeff.

[BeachBum]

No, still in New Orleans. You still here?

[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?

 

Let me re-post my post from 4 days ago:

 

My one problem with your suggestion other than needing a broader voting base is...if there is no specific egregious act, how do we prevent this from becoming a personality issue?

There would need to be egregious acts behind any nomination, they just wouldn't have to rise to super-villian status (i.e., misdemeanor-level acts, rather than felonies). HusTruck is a good example of that. No one is suggesting that he be added to any list because of his personality (annoying, though it is)...it's because of his specific acts (nicely outlined in Jaybuck's post a couple days ago). I think a majority of us can remain objective enough to "enforce" this.

[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?

 

No - Someone about to be HUSTRUCKED

Someone needs to make shirts with "Hustrucked" printed on the red Pre-mediated murder ball.

[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.

 

 

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

 

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but my dad was...and I managed staff who had to adjudicate cases.That's what we did, fact finding, many thousands of cases with two parties and both were usually not giving the whole picture.. Fact finding...that's the whole key.

 

Some pointed it out BEFORE the nomination was made.

 

I am delighted to be able to prove a point here. The women on this thread are much easier going and more patient than the majority of the men;)

 

 

[jaybuck43]

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?

 

Let me re-post my post from 4 days ago:

 

My one problem with your suggestion other than needing a broader voting base is...if there is no specific egregious act, how do we prevent this from becoming a personality issue?

There would need to be egregious acts behind any nomination, they just wouldn't have to rise to super-villian status (i.e., misdemeanor-level acts, rather than felonies). HusTruck is a good example of that. No one is suggesting that he be added to any list because of his personality (annoying, though it is)...it's because of his specific acts (nicely outlined in Jaybuck's post a couple days ago). I think a majority of us can remain objective enough to "enforce" this.

 

Thanks. The way I read it originally was that it was about the community policing the community and focused on the poll part. Basically the idea that anyone could just post a poll saying Include Jaybuck43 in the HoS and vote. But yea rereading your stuff I get it.

[jaybuck43]

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

 

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but my dad was...and I managed staff who had to adjudicate cases.That's what we did, fact finding, many thousands of cases with two parties and both were usually not giving the whole picture.. Fact finding...that's the whole key.

 

Some pointed it out BEFORE the nomination was made.

 

I am delighted to be able to prove a point here. The women on this thread are much easier going and more patient than the majority of the men;)

 

Sha that's Hector he's a he.

[EC ed]

Thanks. The way I read it originally was that it was about the community policing the community and focused on the poll part. Basically the idea that anyone could just post a poll saying Include Jaybuck43 in the HoS and vote. But yea rereading your stuff I get it.

 

(thumbs u

 

Back to my earlier analogies from 4-5 days ago...I'm just saying that perhaps we should mentally "redefine" the HoS as not only place for the "felonies", but also a place for the "misdemeanors"...you still have to have evidence to "prove" the misdemeanors, though. (thumbs u

[crassus]

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

 

I have no problem with the vote, the legitimacy of a vote is a separate question from whether one is happy with its outcome. While I have reservations, if he is put in the HoS I will not consider it a terrible injustice. It will have been in one sense all his own effort that went into his fate.

 

If I have any concerns they are with details, but I do think details are important. Jaybuck has reposted (my thanks brother) the email from the Ebay seller discussing Hustruck's practices. Also I was asking to see the PM or email communication between the first accuser, 4comix I think, and Hustruck in which the false photo was offered up.

 

And lastly, and I think also important, was an opportunity to confirm, if true, that Hustruck pulled the same trick a second time with another Boardie, I will have to search back through the posts, I had forwarded the original pics hoping he would confirm if they were the same, but he probably did not see the post.

 

I will PM the two and ask them if possible to post the communications.

[EC ed]

Thanks. The way I read it originally was that it was about the community policing the community and focused on the poll part. Basically the idea that anyone could just post a poll saying Include Jaybuck43 in the HoS and vote. But yea rereading your stuff I get it.

 

(thumbs u

 

Back to my earlier analogies from 4-5 days ago...I'm just saying that perhaps we should mentally "redefine" the HoS as not only place for the "felonies", but also a place for the "misdemeanors"...you still have to have evidence to "prove" the misdemeanors, though. (thumbs u

 

And...would this be watering down the HoS? Of course it would...by definition...because all we've had on there to date are the irredeemable felons. But, why should we be stuck on that point, if "prosecuting the misdemeanors" is important to the community.

Edited January 11, 2015 by edowens71

[jsilverjanet]

I find it ironic that even before the Poll was made, HusTruck was already on plenty of boardies personal HOS list

[jaybuck43]

I assumed he was :shrug: I mean he came streaking in here with his rape accusations and crazy behavior and never changed his ways in any way. Figured no one wanted to deal with him

[jsilverjanet]

Thanks. The way I read it originally was that it was about the community policing the community and focused on the poll part. Basically the idea that anyone could just post a poll saying Include Jaybuck43 in the HoS and vote. But yea rereading your stuff I get it.

 

(thumbs u

 

Back to my earlier analogies from 4-5 days ago...I'm just saying that perhaps we should mentally "redefine" the HoS as not only place for the "felonies", but also a place for the "misdemeanors"...you still have to have evidence to "prove" the misdemeanors, though. (thumbs u

 

And...would this be watering down the HoS? Of course it would...by definition...because all we've had on there to date are the irredeemable felons. But, why should we be stuck on that point, if "prosecuting the misdemeanors" is important to the community.

 

My main concern would be the list turning into a simple popularity contest.

 

Can't that be said of the previous inductees?

[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.

 

 

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

 

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but my dad was...and I managed staff who had to adjudicate cases.That's what we did, fact finding, many thousands of cases with two parties and both were usually not giving the whole picture.. Fact finding...that's the whole key.

 

Some pointed it out BEFORE the nomination was made.

 

I am delighted to be able to prove a point here. The women on this thread are much easier going and more patient than the majority of the men;)

 

Sha that's Hector he's a he.

 

It was a bad joke, ...I was referring to me;) I know who Hector is;)

[jaybuck43]

I'm an insufficiently_thoughtful_person

[jsilverjanet]

I'm an insufficiently_thoughtful_person

custom title?

[thunsicker]

As I stated earlier I'm not sure one way or the other whether HusTruck deserves HoS. I'm not sure he's a supervillian, but I see lots of other people on the HoS list that I think are just bad actors (as HusTruck seems to be) and who didn't do that awful totally scammy thing. Red Rocks used lies and deception to get a book and BLBComics failed to mail out some pulps for a long time. Then both melted down when called on it. But neither of these were theHouseOfComics or AlleyBat level of scam.