PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[awakeintheashes]

I think Awake meant the other 13 people who voted no and were not being vocal etc.

 

I don't think he meant anyone on the 'list' per se

Yes, that is what I meant and explained this to JL a few pages back. My comments were in response to the previous poster's comment, as it seemed he or she was waiting for the rest of the "no" votes to weigh in. In retrospect, I should have deleted all but his or her comment in that string, and it is something I will do now.

 

I apologize if you or anyone else have taken offense. It was not my intention to accuse or insinuate that anyone on that list has committed such actions.

[A.Romeo]

Too many captains on the ship.

[Bio-Rupp]

I think Awake meant the other 13 people who voted no and were not being vocal etc.

 

I don't think he meant anyone on the 'list' per se

 

It's not a lot of fun to sign on and see your name on a "list" and those comments.

 

Why do a list, Hector? What was the point?

This concerns me as well.

 

Might as well put me on Hector's list as well. I voted "no" too.

 

Deals must usually always be completed or one ends up on the PL. This is what has happened with Hustruck.

 

One thing that does occur in these lynching type scenarios (trust me I know) is that in all the posts and torch bearing, some info gets left out and then certain falsehoods become truths.

 

In the last few pages of this feather and tarring, Red84 mentioned Paypal reversals...

 

 

He admitted his own guilt. He stated that he was allowed to not finish the deal because of the "rules" he used, which by the way had nothing to do with what he was talking about. He then did not deny sending the cracked case photo. We have the email from the person he was trying to drop ship from talking about all the sketchy things he was doing. He has had multiple transgressions involving payments being reversed. What more do you need? People get too many chances here. It's as simple as that. Either you conduct yourself in a professional manner or you don't. There's no reason to let the latter stay here.

 

And to nip this one in the bud before it's raised. His silence here is DEAFENING. The CGC boards are not a courtroom nor a government entity. We can assume guilt from his silence.

 

Don't get me wrong here... Red84 is a good egg and a nice fellow. BUT when things of this nature are posted in the middle of pages and pages of weeks and weeks of blocked text... then ALL of the story should be posted.

 

As it stands above (that I highlighted in red), it looks like Hus had deliberately reversed payments to boardies.

 

Now weather he did actually reverse the charges or not, who knows, we never will know ... but what is known is that every boardie who had a Hus payment reversed, received a bank check or money order from him to settle the debt (as far as I know from reading it all here).

 

Hus made good on his debts and it was reflected by those affected here... and in his feedback thread.

 

That bit of information was not in Red's post.

 

My point is that if you post partial info... then eventually over multiple others chiming in... that partial info has a chance to become perceived fact.

 

Torches get lit so easily around here... so if you have gasoline handy, just make sure it's placed in an appropriate container

 

When Hus purchased from my last sales thread, he tried every way in the book to get a bigger discount. All the way from asking for free shipping, additional discounts for buying more, low offers etc. I can't fault him for that, some buyers just instinctively go that route. He paid for what he purchased, and that was that.

 

Trouble does seem to follow Hustruck. He may be accident prone, but he's not HOS material.

[HarveySwick]

Sha,

 

I COMPLETELY agree with you that these things shouldn't be rushed. To reiterate, the only reason I felt rushed and compelled to do a quick write-up was in response to comments such as this:

 

So, do we really need a cogent & well-written recap of all of HusTruck's offenses here, with links included, before starting a poll? IOW, is that a requirement?

 

If not, I'll make the dang poll...

 

I had hoped someone would step forward and do a thorough write-up, but there was a lot of about it and no action.

 

The ONLY reason I rushed to do a quick write-up and poll was because of comments like the above. I didn't want someone to just rush and throw up a poll with nothing written and then have an even bigger fiasco on our hands. My first comment after I posted a write-up was requesting that if anyone had any additional information to be added, please post it and I would edit the nomination post.

 

I added in a lot of extraneous info that many are saying isn't imoortant simply for posterity purposes so when someone clicks on HusTruck's name two years from now, they could read an all inclusive narrative of the kind of person he is.

[skypinkblu]

I think Awake meant the other 13 people who voted no and were not being vocal etc.

 

I don't think he meant anyone on the 'list' per se

Yes, that is what I meant and explained this to JL a few pages back. My comments were in response to the previous poster's comment, as it seemed he or she was waiting for the rest of the "no" votes to weigh in. In retrospect, I should have deleted all but his or her comments in that string, and it is something I will do now.

 

I apologize if you or anyone else have taken offense. It was not my intention to accuse or insinuate that anyone on that list has committed such actions.

 

 

Thanks:). Much appreciated

[EC ed]

Hall of Shame: You are added to the HoS by operation of rule when you are placed on the Probation List a third time. There is no community vote to put you on the HoS. Once you have your third PL appearance, you are on the HoS, period. After a mandatory 6-month waiting period, you may petition for removal from the HoS, which will be put to a community vote, majority rules. That's what HoS means, period.

 

I've skipped maybe 40 pages of discussion, so I'm probably missing something, but you seem to be ruling out the possibility of someone being voted directly into the HoS after a particularly egregious violation even if the person had not previously been on the PL.

 

Do we want to do that?

 

Well, let's think how a "particularly egregious" violation would play out here...I'll invent a hypothetical. Suppose I bought a $10,000 book from Boardie A...sent him a personal check ( ). He never sends me the book...instead, he sends me a PM saying "so long, sucker" and he later posts a picture of himself lounging on the beach in the Caymans with my book in his hand. I then nominate him for the PL...he's there forever, or until he repays my $10,000. In other words, he will be on the PL forever. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, there is no effective difference in marketplace practical terms between being on the PL or the HoS...so, why would this person need to be on the HoS, rather than perpetual PL? If he shows back up 5 years later and repays me my $10,000 + interest, he comes off the PL. Fine. So, let's ask ourselves...what's wrong with this?

[jsilverjanet]

I thought as long as the person that nominated someone for the PL asked for them to be taken off they would be. Is that not the case?

 

Yes, that is possible.

This is more of what I meant. This was Hokies question.

[skypinkblu]

Sha,

 

I COMPLETELY agree with you that these things shouldn't be rushed. To reiterate, the only reason I felt rushed and compelled to do a quick write-up was in response to comments such as this:

 

So, do we really need a cogent & well-written recap of all of HusTruck's offenses here, with links included, before starting a poll? IOW, is that a requirement?

 

If not, I'll make the dang poll...

 

I had hoped someone would step forward and do a thorough write-up, but there was a lot of about it and no action.

 

The ONLY reason I rushed to do a quick write-up and poll was because of comments like the above. I didn't want someone to just rush and throw up a poll with nothing written and then have an even bigger fiasco on our hands. My first comment after I posted a write-up was requesting that if anyone had any additional information to be added, please post it and I would edit the nomination post.

 

I added in a lot of extraneous info that many are saying isn't imoortant simply for posterity purposes so when someone clicks on HusTruck's name two years from now, they could read an all inclusive narrative of the kind of person he is.

 

I've got people arriving in about 20 minutes and I have comics to put away before my friend's husband starts thinking they are his toys to take home;) .. but I just wanted to say, that I saw you were rushed, I could feel it.

 

So...maybe if we update the rules, an auto waiting period would help? Or the person who said they would write the dang list (whose name is synonymous with "rush" ) needs to be told to take a chill pill;)

 

HAVE a great day!

[MetalPSI]

I apologize for the rest of the illuminati

 

We don't mean to rule your lives, but we do.

 

No you don't

That was a joke son.

 

Wasn't funny

[jsilverjanet]

Too many captains on the ship.

feels more like a life raft :shrug:

[HighStakesComics]

Whosetricked?

[mschmidt]

Has he done anything particularly nasty that warrants his inclusion on the same list as other board members who have scammed people out of thousands of dollars? No. But this is a preemptive measure to avoid that from occurring later on and it is also justified because of his habitual violations thus far.

 

I voted no as well. The HOS isn't meant to be a preemptive measure - it's meant to single out the worst of the worst.

[Hado]

I apologize for the rest of the illuminati

 

We don't mean to rule your lives, but we do.

 

No you don't

That was a joke son.

 

Wasn't funny

:shrug: Ok

[MetalPSI]

I apologize if an offhand comment flared this whole thing up

 

Reality is, I don't have that power. I was mearly thinking out loud. I don't honestly believe HT has 15 other accounts (probably only has 3)

 

Again, hearsay doesn't solve anything, but then again, neither does long rambling debates on logic.

 

There is logic and there is actual thinking. Actual thinking is what got us out of the trees, logic is what got us out of boredom. And incidently the combination of the two, into nice fast cars

[MetalPSI]

I apologize for the rest of the illuminati

 

We don't mean to rule your lives, but we do.

 

No you don't

That was a joke son.

 

Wasn't funny

:shrug: Ok

 

Please don't call me son or boy either.

[NTHstars]

I hope I have an interesting perspective to add this discussion.

 

I have been watching this HOS process from before the nomination and up to this point, in large part to learn how it worked. I assumed it had been around a while and was old hat.

 

Of course I've learned there is still disagreement about how it should work.

 

I will say this; it seems some suggest that not much or anything should happen until people actually get ripped off. Of course this isn't a court of law or an actual government, and all we really have keeping it together is the general sense of community, and right and wrong. I think it's easy to over-lawyer and analyze this.

 

It's ethics. If someone continually engages in unethical behavior that benefits themselves and does a disservice to the community, that is also a transgression in my book. It's the spirit of right and wrong, the intangibles, that makes this thing work, and lawyering it doesn't work in this type of online community.

 

If someone never admits wrong, never apologizes, and just keeps it up, there has to be an understanding that it must be dealt with and can't be allowed to continue.

 

Of course the group can decide what is appropriate.

[jsilverjanet]

Has he done anything particularly nasty that warrants his inclusion on the same list as other board members who have scammed people out of thousands of dollars? No. But this is a preemptive measure to avoid that from occurring later on and it is also justified because of his habitual violations thus far.

 

I voted no as well. The HOS isn't meant to be a preemptive measure - it's meant to single out the worst of the worst.

 

I can see why the no's feel the way they do. Hence why I mentioned to Swick to take down the poll.

 

What I wrote after the vote was removed is asking to understand the difference between What Hustruck did (attempt to sell a book not in hand and then lie about why he could not complete a deal) vs Redrocks who's reason for being in the HOS was him not completing a deal (refunded all the money) and the nomination was to recoup $300 that the buyer incurred for not having the cash in hand.

 

While everyone else with the exception of Branget has ignored that question, I ask if the HOS is the worst of the worst, then if Redrocks is there Hustruck should be there as well.

 

They both seem to be PL offenses only but yet one is on the HOS and the other isn't

 

Redrocks was added because of other reasons (his attitude towards the board) yet Hustruck attitude or behavior aren't qualifiers in his nomination?

 

Edited January 11, 2015 by jsilverjanet

[wombat]

Its hard to get past his attempt to send a personal check to someone that he only put his initials on. To me there are only two reasons someone would do this. The first is an outright attempt to commit some kind of fraud. The second is a complete lack of intelligence. Personally I don't think either explanation makes for someone who should be involved in transactions here.

 

I will admit I'm probably on the harsher side of things and I'm not much on second chances and pretty much never on the side of any more after that.

[jsilverjanet]

fixed - sorry kid

Edited January 11, 2015 by jsilverjanet

[jsilverjanet]

hence the "the sand line" moving closer comment. i get that. and to some extent I agree with that.