PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[jsilverjanet]

Wtf? There's a third poll now? Why was the first one deleted? If people stopped acting like lawyers and lawyering the hell out of everything maybe we would get some progress done

 

 

I'll vote again but am prepared to vote a fourth time if needed

[EC ed]

I'm just not sure at all why you even brought up non-transactional lying. If you include that stuff, the HOS list will be so big it will need it's own zip code.

 

When did I bring up non-transactional lying? You brought that up, right?

[jsilverjanet]

I probably should have added a reference to the board 'illuminati'

[crassus]

It is noticeable that no person presently on the HoS is also on the PL, my assumption is that should the vote put Hus on the HoS he will be removed from the PL, there seems to be as far as I know no precedent for having someone on both lists at the same time, am I correct?

 

Any review of the rules, from time to time, is always good and at some point necessary to keep things fresh and by consensus, however, I personally don't see that anything failed in this case.

 

A heated argument about someone's eligibility for any list, PL or HoS, is not a sign of a failure of the rules, no matter what rules you write there will be arguments about something.

 

If every time somebody was nominated there was zero argument and 100% consensus I would be sure then, that something was wrong. Just my

[EC ed]

It is noticeable that no person presently on the HoS is also on the PL, my assumption is that should the vote put Hus on the HoS he will be removed from the PL, there seems to be as far as I know no precedent for having someone on both lists at the same time, am I correct?

 

I do not think HOS inclusion should remove you from the PL, as I outlined in my earlier post...if we have been doing that in the past, I think that is a mistake.

 

I think I saw one instance in the past where someone was on both lists...I'll have to go back and find it....

[HarveySwick]

Menace.

 

Menace was initially added to the Probation List on 12/06/13 and then escalated to the HOS on 12/21/13. His name was removed from the Probation List and added to the HOS. He was removed from the HOS on 01/09/14 after a vote and was not placed back on either list.

[Hado]

Whew.

 

Made it.

[EC ed]

Menace.

 

Menace was initially added to the Probation List on 12/06/13 and then escalated to the HOS on 12/21/13. His name was removed from the Probation List and added to the HOS. He was removed from the HOS on 01/09/14 after a vote and was not placed back on either list.

 

Yes, Menace was who I was thinking of. Actually, when I was looking at the record a while back, I thought Menace was not removed from the PL until 1/19/14....now, the history shows him removed from the PL as of his HOS installation date (perhaps some revisionism, or my error?), which would have suggested a separate action to remove him from the PL (as it should be)

Edited January 13, 2015 by edowens71

[Jeffro.]

I'm just not sure at all why you even brought up non-transactional lying. If you include that stuff, the HOS list will be so big it will need it's own zip code.

 

When did I bring up non-transactional lying? You brought that up, right?

 

I brought it up?

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8307952#Post8307952

 

Having said that, the question for the group in the bigger context (since we're trying to also discuss what rules should exist) is should "lying" in any form be grounds for HOS nomination?

 

[EC ed]

I'm just not sure at all why you even brought up non-transactional lying. If you include that stuff, the HOS list will be so big it will need it's own zip code.

 

When did I bring up non-transactional lying? You brought that up, right?

 

I brought it up?

 

Having said that, the question for the group in the bigger context (since we're trying to also discuss what rules should exist) is should "lying" in any form be grounds for HOS nomination?

 

 

 

You were the first one to use the phrase "non-transactional"...I suppose I see how my phrase "in any form" could have been interpreted to include non-transactions, although in my head I was only contemplating "transaction-based lying in any form."

 

Whichever one of us brought it up, I think it was a valuable insertion into the discussion of any new rules, and we both agree that non-transaction based lying should not be included. Others may want non-transaction-based lying included? We'll see

 

[Transplant]

I'm going to start a poll asking how many polls it takes to get in or out of the HOS.

 

You people have kind of lost your damn minds.

[crassus]

The only thing I could see helping in future, and I think Sha and others have brought this up in the past, is an agreement that when someone decides to make a HoS nomination there should be a cooling off period afterwards, before an active poll is posted.

 

What didn't help in this Hus case was the big rush, when no rush was or is necessary.

 

The rush has the effect of creating arguments about things that might not otherwise be disputed, it frays nerves and makes people irritable.

 

So a cooling off period between nomination and voting IMO could help improve the process.

[DavidTheDavid]

Have we referred this to the Committee On Committees for a non-binding final vote? Then we can poll the results of that vote within the PL Sub-Committee and HOS Nomination Committee. I think the more we obfuscate the process and spin our wheels, the better.

 

How many posts since this all started, 1000? And where has it gotten us?

[chrisco37]

And again, where is the line drawn. There are several things at play here. There is a big difference between someone who did not a mail a book on time, forgot to mail it, or life got in the way.

 

And there is also a difference between some newb that comes in here selling right off the bat, and people start buying right off the bat. And one month later they are all crying that no one got the books, and the jerk wad has dissapeared with everyone's loot.

 

Then you have the flat out fricking liar, period.They just keep compounding one lie on top of another lie, and it just keeps going. You want to trust someone like that down the road. Not me, no way in hell. Get them out of here and quick.

 

You have to have some sort of balance here between good and bad. Character, reputation, and ethics are the foundation of these boards. One won't exist without the other.

 

So, what you're saying is that some sort of common sense must be exercised? That each case probably should be judged on the individual merit? That we don't really need a rule for each and every possible scenario?

 

Like I said earlier, the boards like to circle jerk ourselves to death instead of taking a simpler approach.

 

Listen to Dr. X people. Things will be so much easier.

[chrisco37]

I think the more we obfuscate the process and spin our wheels, the better.

 

 

[crassus]

Have we referred this to the Committee On Committees for a non-binding final vote? Then we can poll the results of that vote within the PL Sub-Committee and HOS Nomination Committee. I think the more we obfuscate the process and spin our wheels, the better.

 

How many posts since this all started, 1000? And where has it gotten us?

 

Well, it will in all likelihood get Hustruck/(add latest alias here) into the Hall of Shame. For those that believe he should be there, that does mean something.

 

Again, for me at least, that it was a fight is not a sign of a problem. Maybe there was a reason for the arguments.

[EC ed]

Have we referred this to the Committee On Committees for a non-binding final vote? Then we can poll the results of that vote within the PL Sub-Committee and HOS Nomination Committee. I think the more we obfuscate the process and spin our wheels, the better.

 

Implying that the process is clear right now? What is your suggestion? Leave things as they are...towards the more subjective end of the spectrum (i.e., the "we'll know it when we see it" approach)? Not saying that would be an invalid opinion...sincerely asking....

Edited January 13, 2015 by edowens71

[HarveySwick]

For bigger picture discussion regarding changes to the HOS/PL process and not involving HusTruck, the discussion should really be moved HERE.

 

[Jeffro.]

I'm going to start a poll asking how many polls it takes to get in or out of the HOS.

 

You people have kind of lost your damn minds.

 

It's mind boggling isn't it? I know people want to do the right thing and want the boards to be a better, safer selling venue, but........ I'm kind of speechless right now.

 

 

[EC ed]

For bigger picture discussion regarding changes to the HOS/PL process and not involving HusTruck, the discussion should really be moved HERE.

 

 

I agree...I'm just having trouble getting my head around the notion of having a serious discussion take place in CG

 

Edited January 13, 2015 by edowens71