PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[PovertyRow]

I was not around yesterday so did not post anything on the boards. To answer some questions, I see no reason why a PL person cannot be moved to the HOS if additional evidence is provided, If additional facts come to light that demonstrate a more severe situation then there is no reason why someone cannot be moved from PL to HOS.

 

As far as being simultaneously on both I have no issue with that either. The good thing about remaining on the PL is the requirements for making things good are directly in the PL nomination. Now the HOS nomination should already include that information but I have no strong opinion one way or the other about being on both lists at the same time.

 

As far as a timeline goes, the only timeline I am aware of is stated in the beginning of the PL/HOS rules: The following Probation List Rules are in effect beginning 8/1/2011. Over some period of time these may be modified or expanded. So anything that occurred from 8/1/2011 is up for consideration. (Note this was added so people could not grandfather in transgressions that occurred before the rules were put in force.)

 

Now as regards to the many "lawyer" type remarks directed at myself and some others who objected to the first poll: speaking for myself this is not about practicing law or being a nitpicker. This is about insuring the process is fair and level for everyone, so that if one of you gets nominated we can't start bringing up irrelevant personality traits (sometimes exhibited by others here) as consideration for PL/HOS. I made that very clear in my objection to the original poll and will always stick to that.

 

Yes, it is an inconvenience to have to vote twice if an initial poll was removed. But I would rather see a proper poll being voted on a second time than an improper poll standing. Because when an improper poll stands then precedent is set to use the same irrelevant "evidence" in future polls.

[PovertyRow]

Because when an improper poll stands then precedent is set to use the same irrelevant "evidence" in future polls.

 

I want to be VERY clear this is not a slam on Harvey. He has done a LOT to keep this forum going. Actually I think this is a good thing that occurred. The spider webs are, hopefully, being cleared from the old rules and we can come up with a re-written set of rules that will be clearer, especially to the folks who were not around when the rules were being formulated.

 

It took a LONG time to get the rules in place as they are. I think, during that time, with so much discussion, some ideas seemed more inherent in the rules than they actually were, because we had been discussing them so much. So when someone new comes along without benefit of being involved in those discussions, there can be questions and ambiguity.

 

I really hope the folks who came in after the PL/HOS rules discussions contribute a lot to the new thread in Comics General started by Jaybuck43 (thumbs u

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8303567&nt=4&fpart=1

Edited January 13, 2015 by PovertyRow

[HarveySwick]

The problem with multiple polls, besides making the whole HOS induction process look ridiculous, is it looks like vigilante justice to some, and also opens up the door to the whole "Double Jeopardy" debate which is going on now. A HOS poll should be taken seriously.

 

Maybe in the future if a group of newer board members want to explore a HOS vote, they could work with or through a more experienced boardie to walk them through the process in order to avoid making these kinds of mistakes.

[jsilverjanet]

This is too much like politics. I voted twice and both those votes are no good?

 

I know on isn't for sure, but there is a third poll now?

Calm down.

 

There was the initial poll I deleted. I started a new poll with the requested evidence last night at 10:45 PM with a start time for voting at 11:00 PM. But there was concern that if you voted before 11PM, your vote wasn't counted and you may be prevented from voting again. All I did was restart the same poll shortly after 11PM so everyone's vote would count.

 

I'm terribly sorry for any inconvenience. (thumbs u

I'm sure there will be another "comedian" who will come along and ask about the poll being deleted, the second poll and now a third

 

People complain about lawyers on the board, I really think the issue is everyone wants to be a comedian, but they aren't very funny or original

 

It was a legitimate question. Jhole

 

Your still not funny

[kaholo1256]

Has everyone already voted or is everyone here just to

[CAHokie]

I agree with what you are saying POV. Most of us know that you have put a lot of hard work into it. The lawyer comments by me, (I can't speak for others), had to do with some of the posts by members that made it seem that the burden of proof is equal to that of a criminal trial. I feel very strongly that is just unrealistic since there are no subpoena powers or other tools to gain that sort of evidence. Of course we want as strong a case as possible and yourself, Jaybuck and Swick do an outstanding job of that. We do not want to weaken the list by throwing everyone in there or anyone at all unjustly.

 

The eyeball, smell or common sense approach also have to be used though. It is obvious when some are out to scam the boards and we may not have the ability to gain the full evidence.

 

Though the integrity of the list is important, the protection of board members must be of equal or greater importance as well.

[comix4fun]

This is too much like politics. I voted twice and both those votes are no good?

 

I know on isn't for sure, but there is a third poll now?

Calm down.

 

There was the initial poll I deleted. I started a new poll with the requested evidence last night at 10:45 PM with a start time for voting at 11:00 PM. But there was concern that if you voted before 11PM, your vote wasn't counted and you may be prevented from voting again. All I did was restart the same poll shortly after 11PM so everyone's vote would count.

 

I'm terribly sorry for any inconvenience. (thumbs u

I'm sure there will be another "comedian" who will come along and ask about the poll being deleted, the second poll and now a third

 

People complain about lawyers on the board, I really think the issue is everyone wants to be a comedian, but they aren't very funny or original

 

It was a legitimate question. Jhole

 

Your still not funny

 

Yore

[PovertyRow]

The eyeball, smell or common sense approach also have to be used though. It is obvious when some are out to scam the boards and we may not have the ability to gain the full evidence.

 

Though the integrity of the list is important, the protection of board members must be of equal or greater importance as well.

 

I think sufficient evidence to scam the boards can be gleaned without a full transaction being completed and a rip-off then proven. I have no issue with that. What I have an issue with is bringing up (sorry for saying this again and again) personality traits (that are often exhibited by others on the boards) but bear no relation at all to a transaction or attempt at a transaction.

[CAHokie]

Agreed! I am with you on that moving forward, though I understand the temptation to include them.

[jsilverjanet]

I can't fix it if your going to quote it

 

[bababooey]

Maybe this should be in the CG thread but...

 

To simplify much of the debate, I think the PL process seems to work fairly well - it's transactional and as long as people keep in mind that the goal is to encourage completion of the deal then we add/delete as necessary.

 

The current problem comes from the recent rash of HOS nominations, opinions range on what constitutes a worthy HOS nominee.

Some say it's for the worst of the worst.

Some say it's for those who have screwed over multiple people, ie - scammers

Some say it's for PL candidates who have displayed poor character

Some say it's for people who have deliberately attempted fraud.

Some say it's for anyone who has lied or attempted to cover something up in the course of doing business.

Some say it's for people with a poor sense of humour who are unapologetic.

Some say it's for people who have disrespected this place (ie-thumbed their nose at the community)

Some say it's for people who have been on the PL repeatedly.

Some say it's for people who are reckless/dangerous if allowed in the community based on....?

(these aren't in any particular order)

 

Since there are an abundance of opinions on what is considered HOS worthy, we could refocus on redefining the rules but we're unlikely to reach a consensus, perhaps the best way to address this situation next time HOS is being considered is to have a brief waiting period with a volunteer or any aggrieved party collecting all the evidence.

 

The next step is a HOS nomination poll/thread with a "one post per person" thread in Comics General for people to vote publicly and, if they wish, share their reasoning.

 

I think there must be a one post per person limit in that thread, it will then be easier for everyone to read it & vote/comment. It will probably draw some fresh opinions from people who aren't that active in these discussion threads.

 

Some people enjoy it but others don't want to wade through pages of chirping, I'd rather read one well thought out post from each person participating. The only reason I have some faith that this will work is because I believe serious posts will win the day & on a case-by-case basis we'll get a decision.

 

The danger is that some may feel this broadening of criteria waters down the current version of the HOS but the goal is to ensure that the PL/HOS will continue to be respected by the community at large. It will likely result in less adherence to the traditional set of strictly defined "rules"....but the current problem is that many disagree with them & ignore them anyway when voting. I do think this will result in the HOS criteria becoming a "moving target" but that is pretty consistent with how the PL/HOS have been populated up to now anyways - hopefully everyone will leave personalities out of it.

 

Thoughts?

[HarveySwick]

next time HOS is being considered is to have a brief waiting period with a volunteer or any aggrieved party collecting all the evidence. - I think this is a great idea. Then everyone can funnel info to that person via PM.

 

The next step is a HOS nomination poll/thread with a "one post per person" thread in Comics General for people to vote publicly and, if they wish, share their reasoning. - A seperate nomination thread in Comics General for each nomination has been suggested before and I think it's a great idea.

 

I think there must be a one post per person limit in that thread, it will then be easier for everyone to read it & vote/comment. It will probably draw some fresh opinions from people who aren't that active in these discussion threads. - This would be a great method in theory, but there are some that just can't be bothered to read the instructions and just start I think you'd need help from the mods in removing repeated posts if someone couldn't get on board with the one post per person.

 

Sometimes I feel that people are forgetting or glossing over the fact that there are links attached to individual names on both lists so people can still decide for themselves whether they agree with a nomination to the HOS/PL and decide if they want to deal with that person on a case by case basis.

[comix4fun]

Maybe this should be in the CG thread but...

 

To simplify much of the debate, I think the PL process seems to work fairly well - it's transactional and as long as people keep in mind that the goal is to encourage completion of the deal then we add/delete as necessary.

 

The current problem comes from the recent rash of HOS nominations, opinions range on what constitutes a worthy HOS nominee.

Some say it's for the worst of the worst.

Some say it's for those who have screwed over multiple people, ie - scammers

Some say it's for PL candidates who have displayed poor character

Some say it's for people who have deliberately attempted fraud.

Some say it's for anyone who has lied or attempted to cover something up in the course of doing business.

Some say it's for people with a poor sense of humour who are unapologetic.

Some say it's for people who have disrespected this place (ie-thumbed their nose at the community)

Some say it's for people who have been on the PL repeatedly.

Some say it's for people who are reckless/dangerous if allowed in the community based on....?

(these aren't in any particular order)

 

Since there are an abundance of opinions on what is considered HOS worthy, we could refocus on redefining the rules but we're unlikely to reach a consensus, perhaps the best way to address this situation next time HOS is being considered is to have a brief waiting period with a volunteer or any aggrieved party collecting all the evidence.

 

The next step is a HOS nomination poll/thread with a "one post per person" thread in Comics General for people to vote publicly and, if they wish, share their reasoning.

 

I think there must be a one post per person limit in that thread, it will then be easier for everyone to read it & vote/comment. It will probably draw some fresh opinions from people who aren't that active in these discussion threads.

 

Some people enjoy it but others don't want to wade through pages of chirping, I'd rather read one well thought out post from each person participating. The only reason I have some faith that this will work is because I believe serious posts will win the day & on a case-by-case basis we'll get a decision.

 

The danger is that some may feel this broadening of criteria waters down the current version of the HOS but the goal is to ensure that the PL/HOS will continue to be respected by the community at large. It will likely result in less adherence to the traditional set of strictly defined "rules"....but the current problem is that many disagree with them & ignore them anyway when voting. I do think this will result in the HOS criteria becoming a "moving target" but that is pretty consistent with how the PL/HOS have been populated up to now anyways - hopefully everyone will leave personalities out of it.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

I think one of the main reasons that people have differing or broadened criteria for the HOS is because, if the criteria are too narrow, it allows people to skirt around the edges.

 

Some of the ne'er do wells we've had around here have demonstrated great ability of dipping and dodging around narrow sets of rules. Each time that's happened the criteria adjust to allow for the protection of the forum while maintaining as much fairness as possible.

 

The way I have always seen the HOS mechanism is a combination of factors that make the situation far more egregious than a simple PL transaction dispute. Take a fraudulent statement in a transaction, combine it with complete lack of remorse, throw in a dash of other factors and you're getting closer to the mark.

 

If someone fully reveals themselves as a dishonest person ( a true smoking gun) on these forums and/or demonstrates no interest in this community or how it operates then I believe we are foolish to not use this information to the benefit of all the earnest, honest, and committed members of the community.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

The problem with multiple polls, besides making the whole HOS induction process look ridiculous, is it looks like vigilante justice to some, and also opens up the door to the whole "Double Jeopardy" debate which is going on now. A HOS poll should be taken seriously.

 

Maybe in the future if a group of newer board members want to explore a HOS vote, they could work with or through a more experienced boardie to walk them through the process in order to avoid making these kinds of mistakes.

 

 

I'm only being critical of the execution, not the intent. Your heart is in the right place. Working to remove scammers is yeoman's work and should be applauded and encouraged.

 

I agree with Dr.X's comments about lying. Pusbucket, CGCscammer, or whatever name he's going by these days shouldn't be allowed to transact here without potential buyers and sellers being fully informed about his real nature.

 

Going forward, what I worry about is that there is nothing preventing him from starting a sales thread or trying to buy a book here and then using the "Yeah, I'm in the HOS but it took three polls before my enemies got what they wanted. I'm actually a victim." defense.

[wombat]

My thoughts (as a self recognized noob). If there is going to be a discussion of the HOS and what that entails, people have to forget about what it was. Come up with a new definition without being hampered by what the old definition was. Start from scratch almost.

 

Now perhaps it ends up being what it originally was (or very similar), but take a fresh look at what people want it to be. Does it really matter now what someone did x numbers of years ago to get on the list? And perhaps once it is agreed upon (however that happens) maybe people on the list could be given an opportunity to "appeal" if they think what they did no longer warrants being on the list.

 

As an example, some people say it should be the worst of the worst. In response to that others have pointed to one person in particular (can't remember his name) who didn't seem to do anything much worse than Hustruck. That doesn't automatically mean it can't end up being the worst of the worst in a new agreed upon definition.

[HarveySwick]

The problem with multiple polls, besides making the whole HOS induction process look ridiculous, is it looks like vigilante justice to some, and also opens up the door to the whole "Double Jeopardy" debate which is going on now. A HOS poll should be taken seriously.

 

Maybe in the future if a group of newer board members want to explore a HOS vote, they could work with or through a more experienced boardie to walk them through the process in order to avoid making these kinds of mistakes.

 

 

I'm only being critical of the execution, not the intent. Your heart is in the right place. Working to remove scammers is yeoman's work and should be applauded and encouraged.

 

I agree with Dr.X's comments about lying. Pusbucket, CGCscammer, or whatever name he's going by these days shouldn't be allowed to transact here without potential buyers and sellers being fully informed about his real nature.

 

Going forward, what I worry about is that there is nothing preventing him from starting a sales thread or trying to buy a book here and then using the "Yeah, I'm in the HOS but it took three polls before my enemies got what they wanted. I'm actually a victim." defense.

 

Fair enough.

 

And I've admitted that my initial HOS Nomination write-up was flawed and was lacking evidence. I guess I just felt that I could edit the write-up as evidence began to present itself.

 

I think everyone has learned by my mistake that patience is key in these nominations.

[hhwolfman]

The problem with multiple polls, besides making the whole HOS induction process look ridiculous, is it looks like vigilante justice to some, and also opens up the door to the whole "Double Jeopardy" debate which is going on now. A HOS poll should be taken seriously.

 

Maybe in the future if a group of newer board members want to explore a HOS vote, they could work with or through a more experienced boardie to walk them through the process in order to avoid making these kinds of mistakes.

 

 

I'm only being critical of the execution, not the intent. Your heart is in the right place. Working to remove scammers is yeoman's work and should be applauded and encouraged.

 

I agree with Dr.X's comments about lying. Pusbucket, CGCscammer, or whatever name he's going by these days shouldn't be allowed to transact here without potential buyers and sellers being fully informed about his real nature.

 

Going forward, what I worry about is that there is nothing preventing him from starting a sales thread or trying to buy a book here and then using the "Yeah, I'm in the HOS but it took three polls before my enemies got what they wanted. I'm actually a victim." defense.

 

Fair enough.

 

And I've admitted that my initial HOS Nomination write-up was flawed and was lacking evidence. I guess I just felt that I could edit the write-up as evidence began to present itself.

 

I think everyone has learned by my mistake that patience is key in these nominations.

 

I think you did fine. (thumbs u

[skypinkblu]

My thoughts (as a self recognized noob). If there is going to be a discussion of the HOS and what that entails, people have to forget about what it was. Come up with a new definition without being hampered by what the old definition was. Start from scratch almost.

 

Now perhaps it ends up being what it originally was (or very similar), but take a fresh look at what people want it to be. Does it really matter now what someone did x numbers of years ago to get on the list? And perhaps once it is agreed upon (however that happens) maybe people on the list could be given an opportunity to "appeal" if they think what they did no longer warrants being on the list.

 

As an example, some people say it should be the worst of the worst. In response to that others have pointed to one person in particular (can't remember his name) who didn't seem to do anything much worse than Hustruck. That doesn't automatically mean it can't end up being the worst of the worst in a new agreed upon definition.

 

It's obvious we have a lot of not only new members, but new people who read this thread and try to participate, which is great and new times, new rules.

 

I don't think you can forget everything though because history sometimes helps...for example:.

 

I don't remember ever having a vote where the person was voted not guilty.

 

Has there been one I missed? If not...why has every vote put the person in the HOS?

 

While you are writing the new rules, maybe someone can think about that a little.

[crassus]

The problem with multiple polls, besides making the whole HOS induction process look ridiculous, is it looks like vigilante justice to some, and also opens up the door to the whole "Double Jeopardy" debate which is going on now. A HOS poll should be taken seriously.

 

Maybe in the future if a group of newer board members want to explore a HOS vote, they could work with or through a more experienced boardie to walk them through the process in order to avoid making these kinds of mistakes.

 

 

I'm only being critical of the execution, not the intent. Your heart is in the right place. Working to remove scammers is yeoman's work and should be applauded and encouraged.

 

I agree with Dr.X's comments about lying. Pusbucket, CGCscammer, or whatever name he's going by these days shouldn't be allowed to transact here without potential buyers and sellers being fully informed about his real nature.

 

Going forward, what I worry about is that there is nothing preventing him from starting a sales thread or trying to buy a book here and then using the "Yeah, I'm in the HOS but it took three polls before my enemies got what they wanted. I'm actually a victim." defense.

 

Fair enough.

 

And I've admitted that my initial HOS Nomination write-up was flawed and was lacking evidence. I guess I just felt that I could edit the write-up as evidence began to present itself.

 

I think everyone has learned by my mistake that patience is key in these nominations.

 

I think you did fine. (thumbs u

 

I'll second that. It was obvious to me in the circumstances that you were trying to put together some platform of legitimacy in the middle of a swarming. And in future nobody should be put in that position.

[bababooey]

Maybe this should be in the CG thread but...

 

To simplify much of the debate, I think the PL process seems to work fairly well - it's transactional and as long as people keep in mind that the goal is to encourage completion of the deal then we add/delete as necessary.

 

The current problem comes from the recent rash of HOS nominations, opinions range on what constitutes a worthy HOS nominee.

Some say it's for the worst of the worst.

Some say it's for those who have screwed over multiple people, ie - scammers

Some say it's for PL candidates who have displayed poor character

Some say it's for people who have deliberately attempted fraud.

Some say it's for anyone who has lied or attempted to cover something up in the course of doing business.

Some say it's for people with a poor sense of humour who are unapologetic.

Some say it's for people who have disrespected this place (ie-thumbed their nose at the community)

Some say it's for people who have been on the PL repeatedly.

Some say it's for people who are reckless/dangerous if allowed in the community based on....?

(these aren't in any particular order)

 

Since there are an abundance of opinions on what is considered HOS worthy, we could refocus on redefining the rules but we're unlikely to reach a consensus, perhaps the best way to address this situation next time HOS is being considered is to have a brief waiting period with a volunteer or any aggrieved party collecting all the evidence.

 

The next step is a HOS nomination poll/thread with a "one post per person" thread in Comics General for people to vote publicly and, if they wish, share their reasoning.

 

I think there must be a one post per person limit in that thread, it will then be easier for everyone to read it & vote/comment. It will probably draw some fresh opinions from people who aren't that active in these discussion threads.

 

Some people enjoy it but others don't want to wade through pages of chirping, I'd rather read one well thought out post from each person participating. The only reason I have some faith that this will work is because I believe serious posts will win the day & on a case-by-case basis we'll get a decision.

 

The danger is that some may feel this broadening of criteria waters down the current version of the HOS but the goal is to ensure that the PL/HOS will continue to be respected by the community at large. It will likely result in less adherence to the traditional set of strictly defined "rules"....but the current problem is that many disagree with them & ignore them anyway when voting. I do think this will result in the HOS criteria becoming a "moving target" but that is pretty consistent with how the PL/HOS have been populated up to now anyways - hopefully everyone will leave personalities out of it.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

I think one of the main reasons that people have differing or broadened criteria for the HOS is because, if the criteria are too narrow, it allows people to skirt around the edges.

 

Some of the ne'er do wells we've had around here have demonstrated great ability of dipping and dodging around narrow sets of rules. Each time that's happened the criteria adjust to allow for the protection of the forum while maintaining as much fairness as possible.

 

The way I have always seen the HOS mechanism is a combination of factors that make the situation far more egregious than a simple PL transaction dispute. Take a fraudulent statement in a transaction, combine it with complete lack of remorse, throw in a dash of other factors and you're getting closer to the mark.

 

If someone fully reveals themselves as a dishonest person ( a true smoking gun) on these forums and/or demonstrates no interest in this community or how it operates then I believe we are foolish to not use this information to the benefit of all the earnest, honest, and committed members of the community.

See on the bolded part, I disagree...I think your criteria has adjusted & because you are so persuasive so has the opinion of much of the community - that's why voting is reflecting a broader interpretation than the rules currently allow.

 

I agree with your opinions on most things & the criteria you outlined above would be great additions if there's an effort to create a new criteria for nomination to HOS.

 

Hell, it'd be worth adopting what you've written above verbatim if it limited you to one post in the nomination process.

Edited January 13, 2015 by bababooey