PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[crassus]

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.

 

For myself, I see no problems with the rules as they are now, the issues we are having cannot be fixed with rule changes, apart from maybe a "time out" rule before a poll is started.

 

Menace is the example to consider. A headlong rush to get him on the HoS, the posse led by a Board member now himself on the PL, followed by the reaction of other Board members who got a vote to get Menace off the HoS on the basis that he really belonged on the PL.

 

[comix4fun]

 

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

 

 

I'd agree if this also counted as yours.

[Logan510]

 

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

 

 

I'd agree if this also counted as yours.

 

 

[slym2none]

I know, I know... "It's not always about you, Donnie!"

 

BUT, I feel the need to re-iterate:

 

Very early on (over 1000 posts here ago) I asked if a write-up was needed, and if not, I'd make the poll. I was told that yes, a write-up is needed, and said "OK, my bad." I didn't start a poll, and I never pressured anyone to make a write-up after that. I am still not sure if anyone else ever said "Just make the poll!" and that's why HS felt pressured to writing his early one up and the subsequent poll that ended up getting deleted, but please know that if so, none of that came from me, as I see it oft repeated that it was said "forget the write-up, just make the poll!"

 

 

 

 

-slym

[bababooey]

 

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

 

 

I'd agree if this also counted as yours.

 

 

I figured that was for your benefit, whoop dee doo

 

You'll see in an earlier post I raised many of the concerns you've voiced over the past couple years, respond to that one, if you can muster an original thought.

 

[thunsicker]

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.

 

From my cursory look over the people in the HoS since 2011 the closest vote was 80-19.

[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.

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.

 

 

In all seriousness, having criteria be flexible enough to adapt to new threats and new problems is important. Something that's too rigid is simply begging to be skirted. That's how people game the system and how innocent traders get hurt.

 

The law has worked this way for centuries. A law is created and then fine tuned and crafted, case by case, situation by situation, to protect those that need protection and allow as little room as possible for those that would skirt responsibility attempting to exploit a perceived loop hole to allow for dishonest behavior. Being that we don't have the same consequences as a court of law, nor the same overall standards, we can be quicker to respond, adapt, and protect the people that deserve and demand protection.

 

Many of the "some people say" portions you posted are actually parts of the same reason.

 

 

Fraud , repeated dishonest behavior, failure to conform with accepted board trading behavior at the expense of their trading partners.

 

I'd like to hear who you think was put on for having a poor sense of humor.

 

The HOS is a place for people that can't, won't, or simply outright refuse to be a respectful, honest, and positive member of the trading community. They are the predators, looking for the limping gazelle. It's ok that we remove them from the preserve, or at the very least shine a bright light on them.

[Sqeggs]

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.

 

I thought BLB kinda got the bum's rush a while back. In the end he cleared up the deal that was the main reason for his nomination. Moot now, I suppose, because he ended up being banned, apparently for anti-CGC rants on Facebook. Still, I never liked how that one went down.

[Logan510]

 

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

 

 

I'd agree if this also counted as yours.

 

 

I figured that was for your benefit, whoop dee doo

 

You'll see in an earlier post I raised many of the concerns you've voiced over the past couple years, respond to that one, if you can muster an original thought.

 

I need to consult with my Oracle first.

[Park]

I feel sorry for the next person to bring up a potential probation list issue.

 

 

 

 

[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.

 

From my cursory look over the people in the HoS since 2011 the closest vote was 80-19.

 

They might have all well deserved it, but my impression lately has been, once nominated, your goose is cooked. Just something to ponder

 

[comicdonna]

Has everyone already voted or is everyone here just to

I have no idea where the poll is.

[HarveySwick]

Here you go Mike!

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=80&Number=8307395&Searchpage=2&Main=163911&Words=HarveySwick&topic=0&Search=true#Post8307395

[comicdonna]

Thanks Justin!

[CAHokie]

There may be a high conviction rate because most nominations are very much deserved.

Edited January 14, 2015 by CAHokie

[MetalPSI]

Mich? I never knew him!

[Ryan.]

I feel sorry for the next person to bring up a potential probation list issue.

 

 

 

 

I've had about one dozen non-paying buyers in my time here and zero motivation to bring it up for probation discussion.

[Logan510]

I feel sorry for the next person to bring up a potential probation list issue.

 

 

 

 

I've had about one dozen non-paying buyers in my time here and zero motivation to bring it up for probation discussion.

 

Why? So they can go and renege on someone else?

[Park]

I feel sorry for the next person to bring up a potential probation list issue.

 

 

 

 

I've had about one dozen non-paying buyers in my time here and zero motivation to bring it up for probation discussion.

 

Due to the process or something else?

[Ryan.]

The process hamstrings you for 30 days and, frankly, if someone doesn't want to follow through on a purchase I have no interest in forcing them to complete a deal.