PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[comix4fun]

I never nominated him for the PL because it seemed a moot point with his disappearance, but if he were to return to run sales threads again, I would definitely bring it up and do so.

this made me think - not sure if this has been brought up in the past - statute of limitations on PL inclusion? that is, shouldn't rule 2(a) be amended to include a time limit? one month etc as a max?

 

Currently:

2) Notification on the Probation Discussion Thread

a) After the 30 Day Rule is fulfilled, the accuser will send a PM to the accused informing them the issue is being submitted to the Probation Discussion Thread for their inclusion in the PL. This should be a new PM and not part of an existing PM chain.

 

Proposed?

2) Notification on the Probation Discussion Thread

a) Within one month after the 30 Day Rule is fulfilled, the accuser will send a PM to the accused informing them the issue is being submitted to the Probation Discussion Thread for their inclusion in the PL. This should be a new PM and not part of an existing PM chain.

 

 

Frankly, that's not really the best proposed language.

 

This would actually dissuade people from working out difficulties, delays and other issues on their own and force their hand to include someone on a PL nomination even if they are in the midst of working out the transaction difficulties on their own and outside the public eye.

 

I don't see any need for such a short time period and I don't believe it serves the equities of transaction completion nor the protection of buyer's rights, which is at the heart of the probation list origins.

[Dr. Love]

I don't see any need for such a short time period and I don't believe it serves the equities of transaction completion nor the protection of buyer's rights, which is at the heart of the probation list origins.

 

"it" referring to any time limit, or one month? three months isn't reasonable - how about one year?

 

you're the lawyer - isn't silence consent after some period of time?

Edited January 6, 2017 by Dr. Love

[Transplant]

I never nominated him for the PL because it seemed a moot point with his disappearance, but if he were to return to run sales threads again, I would definitely bring it up and do so.

this made me think - not sure if this has been brought up in the past - statute of limitations on PL inclusion? that is, shouldn't rule 2(a) be amended to include a time limit? one month etc as a max?

 

Currently:

2) Notification on the Probation Discussion Thread

a) After the 30 Day Rule is fulfilled, the accuser will send a PM to the accused informing them the issue is being submitted to the Probation Discussion Thread for their inclusion in the PL. This should be a new PM and not part of an existing PM chain.

 

Proposed?

2) Notification on the Probation Discussion Thread

a) Within one month after the 30 Day Rule is fulfilled, the accuser will send a PM to the accused informing them the issue is being submitted to the Probation Discussion Thread for their inclusion in the PL. This should be a new PM and not part of an existing PM chain.

 

 

Frankly, that's not really the best proposed language.

 

This would actually dissuade people from working out difficulties, delays and other issues on their own and force their hand to include someone on a PL nomination even if they are in the midst of working out the transaction difficulties on their own and outside the public eye.

 

I don't see any need for such a short time period and I don't believe it serves the equities of transaction completion nor the protection of buyer's rights, which is at the heart of the probation list origins.

 

At the risk of supreme irony, the PL rules have been way over-lawyered. It's kind of ridiculous the hoops required to jump through to nominate someone nowadays.

[jsilverjanet]

Dang you Comix! We are always thinking on the same page.

 

[jsilverjanet]

I can't believe the number of posts this Chip HOS nomination has generated

[greggy]

I can't believe the number of posts this Chip HOS nomination has generated

Mine would garner way more pages.

[Logan510]

I can't believe the number of posts this Chip HOS nomination has generated

 

 

Imagine how many yours would generate.

 

 

Maybe 10-15?

 

 

[comix4fun]

I don't see any need for such a short time period and I don't believe it serves the equities of transaction completion nor the protection of buyer's rights, which is at the heart of the probation list origins.

 

"it" referring to any time limit, or one month? three months isn't reasonable - how about one year?

 

you're the lawyer - isn't silence consent after some period of time?

 

 

30 days is far too short. Actually, I don't know if any limit is a good idea given the type of venue and transactions we're dealing with here.

 

There have been some relatively deft operators on these boards, giving them some loop hole to wriggle free of responsibility seems to be the outcome of setting a limit of time to nominate. For example if that time limit starts at any time when the parties are still talking or trying to work out the deal.

 

If this were the court you'd see anywhere from 1 to 5 years to bring a claim. Even then the clock starts at different times for different problems.

 

Since this is a message board, and not anything as structured as a court, and the purpose of the list is entirely to protect transactions I don't see the downside in letting the clock run indefinitely without limit. If someone owes someone else books or cash I don't think we need to foreshorten the rights of the person on the short end of the stick. We can do better. We can hold people to their word and not let them watch the clock run out on their responsibility.

[CAHokie]

I can't believe the number of posts this Chip HOS nomination has generated

Mine would garner way more pages.

 

True, but at least it would be an unanimous yes vote.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

Just for my own clarification, does inclusion in the HOS mean the member is banned from the boards? Or does it just prevent the shamed member from buying and selling on the sales threads?

 

 

Actually none of the above. He can still be an active member, which may one day help him get removed from the HOS list.

 

It also doesn't prevent him from selling or buying if people want to transact with him. Just serves as a warning.

 

How does it serve as a warning? Is their name marked with some form of scarlet letter? Or is it up to individual members to visit the Hall of Shame and know who the bad boardies are?

 

 

It's up to individual members to check things out. I don't think "we" are allowed to jump into a sales thread and comment that "Hey! Head's up...this guy is on the PL/HOS".

 

Why not?

 

I figured it would be seen as possible threakrapping. Based on the response of others, I was mistaken. It appears it is allowed.

 

Its likely all about presentation. So "FYI this POS is on the HOS and probably should be in Jail" would probably be threadkrapping.

 

 

Yes. I laughed out loud at that one.

[CAHokie]

Yeah, no need for time limits. If a PL nomination happens a year later, then the boards can look at the facts and decide if the delay in nomination was warranted. Think about the sketch op incidents. Those would rarely be completed in 30 days.

[comix4fun]

I never nominated him for the PL because it seemed a moot point with his disappearance, but if he were to return to run sales threads again, I would definitely bring it up and do so.

this made me think - not sure if this has been brought up in the past - statute of limitations on PL inclusion? that is, shouldn't rule 2(a) be amended to include a time limit? one month etc as a max?

 

Currently:

2) Notification on the Probation Discussion Thread

a) After the 30 Day Rule is fulfilled, the accuser will send a PM to the accused informing them the issue is being submitted to the Probation Discussion Thread for their inclusion in the PL. This should be a new PM and not part of an existing PM chain.

 

Proposed?

2) Notification on the Probation Discussion Thread

a) Within one month after the 30 Day Rule is fulfilled, the accuser will send a PM to the accused informing them the issue is being submitted to the Probation Discussion Thread for their inclusion in the PL. This should be a new PM and not part of an existing PM chain.

 

 

Frankly, that's not really the best proposed language.

 

This would actually dissuade people from working out difficulties, delays and other issues on their own and force their hand to include someone on a PL nomination even if they are in the midst of working out the transaction difficulties on their own and outside the public eye.

 

I don't see any need for such a short time period and I don't believe it serves the equities of transaction completion nor the protection of buyer's rights, which is at the heart of the probation list origins.

 

At the risk of supreme irony, the PL rules have been way over-lawyered. It's kind of ridiculous the hoops required to jump through to nominate someone nowadays.

 

True, which is why I am against foreshortening rights. Simply put, the PL is a leverage point to help people become convinced that keeping their word is in their best interests. Putting more barriers or loopholes in the way of that seems counterproductive to the overall purpose of the PL.

[topofthetotem]

I can't believe the number of posts this Chip HOS nomination has generated

Mine would garner way more pages.

Prove it!

[jaybuck43]

Yeah, no need for time limits. If a PL nomination happens a year later, then the boards can look at the facts and decide if the delay in nomination was warranted. Think about the sketch op incidents. Those would rarely be completed in 30 days.

 

Not only that, it's really easy to string someone along for 30 days. "hey, I'm really sorry, I'm out of town for work for the week, I'll mail next week". "Hey, mom is in the hospital, I'll mail as soon as it's done etc." and if the buyer believes the excuses (or doesn't want to upset the seller by pushing it in the hopes of getting it) then boom the seller is off the hook.

 

I see no reason for a statute of limitations.

[comix4fun]

I can't believe the number of posts this Chip HOS nomination has generated

Mine would garner way more pages.

 

True, but at least it would be an unanimous yes vote.

 

 

35 pages of people high fiving after voting....

 

[Dr. Love]

True, which is why I am against foreshortening rights. Simply put, the PL is a leverage point to help people become convinced that keeping their word is in their best interests. Putting more barriers or loopholes in the way of that seems counterproductive to the overall purpose of the PL.

 

thanks for the well reasoned response

[comix4fun]

True, which is why I am against foreshortening rights. Simply put, the PL is a leverage point to help people become convinced that keeping their word is in their best interests. Putting more barriers or loopholes in the way of that seems counterproductive to the overall purpose of the PL.

 

thanks for the well reasoned response

 

 

Thanks for hearing me out. There's very little of that normally on the boards.

[crassus]

Yeah, no need for time limits. If a PL nomination happens a year later, then the boards can look at the facts and decide if the delay in nomination was warranted. Think about the sketch op incidents. Those would rarely be completed in 30 days.

 

Great example. Some transactions are not a single thing but an ongoing series of moving parts.

[MetalPSI]

I only skimmed through 350+ posts....is the vote over?

[Foley]

I only skimmed through 350+ posts....is the vote over?

 

I think it ends Sunday

Edited January 6, 2017 by Foley