PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[Bosco685]

someone should always have their day in court. when appropriate.

 

Decidedly fixed.

WTTB!

 

No Speedy, it isn't like that.

 

My reference in stating "when appropriate" was the situation of Capfreak, who was off-and-on the list multiple times before he finally burned another crowd of people (at least 10 + buyers).

 

So you would have him come on one more time to explain why each time as a buyer and seller he kept having issues? That's where I would see it as ridiculous to have him come on again and explain once again

 

He got away with a lot only because so many took sympathy on him being one of the youngest members on the forum. But yet he took advantage repeatedly.

 

Maybe that makes sense if you had been one of those burned.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I apologize in advance for my forthcoming comments. I really like the Boards, Board members, and I strive to be a good Boardie myself. However, I have to say this. These Boards are a striking example of a good ole boys club, particulary this probation process, as it stands. Trust me, I have been ed over, on occasion, over the years by other Boardies. I have never called out a Boardie on either this thread or any other thread. Why ? Because I recognize the Boards as a good ole boys club. I would get backlash from the 'I partied with this guy, I know what he's about' crowd with bandwagon jumpers soon to follow. Not worth it. With the exception of Sharon, a true voice of reason, I ask my fellow Boardies to give a little respect to the other guy, recognize the process, and don't jump immediately on the bandwagon. Thanks for listening.

 

 

Can someone point out a situation where anything like the bold section above was actually used as a reason to excuse clearly probation worthy behavior?

 

I can't remember a situation where someone was clearly in the wrong and then given a pass because of who they drank with, can anyone else?

 

These boards can be swift and unrelenting and unforgiving but usually it is this way to the ones truly deserving it's ire.

 

There is a process and a patience necessary to truly get to the bottom of a situation and to discover who wronged whom. That is undeniable. However, I have never experienced these boards defended the wrong party. I don't think that's accurate.

 

 

 

I can think of at least one. Either way, I agree with bob. If I tried to bring a complaint against a well established boardie, everyone would trip over each other to defend them. .

 

My favorite parts are when people rush to defend someone's poor behavior simply because their loyalty had been previously bought with free stuff.

 

"So and so can't be a bad guy! Look at all the free stuff he gives away! Plus, he donates to charity! Bad people just don't do that sort of stuff, Zep...er, RMA! I question your judgement."

 

The glorious argumentum ad hominem...

 

By the way...this bleeds over to board interaction as well. There are mouthy, snide people who are emboldened to be more mouthy and snide to certain people, especially when they see what they perceive as "board leaders" doing it, but wouldn't dare be mouthy and snide to certain other people.

 

We call those people "followers."

[Snake Eyes]

Thanks Snake - 4b rubs me the worng way too. I added it knowing it would be singled out, hoping others would express themsleves on it. Most of the rules are pretty straightforward and reflect much of what is already in place. But this one is a sticky one.

 

As far as a deal impossible to fulfill or that incurredd extra expenses, something like:

 

4b) If extra expenses are incurred in the completion of the transaction, or the transaction can no longer be completed, the accuser may present acceptable alternatives to be discussed on the boards. A resolution completed in this manner to the accuser's satisfaction will result in the accused being removed form the PL.

 

As far as liking or not liking automatic removal if the original deal is fulfilled, regardless of the wishes of the accused:

 

That actually speaks to the spirit of the whole Probation List process. You know how heated some of these discussions can get. Is the PL designed to let people act out of spite, or to insure smoother transactions? I think the latter.

 

Perhaps something like:

 

4c) If the original transaction is completed within 7 days of the accused being put on the PL, they will be removed from the PL.

 

I think 7 days is reasonable, especially if the accuser does not delay for a long time before bringing the situation up on the Discussion board.

 

Thoughts on this? Anyone?

 

Interesting and moving in the right direction I think. Paypal kind of concerns me on this front though. Let's say I place someone on the PL for refusal of payment. They respond to this within the seven days and fire off a paypal payment. The book is shipped and arrives safely. They then return said book to secure their funds back (buyer's remorse, spite, etc.). Paypal will, of course, force the refund. In a case such as this are they in the clear from PL status now? Sounds like a manipulative person (sorry, I work daily with psychopaths and have learned to look for loopholes :doh: ) could pretty easily take advantage of the seven-day allowance and repeatedly engage in bad behavior. :shrug:

 

I have found myself wishing several times in the past that I had a complete probation list (those who are on, and those that have been removed). I do understand the PL is meant to insure smoother transactions, but also would like to see it continue to be used as a strong warning to folks. Perhaps I am in the minority, but some of the transactions I have read about (although later resolved in some way) would be a one-strike and you are out for me. Perhaps too draconian, but just do not see sense in inviting trouble into my life when there are so many others who can follow what are pretty simple guidelines

 

 

Unfortunately, nothing we craft can address all future, potential pitfalls. However, I do think your suggestions above are a significant step in the right direction over the original formulation that was posted (thumbs u

 

Just my long-winded, wall-of-text, two cents

 

SE

Edited July 3, 2011 by Snake Eyes

[Speedy-D]

someone should always have their day in court. when appropriate.

 

Decidedly fixed.

WTTB!

 

No Speedy, it isn't like that.

 

My reference in stating "when appropriate" was the situation of Capfreak, who was off-and-on the list multiple times before he finally burned another crowd of people (at least 10 + buyers).

 

So you would have him come on one more time to explain why each time as a buyer and seller he kept having issues? That's where I would see it as ridiculous to have him come on again and explain once again

 

He got away with a lot only because so many took sympathy on him being one of the youngest members on the forum. But yet he took advantage repeatedly.

 

Maybe that makes sense if you had been one of those burned.

All I meant was I hadn't seen RMA around in a while...But to respond, if things are that out of hand, it's HOS time. Different rules there, right? It's for the evilest of the evil, who have probably already screwed up on the PL at least once or twice, and had an entertaining meltdown/foul mouthed rant along the way.

[Bosco685]

 

All I meant was I hadn't seen RMA around in a while...But to respond, if things are that out of hand, it's HOS time. Different rules there, right? It's for the evilest of the evil, who have probably already screwed up on the PL at least once or twice, and had an entertaining meltdown/foul mouthed rant along the way.

 

Just didn't want any assumption there is a constant witch hunt here.

 

With Capfreak, unfortunately even after four times folks didn't want to put him in the HOS. What got him in the end was his really poor joke on Steve Borock, changing his business cell phone's message.

 

That's an example where too many breaks were given. What a shame on his part all the opportunities he gave up here.

[Speedy-D]

 

All I meant was I hadn't seen RMA around in a while...But to respond, if things are that out of hand, it's HOS time. Different rules there, right? It's for the evilest of the evil, who have probably already screwed up on the PL at least once or twice, and had an entertaining meltdown/foul mouthed rant along the way.

 

Just didn't want any assumption there is a constant witch hunt here.

 

With Capfreak, unfortunately even after four times folks didn't want to put him in the HOS. What got him in the end was his really poor joke on Steve Borock, changing his business cell phone's message.

 

That's an example where too many breaks were given. What a shame on his part all the opportunities he gave up here.

He changed Steve's cell phone answering message? Wow! What did he change it to?

[Bosco685]

 

All I meant was I hadn't seen RMA around in a while...But to respond, if things are that out of hand, it's HOS time. Different rules there, right? It's for the evilest of the evil, who have probably already screwed up on the PL at least once or twice, and had an entertaining meltdown/foul mouthed rant along the way.

 

Just didn't want any assumption there is a constant witch hunt here.

 

With Capfreak, unfortunately even after four times folks didn't want to put him in the HOS. What got him in the end was his really poor joke on Steve Borock, changing his business cell phone's message.

 

That's an example where too many breaks were given. What a shame on his part all the opportunities he gave up here.

He changed Steve's cell phone answering message? Wow! What did he change it to?

 

Along the lines of "Go F yourself" when folks got to his voicemail. And this was after his last bad transaction when Steve was still trying to help him change his ways.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

Anyone who swallows a bad deal because the person on the other side of the deal is part of some perceived "in crowd" or "boy's club" is a low-self-esteem, self-flagellating insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

 

 

Not neccesarily true. Personally, I love a good confrontation. However, age has given me the wisdom to choose my battles wisely. Like in this example I will

accept your reference to me as a low-self-esteem, self-flagellating insufficiently_thoughtful_person and take the high road. You,sir, are simply not worth arguing with.

 

If you don't have enough self-worth to stick up for yourself, no one else is going to do it for you. And we're not having an argument. I'm just telling you you're wrong.

 

 

 

Ok, who are you, and what have you done with Woog???

 

[Speedy-D]

 

All I meant was I hadn't seen RMA around in a while...But to respond, if things are that out of hand, it's HOS time. Different rules there, right? It's for the evilest of the evil, who have probably already screwed up on the PL at least once or twice, and had an entertaining meltdown/foul mouthed rant along the way.

 

Just didn't want any assumption there is a constant witch hunt here.

 

With Capfreak, unfortunately even after four times folks didn't want to put him in the HOS. What got him in the end was his really poor joke on Steve Borock, changing his business cell phone's message.

 

That's an example where too many breaks were given. What a shame on his part all the opportunities he gave up here.

He changed Steve's cell phone answering message? Wow! What did he change it to?

 

Along the lines of "Go F yourself" when folks got to his voicemail. And this was after his last bad transaction when Steve was still trying to help him change his ways.

Holy ! That is some ballsy mess!!!

[thehumantorch]

 

All I meant was I hadn't seen RMA around in a while...But to respond, if things are that out of hand, it's HOS time. Different rules there, right? It's for the evilest of the evil, who have probably already screwed up on the PL at least once or twice, and had an entertaining meltdown/foul mouthed rant along the way.

 

Just didn't want any assumption there is a constant witch hunt here.

 

With Capfreak, unfortunately even after four times folks didn't want to put him in the HOS. What got him in the end was his really poor joke on Steve Borock, changing his business cell phone's message.

 

That's an example where too many breaks were given. What a shame on his part all the opportunities he gave up here.

He changed Steve's cell phone answering message? Wow! What did he change it to?

 

Along the lines of "Go F yourself" when folks got to his voicemail. And this was after his last bad transaction when Steve was still trying to help him change his ways.

 

Sad part was that Steve had taken CapFreak under his wing and let him

stay in his hotel room for free. Poor reward for Steve's generosity.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

Anyone who swallows a bad deal because the person on the other side of the deal is part of some perceived "in crowd" or "boy's club" is a low-self-esteem, self-flagellating insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

 

 

Not neccesarily true. Personally, I love a good confrontation. However, age has given me the wisdom to choose my battles wisely. Like in this example I will

accept your reference to me as a low-self-esteem, self-flagellating insufficiently_thoughtful_person and take the high road. You,sir, are simply not worth arguing with.

 

Actually, I think I am the low esteem insufficiently_thoughtful_person he's referring to

 

Regardless, like you I can pick my battles. I'm annoyed enough about how my "deal" went down. Posting the details and having 100 people rush to the longtime boardies defense and saying I'm overreacting because of who he is sure as he'll ain't gonna make it any better!

 

You should post your case. If I think you've been wronged, I'll defend you to the death...yours, mine, or theirs, whichever comes first.

 

As I'm sure you know, I care nothing about rocking any boat, at any time, for any (good) reason. There is no one on this board (or in life) who is "above" legitimate censure. Sacred cows...? Fire up the grill!

 

[Speedy-D]

How old was he?

[Bosco685]

How old was he?

 

Around 17, I believe.

[mschmidt]

I believe he was 15 when he was "grandfathered" into this forum.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Does Decepticon recap this thread?

 

I love when posts make me , especially when it's been dead silent in the house for a while....

[RockMyAmadeus]

someone should always have their day in court. when appropriate.

 

Decidedly fixed.

 

What's your issue?

 

I thought it was fairly clear already.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh, by the way....

 

Since the rules now apply to ANY transaction regardless of venue, I'd like to nominate Dekuekelare or whatever his name is.

 

In Jan, 2009, he won a Batman #428 CGC 9.8 from me on ebay for $405. I shipped the book out to him via Free Media Mail (his choice.) When he received the book, he complained about the CGC grade, in particular that they had graded it a 9.8 with a tiny loose (not detached) chip in the BRC, common on these books. He claimed it had been damaged after the fact. I assured him that I knew exactly what he was talking about, that it was, in fact, NOT damaged, but that if he wasn't happy with CGC's grade, he should send it back. On the off chance that it WAS damaged (though what he was describing was not), it was fully insured, as always.

 

Instead of paying for return shipping, as he should have done, he took the book and the box it was shipped in back to the post office several days later (4 or 6, it's recorded somewhere else on these boards) and, in contravention to USPS regulations, "refused" the box so he could send it back for free. USPS regulations state that an item must be UNOPENED to qualify for refusal.

 

The box then got lost in the USPS system. Obviously, the USPS doesn't care much for Refused Media Mail.

 

After it had been lost in the mail for a month, "Dekeuk" wrote me and threatened me, stating that if I didn't pay him back his money...despite me having clearly NOT received the item back yet...he would file a Paypal claim...and that is precisely what he did. To date, that remains my first, last, and only charge-back EVER intitiated against me in 11+ years with Paypal. I have never in my life heard of a company refunding someone before they received the product back. Paypal ripped the money out of my account, and I was forced to cover it...even though, again, I had not received the item back, and proper protocol is to wait and file an insurance claim against loss.

 

He didn't like CGC's grading, which has nothing to do with me. He couldn't be bothered to pay for return shipping. He broke USPS regulations in returning the book. He filed a Paypal claim against me, even though it was HIS fault the book hadn't shown up back to me.

 

It eventually showed up a couple months down the road, but the damage had been long done. I had been timing the market, and after 3-4 more months, the value of the book had nearly halved, so I was only able to get $250 out of it. The subsequent buyer was quite pleased with the book and its grade.

 

In my mind, "Dekeuk" still owes me the difference, especially for the grief and damage to my Paypal reputation he put me through.

 

Dekeuk was later involved in an investment scheme on these boards, and disappeared entirely when called on it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I know it may not cover past transgressions, but I figured I'd give it a shot.

[oakman29]

I know it may not cover past transgressions, but I figured I'd give it a shot.

At least you got it out of your system.

[Bosco685]

someone should always have their day in court. when appropriate.

 

Decidedly fixed.

 

What's your issue?

 

I thought it was fairly clear already.

 

If it is a stance of everyone receiving the same treatment, the only concern I would point out to protect the group as a whole is repeat offenders.

 

It's rare here as a situation. But they are out there. Especially when it may impact more than one board member, and others as additional threats the longer the situation is not addressed.