PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[skypinkblu]

You have to really really mess up to get in the HOS.

 

All the probation list does is warn people about buying and selling, same with the HOS, we don't get to ban people...that's the mod's job and I believe they made their decision with Connor.

 

I hope he does well in life, learned some lessons, but there is no point in worrying about something that is not an issue.

[JazzMan]

And even people on the HOS should have the opportunity to fix things....

 

And yes, the opportunity should be far, far, far above and beyond the original infractions...but if Dan, or Cap Freak, or whomever showed up and made a serious, compelling, and persistent effort to clear their names, yes, even they should be removed.

 

 

Sorry, can't agree. There is nobody on that list that I could

ever trust again.

 

That you guys shut off even the POSSIBILITY of rehabilitation goes a longgggggg way towards explaining the suspicious, defensive, hostile, and unforgiving general attitude this board has.

 

And just because YOU couldn't trust them, doesn't mean that nobody should ever trust them again, as long as they live.

 

Not you, Torchy, I do think you're the bees knees. Don't want you to get the wrong impression...I don't mean you personally. I mean, in general, this attitude bleeds over to the boards all the time.

 

People say something, for example, that someone doesn't like and 5 years, 10 years, 20 years down the line, it's stil thrown back in their face.

 

That's NOT healthy, and it's NOT something that should be encouraged.

 

I think you are over thinking the situation. Although the Probation List and HOS are here, it does not stop people from dealing with someone on the list. Heck, I bet some folks have already dealt with PL & HOS members through eBay and never even knew it.

 

I personally believe that if you went out of your way to get on the HOS, you deserve to wear that badge perpetually...no matter what age. Would you ever deal directly with AlleyBat or any others? If you do, then it's at your own risk knowing that whomever is on the HOS has a history of not just bad transactions but severely egregious ones that gave them a scarlet letter to take with them.

 

On a related note: there is at least one person who is still on the PL list and the original accuser has not permitted him to get off even after he has made restitution. (I'm going off memory, so don't kill me if I'm off base). Notwithstanding, we definitely need to address this situation in the future and I believe that POV has the right idea. The trouble will be if the two parties don't agree on what the actual restitution should be. It may not be up to a poll but maybe a set of mediators that review the evidence and whose decisions are binding. I hate to bring up more red tape, but I see that this could be a real possibility.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think you are over thinking the situation. Although the Probation List and HOS are here, it does not stop people from dealing with someone on the list. Heck, I bet some folks have already dealt with PL & HOS members through eBay and never even knew it.

 

I personally believe that if you went out of your way to get on the HOS, you deserve to wear that badge perpetually...no matter what age. Would you ever deal directly with AlleyBat or any others? If you do, then it's at your own risk knowing that whomever is on the HOS has a history of not just bad transactions but severely egregious ones that gave them a scarlet letter to take with them.

 

It would depend entirely on the situation, and what AlleyBat or any of the others did FIRST to prove their trustworthiness. And the point isn't whether it stops anyone from doing business with them, either. That is self-evidently not true.

 

Look, I understand that there are rotten people who will never change, and some of them (a lot of them) seem to end up in comics. And if someone has no interest in proving their worth, fine. Forever they should stay. I'm sure the vast majority of the people on these lists care not one whit about it.

 

But the lack of forgiveness for people who genuinely seek it (and even those who don't) doesn't hurt THEM.

 

It hurts US.

 

To cut off even the POSSIBILITY for forgiveness is a terrible, soul killing action. None of us is not guilty of something, even if not a specific criminal act. The possibility that forgiveness could be obtained if sought should always, always, always be open....

[PovertyRow]

I hate to bring up more red tape, but I see that this could be a real possibility.

 

Don't. Better now than after the rules are in place!

[boomtown]

People say something, for example, that someone doesn't like and 5 years, 10 years, 20 years down the line, it's stil thrown back in their face.

 

That's NOT healthy, and it's NOT something that should be encouraged.

 

Yeah, I saw an example of this a few pages back, some tool was complaining about a transaction he had in 2009.

[thehumantorch]

And even people on the HOS should have the opportunity to fix things....

 

And yes, the opportunity should be far, far, far above and beyond the original infractions...but if Dan, or Cap Freak, or whomever showed up and made a serious, compelling, and persistent effort to clear their names, yes, even they should be removed.

 

 

Sorry, can't agree. There is nobody on that list that I could

ever trust again.

 

That you guys shut off even the POSSIBILITY of rehabilitation goes a longgggggg way towards explaining the suspicious, defensive, hostile, and unforgiving general attitude this board has.

 

We've forgiven a fair number of boardies from the Probation List but the HOS is

a different kettle of fish. When voting to place someone into the HOS I've always

voted yes if I considered them beyond redemption. :shrug:

 

The fact that we can conduct large $ transactions with boardies who we've never

met in person is really quite amazing. Requires some blind trust and optimism

that people are generally honest. Repeatedly betray our trust and it is pretty

difficult to not be suspicious or defensive or hostile.

 

The general board hostility or suspicion in other threads is another matter.

 

[Bosco685]

You really think someone like Cap Freak, who is STILL a stupid kid, should be on this HOS his ENTIRE LIFE? That 10 or 20 years from now, he couldn't even POTENTIALLY have grown up and cleaned up his act?

 

Really...?

 

What a depressing, unforgiving world you live in.

 

No depressing world here - and I can be very forgiving. But I also realize when someone keeps showing the same poor character flaws there is a very strong potential for that activity to get worse - not better.

 

And after all he did, and folks still kept forgiving him - including Divad who tried to pull him off the probation list - he then goes and screws over Steve Borock and his business by tampering with his business cell phone message.

 

So it is a world of reality. Sorry to hit you with a dose of it.

 

Pay very close attention to the words I am about to type, Bosco, because they are incredibly important and bear a TREMENDOUS amount of weight to this situation:

 

CAP FREAK IS A KID.

 

He's, what, 19 now?

 

Are you even aware that people do not finish developing (man, I sound like a wacky liberal) until their mid 20's?

 

Cap Freak, like all kids, got away with what he got away with because people trusted him with more than he was capable of handling (obviously!)

 

Stupid kids deserve the right to grow up.

 

If he was 30, I would agree with you. He is not. He was a kid.

 

Should he be given a VERY short leash? Oh, you betcha. Should he be made to provide restitution to everyone he wronged, to THEIR satisfaction? Oh, you betcha. Should he be trusted with ANYTHING until he has demonstrated consistently, over a VERY long period of time, that he's capable of that trust? Hell no!

 

Does he deserve to be on the HOS when he's 40?

 

Please.

 

I hear you about him being a kid. A kid that was given more breaks than probably anyone has been given on here. Even people working with him after the Probation List entry to show they were still in his corner. And he still blew it twice-over.

 

Is it very sad to see what occurred? Of course it is.

 

Does it make me pity him? Sure - but don't the victims deserve the same concern?

 

At 17-19 years old, if you still keep burning yourself and others, you need a very strong wake up call to help leave a lasting impression why to change your ways. He will probably make a great addition to another forum one day when he matures. With this one, he did too much damage to be allowed back on as a buyer or a seller.

[Bosco685]

For example, one of the terms is a 30 day wait. What if the offended party feels that 30 days is too long and feels it is their right, as the offended one, to lay the issue out in a week's time? Do we allow it because the offended has the right to make final decisions?

 

This actually has been ignored once before when the buyer responded to the seller and confirmed he was not going to pay for the item. It was felt by the majority there was no reason to wait 30 days then if it was already clear what the end state was going to be.

 

So there are deviations when it seems appropriate from the rules.

[JazzMan]

I think you are over thinking the situation. Although the Probation List and HOS are here, it does not stop people from dealing with someone on the list. Heck, I bet some folks have already dealt with PL & HOS members through eBay and never even knew it.

 

I personally believe that if you went out of your way to get on the HOS, you deserve to wear that badge perpetually...no matter what age. Would you ever deal directly with AlleyBat or any others? If you do, then it's at your own risk knowing that whomever is on the HOS has a history of not just bad transactions but severely egregious ones that gave them a scarlet letter to take with them.

 

It would depend entirely on the situation, and what AlleyBat or any of the others did FIRST to prove their trustworthiness. And the point isn't whether it stops anyone from doing business with them, either. That is self-evidently not true.

 

Look, I understand that there are rotten people who will never change, and some of them (a lot of them) seem to end up in comics. And if someone has no interest in proving their worth, fine. Forever they should stay. I'm sure the vast majority of the people on these lists care not one whit about it.

 

But the lack of forgiveness for people who genuinely seek it (and even those who don't) doesn't hurt THEM.

 

It hurts US.

 

To cut off even the POSSIBILITY for forgiveness is a terrible, soul killing action. None of us is not guilty of something, even if not a specific criminal act. The possibility that forgiveness could be obtained if sought should always, always, always be open....

 

When was the last time someone from the HOS came here and asked for forgiveness? It seems to me that someone that's already on the HOS has banned themselves because they know they did wrong and don't want to admit it.

[PovertyRow]

For example, one of the terms is a 30 day wait. What if the offended party feels that 30 days is too long and feels it is their right, as the offended one, to lay the issue out in a week's time? Do we allow it because the offended has the right to make final decisions?

 

This actually has been ignored once before when the buyer responded to the seller and confirmed he was not going to pay for the item. It was felt by the majority there was no reason to wait 30 days then if it was already clear what the end state was going to be.

 

So there are deviations when it seems appropriate from the rules.

 

::sigh:: This makes the infant Pov weep.

 

As I outlined in 1c of the proposed rules:

 

c) The 30-day rule is suspended if the accused refuses to complete the transaction or if the transaction cannot be completed due to, for example, the item being sold to someone else.

 

When I used the 30 day rule I was being brief. If I now feel the need to elaborate fully on all of my posts then the good folks here can thank you and there will be universal cries of "Bosco made him do it."

[Peter Loves Gwen]

You really think someone like Cap Freak, who is STILL a stupid kid, should be on this HOS his ENTIRE LIFE? That 10 or 20 years from now, he couldn't even POTENTIALLY have grown up and cleaned up his act?

 

Really...?

 

What a depressing, unforgiving world you live in.

 

No depressing world here - and I can be very forgiving. But I also realize when someone keeps showing the same poor character flaws there is a very strong potential for that activity to get worse - not better.

 

And after all he did, and folks still kept forgiving him - including Divad who tried to pull him off the probation list - he then goes and screws over Steve Borock and his business by tampering with his business cell phone message.

 

So it is a world of reality. Sorry to hit you with a dose of it.

 

Pay very close attention to the words I am about to type, Bosco, because they are incredibly important and bear a TREMENDOUS amount of weight to this situation:

 

CAP FREAK IS A KID.

 

He's, what, 19 now?

 

Are you even aware that people do not finish developing (man, I sound like a wacky liberal) until their mid 20's?

 

Cap Freak, like all kids, got away with what he got away with because people trusted him with more than he was capable of handling (obviously!)

 

Stupid kids deserve the right to grow up.

 

If he was 30, I would agree with you. He is not. He was a kid.

 

Should he be given a VERY short leash? Oh, you betcha. Should he be made to provide restitution to everyone he wronged, to THEIR satisfaction? Oh, you betcha. Should he be trusted with ANYTHING until he has demonstrated consistently, over a VERY long period of time, that he's capable of that trust? Hell no!

 

Does he deserve to be on the HOS when he's 40?

 

Please.

 

I hear you about him being a kid. A kid that was given more breaks than probably anyone has been given on here. Even people working with him after the Probation List entry to show they were still in his corner. And he still blew it twice-over.

 

Is it very sad to see what occurred? Of course it is.

 

Does it make me pity him? Sure - but don't the victims deserve the same concern?

 

At 17-19 years old, if you still keep burning yourself and others, you need a very strong wake up call to help leave a lasting impression why to change your ways. He will probably make a great addition to another forum one day when he matures. With this one, he did too much damage to be allowed back on as a buyer or a seller.

 

I would not make the HOS a lifetime sentence, but there should be a list there which would include all names that have ever been put on the HOS list.

 

Sure, if someone at some point really could make up for how they got on the HOS list, allow them forgiveness. But I would maintain a notation or notes about their past, in that HOS list. Have a poll of members to allow them back in, after what ever restitution. But always have their name visible in the HOS list, place a huge neon sign next to forgiven HOS members which points to details of their rehabilitation. It should be like having a sex offender always registered with local authorities. Don't hang a sign around their heads, or in their signature, but be sure that their past history isn't wiped clean or invisible.

[Bosco685]

For example, one of the terms is a 30 day wait. What if the offended party feels that 30 days is too long and feels it is their right, as the offended one, to lay the issue out in a week's time? Do we allow it because the offended has the right to make final decisions?

 

This actually has been ignored once before when the buyer responded to the seller and confirmed he was not going to pay for the item. It was felt by the majority there was no reason to wait 30 days then if it was already clear what the end state was going to be.

 

So there are deviations when it seems appropriate from the rules.

 

::sigh:: This makes the infant Pov weep.

 

As I outlined in 1c of the proposed rules:

 

c) The 30-day rule is suspended if the accused refuses to complete the transaction or if the transaction cannot be completed due to, for example, the item being sold to someone else.

 

When I used the 30 day rule I was being brief. If I now feel the need to elaborate fully on all of my posts then the good folks here can thank you and there will be universal cries of "Bosco made him do it."

 

[DWL]

I think it is fair for ther accuser to state their requirements for satisfaction should things get beyond the conditions of the original transaction. I think it is fair for there to be a discussion on the validity of the conditions. (how often have we seen things like "yeah, they finally came through but I am ticked and do not want to remove them" kind of posts?

 

I am all for visibility in the conditions, as it promotes accountability and compliance on both ends without terms meandering over time. Further, I have no problem at all with their being discussion on the validity of such terms. However, I would limit my acceptance to discussion only. Ultimately, as long as the decision regarding terms resides with the offended party I am on-board. However, if the board discussion on the validity of terms morphs into the board itself (or several vocal members in the discussion) attempting to usurp the offended party and dictate terms (as if some sort of forced mediation) I am not so much on-board anymore

 

 

Snake Eyes (may I call you Snake? Eyes? SE?)

 

Anyway, the thing is we already have conditions setup that a person may not agree with.

 

For example, one of the terms is a 30 day wait. What if the offended party feels that 30 days is too long and feels it is their right, as the offended one, to lay the issue out in a week's time? Do we allow it because the offended has the right to make final decisions?

 

The biggest hurdle we have in this whole discussion is indeed this "what comprises satisfaction on the part of the offended". It is actually the only real hurdle left. The rest is all getting the right language down for clarity. Then a final vote on the new rule set.

 

I have no personal stake in it. There are arguments on both sides because it IS a very grey area and it is actually impossible to foresee all scenarios and account for them in a set of rules. (If anything, this process is making me reluctantly respect why laws and legal documents are so filled with complexity and length).

 

I think if it is demonstrated factually that unavoidable extra expenses were incurred then that should be taken as part of fulfilling the original obligation. And in that case, once those expenses are met then the name comes off automatically.

 

But what about avoidable extra expenses? Can someone go too far in trying to get a deal completed? Even intentionally spending extra money to get the deal completed, feeling they can then recap the unecessary extra expenses? I think at that point board intervention and consensus is needed.

 

I wish more folks would chime in on the whole extended culpability thing.

 

First off, excellent contributions on the part of everyone who has helped craft a more refined and workable set of guidelines. Thank you everyone for their efforts!

 

With respect to the last point about extended culpability, could someone please provide an example of what might constitute "extra expenses"?

 

What, for example, might be deemed to be a reasonable or unreasonable expense. And who would decide what is and what is not an acceptable extra expense?

 

 

[Bio-Rupp]

Case B deal was made via pm and a few hours afterward the seller got full ask on a few of the books in one of the threads. I was told that since i didnt go back thru the 3 threads that were involved in the deal and place the "ill takeits" that the deal wasnt final.

 

Oh no Green... you didn't just write this did you? I kinda thought we were getting along. Just to prove to you that I could care less about jumping right back in this with you, then lets roll...

 

Remember the case...

 

-You refused to place the sign in the threads as asked. You said you were sick and wanted to lay down... boo hoo... but not sick enough to haggle prices in two other threads tho.

 

- The only rule of the thread which was... " trumps any and all PM's"

 

- Your "few hours" was really about 15 minutes where the other party stepped in and snagged your "great deal".

 

I really wish you would quit stating I "took" this win from you to make more money. I think the people that have dealt with me, know that by stating that, you are full of . It was only about $2 more than you were paying factoring in all the other items you, more or less, demanded to have from other threads.

 

Again if you think $2 whole dollars was a landslide of cash, then you didn't need to be buying funny books anyway.

 

- You started a poll (at my request) which sets at 41% "Not a sale", 59% "Was a sale". A total of 51 whole people chimmed in for your victory on the poll. You had about 12 votes to my one right off the bat. Why? Because you didn't mention when you started the poll and showed the PM screen shot of where I said "sold"... was that the only rule of the thread was " beats any and all PM's". All people saw was I said "sold". Then 15 minutes later, someone else threw up a in the sales thread... thus "trumping" your PM.

 

A whopping 51 people voted... which is about how many participated in the Frag up Some Lyrics Competiton: Mellencamp Edition in the last Clooneython thread. This wasn't a landslide decision for you Green... not by a longshot.

 

I don't care how many of your buddies read it the way you read it. If you are dealing in a PM and " trumps a PM", you lose.

 

FYI I've been dealing with those same buddies of yours for the last 7 months and haven't had a problem with a single one of them. Either via them buying off me or me buying off them.

 

You weren't denied this lot because I sold it to someone else... you lost it due to the fact you didn't post the in the thread. I even PM'd you back when you said you weren't going to post them!

 

No Green, It wasn't that I did "not" sell you that lot... you refused to buy it by not doing what I, the seller, asked you to do. I gave you the oppurtunity to buy, I asked you to post 's and you refused. You lost.

 

Don't forget I let you out of another $100 win because you didn't want to deal with me because of your hurt feelings. I didn't have to do that either sir... I kinda wish I'd have left you on the hook for that one. It would have been like pulling teeth for you to pay for it I'm sure.

 

Maybe its time to just realize what really happend Green... you screwed yourself on that one sir.

 

 

Just as a reminder for you sir... and since obviously there isn't enough above....

 

:takeit: :takeit: :takeit: :takeit: :takeit:

:takeit: :takeit: :takeit: :takeit: :takeit:

:takeit: :takeit: :takeit: :takeit: :takeit:

:takeit: :takeit: :takeit: :takeit: :takeit:

:takeit: :takeit: :takeit: :takeit: :takeit:

Edited July 6, 2011 by Bio-Rupp

[Bio-Rupp]

I feel you reading this right now Green.... stings don't it... ouch

[Green]

What i wrote is basically a condensed version of what you wrote without the snotty and self righteous tone. We had a deal, then we didnt.

 

Quick math lesson: 59>41

 

All this from a pity buy of beater DCs iirc. Obviously my pity was well placed. (thumbs u

 

 

[Bosco685]

Green, what if I sent you a pile of DC comics for free - would that help ease the situation?

 

I hate to see you two go at each other like this.

 

[greggy]

I love this thread.

[PovertyRow]

I think it is fair for ther accuser to state their requirements for satisfaction should things get beyond the conditions of the original transaction. I think it is fair for there to be a discussion on the validity of the conditions. (how often have we seen things like "yeah, they finally came through but I am ticked and do not want to remove them" kind of posts?

 

I am all for visibility in the conditions, as it promotes accountability and compliance on both ends without terms meandering over time. Further, I have no problem at all with their being discussion on the validity of such terms. However, I would limit my acceptance to discussion only. Ultimately, as long as the decision regarding terms resides with the offended party I am on-board. However, if the board discussion on the validity of terms morphs into the board itself (or several vocal members in the discussion) attempting to usurp the offended party and dictate terms (as if some sort of forced mediation) I am not so much on-board anymore

 

 

Snake Eyes (may I call you Snake? Eyes? SE?)

 

Anyway, the thing is we already have conditions setup that a person may not agree with.

 

For example, one of the terms is a 30 day wait. What if the offended party feels that 30 days is too long and feels it is their right, as the offended one, to lay the issue out in a week's time? Do we allow it because the offended has the right to make final decisions?

 

The biggest hurdle we have in this whole discussion is indeed this "what comprises satisfaction on the part of the offended". It is actually the only real hurdle left. The rest is all getting the right language down for clarity. Then a final vote on the new rule set.

 

I have no personal stake in it. There are arguments on both sides because it IS a very grey area and it is actually impossible to foresee all scenarios and account for them in a set of rules. (If anything, this process is making me reluctantly respect why laws and legal documents are so filled with complexity and length).

 

I think if it is demonstrated factually that unavoidable extra expenses were incurred then that should be taken as part of fulfilling the original obligation. And in that case, once those expenses are met then the name comes off automatically.

 

But what about avoidable extra expenses? Can someone go too far in trying to get a deal completed? Even intentionally spending extra money to get the deal completed, feeling they can then recap the unecessary extra expenses? I think at that point board intervention and consensus is needed.

 

I wish more folks would chime in on the whole extended culpability thing.

 

First off, excellent contributions on the part of everyone who has helped craft a more refined and workable set of guidelines. Thank you everyone for their efforts!

 

With respect to the last point about extended culpability, could someone please provide an example of what might constitute "extra expenses"?

 

What, for example, might be deemed to be a reasonable or unreasonable expense. And who would decide what is and what is not an acceptable extra expense?

 

 

Well, an unreasonable expense would be a buyer who does not carry through with paying. After the case is brought up, the buyer admits thir mistake, carelessness whatever. The seller then insists on shipping via Express Mail at $35 rather than Priority at $10 because they claim they feel more secure that way with this questionable buyer. Or a seller who has the address and just decides to spend $100 driving expenses to talk to the buyer unannounced "face to face" when they could have picked up the phone or used PM or email.

 

A "reasonable expense" - well that has to be determined. Definitely need input on that.

[Bosco685]

I love this thread.

 

And Greggy will send Green a bunch of romance comics, but color all the people green to give it that "feel."