PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[RockMyAmadeus]

You guys are all retards.

 

xoxo

 

greggy

 

Well there's 20 minutes I won't get back. A hundred or so posts and Greggy's comment is the most appropriate. And entertaining.

 

I agree Greggy's post is the most appropriate for the off-topic, nothing to do with the Probation Discussion bull.

 

Does anyone have something to add about how to determine justified versus unjustifed expenses being levied by someone bringing an issue to the Probation Discussion?

 

Since this isn't a court of law, determining monetary damages is best left to the injured party to determine. Outside of "he offered to buy the books for $XXX, and never paid", trying to determine damages, particularly punitive, probably isn't in the purview of this board.

 

For example: Dekeuk cost me money by screwing with the time in returning the item, thus resulting in a much lower selling price. But should he owe me the difference? I don't think the board is qualified to make that decision.

 

Others may disagree.

 

I will ask you - you say "I don't think the board is qualified to make that decision." What makes you different form "the board"? Are you not part of the board? Currently the HOS is determined by Board consensus. Will you not vote in the poll since you feel the board is not qualified?

 

They are two separate issues.

 

The person who IS qualified to determine their own damage is the injured party, who is still obviously a part of the board. The board as a whole is not qualified to make monetary damages, for a whole host of reasons, some of them being "personal bias, inexperience, inability to understand the issues, etc."

 

As a buyer you should be going in with the means to support accusations.

 

As far as "I lost money because the book doesn't sell for as much now"? That is an apparent sticky wicket but it would open up the gate for "I sold ASM xxx" for $100 but now it is going for $1000". Is THAT a valid case?

 

Of course not. It depends on the timing OF THE SELLER. If a seller sells an item timed to a particular event, like a movie, or to take advantage of a low census number, or whatever, and the buyer doesn't return an item within a reasonable amount of time (and three months is NOT a reasonable amount of time), and the iron is then cold, the buyer has caused the seller quantifiable monetary loss. If, during that time, it is advantageous to the seller, and they sell it for MORE, they obviously have no case.

 

Sharon has also experienced this scenario, as she noted.

 

The Probation List is not here to determine market value of books. There really is no such thing. Market value is best perceived as what someone will pay. That varies tremendously from one individual to another.

 

What the PL is here for is to determine the results of a predetermined transaction. Not to determine the net value of a book at any particular time.

 

Yet another reason why the board, as a whole, is not qualified to determine monetary damages. However, if you say it IS, then "market value at the time of transaction" IS part of determining monetary damages, absolutely!

 

I would reject the "I lost money because I had to sell for less" argument. It was your choice to sell it for less. If you decided to not really seek out the price you wanted, then mea culpa.

 

I do reject the "The board is not qualified to judge" since we already are judging HOS transaction candidates, which carry a much higher stigma than the PL.

 

Answered above. Trying to determine monetary damages exposes the board to a whole host of issues it really has no business being involved in.

[Bosco685]

To play devils advocate, in this scenario now you have to decide that the scans were not a true representation of the books. How do you do that if you don't physically have the books in hand. You can't just take someone's word for it. Let's say you do that, now you have to decide if there were damages, if there were then you have to assign a value to those damages.

 

I know there are plenty of smart guys and gals, with plenty of time on their hands, but there is not a proper framework for this level of detail to operate in. Compare it to a court of law with a definitive final word, Judge, two sole voices presenting cases, prosecuting and defending council, and 12 silent witnesses, who then deliberate amongst themselves. There are endless rules and regulations that govern conduct, there is case law and, so on and so forth. If the outcome is not to your liking there are at least channels that exist for appeals. You are asking way to much of an Internet chat board, IMHO.

 

It's a tricky topic, but one that has come up before on the boards (man, I feel like an old-timer now with the "this has been discussed XX times before").

 

 

Someone will sell raw books on here, but keep the scans dark to hide the spine stress lines. The books arrive, and it comes up how it was clear now what took place. But it may not always work that easy.

 

I think where the Lord High Protector POV (his new and earned title) is going with this is if someone sent you scans ahead of time that made you take the trip, and it was clear once you arrived the books were far off from what was represented in the scans, there is a potential to claim unnecessary expenses. But I can see your point how this is not always going to be easy.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I would reject the "I lost money because I had to sell for less" argument.

 

That's not the argument.

 

The argument is "I lost money because the buyer screwed up returning the item in a timely manner, and by the time it showed up, the iron was cold."

 

BIG difference, and it is very much a valid argument in civil court.

 

I would also reject the "The board is not qualified to judge" since we already are judging HOS transaction candidates, which carry a much higher stigma than the PL.

 

There's a difference between putting someone on a list, and determining actual monetary damages.

 

So Rocky, are you volunteering to be the Board Fact Finder and search all of the Civil Court Cases in every state these transactions occur? Because unless someone IS willing to do this, and provide proper citations, that point is moot.

 

You brought up yuour objection (which I am heavenly grateful to see folks readdressing this). But I would hope that folks who bring such specific objections would be willing to supply the needed references.If they are not, then they are stirring the bucket but not willing to filter the contents. (I still love ya!)

 

Well, of course, I reject your assertion that one cannot object to your statement without being willing to do all the legwork of a civil court clerk. Trying to determine monetary damages, and putting someone on a list because they refused to "pay", just opens up a can of worms that cannot work.

 

As an example, I could potentially, for nothing but pure spite, be slapped with some ridiculous "fine" by a "vote" from members, that is far out of line with the facts as presented, and if I disagreed, I could be placed on the HOS...? I mean, for God's sake, there are people who dispute what I say, simply because *I* said it.

 

Not a smart idea.

[skypinkblu]

I agree, the more I think about it, the more I'm afraid that each transaction is going to result in 88 more pages.

 

It's easier for a transaction where you don't get a book, that's simple the funds must be reimbursed...but for sellers....it's harder...

 

What if we had a sliding scale for transgressions that can no longer be completed?

 

Something like the value scale CGC has.

 

If you promise to buy a book and the book was sold after ...pick a number of days...maybe 120?

 

Then if the book was valued at 10-$100, there should be a forfeit amount to get off the list, say $10

$101 to $200, $20

 

Etc...

 

and I think it might be easier for all, if those forfeits go to the Hero's Fund, or something else comic related...

 

The person on the list, must prove that they made the donation to get off the list...

 

Just an idea, but it's late here, so I may disavow any mention of this in the morning;)

 

[Bosco685]

 

Nice suggestion though, Sharon.

[mikenyc]

To play devils advocate, in this scenario now you have to decide that the scans were not a true representation of the books. How do you do that if you don't physically have the books in hand. You can't just take someone's word for it. Let's say you do that, now you have to decide if there were damages, if there were then you have to assign a value to those damages.

 

I know there are plenty of smart guys and gals, with plenty of time on their hands, but there is not a proper framework for this level of detail to operate in. Compare it to a court of law with a definitive final word, Judge, two sole voices presenting cases, prosecuting and defending council, and 12 silent witnesses, who then deliberate amongst themselves. There are endless rules and regulations that govern conduct, there is case law and, so on and so forth. If the outcome is not to your liking there are at least channels that exist for appeals. You are asking way to much of an Internet chat board, IMHO.

 

It's a tricky topic, but one that has come up before on the boards (man, I feel like an old-timer now with the "this has been discussed XX times before").

 

 

Someone will sell raw books on here, but keep the scans dark to hide the spine stress lines. The books arrive, and it comes up how it was clear now what took place. But it may not always work that easy.

 

I think where the Lord High Protector POV (his new and earned title) is going with this is if someone sent you scans ahead of time that made you take the trip, and it was clear once you arrived the books were far off from what was represented in the scans, there is a potential to claim unnecessary expenses. But I can see your point how this is not always going to be easy.

 

Thats the rub. If you want to play court you can't pick and choose the aspects that forward your position and ignore others. In any he said she said you have to look at the facts and as a whole the board makes and informed decsision. As others have pointed out I am still learning, but the list seems to serve it's purpose quite well, and the watchdogs wouldn't allow someone without merit to be placed on the PL.

 

But to start getting out of the basic transaction into damages, etc just won't work. Unless we all pony up some dough and sign pre-arbitration agreements, hire an arbitrator, and fly in the two parties to present their cases and have an agreement handed down, every time someone renegs on their X Force 1 book sale.

[Bosco685]

every time someone renegs on their X Force 1 book sale.

 

 

You heard about this?

 

Who told you?

[mikenyc]

In honor of Sharon, if a transaction cannot be completed due to non payment after purchasing a book, then subsequently, after x amount of time the seller resells the book, the member who renegged will permanently be on the list. But if it's important enough to them to try and make right by the boards, then after meeting agreed upon criteria, there name is changed to a color to differentiate then from other PL members and a notation is made next to their ID.

 

 

[mikenyc]

every time someone renegs on their X Force 1 book sale.

 

 

You heard about this?

 

Who told you?

 

::

[PovertyRow]

BUT - if upon arriving it is obvious the scans are not correct, had been retouched or not even of the same individual book, then Jasper would have a case. Why? He was deceived into paying extra expenses based on a lie.

 

Good point!

 

To play devils advocate, in this scenario now you have to decide that the scans were not a true representation of the books. How do you do that if you don't physically have the books in hand. You can't just take someone's word for it. Let's say you do that, now you have to decide if there were damages, if there were then you have to assign a value to those damages.

 

I know there are plenty of smart guys and gals, with plenty of time on their hands, but there is not a proper framework for this level of detail to operate in. Compare it to a court of law with a definitive final word, Judge, two sole voices presenting cases, prosecuting and defending council, and 12 silent witnesses, who then deliberate amongst themselves. There are endless rules and regulations that govern conduct, there is case law and, so on and so forth. If the outcome is not to your liking there are at least channels that exist for appeals. You are asking way to much of an Internet chat board, IMHO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK - first and foremost we are talking about VERY RARE occurrences. That is, someone going to check out a books in person.

 

Rule 7 of the Usage Guidelines for selling here states: List scans or information about the grade of the offered books.

 

Now I submit to you that someone who is going to buy books based on a verbal description, and THEN drives out to see the books, they had dang well better bring a camera to make some shots.

 

Again, we are not here to do ANYTHING except make a determination based on real evidence. We are not babysitters for transactions. We have to expect all parties to make an effort to provide solid evidence. And if someone is going to drive 100 miles or more, based on a purely verbal description, they had better male provisions in their communications with the seller that they can photograph the books in question.

 

We need responsibility from all parties involved. And an understanding of what the PL is about.

 

As an example, I have seen many posts indicating that the PL is about buyers not paying. It is not. It is about trasnactions gone bad regardless of the role of the offended party.

 

But to reiterate (because I am Pov and sometimes feel the need to reiterate)

 

Most folks here are savvy to the selling and buying process. If they need to go outside of the bounds of a "normal" sale, they had best be prepared make whatever contingencies are necessary to backup their allegations.

[PovertyRow]

every time someone renegs on their X Force 1 book sale.

 

 

You heard about this?

 

Who told you?

 

::

 

This is how the Off Topic effluence begins. As was previously brought up, this is a forum for discussing Probation issues. Lets keep it that way.

[mikenyc]

every time someone renegs on their X Force 1 book sale.

 

 

You heard about this?

 

Who told you?

 

::

 

This is how the Off Topic effluence begins. As was previously brought up, this is a forum for discussing Probation issues. Lets keep it that way.

 

Don't blame me. I've been a good boy tonight; trying to constructively add to the community. (thumbs u

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

every time someone renegs on their X Force 1 book sale.

 

 

You heard about this?

 

Who told you?

 

::

 

This is how the Off Topic effluence begins. As was previously brought up, this is a forum for discussing Probation issues. Lets keep it that way.

 

[PovertyRow]

In honor of Sharon, if a transaction cannot be completed due to non payment after purchasing a book, then subsequently, after x amount of time the seller resells the book, the member who renegged will permanently be on the list. But if it's important enough to them to try and make right by the boards, then after meeting agreed upon criteria, there name is changed to a color to differentiate then from other PL members and a notation is made next to their ID.

 

 

I actually do have a problem with this. If we enforce it then we are making ourselves the judges of a book's value. I know it sucks on the surface to say that. I do understand the permutations.

 

But I will continue to stipulate that the PL process is to oversee the transactions themselves, not the future outcome.

 

For example, suppose Jethro sells Granny a book for $300. Granny delays the sale. A month has gone by. Another couple of weeks have gone by before Granny admits her mistake.

 

In that time the book has gone from $300 to $200. Granny pays the $100 difference to stay off the PL. She gets the book.

 

Fast forward a few months months later. Due to whatever circumstances: a new movie, a hitherto undiscovered "first appearance", whatever - the book is now steadily going for $600.

 

Does Jethro have the right to say "Yes, Granny paid me the $100 loss I took on trying to sell the book, but now it is going for $600 and Granny got it for that book. I want more compensation."?

 

We cannot, as a group, dictate prices or make ANY decision beyond what was in the original deal. If we do that we are in for some very muddy water.

[PovertyRow]

You guys are all retards.

 

xoxo

 

greggy

 

Well there's 20 minutes I won't get back. A hundred or so posts and Greggy's comment is the most appropriate. And entertaining.

 

I agree Greggy's post is the most appropriate for the off-topic, nothing to do with the Probation Discussion bull.

 

Does anyone have something to add about how to determine justified versus unjustifed expenses being levied by someone bringing an issue to the Probation Discussion?

 

Since there has not been much comment on this specifically, I will reiterate my stance. I believe protecting the offended party should be the priority. With that being the case, it would make sense to me to allow the victim to solely determine what expenses are justified as long as all such expenses are publicly declared (I realize this will not likely be the consensus :shrug: )

 

However, since we are experimenting with the rules, why not fall on the side of safety? By posting the costs, hopefully some peer pressure will cause a reasonably solution to be reached. At some point, of course, this will not be the case and we can see where the system failed and add an amendment/change to the rules for removal from the PL.

 

Snake - err - Heath - one of the things about the PL is determining who IS the "offended party". We have seen a few (at least) situations where the person bringing the claim has turned out to be the offender.

 

So part and parcel of the PL is to determine who actually is at fault. Not just assume those who bring the problem up are automatically innocent and the gulty one is the one they accuse.

 

 

[thehumantorch]

By declaring my cluelessness you validate your omnipotence?

 

I see a custom title!

 

For whom....?

 

Greggy

[PovertyRow]

By declaring my cluelessness you validate your omnipotence?

 

I see a custom title!

 

For whom....?

 

Greggy

 

Please keep it on topic with the Probation List.

[mikenyc]

In honor of Sharon, if a transaction cannot be completed due to non payment after purchasing a book, then subsequently, after x amount of time the seller resells the book, the member who renegged will permanently be on the list. But if it's important enough to them to try and make right by the boards, then after meeting agreed upon criteria, there name is changed to a color to differentiate then from other PL members and a notation is made next to their ID.

 

 

I actually do have a problem with this. If we enforce it then we are making ourselves the judges of a book's value. I know it sucks on the surface to say that. I do understand the permutations.

 

But I will continue to stipulate that the PL process is to oversee the transactions themselves, not the future outcome.

 

For example, suppose Jethro sells Granny a book for $300. Granny delays the sale. A month has gone by. Another couple of weeks have gone by before Granny admits her mistake.

 

In that time the book has gone from $300 to $200. Granny pays the $100 difference to stay off the PL. She gets the book.

 

Fast forward a few months months later. Due to whatever circumstances: a new movie, a hitherto undiscovered "first appearance", whatever - the book is now steadily going for $600.

 

Does Jethro have the right to say "Yes, Granny paid me the $100 loss I took on trying to sell the book, but now it is going for $600 and Granny got it for that book. I want more compensation."?

 

We cannot, as a group, dictate prices or make ANY decision beyond what was in the original deal. If we do that we are in for some very muddy water.

 

This is what I said twenty posts ago that you disagreed with. I said decide expenses and assign a dollar amount and it would be slippery slope. Different words same meaning. The original deal doesn't include gas money, food, a spelunking kit, or anything else other than the two people and the books in question. That is it. And furthermore it should only be on transactions that occur on these boards.

 

 

 

[PovertyRow]

In honor of Sharon, if a transaction cannot be completed due to non payment after purchasing a book, then subsequently, after x amount of time the seller resells the book, the member who renegged will permanently be on the list. But if it's important enough to them to try and make right by the boards, then after meeting agreed upon criteria, there name is changed to a color to differentiate then from other PL members and a notation is made next to their ID.

 

 

I actually do have a problem with this. If we enforce it then we are making ourselves the judges of a book's value. I know it sucks on the surface to say that. I do understand the permutations.

 

But I will continue to stipulate that the PL process is to oversee the transactions themselves, not the future outcome.

 

For example, suppose Jethro sells Granny a book for $300. Granny delays the sale. A month has gone by. Another couple of weeks have gone by before Granny admits her mistake.

 

In that time the book has gone from $300 to $200. Granny pays the $100 difference to stay off the PL. She gets the book.

 

Fast forward a few months months later. Due to whatever circumstances: a new movie, a hitherto undiscovered "first appearance", whatever - the book is now steadily going for $600.

 

Does Jethro have the right to say "Yes, Granny paid me the $100 loss I took on trying to sell the book, but now it is going for $600 and Granny got it for that book. I want more compensation."?

 

We cannot, as a group, dictate prices or make ANY decision beyond what was in the original deal. If we do that we are in for some very muddy water.

 

This is what I said twenty posts ago that you disagreed with. I said decide expenses and assign a dollar amount and it would be slippery slope. Different words same meaning. The original deal doesn't include gas money, food, a spelunking kit, or anything else other than the two people and the books in question. That is it. And furthermore it should only be on transactions that occur on these boards.

 

 

 

As far as transactions only on these boards - that has been gone through and it was agreed upon that that transactions between board members, regardless of the venue, are subject to the PL. If if you want to go through the changing or clarifcation of the process, as you can witness here, then get the agreed upon rules changed - please feel free to do so.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but you wanted to leave it up to the accuser to make the conditions as far as extra expenses go. (If I am wrong please let me know and I will gladly retract.)

 

I see no difference there, as this requires the board members to agree on that condition. Which means the board members will have to agree to any condition set forth by the proven offended party. That is a slippier slope.

 

As far as the rest I need to read back.

[PovertyRow]

In honor of Sharon, if a transaction cannot be completed due to non payment after purchasing a book, then subsequently, after x amount of time the seller resells the book, the member who renegged will permanently be on the list. But if it's important enough to them to try and make right by the boards, then after meeting agreed upon criteria, there name is changed to a color to differentiate then from other PL members and a notation is made next to their ID.

 

 

I actually do have a problem with this. If we enforce it then we are making ourselves the judges of a book's value. I know it sucks on the surface to say that. I do understand the permutations.

 

But I will continue to stipulate that the PL process is to oversee the transactions themselves, not the future outcome.

 

For example, suppose Jethro sells Granny a book for $300. Granny delays the sale. A month has gone by. Another couple of weeks have gone by before Granny admits her mistake.

 

In that time the book has gone from $300 to $200. Granny pays the $100 difference to stay off the PL. She gets the book.

 

Fast forward a few months months later. Due to whatever circumstances: a new movie, a hitherto undiscovered "first appearance", whatever - the book is now steadily going for $600.

 

Does Jethro have the right to say "Yes, Granny paid me the $100 loss I took on trying to sell the book, but now it is going for $600 and Granny got it for that book. I want more compensation."?

 

We cannot, as a group, dictate prices or make ANY decision beyond what was in the original deal. If we do that we are in for some very muddy water.

 

This is what I said twenty posts ago that you disagreed with. I said decide expenses and assign a dollar amount and it would be slippery slope. Different words same meaning. The original deal doesn't include gas money, food, a spelunking kit, or anything else other than the two people and the books in question. That is it. And furthermore it should only be on transactions that occur on these boards.

 

 

 

As far as transactions only on these boards - that has been gone through and it was agreed upon that that transactions between board members, regardless of the venue, are subject to the PL. If if you want to go through the changing or clarifcation of the process, as you can witness here, then get the agreed upon rules changed - please feel free to do so.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but you wanted to leave it up to the accuser to make the conditions as far as extra expenses go. (If I am wrong please let me know and I will gladly retract.)

 

I see no difference there, as this requires the board members to agree on that condition. Which means the board members will have to agree to any condition set forth by the proven offended party. That is a slippier slope.

 

As far as the rest I need to read back.

 

Well I started to read back but too much crapola in their.

 

Can you please encapsulate your take and my objection?