PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[MrBedrock]

I have nothing invested here Sha, nothing. I see a flaw in the system that despite someone who makes a mistake can be hammered for it. Lets take Brents case and put it aside. Let's use anyone else who happens to mess up with 3-4 transactions. If they after some time decide to make things right and one "burned" forum member decides to teach them a lesson... what then? I agree time needs to pass in Brents case.

 

If a seller screws up badly and the byproduct of that screw up is a disgruntled customer who holds a grudge then the blame lies solely with the seller. If sellers don't want grudges held against them then they shouldn't screw up. Simple. Even if they attempt to make it right down the road. Even if they go above and beyond in trying to make it right. The hard feelings that the customer has are directly because the seller screwed up in the first place. DON"T BE A SCREW UP!

[comicdonna]

In Brents case what is to stop someone from being a total tool despite his best efforts?

 

 

So how does a victim of this multiple offender suddenly become a 'tool' ?

What is "best effort'? Seems like 6 months of total denial is stretching it on 'best effort'

 

 

Maybe using Brents case was not the right way to make my point.

 

They become a tool when they decide to teach someone a lesson. What if it is someone else in the future and the wronged forum member feels they don't want the book or restitution regardless of the sellers efforts? What then? In this small of a community people pay for their mistakes. With that said, there is a point that the wronged party can take it too far. You have been here two years, you have never seen that happen?

 

I am with Joe on this one. It should be more of an objective standard. If restitution is offered, and it clearly is intended to or would make the aggrieved party whole, then that is what should be analyzed for removal from the PL. Whether or not the aggrieved party takes the restitution should not be the defining characteristic.

 

Also for me, this is not about QC, because they may or may not have multiple offenses. It is about my belief that no one should be able to keep someone on the PL by rejecting restitution.

+1

[joeypost]

I have nothing invested here Sha, nothing. I see a flaw in the system that despite someone who makes a mistake can be hammered for it. Lets take Brents case and put it aside. Let's use anyone else who happens to mess up with 3-4 transactions. If they after some time decide to make things right and one "burned" forum member decides to teach them a lesson... what then? I agree time needs to pass in Brents case.

 

If a seller screws up badly and the byproduct of that screw up is a disgruntled customer who holds a grudge then the blame lies solely with the seller. If sellers don't want grudges held against them then they shouldn't screw up. Simple. Even if they attempt to make it right down the road. Even if they go above and beyond in trying to make it right. The hard feelings that the customer has are directly because the seller screwed up in the first place. DON"T BE A SCREW UP!

 

I agree with you Richard...to a point. This is a case of making your own bed. What I want to know is how long we are going to force people to lie in it.

[comix4fun]

In Brents case what is to stop someone from being a total tool despite his best efforts?

 

 

So how does a victim of this multiple offender suddenly become a 'tool' ?

What is "best effort'? Seems like 6 months of total denial is stretching it on 'best effort'

 

 

Maybe using Brents case was not the right way to make my point.

 

They become a tool when they decide to teach someone a lesson. What if it is someone else in the future and the wronged forum member feels they don't want the book or restitution regardless of the sellers efforts? What then? In this small of a community people pay for their mistakes. With that said, there is a point that the wronged party can take it too far. You have been here two years, you have never seen that happen?

 

I am with Joe on this one. It should be more of an objective standard. If restitution is offered, and it clearly is intended to or would make the aggrieved party whole, then that is what should be analyzed for removal from the PL. Whether or not the aggrieved party takes the restitution should not be the defining characteristic.

 

Also for me, this is not about QC, because they may or may not have multiple offenses. It is about my belief that no one should be able to keep someone on the PL by rejecting restitution.

 

 

True.....if the bad act is being corrected and the only thing stopping it is refusal by the injured party it can't continue into perpetuity.

[MrBedrock]

All I was really commenting on was the act of the initial screw up and its consequences in a real world sense. Obviously the PL list rules should be adhered to and not abused by a disgruntled party. But if folks would quit disgruntling customers they wouldn't have to worry about PL rules.

[joeypost]

All I was really commenting on was the act of the initial screw up and its consequences in a real world sense. Obviously the PL list rules should be adhered to and not abused by a disgruntled party. But if folks would quit disgruntling customers they wouldn't have to worry about PL rules.

 

Word.

[Logan510]

In Brents case what is to stop someone from being a total tool despite his best efforts?

 

 

So how does a victim of this multiple offender suddenly become a 'tool' ?

What is "best effort'? Seems like 6 months of total denial is stretching it on 'best effort'

 

 

Maybe using Brents case was not the right way to make my point.

 

They become a tool when they decide to teach someone a lesson. What if it is someone else in the future and the wronged forum member feels they don't want the book or restitution regardless of the sellers efforts? What then? In this small of a community people pay for their mistakes. With that said, there is a point that the wronged party can take it too far. You have been here two years, you have never seen that happen?

 

I am with Joe on this one. It should be more of an objective standard. If restitution is offered, and it clearly is intended to or would make the aggrieved party whole, then that is what should be analyzed for removal from the PL. Whether or not the aggrieved party takes the restitution should not be the defining characteristic.

 

Also for me, this is not about QC, because they may or may not have multiple offenses. It is about my belief that no one should be able to keep someone on the PL by rejecting restitution.

 

I think he should be taken off the list, but how many more times is this allowed to happen before it stops? What if he tried to make right a year from now..or two years from now? Should all be forgiven and forgotten?

[seanfingh]

In Brents case what is to stop someone from being a total tool despite his best efforts?

 

 

So how does a victim of this multiple offender suddenly become a 'tool' ?

What is "best effort'? Seems like 6 months of total denial is stretching it on 'best effort'

 

 

Maybe using Brents case was not the right way to make my point.

 

They become a tool when they decide to teach someone a lesson. What if it is someone else in the future and the wronged forum member feels they don't want the book or restitution regardless of the sellers efforts? What then? In this small of a community people pay for their mistakes. With that said, there is a point that the wronged party can take it too far. You have been here two years, you have never seen that happen?

 

I am with Joe on this one. It should be more of an objective standard. If restitution is offered, and it clearly is intended to or would make the aggrieved party whole, then that is what should be analyzed for removal from the PL. Whether or not the aggrieved party takes the restitution should not be the defining characteristic.

 

Also for me, this is not about QC, because they may or may not have multiple offenses. It is about my belief that no one should be able to keep someone on the PL by rejecting restitution.

 

I think he should be taken off the list, but how many more times is this allowed to happen before it stops? What if he tried to make right a year from now..or two years from now? Should all be forgiven and forgotten?

 

See bolded part above.

 

There have been a number of situations where people have come back years later to try and get themselves shored up. One of them Joker-Fish, got taken off the PL and then HOS'd after recidivism reared its ugly head. I don't purport to have all the answers or a foolproof system. I just have a belief that, until the person gets HOS'd, that person should have the ability to get removed by making the aggrieved parties whole. Or trying to.

[Green]

I have nothing invested here Sha, nothing. I see a flaw in the system that despite someone who makes a mistake can be hammered for it. Lets take Brents case and put it aside. Let's use anyone else who happens to mess up with 3-4 transactions. If they after some time decide to make things right and one "burned" forum member decides to teach them a lesson... what then? I agree time needs to pass in Brents case.

 

If a seller screws up badly and the byproduct of that screw up is a disgruntled customer who holds a grudge then the blame lies solely with the seller. If sellers don't want grudges held against them then they shouldn't screw up. Simple. Even if they attempt to make it right down the road. Even if they go above and beyond in trying to make it right. The hard feelings that the customer has are directly because the seller screwed up in the first place. DON"T BE A SCREW UP!

Exactly!

[Logan510]

In Brents case what is to stop someone from being a total tool despite his best efforts?

 

 

So how does a victim of this multiple offender suddenly become a 'tool' ?

What is "best effort'? Seems like 6 months of total denial is stretching it on 'best effort'

 

 

Maybe using Brents case was not the right way to make my point.

 

They become a tool when they decide to teach someone a lesson. What if it is someone else in the future and the wronged forum member feels they don't want the book or restitution regardless of the sellers efforts? What then? In this small of a community people pay for their mistakes. With that said, there is a point that the wronged party can take it too far. You have been here two years, you have never seen that happen?

 

I am with Joe on this one. It should be more of an objective standard. If restitution is offered, and it clearly is intended to or would make the aggrieved party whole, then that is what should be analyzed for removal from the PL. Whether or not the aggrieved party takes the restitution should not be the defining characteristic.

 

Also for me, this is not about QC, because they may or may not have multiple offenses. It is about my belief that no one should be able to keep someone on the PL by rejecting restitution.

 

I think he should be taken off the list, but how many more times is this allowed to happen before it stops? What if he tried to make right a year from now..or two years from now? Should all be forgiven and forgotten?

 

See bolded part above.

 

There have been a number of situations where people have come back years later to try and get themselves shored up. One of them Joker-Fish, got taken off the PL and then HOS'd after recidivism reared its ugly head. I don't purport to have all the answers or a foolproof system. I just have a belief that, until the person gets HOS'd, that person should have the ability to get removed by making the aggrieved parties whole. Or trying to.

 

Fair enough. The only "grudge" I hold is that I'll never buy from him again

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Here are the rules for removal from the Probation List.

 

4) Removal From The PL

 

a) If the accuser requests the accused be removed form the PL, the accused will be removed.

 

b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

c) If multiple accusers are involved, and full restitution is satisfactorily made to all accusers, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

It seems to me that these rules are insufficient and need to be modified.

 

1) 100% of the power to remove the accused from the PL lies with the accuser(s). If the accuser chooses not to request removal, the accused stays on the list. That is the rule? This makes no sense to me. There should be a method for the accused to get off the list if an honest attempt to rectify the situation is made.

 

2) What does "satisfaction" mean? This is too nebulous. Someone might receive restitution, but still not be satisfied for various reasons.

 

3) Why is there no time limit for automatically being nominated to the HOS? Issues should be resolved quickly. Waiting months or even longer seems to defeat the purpose of a PL.

 

So, I guess my point is, why not modify the rules to reflect reality, rather than constantly having to discuss what should and should not be done because the rules are insufficient and unclear?

 

Again, I agree with this 100%. As I had mentioned earlier when I was trying to phrase the collected opinions on the PL Rules I was not expecting that boardies would take another boardie hostage after they tried to make amends.

 

I think this simple modification to the rules (in blue) would solve all these problems.

 

What do you think?

 

4) Removal From The PL

 

a) If the accuser requests the accused be removed form the PL, the accused will be removed.

 

b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

c) If multiple accusers are involved, and full restitution is satisfactorily made to all accusers, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

d) If a reasonable attempt to satisfy and provide full restitution to the accuser(s) has been made, and the accuser(s) is either silent or unwilling to allow the accused to be removed from the PL, the accused may request to be removed from the PL by majority vote.

 

e) If no attempt is made by the accused to satisfy and provide full restitution to the accuser(s) within 30 days, the accused will automatically be subject to a HOS nomination vote.

[Pirate]

Sounds like progress Sharon. I do agree the rules need to be clarified. In Brents case what is to stop someone from being a total tool despite his best efforts?

 

Follow through on your transactions and they won't have to be a tool.

[qualitycomix]

All I was really commenting on was the act of the initial screw up and its consequences in a real world sense. Obviously the PL list rules should be adhered to and not abused by a disgruntled party. But if folks would quit disgruntling customers they wouldn't have to worry about PL rules.

 

Agreed. This situation or anything like it will never ever happen again. I've done enough damage and paid the price by lost future business.

[Pirate]

All I was really commenting on was the act of the initial screw up and its consequences in a real world sense. Obviously the PL list rules should be adhered to and not abused by a disgruntled party. But if folks would quit disgruntling customers they wouldn't have to worry about PL rules.

 

Agreed. This situation or anything like it will never ever happen again. I've done enough damage and paid the price by lost future business.

 

You can't say that for sure, come on

[Pirate]

I'll drop my complaint, but I want first rights on the "I told you so" when it happens again.

[qualitycomix]

All I was really commenting on was the act of the initial screw up and its consequences in a real world sense. Obviously the PL list rules should be adhered to and not abused by a disgruntled party. But if folks would quit disgruntling customers they wouldn't have to worry about PL rules.

 

Agreed. This situation or anything like it will never ever happen again. I've done enough damage and paid the price by lost future business.

 

You can't say that for sure, come on

 

I can't say for sure the sun will rise tomorrow either. But I will make it a point that communication will be as immediate as I can make it. I have hired some great employees which has helped immensely as well.

[qualitycomix]

I'll drop my complaint, but I want first rights on the "I told you so" when it happens again.

 

It won't.

[thehumantorch]

I made a suggestion to Sharon via PM that maybe offenders could be put on a 3 or 6 month waiting time after resolution/resolution offered before being taken off the list or they could voluntarily agree to not put on any sales threads for 3 or 6 months after resolution/resolution offered.

 

I don't think boardies should be able to keep other boardies on the probation list. I'm not saying it's the case in this case, but if one boardie bears a grudge, it can be leveraged on the probation list forever. That is not just.

 

And that gets at the heart of it.

 

Should a boardie be allowed to keep someone on the probation list out of anger even after they've done their best to fix the problem?

 

 

They should not.

 

In any and all situations, or in this particular instance?

 

So if, for arguements sake, I rip off a buyer and send a different book or take PayPal personal and don't send the book, the boardie I ripped off should be forced to accept, if and when I attempt to make amends? And if they choose not to, the perpetrator should be removed anyway?

 

It undermines the entire spirit of the list. It's not the fault of the wronged party for not agreeing to remove the individual, it's the fault of the individual who acted in whatever manner that landed them on the PL in the first place.

Am I missing something here? If you think someone's behaved so badly that they should never be forgiven, or be allowed to make amends, then put them in the HoS. The PL is meant to be temporary.

 

I agree here. It is why it is called a PROBATION list. The folks there are on Probation and given the opportunity to make amends.

 

Exactly. If we consider them incorrigible they go into the HOS. The probation list was designed to pressure people to complete transactions and warn boardies about them.

[PovertyRow]

I made a suggestion to Sharon via PM that maybe offenders could be put on a 3 or 6 month waiting time after resolution/resolution offered before being taken off the list or they could voluntarily agree to not put on any sales threads for 3 or 6 months after resolution/resolution offered.

 

I don't think boardies should be able to keep other boardies on the probation list. I'm not saying it's the case in this case, but if one boardie bears a grudge, it can be leveraged on the probation list forever. That is not just.

 

And that gets at the heart of it.

 

Should a boardie be allowed to keep someone on the probation list out of anger even after they've done their best to fix the problem?

 

 

They should not.

 

In any and all situations, or in this particular instance?

 

So if, for arguements sake, I rip off a buyer and send a different book or take PayPal personal and don't send the book, the boardie I ripped off should be forced to accept, if and when I attempt to make amends? And if they choose not to, the perpetrator should be removed anyway?

 

It undermines the entire spirit of the list. It's not the fault of the wronged party for not agreeing to remove the individual, it's the fault of the individual who acted in whatever manner that landed them on the PL in the first place.

Am I missing something here? If you think someone's behaved so badly that they should never be forgiven, or be allowed to make amends, then put them in the HoS. The PL is meant to be temporary.

 

I agree here. It is why it is called a PROBATION list. The folks there are on Probation and given the opportunity to make amends.

 

Exactly. If we consider them incorrigible they go into the HOS. The probation list was designed to pressure people to complete transactions and warn boardies about them.

 

I just received a PM from a member asking what to do with a Megacon issue. They are pretty new and I directed them here and to the PL list where Megacon has been added.

 

Personally I think Megacon should be on the HOS. Especially as they were a banned user who came back under a different name.

[PovertyRow]

Here are the rules for removal from the Probation List.

 

4) Removal From The PL

 

a) If the accuser requests the accused be removed form the PL, the accused will be removed.

 

b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

c) If multiple accusers are involved, and full restitution is satisfactorily made to all accusers, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

It seems to me that these rules are insufficient and need to be modified.

 

1) 100% of the power to remove the accused from the PL lies with the accuser(s). If the accuser chooses not to request removal, the accused stays on the list. That is the rule? This makes no sense to me. There should be a method for the accused to get off the list if an honest attempt to rectify the situation is made.

 

2) What does "satisfaction" mean? This is too nebulous. Someone might receive restitution, but still not be satisfied for various reasons.

 

3) Why is there no time limit for automatically being nominated to the HOS? Issues should be resolved quickly. Waiting months or even longer seems to defeat the purpose of a PL.

 

So, I guess my point is, why not modify the rules to reflect reality, rather than constantly having to discuss what should and should not be done because the rules are insufficient and unclear?

 

Again, I agree with this 100%. As I had mentioned earlier when I was trying to phrase the collected opinions on the PL Rules I was not expecting that boardies would take another boardie hostage after they tried to make amends.

 

I think this simple modification to the rules (in blue) would solve all these problems.

 

What do you think?

 

4) Removal From The PL

 

a) If the accuser requests the accused be removed form the PL, the accused will be removed.

 

b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

c) If multiple accusers are involved, and full restitution is satisfactorily made to all accusers, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

d) If a reasonable attempt to satisfy and provide full restitution to the accuser(s) has been made, and the accuser(s) is either silent or unwilling to allow the accused to be removed from the PL, the accused may request to be removed from the PL by majority vote.

 

e) If no attempt is made by the accused to satisfy and provide full restitution to the accuser(s) within 30 days, the accused will automatically be subject to a HOS nomination vote.

 

I think D looks good.

 

I think E needs to be examined more. The range of PL violations can range from changing one's mind after the to knowingly selling a restored book as unrestored to not shipping after payment and other things in between.

 

If the accused makes no attempt to satisfy the issue they would remain indefinitely on the PL. Should multiple issues start to be revealed and no attmept at restitution that would be HOS worthy already.

 

I can also see the threat of HOS being a further incentive for the wrongdoer to make amends.

 

Like I say - it needs some mulling over/discussion. But I am really happy to see both points being addressed.