PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[skypinkblu]

Maybe we need to add a new category...*** special mention***

 

 

Does not fit the regular probation thread, and not yet horrid enough for the HOS.

 

Kind of like that wrist slap thingy that Arch invented?

I think I'm joking, but I'm not really quite sure

[thehumantorch]

I'm sorry but it sounds kind of flippant with other people's money. $60+ may be chump-change for you guys but that's a bit of money for me. Especially since Jo Seph lost this money just so the seller could make a quick buck - there's the principle of it.

 

It sounds like some are quick to toss principles under the bus just because "well it wasn't a complete catastrophe and you got most of your money back so you should be happy"

 

You're reading us wrong. We're thrilled that he got his money back. The fees are small relative to the transaction amount but he should get those back also.

[Kevin.J]

but doesn't seem like that's our call to make...

 

Looks like this was the last word:

 

I'm out roughly 60$ but I'm not complaining. I'm happy I got anything back tbh.

So, under the current rules, case closed, right? In other words, if Jo Seph says "let's move on," then it sounds like we move on...none of the rest of us can nominate LongDillon to the probation list or otherwise dictate additional settlement terms under the current rules, because we weren't parties to the transaction, correct?

 

If I bought a book I would expect to recieve it, except in circumstances of its total loss.

If I found ( my book ) had then been sold to someone else for more money, then a partial refund wouldnt get it done.

To me this should not just be swept away as it doesnt fit to the set out rules.

 

1.The seller should make good the fees to the buyer

2.The seller should make good the profit to the buyer or donate the profit to a good cause if the buyer doesnt want them.

3.Serve a period of time ( ? ) on the probation list anyway for this very poor conduct.

 

I want sellers like this on a list somewhere as I never want to do business with them, ever.

[Speedy-D]

but doesn't seem like that's our call to make...

 

Looks like this was the last word:

 

I'm out roughly 60$ but I'm not complaining. I'm happy I got anything back tbh.

So, under the current rules, case closed, right? In other words, if Jo Seph says "let's move on," then it sounds like we move on...none of the rest of us can nominate LongDillon to the probation list or otherwise dictate additional settlement terms under the current rules, because we weren't parties to the transaction, correct?

 

If I bought a book I would expect to recieve it, except in circumstances of its total loss.

If I found ( my book ) had then been sold to someone else for more money, then a partial refund wouldnt get it done.

To me this should not just be swept away as it doesnt fit to the set out rules.

 

1.The seller should make good the fees to the buyer

2.The seller should make good the profit to the buyer or donate the profit to a good cause if the buyer doesnt want them.

3.Serve a period of time ( ? ) on the probation list anyway for this very poor conduct.

 

I want sellers like this on a list somewhere as I never want to do business with them, ever.

If it makes you feel better, I'm sure he's on CAL's list by now, along with the rest of us.

[Kevin.J]

but doesn't seem like that's our call to make...

 

Looks like this was the last word:

 

I'm out roughly 60$ but I'm not complaining. I'm happy I got anything back tbh.

So, under the current rules, case closed, right? In other words, if Jo Seph says "let's move on," then it sounds like we move on...none of the rest of us can nominate LongDillon to the probation list or otherwise dictate additional settlement terms under the current rules, because we weren't parties to the transaction, correct?

 

If I bought a book I would expect to recieve it, except in circumstances of its total loss.

If I found ( my book ) had then been sold to someone else for more money, then a partial refund wouldnt get it done.

To me this should not just be swept away as it doesnt fit to the set out rules.

 

1.The seller should make good the fees to the buyer

2.The seller should make good the profit to the buyer or donate the profit to a good cause if the buyer doesnt want them.

3.Serve a period of time ( ? ) on the probation list anyway for this very poor conduct.

 

I want sellers like this on a list somewhere as I never want to do business with them, ever.

If it makes you feel better, I'm sure he's on CAL's list by now, along with the rest of us.

 

You are just bitter as you didnt make the A+ list

[Speedy-D]

I sure in' am!

[Kevin.J]

I sure in' am!

 

You are on my A+ list man

[mikenyc]

Much like the police having the ability to press charges on behalf of a victim, if the community agrees that a situation warrants it, I think we should be able to nominate an individual.

 

Suck it, ACLU sheep!

[Bosco685]

Much like the police having the ability to press charges on behalf of a victim, if the community agrees that a situation warrants it, I think we should be able to nominate an individual.

 

Suck it, ACLU sheep!

 

[Kevin.J]

Much like the police having the ability to press charges on behalf of a victim, if the community agrees that a situation warrants it, I think we should be able to nominate an individual.

 

Suck it, ACLU sheep!

 

+1

[EC ed]

Much like the police having the ability to press charges on behalf of a victim, if the community agrees that a situation warrants it, I think we should be able to nominate an individual.

 

Suck it, ACLU sheep!

Now this is getting interesting (sincerely). This is indeed a relevant analogy. But, just so we understand what we're proposing here, note that the abililty of the police (or, a district attorney) to press charges on behalf of an unwilling victim does not just materialize out of thin air - that ability is formally granted in the relevant legal code...i.e., the rules. As it currently stands, our rules grant no such authority. So, what we have identified here is a gap in our rules, one that perhaps warrants an amendment. This amendment would necessarily need to outline the circumstances (and procedures) under which the "community" could nominate a person to a public list for a perceived injustice inflicted on a specific member of the community that is no longer "pressing charges." Once that is done, then we would have to figure out whether we could make that amendment retroactive....

[Number 6]

I'm sorry but it sounds kind of flippant with other people's money. $60+ may be chump-change for you guys but that's a bit of money for me. Especially since Jo Seph lost this money just so the seller could make a quick buck - there's the principle of it.

 

It sounds like some are quick to toss principles under the bus just because "well it wasn't a complete catastrophe and you got most of your money back so you should be happy"

You are righteous, I am flawed.

 

 

If this is were we're going to set the bar for a successfully completed transaction then the Probation list is going to become about as worthless as the Kudos thread.

 

[Speedy-D]

I know you ditn't just roll your eyes at me, son!!!

[EC ed]

If this is were we're going to set the bar for a successfully completed transaction then the Probation list is going to become about as worthless as the Kudos thread.

Again, let me stress that I agree that this whole thing reeks. However, at the risk of beating a dead horse, let me again point out that under the current regime, "we" don't set the bar for a successfully completed transaction - the parties directly involved in the transaction set that bar. Based on the last word from the parties directly involved in the transaction, the transaction seems completed. Now, it seems that an amendment might be under consideration to change this...

[skypinkblu]

Much like the police having the ability to press charges on behalf of a victim, if the community agrees that a situation warrants it, I think we should be able to nominate an individual.

 

Suck it, ACLU sheep!

Now this is getting interesting (sincerely). This is indeed a relevant analogy. But, just so we understand what we're proposing here, note that the abililty of the police (or, a district attorney) to press charges on behalf of an unwilling victim does not just materialize out of thin air - that ability is formally granted in the relevant legal code...i.e., the rules. As it currently stands, our rules grant no such authority. So, what we have identified here is a gap in our rules, one that perhaps warrants an amendment. This amendment would necessarily need to outline the circumstances (and procedures) under which the "community" could nominate a person to a public list for a perceived injustice inflicted on a specific member of the community that is no longer "pressing charges." Once that is done, then we would have to figure out whether we could make that amendment retroactive....

 

 

That's a great way of saying it...

 

I might prefer..."Hey Dillon! stop smirking, get in the corner and face the wall till you honor your commitments".

 

But yours does sound a lot better

 

[EC ed]

I might prefer..."Hey Dillon! stop smirking, get in the corner and face the wall till you honor your commitments".

(thumbs u

 

Yep - and we also want to say "Hey Jo Seph! Stop being so gracious and press charges so we can prosecute this *spoon*!"

[Bio-Rupp]

Can't see where an amendment to the Probation rules will solve anything.

 

If ALL parties involved walk away "happy" with how things turned out (that would be Jo seph, Blue Hawaii and LongDillion), then what do any of the rest of us have to do with it?

 

Can "we" deem the transaction between them successful? Or deem it unsuccessful? "We" can't since it isn't "our" transaction. As pretty much per what edowens said.

 

All we can do is just remember the situation as it happened and base our future buying patterns on that.

 

I'm all for public knowledge... I think I've proved that just recently

 

I feel this transaction was brought into the public eye and rightly so... and I do feel that whatever happened on LongDillion's end is scratchy at best.

 

That said, he is attempting to right the wrong that he has originated. Weather it be because of his reasoning that he explained to the board or just because of the fact he got caught.

 

The mere fact that he is TRYING should show that he at least wants to make it right.

 

With a WU payment... its really not like he had to either.

 

LongDillion could have taken the money and the book and ran. There is always eBay or any comic shop in his area where he could have sold this book. But he didn't. He came back on here and took the full brunt of the masses and made his attempt to make it right. Do any of us really need the boards to sell any silver age key?

 

As Speedy said, it could have been a whole lot worse.

 

Again no idea what happened on the seller's end... just watching what he's attempting to do now, which is fix the problem he created.

 

 

[Number 6]

If this is were we're going to set the bar for a successfully completed transaction then the Probation list is going to become about as worthless as the Kudos thread.

Again, let me stress that I agree that this whole thing reeks. However, at the risk of beating a dead horse, let me again point out that under the current regime, "we" don't set the bar for a successfully completed transaction - the parties directly involved in the transaction set that bar. Based on the last word from the parties directly involved in the transaction, the transaction seems completed. Now, it seems that an amendment might be under consideration to change this...

 

I understand. And I agree that as the rules stand now, ultimately it's up to Jo Seph whether he wants to take it any further. We as the community really can't force anything to happen.

 

I think my concern is that I didn't want Jo Seph to feel obligated to accept this resolution. It sounded to me (and it's just my impression, I could have misread it) that some were saying that this was an acceptable resolution and he should be happy with it.

 

I mean, I get it. Is some money better than no money? Yes.

 

Is this a satisfactory outcome? In my opinion no.

 

Should Jo Seph be happy with this outcome? I wouldn't be but that's me.

 

I just didn't want Jo Seph to somehow feel pressured by the community to accept this outcome. My expressions about how I think this should be resolved wasn't about getting the community to force the issue but rather that if he wanted to pursue it we as the community would back him up. As things stand now, it's better than nothing. But it's definitely not satisfactory and Jo Seph is entitled to more should he decide to pursue it.

[Bosco685]

I know you ditn't just roll your eyes at me, son!!!

 

via Imgflip Meme Maker

[Bosco685]

Much like the police having the ability to press charges on behalf of a victim, if the community agrees that a situation warrants it, I think we should be able to nominate an individual.

 

Suck it, ACLU sheep!

 

 

Oh - sorry. I didn't insert "+ 1" when I quoted you.