PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[jaybuck43]

I agree with edowens in that a scummy deal in PIF might bleed over into the marketplace (i.e. he burned on PIF, what makes you believe he will be legit in Marketplace) But a separate list would fix that issue, since we have no proof that Person A would scam on a paypal/check, just that he didn't send out his free offer. So maintaining a separate list might fix the problem to begin with. So Manicnerd please correct me here, but my understanding now is Person X listed 5 spideys, you claimed it and then offered your Mylars, where Person C claimed that, and you never got your spideys? But in theory doesn't that just mean you have a "free" claim? I.e. you can just claim someone else's stuff without offering? I know that there have been issues with this before, i just wont mention names. So how has it been fixed in the past because I know that it didn't lead to PL nomination?

[seanfingh]

I would like to nominate BathedinFlames for the probation list because of the following:

• July 14th - he claimed a pay it forward 6th post on page 358
  
• July 16th - I claimed a pay it forward from him 7th post on page 365
  
• On that same page he quoted 3 business day delivery - I assumed it would take longer because he is in Canada and I'm in the US
  
• Aug. 2nd - I sent him a PM asking for a tracking number - He has yet to read the PM
  
• Aug 8th - I sent an email to the address listed in his profile asking for a tracking number - no reply
  
• Aug 16th - I sent a 2nd email stating I would submit him for the probation list if I did not hear from him - no reply
  

 

There is no way that PIF wildly_fanciful_statement belongs in the Probation Thread. If the PIF donkeys can't keep their junk trading escapades straight, they should start their own PIF Probation.

 

So let me get this straight. If someone comes in the PIF thread and steals from another member, you don't want the thief put on the probation thread? You'd rather risk that same thief coming and stealing later in real money transactions?

 

Yep that's a good idea.

 

You can characterize it as theft all you want, that doesn't make it so.

[revat]

FOr PIF, you are REQUIRED to post something to give away after you have claimed something. And when that item is posted, you are required to SEND that item.

 

I would think the people who read the PL would want to know that people can't follow very basic rules, and don't send things they agree to send. Or that they don't honor their word. And that the point of the PL is to compel people to complete transactions where comics are sent/received (albeit not always for cash). Think of it as Person 1 sends Person 2 Book A. In exchange, Person 2 sends Person 3 Book B. So its essentially a trade. And in this case, one of the traders did not live up to his end of the bargain. So while values aren't always equal per se, these are real transactions that have real value to the people involved.

[seanfingh]

I agree with edowens in that a scummy deal in PIF might bleed over into the marketplace (i.e. he burned on PIF, what makes you believe he will be legit in Marketplace) But a separate list would fix that issue, since we have no proof that Person A would scam on a paypal/check, just that he didn't send out his free offer. So maintaining a separate list might fix the problem to begin with. So Manicnerd please correct me here, but my understanding now is Person X listed 5 spideys, you claimed it and then offered your Mylars, where Person C claimed that, and you never got your spideys? But in theory doesn't that just mean you have a "free" claim? I.e. you can just claim someone else's stuff without offering? I know that there have been issues with this before, i just wont mention names. So how has it been fixed in the past because I know that it didn't lead to PL nomination?

 

This was my understanding as well, but the problem is that the only thing that induced Manicnerd to offer his stuff was the fact that he thought he was going to get that specific bunch of Spideys. It is a bad deal for him.

[techvoodoo]

I would like to nominate BathedinFlames for the probation list because of the following:

• July 14th - he claimed a pay it forward 6th post on page 358
  
• July 16th - I claimed a pay it forward from him 7th post on page 365
  
• On that same page he quoted 3 business day delivery - I assumed it would take longer because he is in Canada and I'm in the US
  
• Aug. 2nd - I sent him a PM asking for a tracking number - He has yet to read the PM
  
• Aug 8th - I sent an email to the address listed in his profile asking for a tracking number - no reply
  
• Aug 16th - I sent a 2nd email stating I would submit him for the probation list if I did not hear from him - no reply
  

 

There is no way that PIF wildly_fanciful_statement belongs in the Probation Thread. If the PIF donkeys can't keep their junk trading escapades straight, they should start their own PIF Probation.

 

So let me get this straight. If someone comes in the PIF thread and steals from another member, you don't want the thief put on the probation thread? You'd rather risk that same thief coming and stealing later in real money transactions?

 

Yep that's a good idea.

 

You can characterize it as theft all you want, that doesn't make it so.

 

 

call it whatever you want. would you want to send a person who didn't fulfill their PIF obligation a bunch of money in the hopes that they send you the books they agreed to send you? that's what this boils down to. i wouldn't.

 

[VintageComics]

Have your own PIF banned list.

 

This seems like the correct solution to me.

 

Start a "Pay It Forward" discussion forum here in this section, put a link to the discussion in the first post of the "Pay It Forward" thread and then keep a going list of known offenders.

 

 

[EC ed]

Aside from the general principle of the matter, one thing keeps getting lost in the shuffle....it looks to me like manicnerd paid $15 or so for the sender to ship the Spideys (since they were coming from Canada). Is that right, manicnerd? If so, manicnerd paid the sender $15 for shipping for books that were never shipped. So, at a minimum, manicnerd might want that $15 back...

[seanfingh]

I would like to nominate BathedinFlames for the probation list because of the following:

• July 14th - he claimed a pay it forward 6th post on page 358
  
• July 16th - I claimed a pay it forward from him 7th post on page 365
  
• On that same page he quoted 3 business day delivery - I assumed it would take longer because he is in Canada and I'm in the US
  
• Aug. 2nd - I sent him a PM asking for a tracking number - He has yet to read the PM
  
• Aug 8th - I sent an email to the address listed in his profile asking for a tracking number - no reply
  
• Aug 16th - I sent a 2nd email stating I would submit him for the probation list if I did not hear from him - no reply
  

 

There is no way that PIF wildly_fanciful_statement belongs in the Probation Thread. If the PIF donkeys can't keep their junk trading escapades straight, they should start their own PIF Probation.

 

So let me get this straight. If someone comes in the PIF thread and steals from another member, you don't want the thief put on the probation thread? You'd rather risk that same thief coming and stealing later in real money transactions?

 

Yep that's a good idea.

 

You can characterize it as theft all you want, that doesn't make it so.

 

 

call it whatever you want. would you want to send a person who didn't fulfill their PIF obligation a bunch of money in the hopes that they send you the books they agreed to send you? that's what this boils down to. i wouldn't.

 

I don't know, maybe. I understand the process better now, and feel like Manicnerd got piped, because he put his offer out there solely based upon his claim of the Spideys.

[revat]

I agree with edowens in that a scummy deal in PIF might bleed over into the marketplace (i.e. he burned on PIF, what makes you believe he will be legit in Marketplace) But a separate list would fix that issue, since we have no proof that Person A would scam on a paypal/check, just that he didn't send out his free offer. So maintaining a separate list might fix the problem to begin with. So Manicnerd please correct me here, but my understanding now is Person X listed 5 spideys, you claimed it and then offered your Mylars, where Person C claimed that, and you never got your spideys? But in theory doesn't that just mean you have a "free" claim? I.e. you can just claim someone else's stuff without offering? I know that there have been issues with this before, i just wont mention names. So how has it been fixed in the past because I know that it didn't lead to PL nomination?

 

Just think of it like an ongoing trade thread, where only 1 thing (comic/lot/set/toy/etc) is available at a time. So I claim the 'prize', I put up something new. After its claimed, the claimer puts up something new to be claimed. After that's claimed, the new claimer puts up something new to be claimed, and so on and so forth. These are business transactions, albeit often frivolous with wildly varying values. But by claiming and receiving something, you are agreeing to post something new to be claimed and send it out. People who don't do it have committed fraud by not completing a trade.

 

If the OP in this case just claimed one to be made whole and didn't send out another one, the thread would die.

[seanfingh]

Aside from the general principle of the matter, one thing keeps getting lost in the shuffle....it looks to me like manicnerd paid $15 or so for the sender to ship the Spideys (since they were coming from Canada). Is that right, manicnerd? If so, manicnerd paid the sender $15 for shipping for books that were never shipped. So, at a minimum, manicnerd might want that $15 back...

 

If that is true, the dude keeping that $15 comes a lot closer to theft than the rest of it.

[seanfingh]

I agree with edowens in that a scummy deal in PIF might bleed over into the marketplace (i.e. he burned on PIF, what makes you believe he will be legit in Marketplace) But a separate list would fix that issue, since we have no proof that Person A would scam on a paypal/check, just that he didn't send out his free offer. So maintaining a separate list might fix the problem to begin with. So Manicnerd please correct me here, but my understanding now is Person X listed 5 spideys, you claimed it and then offered your Mylars, where Person C claimed that, and you never got your spideys? But in theory doesn't that just mean you have a "free" claim? I.e. you can just claim someone else's stuff without offering? I know that there have been issues with this before, i just wont mention names. So how has it been fixed in the past because I know that it didn't lead to PL nomination?

 

Just think of it like an ongoing trade thread, where only 1 thing (comic/lot/set/toy/etc) is available at a time. So I claim the 'prize', I put up something new. After its claimed, the claimer puts up something new to be claimed. After that's claimed, the new claimer puts up something new to be claimed, and so on and so forth. These are business transactions, albeit often frivolous with wildly varying values. But by claiming and receiving something, you are agreeing to post something new to be claimed and send it out. People who don't do it have committed fraud by not completing a trade.

 

If the OP in this case just claimed one to be made whole and didn't send out another one, the thread would die.

 

I get this. I still would prefer a separate PIF banned list. And I have been shouted down by the throng before, so this is just one man, one vote.

[techvoodoo]

I would like to nominate BathedinFlames for the probation list because of the following:

• July 14th - he claimed a pay it forward 6th post on page 358
  
• July 16th - I claimed a pay it forward from him 7th post on page 365
  
• On that same page he quoted 3 business day delivery - I assumed it would take longer because he is in Canada and I'm in the US
  
• Aug. 2nd - I sent him a PM asking for a tracking number - He has yet to read the PM
  
• Aug 8th - I sent an email to the address listed in his profile asking for a tracking number - no reply
  
• Aug 16th - I sent a 2nd email stating I would submit him for the probation list if I did not hear from him - no reply
  

 

There is no way that PIF wildly_fanciful_statement belongs in the Probation Thread. If the PIF donkeys can't keep their junk trading escapades straight, they should start their own PIF Probation.

 

So let me get this straight. If someone comes in the PIF thread and steals from another member, you don't want the thief put on the probation thread? You'd rather risk that same thief coming and stealing later in real money transactions?

 

Yep that's a good idea.

 

You can characterize it as theft all you want, that doesn't make it so.

 

 

call it whatever you want. would you want to send a person who didn't fulfill their PIF obligation a bunch of money in the hopes that they send you the books they agreed to send you? that's what this boils down to. i wouldn't.

 

I don't know, maybe. I understand the process better now, and feel like Manicnerd got piped, because he put his offer out there solely based upon his claim of the Spideys.

 

I don't understand your point, which leads me to believe that you don't understand how the PIF thread works. But that doesn't really matter. What matters is a forum member had an obligation to send another member some books and they didn't fulfill that obligation. I don't see what anything else has to do with it. That person is of poor character and I wouldn't want to deal with them in the future, so I see no reason not to put them on the PL.

 

I mean, if you go to get a bank loan for a mortgage, but you don't pay your car payment, the bank doesn't say to themselves, "Ya he didn't pay that car payment but we don't know how he'll do on a mortgage payment, lets go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt and give him the loan".

[seanfingh]

I would like to nominate BathedinFlames for the probation list because of the following:

• July 14th - he claimed a pay it forward 6th post on page 358
  
• July 16th - I claimed a pay it forward from him 7th post on page 365
  
• On that same page he quoted 3 business day delivery - I assumed it would take longer because he is in Canada and I'm in the US
  
• Aug. 2nd - I sent him a PM asking for a tracking number - He has yet to read the PM
  
• Aug 8th - I sent an email to the address listed in his profile asking for a tracking number - no reply
  
• Aug 16th - I sent a 2nd email stating I would submit him for the probation list if I did not hear from him - no reply
  

 

There is no way that PIF wildly_fanciful_statement belongs in the Probation Thread. If the PIF donkeys can't keep their junk trading escapades straight, they should start their own PIF Probation.

 

So let me get this straight. If someone comes in the PIF thread and steals from another member, you don't want the thief put on the probation thread? You'd rather risk that same thief coming and stealing later in real money transactions?

 

Yep that's a good idea.

 

You can characterize it as theft all you want, that doesn't make it so.

 

 

call it whatever you want. would you want to send a person who didn't fulfill their PIF obligation a bunch of money in the hopes that they send you the books they agreed to send you? that's what this boils down to. i wouldn't.

 

I don't know, maybe. I understand the process better now, and feel like Manicnerd got piped, because he put his offer out there solely based upon his claim of the Spideys.

 

I don't understand your point, which leads me to believe that you don't understand how the PIF thread works. But that doesn't really matter. What matters is a forum member had an obligation to send another member some books and they didn't fulfill that obligation. I don't see what anything else has to do with it. That person is of poor character and I wouldn't want to deal with them in the future, so I see no reason not to put them on the PL.

 

I mean, if you go to get a bank loan for a mortgage, but you don't pay your car payment, the bank doesn't say to themselves, "Ya he didn't pay that car payment but we don't know how he'll do on a mortgage payment, lets go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt and give him the loan".

 

I think I have learned more about it from the people posting here. Again, put the world on alert, just do it in a separate thread.

 

 

[bababooey]

People that screw up on the PIF are probably people we don't want in the marketplace anyways, but if the PIF people want their bad guys strung up here then it's got to be a two way street (which might put a damper on the "spirit" of the PIF thread overall )

 

Quite a few people are very relaxed when it comes to timelines over there whereas they wouldn't be when money is involved.

Plus there was that one guy who strung three people along for a few months. Well he also had a sales thread but nobody was posting any warnings in the PL discussion thread so if you go the PL route with one bad apple...then all the bad apples should be reported.

 

Also, none of the "he took my good offer but offered *spoon*" complaints should come over.

 

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

I totally understand where techvoodoo is coming from, but I also think Fingh has a point: the PIF is a different concept which is based more on the honor system, rather than a payment system (even though people pay for shipping) - I would agree that it should be self-policed within the PIF area.

 

Not that it's not a douchey move to gyp someone out of free books, but I don't think it belongs here in the PL area for regular sales transactions.

[joecgcmaniac]

I agree with edowens in that a scummy deal in PIF might bleed over into the marketplace (i.e. he burned on PIF, what makes you believe he will be legit in Marketplace) But a separate list would fix that issue, since we have no proof that Person A would scam on a paypal/check, just that he didn't send out his free offer. So maintaining a separate list might fix the problem to begin with. So Manicnerd please correct me here, but my understanding now is Person X listed 5 spideys, you claimed it and then offered your Mylars, where Person C claimed that, and you never got your spideys? But in theory doesn't that just mean you have a "free" claim? I.e. you can just claim someone else's stuff without offering? I know that there have been issues with this before, i just wont mention names. So how has it been fixed in the past because I know that it didn't lead to PL nomination?

 

Just think of it like an ongoing trade thread, where only 1 thing (comic/lot/set/toy/etc) is available at a time. So I claim the 'prize', I put up something new. After its claimed, the claimer puts up something new to be claimed. After that's claimed, the new claimer puts up something new to be claimed, and so on and so forth. These are business transactions, albeit often frivolous with wildly varying values. But by claiming and receiving something, you are agreeing to post something new to be claimed and send it out. People who don't do it have committed fraud by not completing a trade.

 

If the OP in this case just claimed one to be made whole and didn't send out another one, the thread would die.

 

I get this. I still would prefer a separate PIF banned list. And I have been shouted down by the throng before, so this is just one man, one vote.

 

Why start a separate PIF banned list when the probation list already includes e-bay transactions that had nothing to do with the boards, other than board members were involved. The PIF makes more sense being included in the probation list than e-bay deals gone bad, does it not? The "transaction" took place wholly on the boards, unlike some of the other deals gone bad where the offender ended up on the PL.

[techvoodoo]

I think the people saying it should be in a separate list perceive the PIF transactions as low value, or no value transactions and as such they would still roll the dice in conducting business with someone that didn't fulfill their obligations in the PIF forum.

 

I honestly can't understand this logic but whatever, we can agree to disagree I guess.

 

If someone is not trustworthy enough to send out free books, they sure as hell aren't trustworthy enough to send out books I paid money for. Why in the heck do I want to look in multiple places to decided if I can trust someone before I conduct business with them?

[manicnerd]

Rule 1D (again): A Transaction between board members is not confined to the CGC Message Boards. Any transaction between forum members, regardless of the venue, is eligible for inclusion in the PL.

 

How does this mean "start a new thread for whatever section the person behaves poorly in"?

 

I know after arguing all this out, BIF will send the books and make me look like a total spoon.

Edited August 19, 2013 by manicnerd

[seanfingh]

I agree with edowens in that a scummy deal in PIF might bleed over into the marketplace (i.e. he burned on PIF, what makes you believe he will be legit in Marketplace) But a separate list would fix that issue, since we have no proof that Person A would scam on a paypal/check, just that he didn't send out his free offer. So maintaining a separate list might fix the problem to begin with. So Manicnerd please correct me here, but my understanding now is Person X listed 5 spideys, you claimed it and then offered your Mylars, where Person C claimed that, and you never got your spideys? But in theory doesn't that just mean you have a "free" claim? I.e. you can just claim someone else's stuff without offering? I know that there have been issues with this before, i just wont mention names. So how has it been fixed in the past because I know that it didn't lead to PL nomination?

 

Just think of it like an ongoing trade thread, where only 1 thing (comic/lot/set/toy/etc) is available at a time. So I claim the 'prize', I put up something new. After its claimed, the claimer puts up something new to be claimed. After that's claimed, the new claimer puts up something new to be claimed, and so on and so forth. These are business transactions, albeit often frivolous with wildly varying values. But by claiming and receiving something, you are agreeing to post something new to be claimed and send it out. People who don't do it have committed fraud by not completing a trade.

 

If the OP in this case just claimed one to be made whole and didn't send out another one, the thread would die.

 

I get this. I still would prefer a separate PIF banned list. And I have been shouted down by the throng before, so this is just one man, one vote.

 

Why start a separate PIF banned list when the probation list already includes e-bay transactions that had nothing to do with the boards, other than board members were involved. The PIF makes more sense being included in the probation list than e-bay deals gone bad, does it not? The "transaction" took place wholly on the boards, unlike some of the other deals gone bad where the offender ended up on the PL.

 

Because the whole PIF thing is a complete grey area. Are you obligated to offer? Under what compulsion? Is it really an obligation or is it a social construct (i.e. permissive). One thing is clear - You have violated the terms of the PIF if you screw the other party. Thus, my belief that it should be a separate list.

 

And in this specific instance, I find the shipping $$ to be damning, beyond what I have just laid out.

[seanfingh]

Rule 1D (again): A Transaction between board members is not confined to the CGC Message Boards. Any transaction between forum members, regardless of the venue, is eligible for inclusion in the PL.

 

How does this mean "start a new thread for whatever section the person behaves poorly in"?

 

I know after arguing all this out, BIF will send the books and make me look like a total spoon.

 

I haven't been convinced that there has been a breach of an enforceable contract. That is where I am coming from.

 

You will make far more hay with the fact that you sent him $15 for shipping and he never did anything. That, in this specific instance, is a game changer, for me.

 

In general, PIF deals are still problematic.