PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[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.

 

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.

 

So, under your line of thinking, any transaction that involves trading item for item, instead of item for money should not be included within the PL, but rather under a new "trade probation list?"

[Gsims718]

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.

 

I may be getting this wrong as I haven't gone back and read everything, but you can put someone on the PL for posting a take it and not paying. That isn't an enforceable contract.

 

I would like to see this guy added to the PL. The PL is mostly a warning system, and boardies should be warned about dealing with someone who has burned other boardies before.

 

Shouldn't this go up for vote? Isn't that the point of voting?

[slym2none]

 

 

 

-slym (sorry, wearing this one out today)

[slym2none]

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.

 

I may be getting this wrong as I haven't gone back and read everything, but you can put someone on the PL for posting a take it and not paying. That isn't an enforceable contract.

 

I would like to see this guy added to the PL. The PL is mostly a warning system, and boardies should be warned about dealing with someone who has burned other boardies before.

 

Shouldn't this go up for vote? Isn't that the point of voting?

 

If you are asking should it be put to poll, I second it.

 

 

 

-slym

[comix4fun]

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.

 

So, under your line of thinking, any transaction that involves trading item for item, instead of item for money should not be included within the PL, but rather under a new "trade probation list?"

 

 

This isn't trading for an item under any normal circumstance because a trade requires and exchange of items between the parties. This drags a subsequent party or parties into the mix, free from the privity of any possible original agreement.

 

This is a series of gratuitous gifts predicated on the person accepting the gift to make some other gift to someone else outside of the privity of the original gift.

[comix4fun]

AKA...it's recipe for massive butthurt because most people have two different length arms...the long one is the taking arm, and the short one if the giving arm.

 

When you leave people to their own devices and something this nebulous as "take something and then list something later" there will ALWAYS be people taking a choice item and then posting absolute garbage when their turn to give comes. People will also take shortcuts with shipping, or think they don't have to ship in a timely manner, etc.

 

So, short version: Perfect ButtHurtStorm.

[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.

 

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.

 

So, under your line of thinking, any transaction that involves trading item for item, instead of item for money should not be included within the PL, but rather under a new "trade probation list?"

 

 

This isn't trading for an item under any normal circumstance because a trade requires and exchange of items between the parties. This drags a subsequent party or parties into the mix, free from the privity of any possible original agreement.

 

This is a series of gratuitous gifts predicated on the person accepting the gift to make some other gift to someone else outside of the privity of the original gift.

 

We need a lawyer-ese to English translation on register #5.

 

[jaybuck43]

I vote for a 48 hour poll The fact that noone is obligated to claim your posting and thus not have to give up anything of value in exchange for you claiming someone else's stuff gives me concern. In the marketplace, person a and b are making a contract/agreement between one another. In the PIF Person A is saying "someone take my stuff" and Person B says "Send it here" There is no agreement between person a and b, rather a social contract in the PIF area of well you will post something that someone else might take eventually.

[VintageComics]

The lawyers see it one way. Everyone else sees it differently.

 

I'm going to sidestep my usual reaction and side with the lawyers on this one.

[joecgcmaniac]

So, short version: Perfect ButtHurtStorm.

 

 

Isn't that what these forums are all about?

 

[Ryan.]

This isn't trading for an item under any normal circumstance because a trade requires and exchange of items between the parties. This drags a subsequent party or parties into the mix, free from the privity of any possible original agreement.

 

This is a series of gratuitous gifts predicated on the person accepting the gift to make some other gift to someone else outside of the privity of the original gift.

 

Correct. There is also no real equity being upheld in these transactions (i.e. taking an offer worth $30 and then offering up $15 worth of comics). Bringing PiF transactions over to the probation list may create an unintended consequence of people complaining that they offered too much value relative to what they received. The PiF thread, incidentally, has more or less become a default complain-o-rama about itself anyway. Let it stay where it is.

[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.

 

So, under your line of thinking, any transaction that involves trading item for item, instead of item for money should not be included within the PL, but rather under a new "trade probation list?"

 

Not at all. A trade is clear. It is an enforceable agreement, with explicit terms. I give you this. You give me that. The legal system has been taking care of these type of disputes for centuries.

 

I offer something which is claimed by someone else, prompting them to in turn offer something to be claimed by someone else, yet, is not seen very often. Hence, grey area.

[techvoodoo]

AKA...it's recipe for massive butthurt because most people have two different length arms...the long one is the taking arm, and the short one if the giving arm.

 

When you leave people to their own devices and something this nebulous as "take something and then list something later" there will ALWAYS be people taking a choice item and then posting absolute garbage when their turn to give comes. People will also take shortcuts with shipping, or think they don't have to ship in a timely manner, etc.

 

So, short version: Perfect ButtHurtStorm.

 

 

Since June 2012 there has been 2 issues. 1 of them worked out more a less, less in my case, being one of the people who got stiffed but that's a seperate issue.

 

I don't think we are going to be seeing any 'Perfect ButtHurtStorms', probably not even a 'ButtHurtLightDrizzle'. Just genuine cases of people that are taking advantage of other forum members.

[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.

 

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.

 

So, under your line of thinking, any transaction that involves trading item for item, instead of item for money should not be included within the PL, but rather under a new "trade probation list?"

 

Not at all. A trade is clear. It is an enforceable agreement, with explicit terms. I give you this. You give me that. The legal system has been taking care of these type of disputes for centuries.

 

I offer something which is claimed by someone else, prompting them to in turn offer something to be claimed by someone else, yet, is not seen very often. Hence, grey area.

 

(thumbs u

[seanfingh]

The lawyers see it one way. Everyone else sees it differently.

 

I'm going to sidestep my usual reaction and side with the lawyers on this one.

 

My opinion has been colored by the fact that I think the PIF is stupid. I also am glad I understand it better now.

[jaybuck43]

I agree with Sean, the fact that there is no dickering between Person A and B really gives me cause for concern in terms. I don't view it as a trade. Comix hit the nail on the head, its a gift.

[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.

 

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.

 

So, under your line of thinking, any transaction that involves trading item for item, instead of item for money should not be included within the PL, but rather under a new "trade probation list?"

 

 

This isn't trading for an item under any normal circumstance because a trade requires and exchange of items between the parties. This drags a subsequent party or parties into the mix, free from the privity of any possible original agreement.

 

This is a series of gratuitous gifts predicated on the person accepting the gift to make some other gift to someone else outside of the privity of the original gift.

 

I think in general, I might agree with this, its a bit too open ended. What if after I claim something, there doesn't seem to be anything to compel me to post anything in the future for a claim. And that might be something to get mad, but maybe not a legally enforceable contract.

 

BUT once he does offer something up. AND someone claims it. And the person who claims it not only posts a new item but it is then also claimed then sent and reciveved by the next party, i'm pretty sure you've got MORE than a contract.

 

"I offer this Item X to whomever, provided they also offer up an Item Y to be claimed by someone else"

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that the claiming of the item, posting of the new item offer AND (if there was any doubt) subsequent sending out of that item means that the 'victim' in this case completed his side of the contract.

 

The perpetrator basically broke 2 contracts in this case, and people may not think the PL would want to know? And any question of value should not come into play, as the principle is the same. You shouldn't cheat someone for $2 or $200 or $2000

[comix4fun]

AKA...it's recipe for massive butthurt because most people have two different length arms...the long one is the taking arm, and the short one if the giving arm.

 

When you leave people to their own devices and something this nebulous as "take something and then list something later" there will ALWAYS be people taking a choice item and then posting absolute garbage when their turn to give comes. People will also take shortcuts with shipping, or think they don't have to ship in a timely manner, etc.

 

So, short version: Perfect ButtHurtStorm.

 

 

Since June 2012 there has been 2 issues. 1 of them worked out more a less, less in my case, being one of the people who got stiffed but that's a seperate issue.

 

I don't think we are going to be seeing any 'Perfect ButtHurtStorms', probably not even a 'ButtHurtLightDrizzle'. Just genuine cases of people that are taking advantage of other forum members.

 

 

2 PUBLIC issues. That doesn't include the people that may drop out of the thread due to issues that arise, or people that swallow the someone sends them because they don't want to rock the boat. That doesn't mean these people don't tell others what's going on, and that the experience was soured.

 

It's a lot more than two in the last year just from the PMs I've received from various folks in the last year that fit the description I gave.

[jaybuck43]

Should PIF transactions be allowed in nomination to the Probation List?

[Dick Pontoon]

While its not germane to the argument at hand, bathedinflames signed up on 7/12 and hasn't posted since 7/21. I would suspect that even if we choose to nominate PIFers for the PL, he's not going to be affected.