PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[miraclemet]

 

Further, especially for the PL, someone can join, nominate someone for the on a transaction PL before they joined, then just split the boards. No chance of a removal.

 

I understand the concern that there would be no way for the offender to get removed if the nominator leaves.. but...

 

I would think that in this scenario, that if a "Probie" showed effort and intent to resolve, but found the offendee non-responsive the board could vote him/her OFF the probation list if they showed they performed all due diligence to resolve the issue.

[joecgcmaniac]

 

Further, especially for the PL, someone can join, nominate someone for the on a transaction PL before they joined, then just split the boards. No chance of a removal.

 

I understand the concern that there would be no way for the offender to get removed if the nominator leaves.. but...

 

I would think that in this scenario, that if a "Probie" showed effort and intent to resolve, but found the offendee non-responsive the board could vote him/her OFF the probation list if they showed they performed all due diligence to resolve the issue.

 

This happened just two weeks ago.

[PovertyRow]

 

Further, especially for the PL, someone can join, nominate someone for the on a transaction PL before they joined, then just split the boards. No chance of a removal.

 

I understand the concern that there would be no way for the offender to get removed if the nominator leaves.. but...

 

I would think that in this scenario, that if a "Probie" showed effort and intent to resolve, but found the offendee non-responsive the board could vote him/her OFF the probation list if they showed they performed all due diligence to resolve the issue.

 

This happened just two weeks ago.

 

Almost - two weeks ago it was demonstrated that the charges were false, groundless and baseless as well.

[thehumantorch]

 

The intent of the rule about transactions between board members should be obvious. The first rule of being a boardie is to not screw over another boardie. That is what this whole PL/HOS thing is all about. All of this happened when Matthew was not a boardie.

 

I am also far from unfeeling about what happened to Matthew. As I said, it sucketh.

 

I HATE taking this stance but I am also concerned about maintaining the structure and integrity of the system we have in place.

 

Fair enough. Matthew was not a board member when Bob failed to send paid for items. The agreement was established pre boardie or PB. Now Matthew is a member and a new agreement to ship the books within a month has been agreed on via Bob's spokesman Mitch. In 1 month, if the books haven't arrived, would this not qualify as a probation worthy transaction between board members?

 

And POV, you're doing a great job here, thanks.

[sacentaur]

If you run a Toolhaus.org search on past feedback for "blbcomics," there is a long-term pattern of him not following through on transactions. This pattern includes one case where he used his father's cancer as an explanation/excuse. See screenshot. I find it unseemly that a person would use a family member's illness or death as a rationalization for cheating somebody.

[sacentaur]

+100, Centaur. You and I have a mutual friend that was one of the early comic shop owners. Beerbohm regularly bounced checks on him but he would eventually get his money after chasing Bob down. Bob's shop was a couple blocks away. One time Bob *begged* to write a check for some books he wanted bad. Our friend gave in one last time. When the check bounced he walked down to Bob's shop, pushed him aside, and ran Bob's register until he got his $$$ back for the bouncing check.

 

The trend goes back decades.

[PovertyRow]

Now Matthew is a member and a new agreement to ship the books within a month has been agreed on via Bob's spokesman Mitch. In 1 month, if the books haven't arrived, would this not qualify as a probation worthy transaction between board members?

 

Thanks. This is something I would definitely get behind.

 

 

[sacentaur]

And POV, you're doing a great job here, thanks.

 

Yes, thanks for your efforts here POV - I've rarely visited this thread but I can certainly see that it's not easy playing arbiter when people express valid concerns on both sides.

 

I think Sharon raises some good points - we are a community, and it will ultimately be up to the community to decide.

[miraclemet]

[quote=thehumantorch... Now Matthew is a member and a new agreement to ship the books within a month has been agreed on via Bob's spokesman Mitch. In 1 month, if the books haven't arrived, would this not qualify as a probation worthy transaction between board members?

 

 

this is a spot on application of the rules and their intent.

 

Know what I love? People talked through this topic here in the Probation discussion thread, took rational and well thought opposing sides and posited opinions all without calling names, creating memes and letting the talk degrade into uselessness.

 

come on in everyone! Group hug!

 

[PovertyRow]

without calling names, creating memes and letting the talk degrade into uselessness.

 

 

PS - c'mere you!

[Matthew42383]

I see how your requesting rules for the lists can be interpretted either for or against me in this matter. To make sure that doesn't happen in the future with someone else, may I suggest you edit them so in the future it's clear when exactly a transaction must take place in regards to the board members "subscriptions"?

 

While that might help future cases, in this one can I posit this question.

 

If the primary purpose of the lists is to protect board members, shouldn't one err on the side of caution since the rules as they stand can be interpretted anyway you want to argue it? To put it in an extrememly crass way to illiustrate my point the best way I know how, If a famous child molestor moves from Florida to your neck of the woods, do you give him a chance to be part of your community just because he committed his crimes in another jurisdiction? Would you still give him the benefit of the doubt having interaction with your children (the people you are responsilbe for?) Or would you rather force him to register in his new hometown, and require him to stay away from your children? We have laws in place in America that support the latter.

 

I'm sorry but putting things so "worst case scenario"-like, I have found is a useful tool in getting a point across. What do you tell the next board member who he steals from? Sorry about it. We knew it was going to happen but we let him go on a technicality?

 

I did come here to try to get my money back. But I had lost most hope for that prior to now. My primary purpose is to warn the rest of you. To protect you. If it falls on deaf ears, than I don't know what to tell you. I imagine you deserve what you get, and share in the responsiblity of all future people he rips off.

 

As far as the whole new transaction idea posited goes, Mark Zaid (my thanks to him) has privately emailed me and said Bob promises to have 300 of the 341 books in the mail to me and tracking provide before the end of the week. The remainder of the books to be sent by Christmas. I'll let you know if Bob follows through or not on this. He still ignores phone calls from me though.

 

While I'm glad that you interpret the rules in my favor for putting him to the list in this case as a new deal has been struck (that he complete the old deal), where he has forcefully had the screws put to him to promise to make good again, may I ask this: What if he hadn't agreed to send them again? Then according to this interpretation he would not have initiated a transaction, and while it was well known and proved that he in fact stole from a person, he would still be free to do it again as he had kept riding on the I'm stealing from the guy pony.

 

Frankly, any set of rules or laws that leaves loopholes that allow anyone, buyer or seller, to rip off others, needs to be examined. Otherwise what's the point of it, as any clever thief can circumvent your rules structure, and steal uninhibited.

 

What if I agree to alot of deals with some of you that I'm talking to on the boards now, in this very room? And as I contact you off the boards, and have you send me money, I close my account on this website before you actually send the money. Then I never send you a thing, and come back to the boards later, reactivate my account. Under your same technicalities, I would have been able to steal from as many of the board members here as I want, but would not technically be eligible for the hall of shame or probation lists as I wasn't a board member for the couple of days I had everyone send me money. If I posit the question this way, does it make my point more cogent, and your need as a community to protect yourself in this and future cases?

 

Thanks for your time. - M

[oakman29]

I for one think he should have been in HOS a long time ago.

[thehumantorch]

I see how your requesting rules for the lists can be interpretted either for or against me in this matter. To make sure that doesn't happen in the future with someone else, may I suggest you edit them so in the future it's clear when exactly a transaction must take place in regards to the board members "subscriptions"?

 

While that might help future cases, in this one can I posit this question.

 

If the primary purpose of the lists is to protect board members, shouldn't one err on the side of caution since the rules as they stand can be interpretted anyway you want to argue it? To put it in an extrememly crass way to illiustrate my point the best way I know how, If a famous child molestor moves from Florida to your neck of the woods, do you give him a chance to be part of your community just because he committed his crimes in another jurisdiction? Would you still give him the benefit of the doubt having interaction with your children (the people you are responsilbe for?) Or would you rather force him to register in his new hometown, and require him to stay away from your children? We have laws in place in America that support the latter.

 

I'm sorry but putting things so "worst case scenario"-like, I have found is a useful tool in getting a point across. What do you tell the next board member who he steals from? Sorry about it. We knew it was going to happen but we let him go on a technicality?

 

I did come here to try to get my money back. But I had lost most hope for that prior to now. My primary purpose is to warn the rest of you. To protect you. If it falls on deaf ears, than I don't know what to tell you. I imagine you deserve what you get, and share in the responsiblity of all future people he rips off.

 

As far as the whole new transaction idea posited goes, Mark Zaid (my thanks to him) has privately emailed me and said Bob promises to have 300 of the 341 books in the mail to me and tracking provide before the end of the week. The remainder of the books to be sent by Christmas. I'll let you know if Bob follows through or not on this. He still ignores phone calls from me though.

 

While I'm glad that you interpret the rules in my favor for putting him to the list in this case as a new deal has been struck (that he complete the old deal), where he has forcefully had the screws put to him to promise to make good again, may I ask this: What if he hadn't agreed to send them again? Then according to this interpretation he would not have initiated a transaction, and while it was well known and proved that he in fact stole from a person, he would still be free to do it again as he had kept riding on the I'm stealing from the guy pony.

 

Frankly, any set of rules or laws that leaves loopholes that allow anyone, buyer or seller, to rip off others, needs to be examined. Otherwise what's the point of it, as any clever thief can circumvent your rules structure, and steal uninhibited.

 

What if I agree to alot of deals with some of you that I'm talking to on the boards now, in this very room? And as I contact you off the boards, and have you send me money, I close my account on this website before you actually send the money. Then I never send you a thing, and come back to the boards later, reactivate my account. Under your same technicalities, I would have been able to steal from as many of the board members here as I want, but would not technically be eligible for the hall of shame or probation lists as I wasn't a board member for the couple of days I had everyone send me money. If I posit the question this way, does it make my point more cogent, and your need as a community to protect yourself in this and future cases?

 

Thanks for your time. - M

 

Well Matthew, we're a group of collectors gathered into a community not of our design and we have limited control. The rules were created through group discussion, you're part of the group so feel free to suggest changes and they can be discussed.

 

In general the rules were designed to protect board members. Policing the entire hobby is pretty tough. We do have threads listing bad ebay sellers, we notify ebay when we spot fraudulent auctions, and there have been numerous threads here that have exposed dishonest practices in the hobby.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7202457&fpart=1

 

I hope that you appreciate that a number of boardies have stepped up to help you out when you'd pretty well lost hope. This community has done some pretty amazing things and is a powerful force for good in the hobby.

 

You don't have the ability to close your account. You can change your user name but that would be added to the probation list. If you're banned by the mods you would stay on the list and generally the mods are pretty good at spotting banned members joining under a new name and ip address.

 

And yes, I think Bob deserves the probation list of hall of shame but it doesn't matter much at this point, his name is pretty tarnished here. And I think it's pretty telling that Bob didn't come here to defend himself - he certainly know he's being discussed, and more telling that he hasn't contacted you since you started your thread.

[PovertyRow]

I see how your requesting rules for the lists can be interpretted either for or against me in this matter. To make sure that doesn't happen in the future with someone else, may I suggest you edit them so in the future it's clear when exactly a transaction must take place in regards to the board members "subscriptions"?

 

Just to clarify I did not create the rules. I do not edit the rules. All I did was start a process to have the existing rules looked at and expanded/clarified. I gathered the suggestions, wrote them up, and submitted them for group discussions countless times. That was a group effort over many weeks with hundreds of posts, votes, discussions etc. Many, many boardies were involved.

 

I think what I see happening is more new members have come on and are active since the middle of 2011 who never participated or saw the thought process behind the rule set. That is a fresh set of eyes, which is useful.

 

It feels like it is time to act on the second sentence in the rules: "Over some period of time these may be modified or expanded."

 

We've had over two years with these rules in place and overall they have worked. But sometimes a point is brought up where it becomes apparent clarification, rewording or even changing the existing rule(s) would be beneficial.

 

As before, that will involve a group effort and a group consensus.

[Cat Attack-migration]

Hi, longtime lurker, first post. I normally only check out the Silver and Copper sections, on a semi-regular basis. I read the Beerbohm thread as the name seemed familiar from a deal I had quite a few years ago (I'm not accusing Bob of anything, as this was a long time ago and even I'm not sure, I'm just explaining what made me read the thread in the first place).

 

This thread was linked from there, and I've read the discussion about Bob's eligibility for here, given that Matthew wasn't a member at the time. I've read through the rules for the Probation/HOS, and it doesn't seem to cover what I'm about to ask. I do apologise in advance if this has been covered somewhere in this thread prior for someone else.

 

I understand that Matthew wasn't a member at the time, thus negating his eligibility at the time. However, in Matthew's initial post, he mentions this: 'It's important to note that he used several of you as references in this transaction. I guess he knows many of you from comicon and the like. Sparklecitycomics and Dwight Fuhro are two of you that I remember offhand, but there are others from the ccg boards.'

 

Now, that could be interpreted a few different ways, and I'm sure it could be cleared up by either of the parties.

 

I just wanted to ask if it's possible to consider that Bob's own action might have nullified the need for Matthew to be a member, given the specific circumstances. IF I'm reading it right, and Bob used the board, and board members (in the context of their being members of the board) as references to give himself credibility and make Matthew comfortable with trusting the guy, couldn't it be argued that by doing so, Bob created a special circumstance where, despite Matthew not being a member at the time, the board was ALWAYS involved in the transaction due to Bob's invoking of the board from the very start of the deal. If I'm reading it right, Bob brought the board into the transaction from the very beginning, and it was a factor in the deal, as it gave Matthew a level of comfort with his credibility.

 

So could this be seen as a special circumstance, where Bob himself made it so that the board was involved from the very get-go anyway, thus being enough for a 'dispensation' if you will, and making this transaction eligible for possible inclusion on the list?

 

Again, I'm sorry if this sort of thing has been covered before, but I thought it might be worth a mention, as it seems to me like it may change things a little bit, if I'm interpreting Matthew's statement correctly.

 

 

[joeypost]

Hey joey I hate to be a stickler for the rules, but did you PM Slab-Pro letting him know you were going to nominate him to PL and has 72 hours passed yet?

 

He has not returned any correspondence to date, why should he all of a sudden do so because he is threatened by being added to the probation list?

 

The thread alone has been up for over a week with no response from him.

 

I received payment in full from John (Slab-Pro) this afternoon. Since the transaction has been completed and I am 100% happy I nominate that he be removed from the probation list.

[comicdonna]

Hey joey I hate to be a stickler for the rules, but did you PM Slab-Pro letting him know you were going to nominate him to PL and has 72 hours passed yet?

 

He has not returned any correspondence to date, why should he all of a sudden do so because he is threatened by being added to the probation list?

 

The thread alone has been up for over a week with no response from him.

 

I received payment in full from John (Slab-Pro) this afternoon. Since the transaction has been completed and I am 100% happy I nominate that he be removed from the probation list.

[jaybuck43]

Joey I'm very happy to hear that you have been made whole. Ill remove him when I get home if someone hasn't already done so. (thumbs u

[Iceman399]

Hey joey I hate to be a stickler for the rules, but did you PM Slab-Pro letting him know you were going to nominate him to PL and has 72 hours passed yet?

 

He has not returned any correspondence to date, why should he all of a sudden do so because he is threatened by being added to the probation list?

 

The thread alone has been up for over a week with no response from him.

 

I received payment in full from John (Slab-Pro) this afternoon. Since the transaction has been completed and I am 100% happy I nominate that he be removed from the probation list.

 

Did they give a reasoning as to the delay?

[PovertyRow]

Joey I'm very happy to hear that you have been made whole. Ill remove him when I get home if someone hasn't already done so. (thumbs u

 

Good to hear!

 

Jaybuck, I just updated it. (thumbs u