Hall of Shame and Probation Rules DISCUSSION 4 4

[EC ed]

Sometimes it takes minutiae to ferret out a larger point.

 

Well said.

[wombat]

So what happens next? Do some of these get put to a vote? Does someone have to "officially" put a rule change up for consideration?

[CAHokie]

So what happens next? Do some of these get put to a vote? Does someone have to "officially" put a rule change up for consideration?

 

 

I'm really not for sure. You would have to ask POV or Swick

[PovertyRow]

So what happens next? Do some of these get put to a vote? Does someone have to "officially" put a rule change up for consideration?

 

Basically, yeah. A good way to start would be, in the case of a new rule, to just create that rule and present it. This is how the existing rule set was made. At the end we voted on the final set of rules (which took a few passes before being finalized.)

 

I'd start with a simple change just to get things going. As regards Rule 1a:

 

1) The 30-Day Rule

a) If a transaction between board members is not completed within 30 days, the offended party may submit the offender's name for inclusion to the HOS/Probation List (hereafter called the PL)

 

I would suggest a simple change to clarify that the parties involved were both board members at the time of the transaction. So something like:

 

a) If a transaction between board members is not completed within 30 days, the offended party may submit the offender's name for inclusion to the HOS/Probation List (hereafter called the PL). The parties involved should both be CGC Board members at the time of the transaction.

 

 

[PovertyRow]

So what happens next? Do some of these get put to a vote? Does someone have to "officially" put a rule change up for consideration?

 

 

I'm really not for sure. You would have to ask POV or Swick

 

I coordinated the rule setup back in 2011. It was pretty time consuming. But I'd like to see someone besides me do that this time around. The role is organizing/coordinating, NOT a decision making one.

[PovertyRow]

One of the hotter topics is for how long after a transaction can someone be nominated for the PL. Currently the only time frame we have is in the "preamble":

The following Probation List Rules are in effect beginning 8/1/2011.

 

This could be a new Item under Rule 1. Wording could be something like:

 

e) After a transaction is completed, a PL nomination may be made no more than xxx days (weeks/months etc) after the completion of the transaction. This would allow time for restoration check or other unforeseen situations.

 

Phrasing could be better but most importantly we need to come up with the time frame.

[wombat]

One of the hotter topics is for how long after a transaction can someone be nominated for the PL. Currently the only time frame we have is in the "preamble":

The following Probation List Rules are in effect beginning 8/1/2011.

 

This could be a new Item under Rule 1. Wording could be something like:

 

e) After a transaction is completed, a PL nomination may be made no more than xxx days (weeks/months etc) after the completion of the transaction. This would allow time for restoration check or other unforeseen situations.

 

Phrasing could be better but most importantly we need to come up with the time frame.

 

Would this be a two step process? First voting if people agree there should be a time limit and if that is yes then voting on what that time would be.

[PovertyRow]

One of the hotter topics is for how long after a transaction can someone be nominated for the PL. Currently the only time frame we have is in the "preamble":

The following Probation List Rules are in effect beginning 8/1/2011.

 

This could be a new Item under Rule 1. Wording could be something like:

 

e) After a transaction is completed, a PL nomination may be made no more than xxx days (weeks/months etc) after the completion of the transaction. This would allow time for restoration check or other unforeseen situations.

 

Phrasing could be better but most importantly we need to come up with the time frame.

 

Would this be a two step process? First voting if people agree there should be a time limit and if that is yes then voting on what that time would be.

 

It can be whatever people want. In my opinion we already have the concept of a time frame implemented where the Rules state: The following Probation List Rules are in effect beginning 8/1/2011. This interval will just grow longer as time passes. I think we just need to get a majority agreement on the length of time.

[jaybuck43]

One of the hotter topics is for how long after a transaction can someone be nominated for the PL. Currently the only time frame we have is in the "preamble":

The following Probation List Rules are in effect beginning 8/1/2011.

 

This could be a new Item under Rule 1. Wording could be something like:

 

e) After a transaction is completed, a PL nomination may be made no more than xxx days (weeks/months etc) after the completion of the transaction. This would allow time for restoration check or other unforeseen situations.

 

Phrasing could be better but most importantly we need to come up with the time frame.

 

Would this be a two step process? First voting if people agree there should be a time limit and if that is yes then voting on what that time would be.

 

It can be whatever people want. In my opinion we already have the concept of a time frame implemented where the Rules state: The following Probation List Rules are in effect beginning 8/1/2011. This interval will just grow longer as time passes. I think we just need to get a majority agreement on the length of time.

Two things POV. 1) I think the new rules should have an effect date like the last set of rules and they should only be forward facing (i.e. people on the PL/HoS already are "grandfathered" into the new rules and still apply to the old rules. This prevents an issue where say under the old rules someone is on the PL but under the new rules they don't qualify (i'm thinking about the time frame issue at the moment). So I would purpose. "The following Probation List Rules apply to any and all transactions taking place on or after xx/xx/2015."

2) As to the length of time I would suggest 9 months. It's long enough to have a baby, it's long enough to cover a deal . I would suggest the following language. "Nominators have 9 months from the completion of a transaction to nominate a party for the Probation List. This time frame does not apply to the Hall of Shame."

 

The intent here is to a) decide when the clock starts (I.e. at , when the item is paid for, upon the last payment of time payments, when the item is mailed, when the item is received). I suggest when the item is received. b) The time frame should not apply to the HoS because usually it requires several bad acts, and thus a time frame on the HoS would severely limit members of the HoS to those who cause big, bad acts right away, or someone who screws up a lot right at the same time.

[NP_Gresham]

I propose, for every new rule, an old rule be dropped.

More rules

[NP_Gresham]

I look forward to the list of rules being longer than my mortgage

[PovertyRow]

Jay, I agree 100% about the same type of disclaimer as the previous: that is a start date for the modified rules to take effect.

 

6 months. 9 months. etc. I honestly have no opinion on any of these and would just want to see the majority opinion.

[PovertyRow]

I look forward to the list of rules being longer than my mortgage

 

Actually the rules would stay about the same. Most of the things would be clarification of an existing concept. This has has been talked about the past few years now but nothing comes of it. Maybe this time something will and we can just put this to bed for another few years!

[Bio-Rupp]

Perhaps since the time frames may be different for each seller... why not just let the seller put it in his sales requirements before each sale he/she puts a on.

 

Individualized over generalized wins every time Plus would give the buyer a choice as who to buy from. That means if you only sub books once a year, you will be covered if you wait a few months for the resto check.

 

If they don't put one, buyer should ask.

 

Less rules with more emphasis on seller's word.

 

 

[wombat]

Perhaps since the time frames may be different for each seller... why not just let the seller put it in his sales requirements before each sale he/she puts a on.

 

Individualized over generalized wins every time Plus would give the buyer a choice as who to buy from. That means if you only sub books once a year, you will be covered if you wait a few months for the resto check.

 

If they don't put one, buyer should ask.

 

Less rules with more emphasis on seller's word.

 

 

I assume you are talking about a time frame for returns as opposed to a time frame for nominating someone for the PL. I'm not sure anyone was trying to force a specific return policy on sellers.

[Bio-Rupp]

Perhaps since the time frames may be different for each seller... why not just let the seller put it in his sales requirements before each sale he/she puts a on.

 

Individualized over generalized wins every time Plus would give the buyer a choice as who to buy from. That means if you only sub books once a year, you will be covered if you wait a few months for the resto check.

 

If they don't put one, buyer should ask.

 

Less rules with more emphasis on seller's word.

 

 

I assume you are talking about a time frame for returns as opposed to a time frame for nominating someone for the PL. I'm not sure anyone was trying to force a specific return policy on sellers.

 

Kind of one in the same isn't it ?

[jaybuck43]

Jay, I agree 100% about the same type of disclaimer as the previous: that is a start date for the modified rules to take effect.

 

6 months. 9 months. etc. I honestly have no opinion on any of these and would just want to see the majority opinion.

 

Well just checked CGC. Advertised turn around times for their slowest tier is 75 business days. That's about 3 and a half months. Adding in shipping to CGC time, plus "delay time" I think 6 months would be reasonable. In regards to Rupps point, I see no reason that a seller cannot extend that time, thus it's a 6 month default, unless a seller specifies otherwise. (This would allow negotiation, a seller can make it 2 months BUT charge less then they normally would, conversely a seller like Storms can offer a lifetime warranty and charge more for it (assuming the market bears out these price changes))

[wombat]

Perhaps since the time frames may be different for each seller... why not just let the seller put it in his sales requirements before each sale he/she puts a on.

 

Individualized over generalized wins every time Plus would give the buyer a choice as who to buy from. That means if you only sub books once a year, you will be covered if you wait a few months for the resto check.

 

If they don't put one, buyer should ask.

 

Less rules with more emphasis on seller's word.

 

 

I assume you are talking about a time frame for returns as opposed to a time frame for nominating someone for the PL. I'm not sure anyone was trying to force a specific return policy on sellers.

 

Kind of one in the same isn't it ?

 

I don't think so.

[EC ed]

Perhaps since the time frames may be different for each seller... why not just let the seller put it in his sales requirements before each sale he/she puts a on.

 

Individualized over generalized wins every time Plus would give the buyer a choice as who to buy from. That means if you only sub books once a year, you will be covered if you wait a few months for the resto check.

 

If they don't put one, buyer should ask.

 

Less rules with more emphasis on seller's word.

 

 

I assume you are talking about a time frame for returns as opposed to a time frame for nominating someone for the PL. I'm not sure anyone was trying to force a specific return policy on sellers.

 

Kind of one in the same isn't it ?

 

No

[Bio-Rupp]

Perhaps since the time frames may be different for each seller... why not just let the seller put it in his sales requirements before each sale he/she puts a on.

 

Individualized over generalized wins every time Plus would give the buyer a choice as who to buy from. That means if you only sub books once a year, you will be covered if you wait a few months for the resto check.

 

If they don't put one, buyer should ask.

 

Less rules with more emphasis on seller's word.

 

 

I assume you are talking about a time frame for returns as opposed to a time frame for nominating someone for the PL. I'm not sure anyone was trying to force a specific return policy on sellers.

 

Kind of one in the same isn't it ?

 

No

 

yeah probably not