General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[maloney414]

Different subject: shouldn't big sales threads that combine books from the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s be in the Mixed Age thread rather than the Gold/Silver/Bronze thread?

 

Yes.

 

However, the Mixed Age doesn't get as much traffic. It's also for non-comic book merch too.

 

If sellers want to avoid the Mixed section, they should split the books into 2 sales threads. One in the Gold/Silver/Bronze and one in the Coppers/Moderns.

[EC ed]

Agreed.

[GACollectibles]

Different subject: shouldn't big sales threads that combine books from the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s be in the Mixed Age thread rather than the Gold/Silver/Bronze thread?

 

Yes.

 

However, the Mixed Age doesn't get as much traffic. It's also for non-comic book merch too.

 

If sellers want to avoid the Mixed section, they should split the books into 2 sales threads. One in the Gold/Silver/Bronze and one in the Coppers/Moderns.

 

For Mixed Age sales threads you can also post links in the "Misc Forum Alert" threads that are stickied at the top of the Gold/Silver/Bronze & Copper/Modern Forums, effectively posting in all three Forums with one sales thread.

[seanfingh]

 

Savvy!!

[bababooey]

PIF PL Scenario (hypothetical)

 

Goods get offered/taken as follows:

A to B, B to C, C to D, D to B, B to C, C to A

 

Party D comes on the thread and says "party C is gone, no communication, no items"

 

Party A has yet to offer anything & doesn't want to because he's unlikely to get his claim from party C.

 

In the "spirit of the thread" - a kindly boardie jumps in and puts up the next offer...life goes on...until D decides to do a nomination.

 

Who goes on the PL ?

a) just C - the guy who will never appear here again anyways

b) A & C - both the guys who broke the PIF rules

 

 

My vote would be just C. but...

I think there are enough good, intelligent people in the PIF thread to come to a consensus as a whole on whether or not to nominate someone for the PL list. The thread as a whole runs relatively smoothly. Sure there are snags here and there but most things work themselves out. Outright theft, which has (in my opinion) occurred in this particular situation is rare so it's not like the PL list will be over run with PIF members.

 

I'll finish it for you. "My vote would be just C. but.....that's not what the PIF rules call for and both A & C should be added to the PL."

 

Anyways, that's the challenge with this type of multi-party transaction where sometimes applying the rules won't work the way most would want it to.

 

I don't have a strong opinion either way, I think you guys could handle your business over there or make use of the PL.

 

RULES:

-You must not be on the Hall of Shame list or be in poor standing on the boards

-You must have at least 50 posts

-If you claim some book(s), you must post your offering within 24 hours

-Only one offer at a time. No new book(s) can be posted until the existing offer has been claimed

-Post pics or scans of the book(s) you're giving away. Cell phone pics are fine

-Don't take book(s) if you've got nothing to offer in return

-Ship book(s) quickly so people aren't left hanging. No later than two weeks after someone claims your offer.

-Only one takeit every 7 days per member. However, if an item is not claimed within 24 hours, anyone is welcome to take it (no matter when they last claimed book(s). Just don't be greedy!

-Please do not discuss the value of the book(s) being offered. If you don't like them, you don't have to take them

-You can ONLY "take" a book after it has been listed.

-Be honest

-Have fun!

 

Out of curiosity, how does the blue rule work?

 

Nah, I finished my but... below that. Which I agree with you, the PIF guys can handle their own business. If something like that happened, PIF would come to a stop and decide as a group how to proceed. I would think as a participant (and maybe I'm wrong) that it would be decided as a group that all parties involved would receive something and Mr. C. should go to the PL list.

 

I think we are all smart enough to see that the rule you quoted would not get "A" put on the PL list in light of the situation. Then again we are just dumb donkeys (sorry, I had to throw that in)

 

Please explain to me why "A" doesn't get added, he claimed something and failed to post an offer within 24 hours - because of a "situation" where he got nothing sent to him by a thief who failed to ship to two people. That doesn't relieve him of his responsibility to post something. This is where the trouble lies, you have "rules" & the "spirit" of the thread, jumping back & forth between the two can work when there's a consensus but that may not always be the case.

 

True, the PIF remedy was covered in my example "others stepping up" which is fine but that's not what the PL is about. The PL is for people who fail to honour a commitment, promise etc...if I say party "A" does belong on the list & your rule supports my position - there is no valid argument as to why both shouldn't go up on the PL & quite honestly, I wouldn't want to do business with either party.

 

I "get" that you guys want a place to put thieves, I think it does benefit everyone - but the discussions taking place elsewhere (PIF thread) & dropping off nominations probably doesn't work.

They should take place here like manicnerd was doing, just don't expect everyone to agree with you - if that's what the PL discussion thread was like then it would be boring, there's a reason for "testing" nominations by probing further & it adds legitimacy to the process.

 

 

Because boardie "A" hasn't wronged anyone. There would be no individual to nominate him to the list. He claimed a ghost offer, and the thread as a whole would be discussing the PL nomination of boardie "C". People would understand.

 

Boardie "C" would be on the list until they "made right" and boardie "D" took them off. That's how the regular PL currently works. It would be no different.

 

 

 

 

 

Not really, in the hypothetical scenario, boardie "A" claimed goods from a bad apple and then refused to make an offer on the thread within 24 hours.

 

When it's not a direct "one to one" trade it's not as simple as "he didn't pay, I'm not shipping his books" - in the PIF scenario the "taking & giving" is unrelated.

 

The rule clearly spells out the expectation to post an offer within 24 hours. So since you say boardie "A" is off the hook, what happens in these two scenarios, when more time has passed:

 

1. What if boardie "A" posts his offer then he learns about the deadbeat and wants to retract his offer?

 

Same scenario as earlier then.

 

Because boardie "A" hasn't wronged anyone. There would be no individual to nominate him to the list. He claimed a ghost offer, and the thread as a whole would be discussing the PL nomination of boardie "C". People would understand.

 

2. What if he posts his offer, someone takes that offer & he comes on the thread and says he's not going to ship the items?

 

Again, I think people would understand. It's not a robot or computer program dealing with absolutes. I don't think anyone would be demanding them to continue under the circumstances. The thread would basically stop until someone restarted it with an offer.

 

And if the new person was a spoon and demanded they ship the offer, even though the discussion is going on and the thread has stopped. Well just like we have with the regular PL you nominate people and when there is a grey area it's discussed. This is not new.

 

So to take it further. Say they did ship their offer. Then boardie "C" would be on the list until both boardie "D" and boardie "A" took them off.

 

 

When there are multiple parties involved, a single problem child affects multiple parties and clearly impacts how people view subsequent "transactions" & responsibilities. I'm not disagreeing with the common sense conclusions that others would reach but they are not based on the rules.

 

If the PIF rules don't factor into reaching the common sense result - the above two scenarios show where one problem child creates more problem children & keeping a lid on that would be difficult IF the consensus is that someone can break a cornerstone thread rule, where then do you draw the line where boardie "A" is committed to fulfilling his obligation if you're not going to use the rules?

So once someone is wronged, they don't need to follow the rules, band-aids are applied & the show goes on...

 

Focusing on your response to scenario 2 - how is this new "claimant" now a spoon when he's looking for the same resolution boardie "A" is seeking? He wants an offer that he claimed. Why is the first damaged party given empowerment and a subsequent damaged party less important?

I think they're both being spoons.

 

BTW - I'm not disagreeing with PIF offenders being on the PL. I just think the PIF dynamic brings new perspectives on rule enforcement that aren't similar to PL enforcement & that's worth discussing.

[techtre2003]

PIF PL Scenario (hypothetical)

 

Goods get offered/taken as follows:

A to B, B to C, C to D, D to B, B to C, C to A

 

Party D comes on the thread and says "party C is gone, no communication, no items"

 

Party A has yet to offer anything & doesn't want to because he's unlikely to get his claim from party C.

 

In the "spirit of the thread" - a kindly boardie jumps in and puts up the next offer...life goes on...until D decides to do a nomination.

 

Who goes on the PL ?

a) just C - the guy who will never appear here again anyways

b) A & C - both the guys who broke the PIF rules

 

 

My vote would be just C. but...

I think there are enough good, intelligent people in the PIF thread to come to a consensus as a whole on whether or not to nominate someone for the PL list. The thread as a whole runs relatively smoothly. Sure there are snags here and there but most things work themselves out. Outright theft, which has (in my opinion) occurred in this particular situation is rare so it's not like the PL list will be over run with PIF members.

 

I'll finish it for you. "My vote would be just C. but.....that's not what the PIF rules call for and both A & C should be added to the PL."

 

Anyways, that's the challenge with this type of multi-party transaction where sometimes applying the rules won't work the way most would want it to.

 

I don't have a strong opinion either way, I think you guys could handle your business over there or make use of the PL.

 

RULES:

-You must not be on the Hall of Shame list or be in poor standing on the boards

-You must have at least 50 posts

-If you claim some book(s), you must post your offering within 24 hours

-Only one offer at a time. No new book(s) can be posted until the existing offer has been claimed

-Post pics or scans of the book(s) you're giving away. Cell phone pics are fine

-Don't take book(s) if you've got nothing to offer in return

-Ship book(s) quickly so people aren't left hanging. No later than two weeks after someone claims your offer.

-Only one takeit every 7 days per member. However, if an item is not claimed within 24 hours, anyone is welcome to take it (no matter when they last claimed book(s). Just don't be greedy!

-Please do not discuss the value of the book(s) being offered. If you don't like them, you don't have to take them

-You can ONLY "take" a book after it has been listed.

-Be honest

-Have fun!

 

Out of curiosity, how does the blue rule work?

 

Nah, I finished my but... below that. Which I agree with you, the PIF guys can handle their own business. If something like that happened, PIF would come to a stop and decide as a group how to proceed. I would think as a participant (and maybe I'm wrong) that it would be decided as a group that all parties involved would receive something and Mr. C. should go to the PL list.

 

I think we are all smart enough to see that the rule you quoted would not get "A" put on the PL list in light of the situation. Then again we are just dumb donkeys (sorry, I had to throw that in)

 

Please explain to me why "A" doesn't get added, he claimed something and failed to post an offer within 24 hours - because of a "situation" where he got nothing sent to him by a thief who failed to ship to two people. That doesn't relieve him of his responsibility to post something. This is where the trouble lies, you have "rules" & the "spirit" of the thread, jumping back & forth between the two can work when there's a consensus but that may not always be the case.

 

True, the PIF remedy was covered in my example "others stepping up" which is fine but that's not what the PL is about. The PL is for people who fail to honour a commitment, promise etc...if I say party "A" does belong on the list & your rule supports my position - there is no valid argument as to why both shouldn't go up on the PL & quite honestly, I wouldn't want to do business with either party.

 

I "get" that you guys want a place to put thieves, I think it does benefit everyone - but the discussions taking place elsewhere (PIF thread) & dropping off nominations probably doesn't work.

They should take place here like manicnerd was doing, just don't expect everyone to agree with you - if that's what the PL discussion thread was like then it would be boring, there's a reason for "testing" nominations by probing further & it adds legitimacy to the process.

 

 

Because boardie "A" hasn't wronged anyone. There would be no individual to nominate him to the list. He claimed a ghost offer, and the thread as a whole would be discussing the PL nomination of boardie "C". People would understand.

 

Boardie "C" would be on the list until they "made right" and boardie "D" took them off. That's how the regular PL currently works. It would be no different.

 

 

 

 

 

Not really, in the hypothetical scenario, boardie "A" claimed goods from a bad apple and then refused to make an offer on the thread within 24 hours.

 

When it's not a direct "one to one" trade it's not as simple as "he didn't pay, I'm not shipping his books" - in the PIF scenario the "taking & giving" is unrelated.

 

The rule clearly spells out the expectation to post an offer within 24 hours. So since you say boardie "A" is off the hook, what happens in these two scenarios, when more time has passed:

 

1. What if boardie "A" posts his offer then he learns about the deadbeat and wants to retract his offer?

 

Same scenario as earlier then.

 

Because boardie "A" hasn't wronged anyone. There would be no individual to nominate him to the list. He claimed a ghost offer, and the thread as a whole would be discussing the PL nomination of boardie "C". People would understand.

 

2. What if he posts his offer, someone takes that offer & he comes on the thread and says he's not going to ship the items?

 

Again, I think people would understand. It's not a robot or computer program dealing with absolutes. I don't think anyone would be demanding them to continue under the circumstances. The thread would basically stop until someone restarted it with an offer.

 

And if the new person was a spoon and demanded they ship the offer, even though the discussion is going on and the thread has stopped. Well just like we have with the regular PL you nominate people and when there is a grey area it's discussed. This is not new.

 

So to take it further. Say they did ship their offer. Then boardie "C" would be on the list until both boardie "D" and boardie "A" took them off.

 

 

When there are multiple parties involved, a single problem child affects multiple parties and clearly impacts how people view subsequent "transactions" & responsibilities. I'm not disagreeing with the common sense conclusions that others would reach but they are not based on the rules.

 

If the PIF rules don't factor into reaching the common sense result - the above two scenarios show where one problem child creates more problem children & keeping a lid on that would be difficult IF the consensus is that someone can break a cornerstone thread rule, where then do you draw the line where boardie "A" is committed to fulfilling his obligation if you're not going to use the rules?

So once someone is wronged, they don't need to follow the rules, band-aids are applied & the show goes on...

 

Focusing on your response to scenario 2 - how is this new "claimant" now a spoon when he's looking for the same resolution boardie "A" is seeking? He wants an offer that he claimed. Why is the first damaged party given empowerment and a subsequent damaged party less important?

I think they're both being spoons.

 

BTW - I'm not disagreeing with PIF offenders being on the PL. I just think the PIF dynamic brings new perspectives on rule enforcement that aren't similar to PL enforcement & that's worth discussing.

 

I think once the first person is wronged, the whole thing stops and discussion about what to do starts.

 

I think you make a valid point though that maybe not all of the discussion be contained in the PIF thread and then a final decision brought to the PL board. Perhaps the PIFers start a discussion and then if deemed necessary by the group the situation is brought over to PL with a summary of events and links to find the original posts?

[slym2none]

I thought the Pay it Forward thread is a " here have this" type of thing? Get over it people.

 

And what happens when someone is promised "here have this" and doesn't get it? Even though they have already put themselves out money for shipping and the material, in this case, 75 Mylars?

 

:shrug:

 

 

 

-slym

[maloney414]

PIF PL Scenario (hypothetical)

 

Goods get offered/taken as follows:

A to B, B to C, C to D, D to B, B to C, C to A

 

Party D comes on the thread and says "party C is gone, no communication, no items"

 

Party A has yet to offer anything & doesn't want to because he's unlikely to get his claim from party C.

 

In the "spirit of the thread" - a kindly boardie jumps in and puts up the next offer...life goes on...until D decides to do a nomination.

 

Who goes on the PL ?

a) just C - the guy who will never appear here again anyways

b) A & C - both the guys who broke the PIF rules

 

 

My vote would be just C. but...

I think there are enough good, intelligent people in the PIF thread to come to a consensus as a whole on whether or not to nominate someone for the PL list. The thread as a whole runs relatively smoothly. Sure there are snags here and there but most things work themselves out. Outright theft, which has (in my opinion) occurred in this particular situation is rare so it's not like the PL list will be over run with PIF members.

 

I'll finish it for you. "My vote would be just C. but.....that's not what the PIF rules call for and both A & C should be added to the PL."

 

Anyways, that's the challenge with this type of multi-party transaction where sometimes applying the rules won't work the way most would want it to.

 

I don't have a strong opinion either way, I think you guys could handle your business over there or make use of the PL.

 

RULES:

-You must not be on the Hall of Shame list or be in poor standing on the boards

-You must have at least 50 posts

-If you claim some book(s), you must post your offering within 24 hours

-Only one offer at a time. No new book(s) can be posted until the existing offer has been claimed

-Post pics or scans of the book(s) you're giving away. Cell phone pics are fine

-Don't take book(s) if you've got nothing to offer in return

-Ship book(s) quickly so people aren't left hanging. No later than two weeks after someone claims your offer.

-Only one takeit every 7 days per member. However, if an item is not claimed within 24 hours, anyone is welcome to take it (no matter when they last claimed book(s). Just don't be greedy!

-Please do not discuss the value of the book(s) being offered. If you don't like them, you don't have to take them

-You can ONLY "take" a book after it has been listed.

-Be honest

-Have fun!

 

Out of curiosity, how does the blue rule work?

 

Nah, I finished my but... below that. Which I agree with you, the PIF guys can handle their own business. If something like that happened, PIF would come to a stop and decide as a group how to proceed. I would think as a participant (and maybe I'm wrong) that it would be decided as a group that all parties involved would receive something and Mr. C. should go to the PL list.

 

I think we are all smart enough to see that the rule you quoted would not get "A" put on the PL list in light of the situation. Then again we are just dumb donkeys (sorry, I had to throw that in)

 

Please explain to me why "A" doesn't get added, he claimed something and failed to post an offer within 24 hours - because of a "situation" where he got nothing sent to him by a thief who failed to ship to two people. That doesn't relieve him of his responsibility to post something. This is where the trouble lies, you have "rules" & the "spirit" of the thread, jumping back & forth between the two can work when there's a consensus but that may not always be the case.

 

True, the PIF remedy was covered in my example "others stepping up" which is fine but that's not what the PL is about. The PL is for people who fail to honour a commitment, promise etc...if I say party "A" does belong on the list & your rule supports my position - there is no valid argument as to why both shouldn't go up on the PL & quite honestly, I wouldn't want to do business with either party.

 

I "get" that you guys want a place to put thieves, I think it does benefit everyone - but the discussions taking place elsewhere (PIF thread) & dropping off nominations probably doesn't work.

They should take place here like manicnerd was doing, just don't expect everyone to agree with you - if that's what the PL discussion thread was like then it would be boring, there's a reason for "testing" nominations by probing further & it adds legitimacy to the process.

 

 

Because boardie "A" hasn't wronged anyone. There would be no individual to nominate him to the list. He claimed a ghost offer, and the thread as a whole would be discussing the PL nomination of boardie "C". People would understand.

 

Boardie "C" would be on the list until they "made right" and boardie "D" took them off. That's how the regular PL currently works. It would be no different.

 

 

 

 

 

Not really, in the hypothetical scenario, boardie "A" claimed goods from a bad apple and then refused to make an offer on the thread within 24 hours.

 

When it's not a direct "one to one" trade it's not as simple as "he didn't pay, I'm not shipping his books" - in the PIF scenario the "taking & giving" is unrelated.

 

The rule clearly spells out the expectation to post an offer within 24 hours. So since you say boardie "A" is off the hook, what happens in these two scenarios, when more time has passed:

 

1. What if boardie "A" posts his offer then he learns about the deadbeat and wants to retract his offer?

 

Same scenario as earlier then.

 

Because boardie "A" hasn't wronged anyone. There would be no individual to nominate him to the list. He claimed a ghost offer, and the thread as a whole would be discussing the PL nomination of boardie "C". People would understand.

 

2. What if he posts his offer, someone takes that offer & he comes on the thread and says he's not going to ship the items?

 

Again, I think people would understand. It's not a robot or computer program dealing with absolutes. I don't think anyone would be demanding them to continue under the circumstances. The thread would basically stop until someone restarted it with an offer.

 

And if the new person was a spoon and demanded they ship the offer, even though the discussion is going on and the thread has stopped. Well just like we have with the regular PL you nominate people and when there is a grey area it's discussed. This is not new.

 

So to take it further. Say they did ship their offer. Then boardie "C" would be on the list until both boardie "D" and boardie "A" took them off.

 

 

When there are multiple parties involved, a single problem child affects multiple parties and clearly impacts how people view subsequent "transactions" & responsibilities. I'm not disagreeing with the common sense conclusions that others would reach but they are not based on the rules.

 

If the PIF rules don't factor into reaching the common sense result - the above two scenarios show where one problem child creates more problem children & keeping a lid on that would be difficult IF the consensus is that someone can break a cornerstone thread rule, where then do you draw the line where boardie "A" is committed to fulfilling his obligation if you're not going to use the rules?

So once someone is wronged, they don't need to follow the rules, band-aids are applied & the show goes on...

 

Focusing on your response to scenario 2 - how is this new "claimant" now a spoon when he's looking for the same resolution boardie "A" is seeking? He wants an offer that he claimed. Why is the first damaged party given empowerment and a subsequent damaged party less important?

I think they're both being spoons.

 

BTW - I'm not disagreeing with PIF offenders being on the PL. I just think the PIF dynamic brings new perspectives on rule enforcement that aren't similar to PL enforcement & that's worth discussing.

 

No.

 

The way you described the situation the new "claimant" had not offered anything up yet, let alone shipped it out. Therefore they haven't been wronged at all yet, and the thread would be paused.

 

As for the spoon comment. Forget the hypothetical for a moment and use a real person. If YOU were the "claimant" in your hypo, would YOU demand boardie "A" ship after you learned about the situation and before you even offered anything yet? Of course not. You asked why he'd be a spoon, and then in the next sentence admit it yourself.

 

I think you're taking the "what if hypothetical situation" too far down the rabbit hole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[slym2none]

HOPEFULLY, we will never have to ever nominate someone for WHATEVER list we ultimately decide people who break the PIF rules.

 

And to answer someone's question (sorta - I think) if someone were to offer something on the PIF thread and then retract the offer, once might be OK, as long as there is a reason. If someone did it repeatedly, they'd be asked to not participate, and all the other people to not have interaction with that person. No PL list needed for most things, just for the most egregious of "crimes" that can happen over there.

 

 

 

-slym

[Bosco685]

I think you're taking the "what if hypothetical situation" too far down the rabbit hole.

 

It did feel like this was being thought through too complex for some simple scenarios.

[thehumantorch]

This place is a community that looks after each other. I know some of you bicker and fight at times, but it really comes together at times as well.

 

To me, it's a no brainer to add deadbeats to the PL. Whether it's from our sales threads, eBay transactions or the PIF thread. Having it all in one place protects us all because the information is easy to find. If it's spread out, it's less likely to be helpful.

 

And that should be our goal. Help each other make informed decisions and keep this place as safe as we can for transactions.

Notations about the transaction being on eBay or the PIF are perfectly fine, and not something to fight over. But keeping it in one place is what's best for the community.

 

+10000

 

Well stated, agree 100%

[Bosco685]

HOPEFULLY, we will never have to ever nominate someone for WHATEVER list we ultimately decide people who break the PIF rules.

 

And to answer someone's question (sorta - I think) if someone were to offer something on the PIF thread and then retract the offer, once might be OK, as long as there is a reason. If someone did it repeatedly, they'd be asked to not participate, and all the other people to not have interaction with that person. No PL list needed for most things, just for the most egregious of "crimes" that can happen over there.

 

 

 

-slym

Has this happened before, or is this more future thinking in case it does come up?

 

I know there was the one forumite that was taking more expensive books and then posting loads of low-end material as a pile. Or the person that wasn't shipping quickly. Any other scenarios that are current challenges for the PIF?

[slym2none]

We policed ourselves on those issues. They would (hopefully) never have to be brought to the PL thread.

 

Any other challenges? Not yet.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[Bosco685]

We policed ourselves on those issues. They would (hopefully) never have to be brought to the PL thread.

 

Any other challenges? Not yet.

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

Amen to that!

 

So the scenarios that would be immediate attention-getters maybe are the following.

 

1) Those that take and don't post.

 

2) Those that post but don't ship.

 

3) Those that say they shipped, but then nothing arrives.

[slym2none]

Yes, that seems to me all that would ever need be brought to the board-at-larges attention.

 

 

 

-slym

[bababooey]

 

PIF PL Scenario (hypothetical)

 

Goods get offered/taken as follows:

A to B, B to C, C to D, D to B, B to C, C to A

 

Party D comes on the thread and says "party C is gone, no communication, no items"

 

Party A has yet to offer anything & doesn't want to because he's unlikely to get his claim from party C.

 

In the "spirit of the thread" - a kindly boardie jumps in and puts up the next offer...life goes on...until D decides to do a nomination.

 

Who goes on the PL ?

a) just C - the guy who will never appear here again anyways

b) A & C - both the guys who broke the PIF rules

 

 

My vote would be just C. but...

I think there are enough good, intelligent people in the PIF thread to come to a consensus as a whole on whether or not to nominate someone for the PL list. The thread as a whole runs relatively smoothly. Sure there are snags here and there but most things work themselves out. Outright theft, which has (in my opinion) occurred in this particular situation is rare so it's not like the PL list will be over run with PIF members.

 

I'll finish it for you. "My vote would be just C. but.....that's not what the PIF rules call for and both A & C should be added to the PL."

 

Anyways, that's the challenge with this type of multi-party transaction where sometimes applying the rules won't work the way most would want it to.

 

I don't have a strong opinion either way, I think you guys could handle your business over there or make use of the PL.

 

RULES:

-You must not be on the Hall of Shame list or be in poor standing on the boards

-You must have at least 50 posts

-If you claim some book(s), you must post your offering within 24 hours

-Only one offer at a time. No new book(s) can be posted until the existing offer has been claimed

-Post pics or scans of the book(s) you're giving away. Cell phone pics are fine

-Don't take book(s) if you've got nothing to offer in return

-Ship book(s) quickly so people aren't left hanging. No later than two weeks after someone claims your offer.

-Only one takeit every 7 days per member. However, if an item is not claimed within 24 hours, anyone is welcome to take it (no matter when they last claimed book(s). Just don't be greedy!

-Please do not discuss the value of the book(s) being offered. If you don't like them, you don't have to take them

-You can ONLY "take" a book after it has been listed.

-Be honest

-Have fun!

 

Out of curiosity, how does the blue rule work?

 

Nah, I finished my but... below that. Which I agree with you, the PIF guys can handle their own business. If something like that happened, PIF would come to a stop and decide as a group how to proceed. I would think as a participant (and maybe I'm wrong) that it would be decided as a group that all parties involved would receive something and Mr. C. should go to the PL list.

 

I think we are all smart enough to see that the rule you quoted would not get "A" put on the PL list in light of the situation. Then again we are just dumb donkeys (sorry, I had to throw that in)

 

Please explain to me why "A" doesn't get added, he claimed something and failed to post an offer within 24 hours - because of a "situation" where he got nothing sent to him by a thief who failed to ship to two people. That doesn't relieve him of his responsibility to post something. This is where the trouble lies, you have "rules" & the "spirit" of the thread, jumping back & forth between the two can work when there's a consensus but that may not always be the case.

 

True, the PIF remedy was covered in my example "others stepping up" which is fine but that's not what the PL is about. The PL is for people who fail to honour a commitment, promise etc...if I say party "A" does belong on the list & your rule supports my position - there is no valid argument as to why both shouldn't go up on the PL & quite honestly, I wouldn't want to do business with either party.

 

I "get" that you guys want a place to put thieves, I think it does benefit everyone - but the discussions taking place elsewhere (PIF thread) & dropping off nominations probably doesn't work.

They should take place here like manicnerd was doing, just don't expect everyone to agree with you - if that's what the PL discussion thread was like then it would be boring, there's a reason for "testing" nominations by probing further & it adds legitimacy to the process.

 

 

Because boardie "A" hasn't wronged anyone. There would be no individual to nominate him to the list. He claimed a ghost offer, and the thread as a whole would be discussing the PL nomination of boardie "C". People would understand.

 

Boardie "C" would be on the list until they "made right" and boardie "D" took them off. That's how the regular PL currently works. It would be no different.

 

 

 

 

 

Not really, in the hypothetical scenario, boardie "A" claimed goods from a bad apple and then refused to make an offer on the thread within 24 hours.

 

When it's not a direct "one to one" trade it's not as simple as "he didn't pay, I'm not shipping his books" - in the PIF scenario the "taking & giving" is unrelated.

 

The rule clearly spells out the expectation to post an offer within 24 hours. So since you say boardie "A" is off the hook, what happens in these two scenarios, when more time has passed:

 

1. What if boardie "A" posts his offer then he learns about the deadbeat and wants to retract his offer?

 

Same scenario as earlier then.

 

Because boardie "A" hasn't wronged anyone. There would be no individual to nominate him to the list. He claimed a ghost offer, and the thread as a whole would be discussing the PL nomination of boardie "C". People would understand.

 

2. What if he posts his offer, someone takes that offer & he comes on the thread and says he's not going to ship the items?

 

Again, I think people would understand. It's not a robot or computer program dealing with absolutes. I don't think anyone would be demanding them to continue under the circumstances. The thread would basically stop until someone restarted it with an offer.

 

And if the new person was a spoon and demanded they ship the offer, even though the discussion is going on and the thread has stopped. Well just like we have with the regular PL you nominate people and when there is a grey area it's discussed. This is not new.

 

So to take it further. Say they did ship their offer. Then boardie "C" would be on the list until both boardie "D" and boardie "A" took them off.

 

 

When there are multiple parties involved, a single problem child affects multiple parties and clearly impacts how people view subsequent "transactions" & responsibilities. I'm not disagreeing with the common sense conclusions that others would reach but they are not based on the rules.

 

If the PIF rules don't factor into reaching the common sense result - the above two scenarios show where one problem child creates more problem children & keeping a lid on that would be difficult IF the consensus is that someone can break a cornerstone thread rule, where then do you draw the line where boardie "A" is committed to fulfilling his obligation if you're not going to use the rules?

So once someone is wronged, they don't need to follow the rules, band-aids are applied & the show goes on...

 

Focusing on your response to scenario 2 - how is this new "claimant" now a spoon when he's looking for the same resolution boardie "A" is seeking? He wants an offer that he claimed. Why is the first damaged party given empowerment and a subsequent damaged party less important?

I think they're both being spoons.

 

BTW - I'm not disagreeing with PIF offenders being on the PL. I just think the PIF dynamic brings new perspectives on rule enforcement that aren't similar to PL enforcement & that's worth discussing.

 

 

No.

 

The way you described the situation the new "claimant" had not offered anything up yet, let alone shipped it out. Therefore they haven't been wronged at all yet, and the thread would be paused.

 

As for the spoon comment. Forget the hypothetical for a moment and use a real person. If YOU were the "claimant" in your hypo, would YOU demand boardie "A" ship after you learned about the situation and before you even offered anything yet? Of course not. You asked why he'd be a spoon, and then in the next sentence admit it yourself.

 

I think you're taking the "what if hypothetical situation" too far down the rabbit hole.

 

Yes I'm continuing this.

I was always treating them the same - I was saying the rules should put them both on the PL.

You treated "A" and the new claimant differently because an intervention is possible...but the loss "A" suffered is equivalent to the loss of the new claimant if you're going to let "A" pull back his offer because of a prior problem. It's reasonable to conclude that this new claimant will follow through with his backend (offer) so you are only treating them differently because of the timing.

 

Move the timeline & tell me when boardie "A" can or can't rescind his offer because he did not receive items from his claim.

- before he posts his offer

- after he posts his offer

- after his offer has been claimed

- after his offer has been claimed & several subsequent PIF's have taken place

 

The reason I'm getting into the details is to get clarity. The clean route is - IF you claim an item. That is your claim & your risk - it ends there. That's the best way to oversee an enforceable "post within 24 hours of claiming" rule.

 

The front end (claiming) should not impact the back end (offering) because two different parties are dealing with that PIF person.

 

If the participants want to discuss & create a goodwill thing as a sidebar - that's great & that can stay in the PIF thread. Forgiving someone breaking a rule shouldn't be the way it is handled, it's a bad precedent even when intervention is possible.

 

I feel the claimant should accept & absorb the risks associated with a claim gone bad.....it shouldn't absolve them of the 24 hr offer rule or flow to subsequent offers/claims.

 

 

[bababooey]

I think you're taking the "what if hypothetical situation" too far down the rabbit hole.

 

It did feel like this was being thought through too complex for some simple scenarios.

I'd rather ask questions to get people to think about the existing process and consider adjustments before it comes over.

 

If the PIF'ers aren't all on the same page & POV has to come in and clean up.... ......

(language warning)

 

 

[Bosco685]

[Bosco685]

I'd rather ask questions to get people to think about the existing process and consider adjustments before it comes over.

 

Are these not the most common PIF process breakdowns that could potentially occur?

 

1) Those that take and don't post.

 

2) Those that post but don't ship.

 

3) Those that say they shipped, but then nothing arrives.

 

[slym2none]

Baba is enjoying stirring the pot.

 

 

 

 

-slym