General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[greggy]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

thanks for the kind words Jimbo, but really not necessary. I choose to make this decision, so I take full responsibility in not using better judgment

 

Hector, I hope you don't wait and contact your credit card company now. It might actually push PP to do something if they hear from the CC co.

 

Re PMs, we know this is a privately held message board, so they pretty much own everything, but Arch has on occasion said they don't "normally" and I'm paraphrasing, look at pms unless both parties agree. Doesn't mean they can't.

 

Paid with Paypal balance not CC

 

Same thing I did with AjaxFarrel ...

Sucker

[bababooey]

I see more HOS requests have come in

 

I can go that route but before I do I would rather allow more discussion before the nominating process

 

It seems that whenever there is a quick HOS nomination those who believe that the criteria for HOS is a unique circumstance they tend show up after the nomination has been made and the discussion is no longer about the offender but about the HOS nomination process and I'd rather avoid all that

I've spoken up in the past about knee-jerk HOS nominations, here's my take on it.

 

I'd recommend going the PL route, that gives you the leverage with the seller, you are the nominator and you can seek removal if he compensates you on your losses.

 

If you're then made whole through Paypal protection, I'd bump it up to a HOS nomination.

 

The possibility exists that he could make you whole and when requesting removal from the PL others might chime in and say "hey, he did this, this, this and this - we should put him on the HOS even though he paid that chick back"

I think that's where a HOS vote might be closer but I still think this guy would go in.

 

 

That's the thing though...he already told Hector he can't refund him and that he should go to Paypal to get his money back. IMHO, that's the biggest slap in the face in this incident and totally HoS worthy.

 

Lets not forget he was spending money in other sales threads AFTER he told Hector he didn't have the money to refund him.

 

 

That's textbook scumbag

You didn't explain why you feel it's important to take away the damaged party's leverage? I'll explain again why I think it's important.

 

Today, SFHeroGreg should be on the PL for the refusal to refund. You and some others say he should be HOS now because he's a textbook scumbag.

 

So right now, jsilverjanet gets made whole one of two ways:

1 - Paypal deciding in his favour

2 - Seller changing his mind about compensation

 

So if Paypal doesn't decide in favour of the damaged party, an insta-HOS nomination today essentially takes option 2 off the table.

I would prefer jsilverjanet have the option to go back to the PL'd seller & threaten HOS as his last recourse to get whole. If the seller changes his mind because of that threat of HOS nomination, we deal with it then.

 

[Logan510]

I see more HOS requests have come in

 

I can go that route but before I do I would rather allow more discussion before the nominating process

 

It seems that whenever there is a quick HOS nomination those who believe that the criteria for HOS is a unique circumstance they tend show up after the nomination has been made and the discussion is no longer about the offender but about the HOS nomination process and I'd rather avoid all that

I've spoken up in the past about knee-jerk HOS nominations, here's my take on it.

 

I'd recommend going the PL route, that gives you the leverage with the seller, you are the nominator and you can seek removal if he compensates you on your losses.

 

If you're then made whole through Paypal protection, I'd bump it up to a HOS nomination.

 

The possibility exists that he could make you whole and when requesting removal from the PL others might chime in and say "hey, he did this, this, this and this - we should put him on the HOS even though he paid that chick back"

I think that's where a HOS vote might be closer but I still think this guy would go in.

 

 

That's the thing though...he already told Hector he can't refund him and that he should go to Paypal to get his money back. IMHO, that's the biggest slap in the face in this incident and totally HoS worthy.

 

Lets not forget he was spending money in other sales threads AFTER he told Hector he didn't have the money to refund him.

 

 

That's textbook scumbag

You didn't explain why you feel it's important to take away the damaged party's leverage? I'll explain again why I think it's important.

 

Today, SFHeroGreg should be on the PL for the refusal to refund. You and some others say he should be HOS now because he's a textbook scumbag.

 

So right now, jsilverjanet gets made whole one of two ways:

1 - Paypal deciding in his favour

2 - Seller changing his mind about compensation

 

So if Paypal doesn't decide in favour of the damaged party, an insta-HOS nomination today essentially takes option 2 off the table.

I would prefer jsilverjanet have the option to go back to the PL'd seller & threaten HOS as his last recourse to get whole. If the seller changes his mind because of that threat of HOS nomination, we deal with it then.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

Though I can think of at least two reasons why I don't think the seller will do the right thing.

 

1) He told Hector he didn't have the money to refund him, only to be spotted shortly after buying books in another sales thread.

 

2) The seller telling Hector flat out he couldn't refund the money and suggested Hector try to get the money back via Paypal.

 

These are not the actions of a rational person.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I've said this before: I don't know why many think that PMs are sacrosanct, and cannot be shared publicly.

 

The "private" in "private message" only means that people not invited to that PM aren't able to access it. It's private between you and whomever you are engaged with.

 

It does not mean, nor even imply, that some expectation of enforced privacy on any party involved in the PM is created or maintained through this particular method of communication.

 

The simple rules follows: if you wouldn't say it in public, you probably shouldn't be saying it in private. And if someone sends me a PM, especially an unsolicited one, they should have no expectation that that information is actually private in the sense of not being able to share with others, unless all parties agree otherwise (aka "personal conversations between friends.")

 

Obviously, if a deal falls apart, PMs are going to be important documentation to find out who is really at fault.

 

And if someone defrauds you...they have no right to expect their PMs with you remain "private."

 

Aside from your general reasoning "private" means "private", otherwise its public.

And no, I would not say at all in public things I am bound to elaborate with some specific person: thats the very sense of "private".

 

You've missed the point. If YOU want to keep something private, keep it private. That's not the issue.

 

You are not bound, however, to keep what people say TO YOU private, simply because they send you a "private" message. The privacy, in that sense, is simply that others cannot access it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I've said this before: I don't know why many think that PMs are sacrosanct, and cannot be shared publicly.

 

The "private" in "private message" only means that people not invited to that PM aren't able to access it. It's private between you and whomever you are engaged with.

 

It does not mean, nor even imply, that some expectation of enforced privacy on any party involved in the PM is created or maintained through this particular method of communication.

 

The simple rules follows: if you wouldn't say it in public, you probably shouldn't be saying it in private. And if someone sends me a PM, especially an unsolicited one, they should have no expectation that that information is actually private in the sense of not being able to share with others, unless all parties agree otherwise (aka "personal conversations between friends.")

 

Obviously, if a deal falls apart, PMs are going to be important documentation to find out who is really at fault.

 

And if someone defrauds you...they have no right to expect their PMs with you remain "private."

 

Aside from your general reasoning "private" means "private", otherwise its public.

And no, I would not say at all in public things I am bound to elaborate with some specific person: thats the very sense of "private".

 

I agree Claudio that there is a basic common sense expectation of privacy when somebody here communicates via PM. RMA is also right though that in the specific case of a PL process PMs are often disclosed, and sometimes made to be disclosed to substantiate what was or wasn't promised in a deal.

 

 

But that's where common sense and the use of the word "private" can be misleading.

 

If you write me a letter, drop it in the mail, and I receive it. No one can open it before it gets to me. It's sent only to me. Once I have it, however, I can do whatever I want with it. Absent some express agreement between the parties this is like putting your personal items in the garbage...you've let them out of your control. The expectation of privacy is gone once you let that letter out of your control and it's in the hands of its intended party.

 

The PM system is simply a way of allowing people to speak to each other directly without having it be in a regular thread. It's not a Cone of Silence. Both parties have to agree to the privacy of the messages before the communication takes place. And even if there is such an agreement I can see waiver if one party comes to a public area and misstates the content of PM communication and the revelation of the PMs becomes necessary to correct an inaccuracy.

 

I agree that there is no obligation to keep confidentiality, I was thinking more of certain customs or "best practices" which even here separate some things out as proper to one or the other, for example, if someone in a sale's thread starts opening negotiation in a thread they will be told to "take it to PM", signifying that it is not a proper subject for public scrutiny.

 

Certainly, yes, after the fact, either one may choose to reveal those terms, so I do see your point. And absolutely, when there is a dispute, it by definition becomes subject to scrutiny.

 

I guess it depends on the person. I treat PMs to me as confidential because I assume that they were directed to me personally for a reason, that does not (or should not) concern others.

 

I do, too. It's part of common courtesy and positive interaction.

 

It's the "GASP! You posted a PRIVATE message publicly, how DARE YOU!!!" from the peanut gallery that I'm addressing here. There is no such expectation of privacy, nor should there be.

 

The things that, for example, Park has shared with me via PM, I do not share with anyone else, out of respect for him and because I value our friendship. I don't want to jeopardize that relationship by making public things we discussed privately (aka, "personal conversations between friends.") That's true even if he does like to roll around naked on Copper age comics.

 

If, however, someone I didn't have a friendship with decided to send me a PM...unsolicited...in which they say less-than-positive things to or about me...they have no right to expect that, just because it was sent through the PM system, I can't make that message public.

 

But some around here behave as if PMs, no matter what the context, are, as comix4fun said, a "Cone of Silence." People have even called for strikes and worse to those who "violate" the "sanctity" of the PM.

 

And that's just ridiculous.

 

Other than personally identifying information that the person has not made public, everything else is, and should be, fair to make public.

 

[CAHokie]

I try to keep it simple. If its a pm message that is obviously of a personal or friendly nature (even if they are not friends) then I consider that private and I would not post them unless there is some weird circumstance to dictate otherwise. (Such as Hustruck and the HOS and even then I didn't)

 

If the pms are for a business transaction only and the deal goes bad and is brought to the attention of the board then I consider the pms fair game to post.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

Agreed, and I am stealing "rumploader"...fair warning.

 

You'll note, he used the Early Modern English spelling, "Rumpeloader", as in "Ye Olde..."

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I try to keep it simple. If its a pm message that is obviously of a personal or friendly nature (even if they are not friends) then I consider that private and I would not post them unless there is some weird circumstance to dictate otherwise. (Such as Hustruck and the HOS and even then I didn't)

 

If the pms are for a business transaction only and the deal goes bad and is brought to the attention of the board then I consider the pms fair game to post.

 

...and no one should be made to fear consequences for posting in those situations.

 

 

[comix4fun]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

Agreed, and I am stealing "rumploader"...fair warning.

 

You'll note, he used the Early Modern English spelling, "Rumpeloader", as in "Ye Olde..."

 

 

 

It's a classy touch.

[vaillant]

Aside from your general reasoning "private" means "private", otherwise its public.

And no, I would not say at all in public things I am bound to elaborate with some specific person: thats the very sense of "private".

 

You've missed the point. If YOU want to keep something private, keep it private. That's not the issue.

 

You are not bound, however, to keep what people say TO YOU private, simply because they send you a "private" message. The privacy, in that sense, is simply that others cannot access it.

 

Then that is no longer "private": it is between me… and myself.

Private is private, no matter what. Obviously there is a degree of "public" with posting on the web, even in protected areas or sites, but so it is with paper letters and/or documents.

[jimjum12]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

Agreed, and I am stealing "rumploader"...fair warning.

 

You'll note, he used the Early Modern English spelling, "Rumpeloader", as in "Ye Olde..."

 

 

 

It's a classy touch.

 

...A consummate Carnival Barker would deserve no less...... now if we could just inspire some graphics by Sir Dr. Balls, all would be complete GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[vaillant]

I try to keep it simple. If its a pm message that is obviously of a personal or friendly nature (even if they are not friends) then I consider that private and I would not post them unless there is some weird circumstance to dictate otherwise. (Such as Hustruck and the HOS and even then I didn't)

 

If the pms are for a business transaction only and the deal goes bad and is brought to the attention of the board then I consider the pms fair game to post.

 

That’s obvious – if there is some dishonesty and one needs to get the facts, in a transaction it’s the source.

But again, I thoroughly disagree on how "information" is shared by television and the internet these days: the street man should not be interested to know all the details of crime news and the like, which are handled by the proper autorities: that is just an aberration of modern times.

[vaillant]

And don’t get me started by a certain use of language, especially in "politically correct" sensitive issues…

[CAHokie]

Aside from your general reasoning "private" means "private", otherwise its public.

And no, I would not say at all in public things I am bound to elaborate with some specific person: thats the very sense of "private".

 

You've missed the point. If YOU want to keep something private, keep it private. That's not the issue.

 

You are not bound, however, to keep what people say TO YOU private, simply because they send you a "private" message. The privacy, in that sense, is simply that others cannot access it.

 

Then that is no longer "private": it is between me… and myself.

Private is private, no matter what. Obviously there is a degree of "public" with posting on the web, even in protected areas or sites, but so it is with paper letters and/or documents.

 

So lets say I purchase a comic from RMA via pm for $100 and pay him but he never ships me the books. I put him up for the PL but he denies ever selling me a book and there is no record of it in a thread. You would be against me posting the pms proving I bought the book??

 

I have to admit, even in a hypothetical, putting RMA up for the PL does sound appealing!

[RockMyAmadeus]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

Agreed, and I am stealing "rumploader"...fair warning.

 

You'll note, he used the Early Modern English spelling, "Rumpeloader", as in "Ye Olde..."

 

 

 

It's a classy touch.

 

I'm pretty sure Falstaff used it to refer to Poins at one point.

 

[PovertyRow]

I see more HOS requests have come in

 

I can go that route but before I do I would rather allow more discussion before the nominating process

 

It seems that whenever there is a quick HOS nomination those who believe that the criteria for HOS is a unique circumstance they tend show up after the nomination has been made and the discussion is no longer about the offender but about the HOS nomination process and I'd rather avoid all that

 

Previously I had posted I would support either PL or HOS. I took that stance out of respect for Hector, allowing him the initial choice. Whether SFHeroBoyGreg is on the PL or HOS, he will still be amoung those members most won't deal with.

 

As far as reparation, I would not consider getting a refund from PayPal itself to be valid reparation. Otherwise someone could make a business (perhaps short-lived in PayPal's eyes) of selling, keeping the funds, sending nothing and saying the buyer was "made whole" because PP refunded them.

 

I feel that even if PP returns the money, there would still be work that needed to be done on the part of SFHeroBoyGreg in providing reparation. So again, I will back whatever decision Hector makes in regards to PL or HOS.

 

(see my next post)

[RockMyAmadeus]

Aside from your general reasoning "private" means "private", otherwise its public.

And no, I would not say at all in public things I am bound to elaborate with some specific person: thats the very sense of "private".

 

You've missed the point. If YOU want to keep something private, keep it private. That's not the issue.

 

You are not bound, however, to keep what people say TO YOU private, simply because they send you a "private" message. The privacy, in that sense, is simply that others cannot access it.

 

Then that is no longer "private": it is between me and myself.

Private is private, no matter what. Obviously there is a degree of "public" with posting on the web, even in protected areas or sites, but so it is with paper letters and/or documents.

 

So lets say I purchase a comic from RMA via pm for $100 and pay him but he never ships me the books. I put him up for the PL but he denies ever selling me a book and there is no record of it in a thread. You would be against me posting the pms proving I bought the book??

 

I have to admit, even in a hypothetical, putting RMA up for the PL does sound appealing!

 

[PovertyRow]

(my next post)

 

On a related subject, have any other boardies done business with SFHeroBoyGreg and if so, how did that go?

[HarveySwick]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

thanks for the kind words Jimbo, but really not necessary. I choose to make this decision, so I take full responsibility in not using better judgment

 

Hector, I hope you don't wait and contact your credit card company now. It might actually push PP to do something if they hear from the CC co.

 

Re PMs, we know this is a privately held message board, so they pretty much own everything, but Arch has on occasion said they don't "normally" and I'm paraphrasing, look at pms unless both parties agree. Doesn't mean they can't.

 

Paid with Paypal balance not CC

 

Same thing I did with AjaxFarrel ...

Sucker

 

 

I have to win your Mystery Box again next year if only to get your love note messages.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Aside from your general reasoning "private" means "private", otherwise its public.

And no, I would not say at all in public things I am bound to elaborate with some specific person: thats the very sense of "private".

 

You've missed the point. If YOU want to keep something private, keep it private. That's not the issue.

 

You are not bound, however, to keep what people say TO YOU private, simply because they send you a "private" message. The privacy, in that sense, is simply that others cannot access it.

 

Then that is no longer "private": it is between me and myself.

Private is private, no matter what. Obviously there is a degree of "public" with posting on the web, even in protected areas or sites, but so it is with paper letters and/or documents.

 

So lets say I purchase a comic from RMA via pm for $100 and pay him but he never ships me the books. I put him up for the PL but he denies ever selling me a book and there is no record of it in a thread. You would be against me posting the pms proving I bought the book??

 

I have to admit, even in a hypothetical, putting RMA up for the PL does sound appealing!

 

Vaguely unrelated, but I watched the Good Wife last night (yeah, whatevs), and all I can say is...I REALLLLLY want Alicia to take down her party bosses.

 

Really, really bad.

 

I REALLY hope they don't drop that ball, because it would be very fun to watch.