HOS and Posting Privileges
3 3

HALL OF SHAME  

67 members have voted

  1. 1. Should hall of shame members lose posting privileges/be banned while on the list?

    • YES
      49
    • NO
      18


97 posts in this topic

If you post that the person is on the HOS list per cgcmod8 in a thread they are posting in, you can be charged with trollling and be moderated.

 

YES

Edited by Pirate
Glitch while setting up Poll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they should be allowed to post (unless they break other rules too), but people should be allowed to constantly berate them about whatever they're on the HOS list for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, revat said:

I think they should be allowed to post (unless they break other rules too), but people should be allowed to constantly berate them about whatever they're on the HOS list for.

Well you can't berate them or you will get moderated.  Guess I should have explained that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Pirate said:
10 minutes ago, revat said:

I think they should be allowed to post (unless they break other rules too), but people should be allowed to constantly berate them about whatever they're on the HOS list for.

Well you can't berate them or you will get moderated.  Guess I should have explained that.

I would say that berating them is probably not the right course of action.

Now, if they are posting in a thread related to selling and / or buying then it should be OK to warn the OP that they are a HOS shame member as that is the entire point of the system. To bring awareness to the community of any potential shady practices.

But berating people all the time? Not cool IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't they get a custom title so everyone knows who they are dealing with? If you don't bother to check the list you wouldn't know they are a member, whereas a scarlet letter would let everyone be informed.

Edited by mysterio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mysterio said:

Couldn't they get a custom title so everyone knows who they are dealing with? If you don't bother to check the list you wouldn't know they are a member, whereas a scarlet letter would let everyone be informed.

Great idea!  Give 'em the choice: no posting or the mark of Cain...choose wisely!

Should have went with scarlet letter :facepalm:

 

Edited by Mystafo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mysterio said:

Couldn't they get a custom title so everyone knows who they are dealing with? If you don't bother to check the list you wouldn't know they are a member, whereas a scarlet letter would let everyone be informed.

That would expose the Certified Collectibles Group (I hate having to type that out, but too many people would think "errr...you spelled CGC wrong!"...if they noticed at all) to liability. They would be taking an "official position" on a matter in which they deliberately refuse to take part.

"But wouldn't banning be the same thing?" Ehhh...a little (or lot) more grey, as they can ban anyone for any reason, or no reason at all, any time they want. But putting some sort of "scarlet letter" as a custom title would definitely be taking a position on the matter.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

While there are obvious limitations to the PL/HOS...such as "social and/or financial standing" allowing some to escape altogether, facts be damned...

 

6 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

This has never been an issue in the past, because those who ended up on the HOS usually had the appropriate sense of shame to slink off on their own.

That's now no longer the case.

Man, I need to visit the probation threads more often. I'm obviously uniformed about what's happening these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poll Breakdown so far: (note:*= same person-a,b,c,etc.)

Allow Post: 1*a .....total vote =  1

Allow to berate: 1*a....total vote = 1

Not berate: 1*b.....total vote 1 = 1

Warn in selling thread: 1*b....total vote =1

Not allowed to post if HOS listed: 1 + 1*c....total vote =  2

Can't pm: 1*c + 1*e....total vote =  2

Maybe custom title: 1*d + 1*c...total vote =  2

No posting-ban: 1

Ban but rejoin after taking appropriate contrition steps: 1*c....total vote = 1

So, 7 individual responses, 5 persons responded with more than 1 response choice.

At this point, in my opinion, there is not enough membership response to form a consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, there has been 20 YES, and 6 NO = 26 votes total.

All but 7 members voted without comment; nothing wrong with that, BTW.

However, it does raise the question as to whether the Poll is flawed or not, since 7 members that posted a comment actually had 9 different suggestions, and 5 of those members had multiple different suggestions that were not exactly YES or NO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That would expose the Certified Collectibles Group (I hate having to type that out, but too many people would think "errr...you spelled CGC wrong!"...if they noticed at all) to liability. They would be taking an "official position" on a matter in which they deliberately refuse to take part.

"But wouldn't banning be the same thing?" Ehhh...a little (or lot) more grey, as they can ban anyone for any reason, or no reason at all, any time they want. But putting some sort of "scarlet letter" as a custom title would definitely be taking a position on the matter.

If the custom title reflects the vote of the users of the site that might cushion them from liability. At least it wouldn’t be a unilateral decision and would incorporate input from the users of the site. I still think it would be the most useful solution, and the way the policy was worded would theoretically distance mods from the decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mysterio said:

If the custom title reflects the vote of the users of the site that might cushion them from liability. At least it wouldn’t be a unilateral decision and would incorporate input from the users of the site. I still think it would be the most useful solution, and the way the policy was worded would theoretically distance mods from the decision. 

Either the Board is "membership" self policing in these matters, or it is not. Moderation should declare, one way or another, IMHO. Otherwise, this is a useless exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

This has never been an issue in the past, because those who ended up on the HOS usually had the appropriate sense of shame to slink off on their own.

That's now no longer the case.

Agreed. There have been a couple exceptions, Solarcadet springs to mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3