HOS and Posting Privileges 3 3

[Pirate]

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 September 10, 2018 by Pirate
Glitch while setting up Poll

[Pirate]

Credit to Mr. McKnowitall for the idea of a poll.

[revat]

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.

[Pirate]

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.

[VintageComics]

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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

While there are obvious limitations to the PL/HOS...such as "social and/or financial standing" allowing some to escape altogether, facts be damned...it further neuters the point of the PL/HOS if those on it can simply pretend it doesn't exist and post on the board with impunity.

It should go without saying that those who have committed violations serious enough to land on the HOS should not enjoy the privileges of being a member of this board, and yet...here we are.

tl;dr version: if you're on the HOS, you don't deserve the "protections" of being a member in good standing of this community.

[theCapraAegagrus]

I'm all for Hall of Shame users being banned until/if they get paroled.

Maybe Probation users can't post in Buy/Sell threads and can't PM while on the list? Something less severe.

[thunsicker]

What's the use case?  Do we have a lot of HoS members posting?  Are they posting in a way that hurts the community?  Is this just HoS or Probation as well?

[mysterio]

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 September 10, 2018 by mysterio

[Mystafo]

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 

 

Edited September 10, 2018 by Mystafo

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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 September 10, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[newshane]

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. 

[Buzzetta]

18 minutes 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.

So let me state what I am led to believe is going on here.

@cgcmod8 contacted @Pirate that it is considered trolling to make members aware that they are interacting with users of this board who are in the HOS.  

The issue is that it is currently considered trolling and my understanding is that trolling is a bannable offense.

I would contend that some of the members who have used the forum to defraud the other members or misrepresent their circumstances to garner sympathy continue to troll the boards by ingratiating themselves upon new users. 

Let's make believe that I have a TWENTY year history of defrauding members of various message boards including the present one I am on which is operated by CCG. I use these boards to defraud RMA and misrepresent my personal circumstances to garner sympathy of others which allows me to continue to defraud.  RMA gets me nominated to the HOS.  Another member of the boards reminds people that I have defrauded others in the past.  Even though I am on a list that advises people not to trade with me, my current and future interactions will ingratiate with me new members.  These new members will not be aware of my previous actions and then could eventually be duped into providing the assistance that the older members have already fallen victim to. 

The board member that we are probably talking about did more than just defraud other members in the FS threads.  He tried to ingratiate himself upon the community and misrepresented himself to the boards.  He interacted with others, acting as the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing, trying to bait others to support his favorite charity, himself. Since he used his interactions with others to profit off of in a fraudulent manner, I believe his ability to do that in the future should be rescinded.  He should not have the ability to ingratiate himself as he has demonstrated through his history to build upon those relationships to fraudulently profit off of them. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by Buzzetta

[RockMyAmadeus]

This should not be (mis)understood as a need for vengeance or an unwillingness to forgive.

But an integral step in the process is to make things right. A person who shows outward contrition about circumstances completely within his or her control, but does absolutely nothing to resolve those circumstances, is demonstrating, by their actions, that they do not give two squirts about what they've done, and will gladly do it to whomever else they can fool. 

In other words...saying "I'm sorry if someone felt I did something wrong", but doing nothing to actually resolve the outstanding issue(s), is just the politician's non-apology.

If someone has taken the necessary steps to resolve whatever outstanding issues they have...and that includes apologizing publicly for their public lies and distortions...then there should be nothing preventing them from rejoining the community. Until and if such resolution happens, they do not deserve more platform to engage in further misdeeds.

And, by the way...the above applies to more than one person.

Edited September 10, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

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.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

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.

[mysterio]

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. 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

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.

[Jeffro.]

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.