• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

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

9 minutes ago, Pirate said:

Sorry don't believe you and don't see people rushing to your rescue.

Is there really a reason to be sorry? I don't detect sincerity. iIs it just being mannerly?

You don't believe somebody, simply state "I don't believe you". 

Form everything you have opined on the subject, you definitely are not sorry, IMHO.

That is neither right or wrong, it just is. It just sounds a bit disingenuous, to me, to state "sorry".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Is there really a reason to be sorry? I don't detect sincerity. iIs it just being mannerly?

You don't believe somebody, simply state "I don't believe you". 

Form everything you have opined on the subject, you definitely are not sorry, IMHO.

That is neither right or wrong, it just is. It just sounds a bit disingenuous, to me, to state "sorry".

"Sorry not sorry."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Is there really a reason to be sorry? I don't detect sincerity. iIs it just being mannerly?

You don't believe somebody, simply state "I don't believe you". 

Form everything you have opined on the subject, you definitely are not sorry, IMHO.

That is neither right or wrong, it just is. It just sounds a bit disingenuous, to me, to state "sorry".

Sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2018 at 7:55 PM, cgcmod8 said:

I thought I would make one post here about this topic.  I feel that one has the right to post one time that someone is on the Pro/Hos list.  Doing so a second time in the same thread, I consider trolling.  

 

If someone from these lists is buying or selling on the forum, that is a different story.  I feel that "the list" could be mentioned whenever the person tries to buy and sell, with no moderator action.  

 

The thing is, these people have a right to post according to the current board rules.  If the rules change, moderation will change accordingly.    Again, this is my personal opinion.  I hope this helps.    

To: @cgcmod8

So here you have it, as you state above, you claim that if someone from these lists is buying or selling on the forum, that is a different story.   

Here is Chip Cataldo admitting that he is trying to purchase books through private message.   Has the story now changed? 

If you feel that he should be allowed to post on the forum according to board rules then I get that and fine.

However, by trying to use the PM system to circumvent his status of being on the Pro/HOS list then he is ABUSING that aspect of his account.  Perhaps if he must stay, his ability to PM should be removed. 

 

 

Screen Shot 2018-09-12 at 11.27.36 PM.png

Edited by Buzzetta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27.5% of members voting (11) have voted no. They all must be backing the wrong horse and sticking their necks out and defending wrongly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2018 at 1:39 PM, thunsicker said:

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?

If someone's in the HOS, they've already hurt the community, and have done so in a material or repeated way and in way that is irreparable. That is how they got onto the HOS.  That is why the HOS is permanent.

Being that it's a permanent label it deserves permanent treatment, permanent loss of status, and a permanent loss of the protection of not offenders. There's nothing preventing the person from going to some other forum or board or website and starting over, but once they've made it to the HOS here they've burned all those social bridges and abdicated all standing in the community. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

If someone's in the HOS, they've already hurt the community, and have done so in a material or repeated way and in way that is irreparable. That is how they got onto the HOS.  That is why the HOS is permanent.

Being that it's a permanent label it deserves permanent treatment, permanent loss of status, and a permanent loss of the protection of not offenders. There's nothing preventing the person from going to some other forum or board or website and starting over, but once they've made it to the HOS here they've burned all those social bridges and abdicated all standing in the community. 

Is there definitive language and Rules posted anywhere? I can not find it in the HOS Rules Thread of 21 pages. I read a lot of suggestions from members, but nothing as conclusive as your statements, as to what being listed on the HOS means, what permanent treatment means, and what permanent loss of status ans permanent loss of protection of not offenders means, and what abdicated all standing in the community means.

Is it possible it is in another Thread? I would appreciate a link. Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, october said:

*A noted exception: I've really been enjoying the Lighthouse thread. 

While I have enjoyed the Thread, does that make it an exception? If posting a Thread that members may enjoy, that does not sound like a Rule to follow, to determine a ban. It would seem to me that anybody on the List could do so, and have Board friends endorse it.

You have used the Lighthouse example. I thought I read he elected to stay on the List. Is that fact? What if, in the passage of time, you were to engage in a deal of sorts with him? After all, he runs a Comics Store and may offer an advantage to someone on the Boards, via PM.

I am not sure your exceptions suggestion would work. But, that is up to the membership. I do see cliques forming though, and skewing the suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, october said:

An exception to the notion that PL/HOS have nothing positive to contribute....not an exception to the ban suggestion. 

I see many issues with this, but that is up to the members, not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, seanfingh said:

It is not up to the members. It is up to the hosts. The hosts repeatedly have avoided anything that results in an outright ban (presumably even bad actors may still get stuff slabbed). This discussion appears to be trying to move the needle on that.

Ask Buzz to post the PMs....you may find it interesting on that particular  point,  and 180 degrees in fact from what he has suggested.

What needle is being moved? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, seanfingh said:

It appears to me that there is a grass-roots movement to convince the mods to ban HOS members, or disable their ability to post at the least.

Or, at the very least, consider self-policing of these worst offenders to be exempt from the standard anti-trolling moderation action. As moderation has been heretofore reluctant to permanently exile or ostracize anyone from the tribe for HOS induction, perhaps allowing the tribe to speak freely when those parties attempt to ingratiate themselves back into the fold would be a fair compromise in place of more permanent action. Many less than welcome, honest, or forthright members would rely on the shield moderation provides in a way that it should never have been intended. 

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