[CLOSED] Shoomanfoo Nomiated to the Hall of Shame - Private Poll Included
6 6

Should Shoomanfoo be in the CGC Hall of Shame?  

160 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Shoomanfoo be in the CGC Hall of Shame?

    • Yes
      159
    • No
      1

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 10/25/2020 at 10:30 PM

104 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

@crassus Should I post this as a separate thread in Comics General or are we good since the original thread was there? 

i think you enjoy your role a bit more than the situation calls for, andrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, skypinkblu said:

I sincerely hope he sees the error of his ways and confesses and  returns the book .  

So I join you in hope, but not in your vote;)

hi, sharon :hi:

i , of course, based on the presentation, would, as an independent citizen, have, by conscience, voted in the affirmative as a member of a jury of his peers.

however, it would have been despicable of me to do so, for the simple reason that i am not one of his peers. i am not active in the comics threads to a degree that can even be described as a fledging comic aficionado, or even in possession of a minor respectable knowledge of the hobby. as such, i would have been flying a false flag of being a comic collector peer.

some (probably many) would respond.... well, then don't vote at all. i think of it as a non-legal public declaration of my opinion as an outsider.

i would not be untruthful being questioned for a jury selection, why would i do the opposite here?

in this situation, i come down on the side of offering a fellow human being a life line, no matter how little a portion of the overwhelming opinion of justified voting peers....hope.

i know. i  suck at judging people. i can live with that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wilbil said:

i think you enjoy your role a bit more than the situation calls for, andrew.

Didn't know I had a 'role'. 

You assume a lot.  The last time I wrote one of these up I was told to post it in CG. 

But once again, I must live in your head rent free as you assume I have a 'role'. 

 

Edited by Buzzetta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wilbil said:

hi, sharon :hi:

i , of course, based on the presentation, would, as an independent citizen, have, by conscience, voted in the affirmative as a member of a jury of his peers.

however, it would have been despicable of me to do so, for the simple reason that i am not one of his peers. i am not active in the comics threads to a degree that can even be described as a fledging comic aficionado, or even in possession of a minor respectable knowledge of the hobby. as such, i would have been flying a false flag of being a comic collector peer.

some (probably many) would respond.... well, then don't vote at all. i think of it as a non-legal public declaration of my opinion as an outsider.

i would not be untruthful being questioned for a jury selection, why would i do the opposite here?

in this situation, i come down on the side of offering a fellow human being a life line, no matter how little a portion of the overwhelming opinion of justified voting peers....hope.

i know. i  suck at judging people. i can live with that.

 

So, are you saying that if he had done the same thing with coins that you would have come down harder on him? 

View it as a collectible... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

@crassus Should I post this as a separate thread in Comics General or are we good since the original thread was there? 

Hi, hope you are well, and thanks for writing this up and moving it forward. I notice the original thread is locked, it can still be read I realize but I would post a notice in CG with a link to the poll here. 

And thank you again for helping out a Boardie and helping to keep the community safe. :foryou:

I'm a little dizzy these days so when the voting has closed (assuming the trend continues) tag me and I will update the list. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

Didn't know I had a 'role'. 

You assume a lot.  The last time I wrote one of these up I was told to post it in CG. 

But once again, I must live in your head rent free as you assume I have a 'role'. 

 

i guess you are correct, andrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

So, are you saying that if he had done the same thing with coins that you would have come down harder on him? 

View it as a collectible... 

 

i guess you are right, andrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, crassus said:

His "role" is your "role" too, actually, @wilbil The market place here is governed by community made rules, made very well btw, and enforced by the volunteer spirit of the members to protect each other from the kind of scammers that unfortunately populate this hobby. You are a member of this community too @wilbil, so its your concern too. I don't know that anybody ever "enjoys" these things, but there is a healthy satisfaction that comes from seeing a right thing to do and doing it, seeing somebody wronged and trying to make it right. 

And for the record there is no need to inject "hope" into the HoS. The HoS is not eternal damnation. The rules specify that a member can also be voted off the HoS if it is the will of enough of the community to want to do so, and redemption is possible in theory for those who want it. 

So yeah, struck a nerve, community caring about each other includes caring enough to uphold the rules that protect the community. A theme for your times. 2c

we differ concerning the philosophy of hope.

we differ concerning your description "....a theme for your times...." because i do not know what the words are intended to convey

we differ concerning "role". 

i do not consider it is personally honorable to vote guilty, knowing i do not consider myself a peer of the accused. my choice is to "vote" with full disclosure as to why i did so.

as i mentioned, i could have just not voted. but, as you state, i am a member of the community, and chose to voice my opinion so the community hears a member voice whether the community agrees with the voice or not. i do not consider it honorable to not do so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, skypinkblu said:

Buzzetta did a great job putting his summary together. That must have taken hours, I know because I've done work like that. 

@wilbil it's great to be an original, and I get that,  but sometimes when people have done so much work to help the community, we need to just say thank you and save the "originality" for another day.

Unfortunately this incident was a stressful one for Catwomancomics and the community is trying to get together behind him/her.  That's one of my favorite things about this place, we do that kind of stuff. We support members who have unfortunately have had to deal with stress in what should be a fun hobby.

:foryou:

hi sharon, nothing original about me, at all, or my opinion. my same opinion has been stated in the past, concerning other hos and pl issues.

i am behind all that suffer. i don't limit the philosophy of hope.

yes, andrew has certainly helped the community in this regard. that is obvious. 

i think it is known to those that matter that i support members dealing with a stressful situation, especially when the stress is monetary in nature.

in the present situation, i was pleasantly surprised that the member harmed was monetarily compensated in full. i did not want to send another pm unless absolutely necessary.

whew!

yes, it should be a fun hobby, and at the end of the day, that is all that matters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, wilbil said:

hi sharon, nothing original about me, at all, or my opinion. my same opinion has been stated in the past, concerning other hos and pl issues.

i am behind all that suffer. i don't limit the philosophy of hope.

yes, andrew has certainly helped the community in this regard. that is obvious. 

i think it is known to those that matter that i support members dealing with a stressful situation, especially when the stress is monetary in nature.

in the present situation, i was pleasantly surprised that the member harmed was monetarily compensated in full. i did not want to send another pm unless absolutely necessary.

whew!

yes, it should be a fun hobby, and at the end of the day, that is all that matters.

 

Yes, the fact that he got the money back was a nice thing. It was not thanks to Shoomanfoo though, so that does not take him off the hook. 

I know you are trying to be positive, I'm just not sure that everyone gets that sometimes, hence my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, wilbil said:

we differ concerning the philosophy of hope.

we differ concerning your description "....a theme for your times...." because i do not know what the words are intended to convey

we differ concerning "role". 

i do not consider it is personally honorable to vote guilty, knowing i do not consider myself a peer of the accused. my choice is to "vote" with full disclosure as to why i did so.

as i mentioned, i could have just not voted. but, as you state, i am a member of the community, and chose to voice my opinion so the community hears a member voice whether the community agrees with the voice or not. i do not consider it honorable to not do so.

 

Let me say first that I understand these are all reasonable differences of opinion and we can agree to disagree, but the one point I don't understand is why you don't consider yourself his "peer"? This is not the House of Lords and you a poor commoner. Everyone here are equals and thus by definition all peers. If you can vote no (and fair enough, its your right to do your conscience) than why couldn't you in principle vote yes? Wouldn't it be more consistent to say that if you don't consider yourself his peer you cannot vote at all? I guess I find it confusing. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, crassus said:

Let me say first that I understand these are all reasonable differences of opinion and we can agree to disagree, but the one point I don't understand is why you don't consider yourself his "peer"? This is not the House of Lords and you a poor commoner. Everyone here are equals and thus by definition all peers. If you can vote no (and fair enough, its your right to do your conscience) than why couldn't you in principle vote yes? Wouldn't it be more consistent to say that if you don't consider yourself his peer you cannot vote at all? I guess I find it confusing. (shrug)

i explained in an earlier post why i did not consider my self a peer.

no, it is not the house of lords. it is not 12 angry men.

the principle in voting yes, is just as important, without a doubt. if the poll was of a model that allowed a yes vote with explanation, i would certainly do so. by the very nature of voting yes, the philosophy of hope is null. by voting no, i am simply stating my philosophy of hope, and was able to explain openly to members why i did so.

there is no questioning of the potential juror, as in a court of law, in this community. had there been such a process here, i would have been dismissed from the jury pool, because i would have certainly explained my philosophy of hope, even in the face of overwhelming "evidence". 

i will share that one item was on my mind that i did not mention.....the issue of the weight. it gave me pause, having some knowledge of the accuracy (or lack thereof)  of scales in general, especially at the usps counter. so, had i been inclined to vote yes....in principle......i would have wanted a complete independent 3rd. party review. that was not necessary in this instance, because it was overwhelmingly clear the majority vote was cast for elevation to hos. as such, it was important to me, and only me on a personal level, to alert the guilty party that there is always hope, and maybe start a chain of thought by him for correcting any wrongs against the community and maybe some day, returning from the dead. in other words, hope. every human deserves hope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, skypinkblu said:

Yes, the fact that he got the money back was a nice thing. It was not thanks to Shoomanfoo though, so that does not take him off the hook. 

I know you are trying to be positive, I'm just not sure that everyone gets that sometimes, hence my post.

thank you sharon, as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, crassus said:

Hi, hope you are well, and thanks for writing this up and moving it forward. I notice the original thread is locked, it can still be read I realize but I would post a notice in CG with a link to the poll here. 

And thank you again for helping out a Boardie and helping to keep the community safe. :foryou:

I'm a little dizzy these days so when the voting has closed (assuming the trend continues) tag me and I will update the list. 

Thanks.  I just did that now and will tag you within a day after it closes.  

Edited by Buzzetta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, wilbil said:

i , of course, based on the presentation, would, as an independent citizen, have, by conscience, voted in the affirmative as a member of a jury of his peers.

 

You would never make it onto a jury panel since you're not voting based on facts, you're voting based on beliefs.  It is what it is and I accept your position, but the system is intended to be unbiased and built on facts.  In a court process you have a "trial" and then a "sentencing" process.  First comes the determination of guilt.  Then comes the determination of punishment.  By voting with "hope" in your heart, you are effectively jumping to sentencing without taking a firm stance on whether the accused is indeed guilty of his/her actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
6 6