Nominating Tghutcn to the HOS or PL 7 7

[Buzzetta]

As of now it looks like it will be HOS 

Eh

I mean maybe it also serves to send a strong message to those participating in the holiday exchange not to screw around.
 

At this point it might be too late as HOS is almost a certainty but if you expand the criteria for one to be a member for HOS induction then you run the risk over too many people being a part of it which could render it meaningless. 

[Buzzetta]

And just for fun…

 

MJF

[DavidTheDavid]

Why not just disallow him from participating in future such events? 

It's not very community friendly to have this unwritten rule that not following through on a good-spirited community activity will land you in the worst penalty box we have.

[HollyJollyOne]

On 6/6/2022 at 3:30 PM, DavidTheDavid said:

Why not just disallow him from participating in future such events? 

It's not very community friendly to have this unwritten rule that not following through on a good-spirited community activity will land you in the worst penalty box we have.

They will not be allowed to participate in future Gift Exchange and Holiday Raffles regardless of the vote.
HOS and PL members are also banned from participation.

 

[HollyJollyOne]

Should conversations about people who flake-out in the Gift Exchange/Raffle be confined to those threads?
Would this save the integrity of the HOS/PL discussions?

[Buzzetta]

On 6/6/2022 at 4:51 PM, HollyJollyOne said:

Should conversations about people who flake-out in the Gift Exchange/Raffle be confined to those threads?
Would this save the integrity of the HOS/PL discussions?

No because this is a nomination.  There is no separate list so… leave it with everything else.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Buzzetta

[Bird]

both lists are purely informational, why not inform others and let them decide what they will? Anyone on either list can still buy and sell here, it ain't jail or some lifelong branding you can come argue your case and be removed

he ain't coming back, the point is moot but I argue for transparency to inform others and encourage others to act with integrity

I hope someone writes him and he can explain what happened.

[DavidTheDavid]

On 6/6/2022 at 3:46 PM, HollyJollyOne said:

They will not be allowed to participate in future Gift Exchange and Holiday Raffles regardless of the vote.
HOS and PL members are also banned from participation.

 

Then I don't see what we gain with a HOS nomination.

Just keep a Scrooge list and leave it at that.

[HollyJollyOne]

On 6/6/2022 at 4:59 PM, DavidTheDavid said:

Then I don't see what we gain with a HOS nomination.

Just keep a Scrooge list and leave it at that.

A serious question then:
What is the point to an HOS/PL list at all? Just keep a personal "do not sell to" list and be done with it.

[Bird]

unless the dylanbots come in and vote we have our answer

again, he should come hug it out

[DavidTheDavid]

On 6/6/2022 at 4:03 PM, HollyJollyOne said:

A serious question then:
What is the point to an HOS/PL list at all? Just keep a personal "do not sell to" list and be done with it.

It's like putting traffic offenders with felons imo. And it puts a figurative policeman wagging his finger over an otherwise jovial event like this.

"Let's do a gift exchange ! Or else... ." 

Edited June 6, 2022 by DavidTheDavid

[HollyJollyOne]

On 6/6/2022 at 5:11 PM, DavidTheDavid said:

"Let's do a gift exchange ! Or else... ." 

The Gift Exchange and Raffle are not compulsory. It's not like I PM people out of the blue and say, "Ho Ho Ho, guess what! You're sending a gift to ____".
People who sign-up understand that they sign-up with a promise to transact. Any inability to complete that transaction is always handled in house to make the offended party whole.

On 6/6/2022 at 5:11 PM, DavidTheDavid said:

It's like putting traffic offenders with felons imo

But it's a paper prison, correct. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really stop any person on that list from transacting on the board.
A nomination/placement on the PL (or HOS if it's multiple offenses) would simply inform the community to transact with this member with caution... just like every other name on that list.

[Red84]

On 6/6/2022 at 3:59 PM, DavidTheDavid said:

Then I don't see what we gain with a HOS nomination.

Just keep a Scrooge list and leave it at that.

Don't think of it as a gift; think of it as failing to send his half of a trade.

With the holiday gift exchange Person A sends gift to Person B; Person B sends gift to Person C; Person C sends gift to Person A.

There is a clear exchange of this for that, it just happens to include more than 2 people.

If someone is willing to accept a gift but not send their gift out then it is no different than accepting a trade and never sending out your half of the trade.

[crassus]

On 6/6/2022 at 5:25 PM, HollyJollyOne said:

On 6/6/2022 at 5:11 PM, DavidTheDavid said:

"Let's do a gift exchange ! Or else... ." 

The Gift Exchange and Raffle are not compulsory. It's not like I PM people out of the blue and say, "Ho Ho Ho, guess what! You're sending a gift to ____".
People who sign-up understand that they sign-up with a promise to transact. Any inability to complete that transaction is always handled in house to make the offended party whole.

On 6/6/2022 at 5:11 PM, DavidTheDavid said:

It's like putting traffic offenders with felons imo

But it's a paper prison, correct. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really stop any person on that list from transacting on the board.
A nomination/placement on the PL (or HOS if it's multiple offenses) would simply inform the community to transact with this member with caution... just like every other name on that list.

There are two issues here, which I think are reflected in the choices voters have been given in the case of this nomination. Having a vote only occurs with a HoS nomination. Normally in an HoS nomination there are only two choices, yes to HoS or no to HoS. If its only a PL there is no vote, as the process is limited to the parties involved as a function of the terms of a specific transaction. Here we have a first (I think) where voters are choosing three options, each of considerable consequence. The fact that voters can choose "neither" underscores the novelty of this nomination. 

The second issue is the concern that the punishment fits the crime, which is David's point, and I share his opinion that this is PL at best and not HoS, but the votes will decide it. If the votes say HoS than to the Hall of Shame he will go. 

I would take pretty seriously the consequences of the outcome. That voters have the three options will give additional weight to the result. It is not really just a "paper prison". In my time here good luck sticking your neck out in public if you are on the list and trying to flaunt it. I cannot think of one successful example, at least in my time. There is no doubt also that HoS is greater infamy, as it was intended to be. With the PL you just have to man up and meet your obligation and off you go, but with the HoS you will need another vote to get off, and so there is more uncertainty, it depends on whether the community is willing to forgive....which is not always guaranteed. 

[crassus]

On 6/6/2022 at 6:48 PM, Red84 said:

On 6/6/2022 at 4:59 PM, DavidTheDavid said:

Then I don't see what we gain with a HOS nomination.

Just keep a Scrooge list and leave it at that.

Don't think of it as a gift; think of it as failing to send his half of a trade.

With the holiday gift exchange Person A sends gift to Person B; Person B sends gift to Person C; Person C sends gift to Person A.

There is a clear exchange of this for that, it just happens to include more than 2 people.

If someone is willing to accept a gift but not send their gift out then it is no different than accepting a trade and never sending out your half of the trade.

You make a strong point that there was an obligation to exchange, I wouldn't really question that, but why is this HoS and not PL? 

[Red84]

On 6/6/2022 at 6:05 PM, crassus said:

You make a strong point that there was an obligation to exchange, I wouldn't really question that, but why is this HoS and not PL? 

That is something I have actually been going back and forth on. If it was one instance, then I would probably vote PL, but he took advantage of 2 separate gift exchanges (the holiday gift exchange and the raffle). The raffle occurs after the holiday exchange. He was already late to deliver the holiday gift at the time that he had no problem taking 2 raffle prizes. If he was having problems completing the holiday gift then he could have pulled out of the raffle. But he didn't. Instead, he accepted the holiday gift and accepted the raffle prizes, all while not shipping anything out. It is that second bad act that pushed it to HOS for me. That's not to say that he couldn't return, give an explanation, make amends, and get himself removed from the list. But as it stands now, with the information we have available, I think it is HOS worthy, though by the slimmest of margins.

[revat]

On 6/6/2022 at 4:13 PM, Red84 said:

That is something I have actually been going back and forth on. If it was one instance, then I would probably vote PL, but he took advantage of 2 separate gift exchanges (the holiday gift exchange and the raffle). The raffle occurs after the holiday exchange. He was already late to deliver the holiday gift at the time that he had no problem taking 2 raffle prizes. If he was having problems completing the holiday gift then he could have pulled out of the raffle. But he didn't. Instead, he accepted the holiday gift and accepted the raffle prizes, all while not shipping anything out. It is that second bad act that pushed it to HOS for me. That's not to say that he couldn't return, give an explanation, make amends, and get himself removed from the list. But as it stands now, with the information we have available, I think it is HOS worthy, though by the slimmest of margins.

This sentiment matches my own.

If it were any one of the offenses, I would have voted for PL rather than HOS.

But essentially, we have a person who couldn't complete his 'trade' after receiving his half of the trade.  Then knowing he hadn't completed that 1st trade, actively and voluntarily entered TWO OTHER TRADES, received his half of those trades, and then didn't send out his half of the trade.  No doubt he KNEW he was stealing (and not just the normal amount, DOUBLE).  AND to me, its even worse since its the holiday events, because unlike a business transaction there's literally no possible financial recourse.  You can't file for a refund, or report mail fraud, or whatever.  AND also worse because it soured someone else's holiday IN THE MIDDLE OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC (admittedly a bit over-dramatic, but honestly times are tough, and even little disappointments make things more tough).  

So essentially three trade thefts (actually a bit worse due to the holiday event factor) in a month, where theft was conclusively the intent.  Not backing out of a deal to sell a book to someone else for more, not backing out of payment because he was drunk one night and bought something more than he could afford, but the facts point to actual premeditated fraud/theft.   More criminal than civil IMO.  

Its not a person out here making it harder for folks to do business because they're wild or don't respect rules, we got a guy actually stealing from multiple boardies.  If you had all the parties in one room for all parts of the transactions with video (of what did and didn't occur), we'd be calling the police.  So HOS.

 

[wombat]

On 6/6/2022 at 8:26 PM, revat said:

This sentiment matches my own.

If it were any one of the offenses, I would have voted for PL rather than HOS.

But essentially, we have a person who couldn't complete his 'trade' after receiving his half of the trade.  Then knowing he hadn't completed that 1st trade, actively and voluntarily entered TWO OTHER TRADES, received his half of those trades, and then didn't send out his half of the trade.  No doubt he KNEW he was stealing (and not just the normal amount, DOUBLE).  AND to me, its even worse since its the holiday events, because unlike a business transaction there's literally no possible financial recourse.  You can't file for a refund, or report mail fraud, or whatever.  AND also worse because it soured someone else's holiday IN THE MIDDLE OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC (admittedly a bit over-dramatic, but honestly times are tough, and even little disappointments make things more tough).  

So essentially three trade thefts (actually a bit worse due to the holiday event factor) in a month, where theft was conclusively the intent.  Not backing out of a deal to sell a book to someone else for more, not backing out of payment because he was drunk one night and bought something more than he could afford, but the facts point to actual premeditated fraud/theft.   More criminal than civil IMO.  

Its not a person out here making it harder for folks to do business because they're wild or don't respect rules, we got a guy actually stealing from multiple boardies.  If you had all the parties in one room for all parts of the transactions with video (of what did and didn't occur), we'd be calling the police.  So HOS.

 

This is exactly how I look at it. What would the response be if someone failed to deliver their part on three separate trades and disappeared? I imagine that would be a very quick HOS vote. 

[Poekaymon]

 

On 6/6/2022 at 8:26 PM, revat said:

This sentiment matches my own.

If it were any one of the offenses, I would have voted for PL rather than HOS.

But essentially, we have a person who couldn't complete his 'trade' after receiving his half of the trade.  Then knowing he hadn't completed that 1st trade, actively and voluntarily entered TWO OTHER TRADES, received his half of those trades, and then didn't send out his half of the trade.  No doubt he KNEW he was stealing (and not just the normal amount, DOUBLE).  AND to me, its even worse since its the holiday events, because unlike a business transaction there's literally no possible financial recourse.  You can't file for a refund, or report mail fraud, or whatever.  AND also worse because it soured someone else's holiday IN THE MIDDLE OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC (admittedly a bit over-dramatic, but honestly times are tough, and even little disappointments make things more tough).  

So essentially three trade thefts (actually a bit worse due to the holiday event factor) in a month, where theft was conclusively the intent.  Not backing out of a deal to sell a book to someone else for more, not backing out of payment because he was drunk one night and bought something more than he could afford, but the facts point to actual premeditated fraud/theft.   More criminal than civil IMO.  

Its not a person out here making it harder for folks to do business because they're wild or don't respect rules, we got a guy actually stealing from multiple boardies.  If you had all the parties in one room for all parts of the transactions with video (of what did and didn't occur), we'd be calling the police.  So HOS.

 

I wanna change my vote from PL to HOS.

[F For Fake]

I 100% understand why some folks think that HoS is too harsh in this instance, given that this was a gift exchange thread and not a typical business deal.

However, I think of HoS less as a punishment for the offender, and more as a warning to other boardies. In this instance, Hall of Shame, to me, doesn't mean "This is a bad person." It means "this guy dropped the ball and then disappeared off the face of the earth when dealing with a "fun" activity, so buyer beware if you were to enter into an actual business transaction with the guy." It's a heads up, and I think it's a reasonable one.

My sincere hope is that he'll pop up with a reasonable explanation, and we can do away with the whole thing.