Hall of Shame and Probation Rules DISCUSSION 4 4

[comix4fun]

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=381245&Number=8678345#Post8678345

 

Except this isn't a data-rich, scientific expedition, where minutiae matters and makes a difference. You're all talking about trying to make rules that cover every possible permutation of human behavior as a buyer/seller on these boards, and it's simply not possible to do that without strangling the entire thing to death in the process.

 

But hey, by all means, 10 years of this back and forth has only made the Probation List (and the HOS) grow to gargantuan sizes, so what do I know.

 

 

("ice"?)

 

 

[bababooey]

[HarveySwick]

[PovertyRow]

Just call me Elsa.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

"iceman399"

 

You have to read ALL the posts.

[RockMyAmadeus]

If you see someone using Paypal personal for the sale of merchandise and you have a problem with that by all means feel free to contact Paypal and rat them out if that makes you feel better.

 

With that being said, the proposed rule to strip someone of any recourse because they have committed the sin of paying with or accepting payment via Paypal personal has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

 

The rules, and the lists were created to protect members of this forum from unscrupulous buyers and sellers. Letting a buyer or seller off the hook for failing to honor their word because the other party has somehow wronged Paypal would only leave the rest of us open to get screwed on the next transaction.

 

The buyer has already been punished once by losing the ability to dispute the transaction through Paypal, stripping them of the right to nominate a bad seller for PL seems like overkill,

 

There is already a rule against sellers requesting Paypal personal and I think that is all that we need on these boards.

 

Right. It doesn't matter who else gets screwed, as long as "the board" doesn't.

 

That's what it's boiled down to.

 

But it would help to read all the comments in the discussion.

[PovertyRow]

"iceman399"

 

You have to read ALL the posts.

 

I am confused as to why you are replying to me with your penchant for the "complete ignore function". Most confusing.

 

As regards "ice" you only replied to me. Next time try mentioning another boardie's name in a clear way when commenting to that boardie in a post you make to a different boardie. You know? The way I did when I posted:

 

I'm making cookies and cream milkshakes over here if anyone wants to come over. My GF loves them

 

 

 

Y'arrrghhh Matey. Pass some o'dem kernels over here!

 

Get a room!

 

Come join Harvey and Jaybuck and me, Jsilver, for Pirate Poppers and Cookies and Cream Shakes!

 

It helps clear up confusion.

[RockMyAmadeus]

"iceman399"

 

You have to read ALL the posts.

 

I am confused as to why you are replying to me with your penchant for the "complete ignore function". Most confusing.

 

Because you're talking to me.

 

I think that would be fairly obvious. Until you can no longer see my posts to comment on them, why would I ignore yours when they are direct responses to me? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

As regards "ice" you only replied to me. Next time try mentioning another boardie's name in a clear way when commenting to that boardie in a post you make to a different boardie.

 

It was reasonably clear. The post from iceman399 was sandwiched right in between two of yours. Since your username has nothing to do with "ice", it wouldn't take too much effort to figure out that I wasn't referring to you, nor a post from some other thread on some other topic.

 

There's enough hand holding around here as it is. You're a big boy. You can figure it out. And if you can't, just ask.

[HighStakesComics]

One of the better chat board urinating matches since they did away with the locked threads points

[Dr Chaos]

If you see someone using Paypal personal for the sale of merchandise and you have a problem with that by all means feel free to contact Paypal and rat them out if that makes you feel better.

 

With that being said, the proposed rule to strip someone of any recourse because they have committed the sin of paying with or accepting payment via Paypal personal has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

 

The rules, and the lists were created to protect members of this forum from unscrupulous buyers and sellers. Letting a buyer or seller off the hook for failing to honor their word because the other party has somehow wronged Paypal would only leave the rest of us open to get screwed on the next transaction.

 

The buyer has already been punished once by losing the ability to dispute the transaction through Paypal, stripping them of the right to nominate a bad seller for PL seems like overkill,

 

There is already a rule against sellers requesting Paypal personal and I think that is all that we need on these boards.

 

Right. It doesn't matter who else gets screwed, as long as "the board" doesn't.

 

That's what it's boiled down to.

 

But it would help to read all the comments in the discussion.

 

Screwing Paypal is wrong.

 

I never said that it does not matter.

 

I even suggested a possible remedy (notifying Paypal).

 

What I said (rather clearly I might add) is that the other party (the one that did not screw Paypal) needs to be held accountable for there behavior here.

 

Creating a Paypal loophole to protect bad sellers (and buyers) hurts all of us yet does absolutely nothing to help Paypal.

 

I read all of the comments but nothing you can say will convince me that your proposed rule would do anything good.

[RockMyAmadeus]

If you see someone using Paypal personal for the sale of merchandise and you have a problem with that by all means feel free to contact Paypal and rat them out if that makes you feel better.

 

With that being said, the proposed rule to strip someone of any recourse because they have committed the sin of paying with or accepting payment via Paypal personal has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

 

The rules, and the lists were created to protect members of this forum from unscrupulous buyers and sellers. Letting a buyer or seller off the hook for failing to honor their word because the other party has somehow wronged Paypal would only leave the rest of us open to get screwed on the next transaction.

 

The buyer has already been punished once by losing the ability to dispute the transaction through Paypal, stripping them of the right to nominate a bad seller for PL seems like overkill,

 

There is already a rule against sellers requesting Paypal personal and I think that is all that we need on these boards.

 

Right. It doesn't matter who else gets screwed, as long as "the board" doesn't.

 

That's what it's boiled down to.

 

But it would help to read all the comments in the discussion.

 

Screwing Paypal is wrong.

 

I never said that it does not matter.

 

I even suggested a possible remedy (notifying Paypal).

 

What I said (rather clearly I might add) is that the other party (the one that did not screw Paypal) needs to be held accountable for there behavior here.

 

Creating a Paypal loophole to protect bad sellers (and buyers) hurts all of us yet does absolutely nothing to help Paypal.

 

I read all of the comments but nothing you can say will convince me that your proposed rule would do anything good.

 

If you red all the comments ("red" is on purpose), then you would have seen that the point of my "proposed rule change" wasn't to change any rules, but to bring to light the issue of maintaining a PL/HOS while simultaneously pretending as if using Paypal's services without paying for them wasn't a problem, which is a glaring inconsistency and needed to be addressed.

 

As for "suggested remedy"...characterizing it as "ratting out" doesn't seem like you're too on board with the idea, and it shouldn't be up to anyone to police other people's actions.

[Spyder!]

This thread is ridiculous. I assure you, there are plenty of rules already. If this place gets any more up tight, I will completely stop buying and selling here.

 

My vote: change nothing.

[wombat]

I don't think we need to worry about a rule change on this. lthere seems to be very narrow support for it.

[Iceman399]

"iceman399"

 

You have to read ALL the posts.

 

You don't think my post was about you do you?

 

You think more highly of yourself than you ought, and you think that this has something to do with you, personally.

[comix4fun]

Were we done with "ice" related gifs?

 

I've got just one more....

 

 

 

Ok now I'm done.

[jsilverjanet]

One more!

[RockMyAmadeus]

"iceman399"

 

You have to read ALL the posts.

 

You don't think my post was about you do you?

 

You think more highly of yourself than you ought, and you think that this has something to do with you, personally.

 

Right.

 

Because "Wall of text incoming. Woot woot. Wall of text incoming" was directed at Pov.

 

[Iceman399]

[wombat]

 

 

 

[PovertyRow]

 

Because you're talking to me.

 

I think that would be fairly obvious. Until you can no longer see my posts to comment on them, why would I ignore yours when they are direct responses to me? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Because you are the "Complete Ignore Function" God.

 

Why would you NOT ignore my posts since you still have me on ignore?

 

To quote you, "Put about 10 more people on ignore in the last few days, and I pray they do the same to me....and actually LIVE BY IT." But you have me on ignore and do not "live by it". What's the deal?

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8689274&fpart=1

 

Put about 10 more people on ignore in the last few days, and I pray they do the same to me....and actually LIVE BY IT.

 

Some day, there will be a system in place where I won't have to see anything they post, and they don't get to see anything I post. Then, I only have to interact with folks I want to interact with. If that means 4 people, that will be the 4 best damn people this board has to offer.

 

That day will make me a very, VERY happy man.