• 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

6 minutes ago, 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.

I see. I truly did not get that. Now that you plainly state it, it is very clear. In that sense, the needle is being moved, because I can not find any Rule supporting what some mebers state is factual in that regard.

Thanks. I need to be more aware of the behind the scenes reasons, and not go with common sense interpretation of posts.

Very appreciated. You taught me something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Or, at the very least, consider self-policing of these worst offenders to be exempt from the standard anti-trolling moderation action

That appears to be underway already, for the last 2 days at least, repetitively, over and over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

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 les

The 'tribe" has a Poll. What do you think should be the action by Moderation when the Poll is completed...realizing there is no stated end date and doubtful there will ever be, mainly because of the interpretation of what is being voted on, doubt there ever would be......an issuance of a List of Board Rules?

6 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

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. 

 

That is definitely happening already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, 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.

It is more of a movement to disallow them the ability to PM others.  Chip said that he was not trying to conduct business.  I stated that he lied referencing two inquiries I had regarding Chip's status and accounts of him trying to purchase items through PM.  One of the two members came forth to support my claim and the Chip admitted that he was "only trying to buy" items. 

I can't remember his name but there was a foreign variant collector who was banned from the forum by the mods years ago.  I was told that he too sticks to PMs and continues to buy and trade through PM.  

So the question is, at least to me, whether or not the ability to PM should be removed from the individuals who are in the Hall of Shame. In the case of Chip, he has actually admitted that he has attempted to conduct business with other members through the messaging system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

It is more of a movement to disallow them the ability to PM others.  Chip said that he was not trying to conduct business.  I stated that he lied referencing two inquiries I had regarding Chip's status and accounts of him trying to purchase items through PM.  One of the two members came forth to support my claim and the Chip admitted that he was "only trying to buy" items. 

I can't remember his name but there was a foreign variant collector who was banned from the forum by the mods years ago.  I was told that he too sticks to PMs and continues to buy and trade through PM.  

So the question is, at least to me, whether or not the ability to PM should be removed from the individuals who are in the Hall of Shame. In the case of Chip, he has actually admitted that he has attempted to conduct business with other members through the messaging system. 

However, Andrew, that is not the basis of the Poll. I understand that you are in favor of the Grass Roots movement to move the needle, and there certainly nothing wrong with that. If that is what members want, then the present Poll should be cancelled, and start over with a new Poll, because previous member votes were not based on your movement. In fact, the early voting had members actually voting in a certain manner that was multi-faceted as to their opinions.

I will next post an example of this, previously posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2018 at 9:33 AM, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

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.

Here you go, Andrew. Seems the Poll should be cancelled and re-worded to accommodate your grass roots movement suggestion. Otherwise, nothing at all is accomplished by the present Poll, and is a waste of time and confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

It is more of a movement to disallow them the ability to PM others.

A question, Andrew: as of now, in the present Poll, 14 members have voted No in the present Poll. Would you characterize or describe those votes as backing the wrong horse, sticking their neck out, or being wrong ?  I completely understand that any of those No votes could possibly be from members on the HOS List, and have an obvious reason to vote No. Common sense tends to favor the conclusion that, while certainly the possibility exists, it is a minor number of members at best, when reviewing the dates that members were added to the List. 

Another question: when the Poll is deemed complete, the date of which is not stated anywhere and noting that votes as of now are  rather low in quantity, what exactly happens? There has been many comments that there is no firm established Rules, that Moderation favors self policing, Moderation has opinions concerning what constitutes trolling and what doesn't, that Moderation has abdicated responsibility in regard to the present situation and left it in limbo, and whether or not the PL List is or is not a separate situation. Note that the present Poll does not state PL....just HOS.

So, what happens?

What happens if a new Poll that is based on the Grass Roots movement you espouse is  established (with an end date)? What then?

2 issues come to mind, that have been raised. A member that is on the PL List, has returned and it is my understanding that the member asked to be left on the PL List. The member stated that all previous issues have been settled. I do not have any idea if that is fact or not. It has been suggested that the member is an exception, because the member is contributing, via a recently popular Thread. What do you suggest could be a method to address this?

I have been informed that a person that posted in the previous now locked divorce thread, included multiple posts by a banned member, who is not on the HOS or PL List. He continuously pops up, and members that have been very clear in their opinions that PL and HOS listed persons should not be allowed any privileges, actually replied to his posts, and in fact you actually thanked him for his opinion and comment concerning you. That seems a bit odd, and could be construed as a double standard. Any suggestions on how members should handle such issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

It is more of a movement to disallow them the ability to PM others.  Chip said that he was not trying to conduct business.  I stated that he lied referencing two inquiries I had regarding Chip's status and accounts of him trying to purchase items through PM.  One of the two members came forth to support my claim and the Chip admitted that he was "only trying to buy" items. 

I can't remember his name but there was a foreign variant collector who was banned from the forum by the mods years ago.  I was told that he too sticks to PMs and continues to buy and trade through PM.  

So the question is, at least to me, whether or not the ability to PM should be removed from the individuals who are in the Hall of Shame. In the case of Chip, he has actually admitted that he has attempted to conduct business with other members through the messaging system. 

Cool Books ™

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

as of now, in the present Poll, 14 members have voted No in the present Poll. Would you characterize or describe those votes as backing the wrong horse, sticking their neck out, or being wrong ?  I completely understand that any of those No votes could possibly be from members on the HOS List, and have an obvious reason to vote No. Common sense tends to favor the conclusion that, while certainly the possibility exists, it is a minor number of members at best, when reviewing the dates that members were added to the List. 

PL List is not a part of the vote Poll, at the moment. So, which is it, the couple you know about are on the PL List or the HOS List, or both? If it is the HOS List, wouldn't you want to be as diligent as Andrew has been, in naming those individuals? Seems to me that would be the proper response given your comments on the subject. 

Any opinions concerning the other aspects of my Cool Books Posts? I would be interested.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Logan510 said:

I wonder if the 14 members who voted "no" regularly conduct business privately with PL / HOS members?

 

I know of at least a couple who do.

Have you thought any more about posting the names? Were you able to find out if they are on the PL List or the HOS List?  I think that Buzz would say that posting the names is the right thing to do. I would bet he would agree, because he mentioned that the names should be disclosed if the persons are using PMs to conduct business.

Shouldn't that apply to active members that are not on the PL or HOS Lists, but are using PMs to conduct buy/sell deals on the Host Boards with members that are on the HOS List? That would seem to be an equal example of what Buzz has presented as a reason to stop PMs from HOS persons that are engaged in buying and selling using PMs or is this an exception and is acceptable? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Any suggestions on how members should handle such issues?

Yes, I think board members who actually use the Marketplace to buy and sell comic books should continue to maintain the lists and continue to set policy on eligibility criteria.  Issues related to eligibility to continue to post and use the private messaging system surely will continue to be the responsibility of the Board moderation.

 

Edited by namisgr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Logan510 said:

I wonder if the 14 members who voted "no" regularly conduct business privately with PL / HOS members?

 

I know of at least a couple who do.

I am curious as to how the scenario would play out if one of the people who actually do follow through with and conduct business with HOS were defrauded.

Would they announce it to the boards?

If anyone conducts business with someone in the HOS and they are defrauded by that person I would like to believe that they would not want to tell a single person about it as they might lose some standing around these parts.  However, people that deal with HOS members are probably more likely to be defrauded because the HOS member knows that the person they are conducting business would be too ashamed to say anything. 

Edited by Buzzetta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2018 at 9:33 AM, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

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.

Update: 40 Yes. 15 No 27.27%)

 (As a sideline, I wonder if the 15 voting No are sticking their neck out, backing the wrong horse, and wrongly defending Mr. Cataldo (all of which I was accused of by Buzz. We will probably never know without PM disclosure but that is not the point. It does not really matter. People will have to make up their own minds).

The rest of the above Poll Breakdown remains the same, except for one added change because another member posted a reason:

8 individual responses, 5 persons responded with more than response choice (known responses by persons that it is assumed voted and stated their reasoning/choice).

The added response choice: Yes if includes members not on HOS List that are dealing with HOS listed members: 1

We don't know the reasons for the choice by the remaining 47 member votes that voted without public comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2018 at 11:33 PM, Buzzetta said:

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

I just want to know @cgcmod8 that you have seen this.  I do not need to know if this is being considered or if there will be action.  I just want to make sure you are aware that a member that has defrauded the community and other message boards for twenty years admitted that he is trying to conduct business through private message. 

While one member outed him because he refused to do business with him, odds are that Chip has reached out to others before and been able to conduct business with them. 

Just checking in. 

Please let us know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really on the fence with this whole poll and discussion. I have no issue relegating those who have committed serious wrong to the sidelines, but I also feel it's one of those things that should be looked at on a case by case basis. I've been a member long enough to know what the PL and HOS are, but I feel the member at the center of this current vote/poll is not the best use case for whether a HOS inductee should lose posting priviliges. I say this primarily because the past issues used to establish a fact pattern were not the strongest cases of what I would consider a serious offense, but I also reserve some judgement that I shouldn't have a say since I wasn't the offended party. That said, I wonder if my FB friend Darren, the RS thread starter, and one of the past issues that was used to establish a fact pattern, would even remember what happened with Chip. If the grieved thread starter doesn't care, why should a forum community external to the SW collecting culture even care?

I keep a long, long, long list of people who are put up on pedestals in that hobby who have really did wrong, and are talked about with reverence and are likened to legend status, so what happened between Chip and Darren 2009 won't even register. What I do know is that situation on RS was settled, and it appears the other issues were as well, including those which occured most recently on these forums. While I consider this community to be the best of it's kind in terms of remaining vigiliant in the areas of course correcting missteps and transgressions, I don't feel any induction should be based on activity happening external to these boards because the culture here is unique, and would be considered acting as it has as a form of overeach (trust me, I've been ridiculed and practically bounced from other forums/social media circles for even talking about a probation list for people reneging on a transaction).

Someone remarked another member asking advice on opening a brick and mortar store in another thread (I can't seem to find the post anymore), and honestly I didn't even know there was an issue with that member, and I've been here pretty much from the time these forums opened. I vaguely remember some discussion about there being some issues, but honestly it's been so long that I can't even remember.  I don't want to undermine the efforts of those who tried to establish a strong enough case for the induction of the member at the center of this discussion, but I see HOS induction as something far more serious, and warranted for repeated transgressions, on the scale of Jason Ewert type of activity of fraud, but happening on these forums. IF we are going to look at having a system of graduating PL cases with a fact pattern of repeat transgressions, I'm of the opinion they should be incidents and a past pattern occuring on these boards.

As the host pretty much decides on what constitutes banning, a lot of what I just wrote is going to fall on deaf ears, but as far as injecting a different perspective to how the self-regulating function works on these boards, I just don't want to see it turning to a situation where it's so disruptive that it takes away from the experience for other members who don't want to be repeatedly told something they already know, or might not even have been fully on-board with the decision to induct the transgressor in question. Moreover, it if it absolutely something that everyone feels must happen to create awareness for members who may not be cognisant of that members past, then I'd expect the same people who are banging on the awareness drum be consistent, and post whenever another member from the HOS is posting on these boards, otherwise the bias sets in and such action would be perceived as trolling for the sake of trolling a specific member rather than for awareness efforts.

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

I'm really on the fence with this whole poll and discussion. I have no issue relegating those who have committed serious wrong to the sidelines, but I also feel it's one of those things that should be looked at on a case by case basis. I've been a member long enough to know what the PL and HOS are, but I feel the member at the center of this current vote/poll is not the best use case for whether a HOS inductee should lose posting priviliges. I say this primarily because the past issues used to establish a fact pattern were not the strongest cases of what I would consider a serious offense, but I also reserve some judgement that I shouldn't have a say since I wasn't the offended party. That said, I wonder if my FB friend Darren, the RS thread starter, and one of the past issues that was used to establish a fact pattern, would even remember what happened with Chip. If the grieved thread starter doesn't care, why should a forum community external to the SW collecting culture even care?

I keep a long, long, long list of people who are put up on pedestals in that hobby who have really did wrong, and are talked about with reverence and are likened to legend status. What I do know is that situation on RS was settled, and it appears the other issues were as well, including those which occured most recently on these forums. While I consider this community to be the best of it's kind in terms of remaining vigiliant in the areas of course correcting missteps and transgressions, I don't feel any induction should be based on activity happening external to these boards because the culture here is unique, and would be considered acting as it has as a form of overeach (trust me, I've been ridiculed and practically bounced from other forums/social media circles for even talking about a probation list for people reneging on a transaction).

Someone remarked another member asking advice on opening a brick and mortar store in another thread (I can't seem to find the post anymore), and honestly I didn't even know there was an issue with that member, and I've been here pretty much from the time these forums opened. I vaguely remember some discussion about there being some issues, but honestly it's been so long that I can't even remember.  I don't want to undermine the efforts of those who tried to establish a strong enough case for the induction of the member at the center of this discussion, but I see HOS induction as something far more serious, and warranted for repeated transgressions, on the scale of Jason Ewert type of activity of fraud, but happening on these forums. IF we are going to look at having a system of graduating PL cases with a fact pattern of repeat transgressions, I'm of the opinion they should be incidents and a past pattern occuring on these boards.

As the host pretty much decides on what constitutes banning, a lot of what I just wrote is going to fall on deaf ears, but as far as injecting a different perspective to how the self-regulating function works on these boards, I just don't want to see it turning to a situation where it's so disruptive that it takes away from the experience for other members who don't want to be repeatedly told something they already know, or might not even have been fully on-board with the decision to induct the transgressor in question. Moreover, it if it absolutely something that everyone feels must happen to create awareness for members who may not be cognisant of that members past, then I'd expect the same people who are banging on the awareness drum be consistent, and post whenever another member from the HOS is posting on these boards, otherwise the bias sets in and such action would be perceived as trolling for the sake of trolling a specific member rather than for awareness efforts.

Joe I respect what you have to say and your opinion on this and it gives me pause to reconsider certain things.  For full disclosure though, in case it comes up, I contacted Darren last year and he provided a decent account of what Chip did over there after Darren's friend passed away.  I just reread the PM over there from my inbox.  I see what you mean to allowing each community and culture dictate the terms of banishment and that each banishment from each forum should be based exclusively on that forum's merits. 

I believe though that after Chip's Go Fund Me and various other attempts to raise money as well as the personal injury scare that he brought upon the boards that his continued attempts to conduct transactions despite his present status offers up a 'special case' scenario.  I may very well be wrong.

The thing is, a mod said that it would be a different story if a HOS member was actively trying to conduct business.  Here we have Chip publicly acknowledging that he is indeed trying to conduct business but through private message.  If he didn't think that he was in disagreement to the terms of his status he wouldn't be trying to conduct business behind the scenes. Mods said it was a different story.  Let's see what story it is.  No matter what though, at the end of the day, it is their sandbox not mine.  I just post in it at their discretion. 

Edited by Buzzetta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheridan (Buzz) replies to Tosawi (Cataldo). Sherman (Mod) takes it under advisement. Custer complies with Orders from Sheridan. That did not end well, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Sheridan (Buzz) replies to Tosawi (Cataldo). Sherman (Mod) takes it under advisement. Custer complies with Orders from Sheridan. That did not end well, either.

Just curious why you care if a HOS member is restricted from using PM's so they cannot conduct business, which they're not supposed to do because they're in the HOS?

Unless you're an auto contrarian.

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