Proposed Change to Probation List Rules
1 1

54 posts in this topic

5,693 posts

I have recently become aware that unlike the HOS, a PL nomination is decided entirely by the nominator. Likewise, in order to be removed from the Probation List, the nominator has to choose to remove the individual. That leaves too much power in the hands of one individual on the forum.

I propose a change to the PL rules that would allow a vote to be taken to remove someone from the Probation List over the objection of the nominator.

I propose that to overrule the nominator and permit someone on the Probation List to be removed from the list, that a Private Poll (results hidden until completion) lasting 7 days be posted, and that at least 66% of those voting (minimum of 10 people voting) vote to remove the individual.

The Poll should look like this:

I propose that ______ be removed from the Probation List over the objection of the nominator.

Yes: I support removing ____ from the Probation List.

No: I oppose removing ____ from the Probation List.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
682 posts

The literal definition of probation has time limitations, I would think that be the case on a probation list here as well.

With that said, I am not against a private poll either.  Would there be a way to limit the person on the PL for voting?  I also think the nominator shouldn't be allowed to vote either, pretty obvious how they will vote.  Essentially allow this to be almost a jury vote?

Thanks @Red84 for putting this out there, it is not easy to a) come up with solutions that can cause confrontation and b) start the topic.

Also thanks to @skypinkblu for the explanation, others might not be paying much attention to the PL sub-forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,693 posts
21 minutes ago, Crops068 said:

With that said, I am not against a private poll either.  Would there be a way to limit the person on the PL for voting?  I also think the nominator shouldn't be allowed to vote either, pretty obvious how they will vote.  Essentially allow this to be almost a jury vote?

 

In theory I agree that neither the nominator or the PL member should vote; however, given the private nature of the poll I don't think that could be policed. Therefore, the alternative where its assumed that both of them will vote I think it works out as a wash. And if only 1 of them votes, then the lack of interest on the part of the other party speaks volumes anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,380 posts

As I mentioned in the other thread, I don't like the poll because of the possibility that it becomes a popularity contest or that people's friends will come out in force. While I think that a refund makes the buyer whole, I also do not think that ignoring the broken sale is correct either. No one is forced to follow the PL so it functions much the same as a personal list anyway. I am not sure what is best in this difficult situation but am not sure that altering the PL process is called for. This one case is just an outlier I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,380 posts

I am also not sure that this case is one where the PL person should be "saved". He has supposedly done this before on at least two other occasions. If it was an obvious case of a single transgression perhaps I would consider it differently.

I do not think that there have been numerous problems with people going on the PL list without recourse and just because this one case is difficult I do not think that the rules that have served us pretty well should be changed.

Okay I've said my piece, I will leave it alone for others to discuss now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,693 posts
6 minutes ago, Bird said:

As I mentioned in the other thread, I don't like the poll because of the possibility that it becomes a popularity contest or that people's friends will come out in force. While I think that a refund makes the buyer whole, I also do not think that ignoring the broken sale is correct either. No one is forced to follow the PL so it functions much the same as a personal list anyway. I am not sure what is best in this difficult situation but am not sure that altering the PL process is called for. This one case is just an outlier I think.

All good points. And while that situation is what prompted my proposed rule change, I think it could arise again in the future. I am not as concerned with the potential for a popularity contest because this poll would only apply to someone who qualified to be put on the Probation List. PL members tend to have fewer supporters. I also agree that the seller broke the rules by not completing the sale, but we also have to consider whether the seller made an innocent mistake and is actually telling the truth. That is where the poll would also come into play. In a judgment call there will be people who believe the seller and vote Yes, there will be people who don't believe the seller and vote No, and there will be some who do believe the seller but vote No anyway and the same for those who do believe the seller but still vote Yes based on their interpretation of the rules.

This is for the rare situation where a 2/3 majority of the forum believes the nominating member has either gone too far or is being unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,693 posts
4 minutes ago, Bird said:

I am also not sure that this case is one where the PL person should be "saved". He has supposedly done this before on at least two other occasions. If it was an obvious case of a single transgression perhaps I would consider it differently.

As to this, I saw that mentioned previously but no one has provided any additional information. At this point, I would like someone to provide details if he allegedly did this before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,380 posts
Just now, Red84 said:

As to this, I saw that mentioned previously but no one has provided any additional information. At this point, I would like someone to provide details if he allegedly did this before.

okay, one more post because you quoted me and besides, I like to argue.

He didn't refute that charge earlier and in light of that I would tend to believe it because people other than the nominator also stated it independently. He had a few methods of recourse and didn't meet any of them Find and sell the book, nope. repost the photos, nope. Produce evidence of it being sold (he said that this was a possibility himself), nope. So again, this is not a hill I would die on.

But I will go with the will of the people whatever happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,376 posts

Looks like I have some reading to catch up on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,693 posts
31 minutes ago, Bird said:

 

He didn't refute that charge earlier and in light of that I would tend to believe it because people other than the nominator also stated it independently.

 

I looked back through the discussion in the General thread and the entire probation thread and the only reference that I could find to him having done this before was your own statement that he had done it before. Was there an old incident that was discussed a while ago?  

If he did something similar before I would like to know.

On 6/4/2019 at 8:03 PM, Bird said:

For instance I did not know that this was the third time geezuswalks has done this and he was on my ignore list as soon as you posted this case but it is good to know about the other two times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,380 posts
1 minute ago, Red84 said:

 

I looked back through the discussion in the General thread and the entire probation thread and the only reference that I could find to him having done this before was your own statement that he had done it before. Was there an old incident that was discussed a while ago?  

If he did something similar before I would like to know.

No I don’t keep track of these things I would’ve only reference something that was posted earlier in one of the threads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,693 posts
26 minutes ago, awakeintheashes said:

Looks like I have some reading to catch up on. 

If you want to read all about it, it starts on June 3rd in the General Discussion thread and there's also a separate probation thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,693 posts
2 minutes ago, Bird said:

No I don’t keep track of these things I would’ve only reference something that was posted earlier in one of the threads

If anyone is able to search the forum to find these older allegations that would be helpful. I tried Google and couldn't track it down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,619 posts
1 hour ago, skypinkblu said:

I just don't see this as a Hall of Shame action.

 

 

I couldn't disagree with you more. I won't rehash the reasons why the story is :censored:. Anyone interested can seek out the thread. 

But I do support democracy, therefore I support Red's proposal. 

Also, it's important to realize that the probation list does not prevent anyone from doing business here. It's just as easy for a seller to remain on someone's "good list" as it is to be placed on someone's "personal" list. (shrug)

With due diligence, anyone wary of doing business can conduct the appropriate research on any member and decide for themselves. The link to the discussion is posted next to everyone's name. 

The person in question has been given SEVERAL fair opportunities for redemption and has failed to meet every...single...one. Absolutely probation worthy. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,619 posts

EDIT...this has been upped to Hall of Shame status? 

I was unaware. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,376 posts
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Red84 said:
1 hour ago, awakeintheashes said:

Looks like I have some reading to catch up on. 

If you want to read all about it, it starts on June 3rd in the General Discussion thread and there's also a separate probation thread.

giphy.gif

Edited by awakeintheashes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,336 posts

So pardon my ignorance and/or laziness.  My understanding is that the probation list is to get a bad transaction taken care of.  The buyer and seller made whole.  If the buyer has been refunded what is he asking for to be made whole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27,364 posts
55 minutes ago, newshane said:

EDIT...this has been upped to Hall of Shame status? 

I was unaware. 

 

No, it has not, that's my point. You can't get off of the Hall of Shame, so it has to be something major. This is not a good situation by far, but it's not something  HOS caliber. 

As for the prior instances? I did a google search, searched the forums, looked up Geezuswalk's posts and saw nothing prior.

In addition, no one has come forward to say there was a prior instance, there have only been positive references.

Share this post


Link to post
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
1 1