Red84 Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post skypinkblu Posted July 2, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 2, 2019 (edited) Some background for those of you who don't read the discussion threads or the probation threads. Right now we have someone on the probation list who sold a low priced key, and then refunded the full amount of of sale shortly after. He stated the book was lost. The buyer was not expecting and did not want a refund he wanted the book. The seller was asked for pictures, seller said he does not have them and had two reasons for having deleted them from everywhere. He was asked if it was sold elsewhere to provide a receipt. His answer was he's not sure if it was sold, but he cannot find the book and is still looking for it. He was asked when the pictures were taken, the answer was 2-3 weeks ago. He was asked if he FOUND the book, if he would sell it to the original buyer at the original posted price, he said yes. Someone suggested that he purchase a copy of the same book and send it to the buyer, but the buyer said he did not expect that. However, he wants to seller to remain on the list. So right now, unless he comes up with a paid receipt? which may not exist, because it's possible the book is just lost in the house, it appears that there is no way for him to get off the list. Personally, I'd like to see a "no way off" situation to occur only for the Hall of Shame. I don't love all the answers, but I am cognizant of the fact that the buyer got a refund of his purchase price and I just don't see this as a Hall of Shame action. I think Josh's idea is a good one for this specific situation, but I'm sure people have more ideas... and I'm not saying the person should not be on personal lists. @Spidey 62 had a good suggestion about a time limit for a first time offender. I'm not quite sure how that would work, but it sounds possible in special cases only. and @PovertyRow I miss you;) Edited July 2, 2019 by skypinkblu Mr Sneeze, ADAMANTIUM, DeadOne and 5 others 1 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red84 Posted July 2, 2019 Author Share Posted July 2, 2019 Thanks Sharon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crops068 Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red84 Posted July 2, 2019 Author Share Posted July 2, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 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. theCapraAegagrus and Semicentennial 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red84 Posted July 2, 2019 Author Share Posted July 2, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red84 Posted July 2, 2019 Author Share Posted July 2, 2019 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. Larryw7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awakeintheashes Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 Looks like I have some reading to catch up on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red84 Posted July 2, 2019 Author Share Posted July 2, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red84 Posted July 2, 2019 Author Share Posted July 2, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red84 Posted July 2, 2019 Author Share Posted July 2, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newshane Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 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 . 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. 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. Red84 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newshane Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 EDIT...this has been upped to Hall of Shame status? I was unaware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awakeintheashes Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 (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. Edited July 2, 2019 by awakeintheashes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunsicker Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 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? Larryw7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skypinkblu Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
