Proposed Change to Probation List Rules
1 1

54 posts in this topic

5,697 posts
57 minutes ago, newshane said:

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

I was unaware. 

 

Nope, just PL.

He's not in the HOS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27,551 posts

Thanks Red, I think this discussion is overdue.

Here's a link to the current PL rules regarding inclusion onto the list.

Once the accused has been nominated by the accuser we have this:

3a) After a 72-hour waiting period, if the accused does not respond they will be placed on the PL.

3b) If the accused responds in the Probation Discussion Thread and it is determined the conditions of the transaction was not met, they will be added to the PL.

The rules ignore how worthiness of inclusion is determined or who makes that determination.  I think this is a serious problem and I think Red is right, we need to add a process to determine fault and I believe a vote makes the most sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,697 posts
20 minutes ago, thunsicker said:

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?

In essence, the buyer is asking for better answers/explanations for what happened. 

Initially the buyer asked the seller to re-post the images of the book which the seller had removed from the website. The buyer had asked for this so that people could be on the lookout for the book and as a sign of good faith that he was not planning to sell it to someone else. However, the seller claimed that he had deleted the images from the website and his own computer for reasons that seem implausible but could be true. The factual circumstances behind the entire situation are difficult to believe (he scanned the "lost" book 2-3 weeks before the book was listed for sale but somehow lost the book during those 2-3 weeks). But the situation raises the issue of what is sufficient contrition and how much of an explanation is required? 

I was originally for the PL nomination, but after thinking about it more I decided I was against the nomination on the off chance that he was telling the truth. That's why I think in a situation like this that a vote should be used if the nominator chooses not to remove the seller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,607 posts

If there is a poll I don't think it should be anonymous. (is that a thing?). If you want to vote you should do it publicly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,697 posts
1 minute ago, wombat said:

If there is a poll I don't think it should be anonymous. (is that a thing?). If you want to vote you should do it publicly. 

I'm fine with that as well.

The benefit of an anonymous poll is that you don't have to worry about one person's vote swaying another's but there is also value is public voting so that people have to stand behind their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,697 posts
8 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

Thanks Red, I think this discussion is overdue.

Here's a link to the current PL rules regarding inclusion onto the list.

Once the accused has been nominated by the accuser we have this:

3a) After a 72-hour waiting period, if the accused does not respond they will be placed on the PL.

3b) If the accused responds in the Probation Discussion Thread and it is determined the conditions of the transaction was not met, they will be added to the PL.

The rules ignore how worthiness of inclusion is determined or who makes that determination.  I think this is a serious problem and I think Red is right, we need to add a process to determine fault and I believe a vote makes the most sense.

This emphasizes the key problem here: one individual gets to decide both whether another's conduct qualifies for the Probation List AND whether that person's conduct in trying to resolve the dispute qualifies for removal from the Probation List. If someone can be added to the list without a group vote I think there needs to be an option for the group to effectively overrule that decision with a vote to remove from the List.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,340 posts
4 minutes ago, Red84 said:

In essence, the buyer is asking for better answers/explanations for what happened. 

Initially the buyer asked the seller to re-post the images of the book which the seller had removed from the website. The buyer had asked for this so that people could be on the lookout for the book and as a sign of good faith that he was not planning to sell it to someone else. However, the seller claimed that he had deleted the images from the website and his own computer for reasons that seem implausible but could be true. The factual circumstances behind the entire situation are difficult to believe (he scanned the "lost" book 2-3 weeks before the book was listed for sale but somehow lost the book during those 2-3 weeks). But the situation raises the issue of what is sufficient contrition and how much of an explanation is required? 

I was originally for the PL nomination, but after thinking about it more I decided I was against the nomination on the off chance that he was telling the truth. That's why I think in a situation like this that a vote should be used if the nominator chooses not to remove the seller.

I don’t think that’s the kind of thing we should be using the probation list for.  There should be a specific tort and proposed financial settlement.  E.g.  this buyer bounced a check to me and I want him on the probation list until I get my money or he returns my books.  Or, this seller never sent me my books and I want him on the list until I get the books or my money back.  If a buyer or seller is constantly doing shady stuff that’s what the hall of shame is for.  A single instance where there is no tort shouldn’t be on either list.  Or at most on your personal do not buy from or sell to list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,697 posts
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, thunsicker said:

I don’t think that’s the kind of thing we should be using the probation list for.  There should be a specific tort and proposed financial settlement.  E.g.  this buyer bounced a check to me and I want him on the probation list until I get my money or he returns my books.  Or, this seller never sent me my books and I want him on the list until I get the books or my money back.  If a buyer or seller is constantly doing shady stuff that’s what the hall of shame is for.  A single instance where there is no tort shouldn’t be on either list.  Or at most on your personal do not buy from or sell to list.

Right. And the seller did immediately refund the payment since he discovered that he "lost" the book within 24 hours of being paid.

I think this is where personal lists should come into play.

Edited by Red84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,540 posts

As someone who was involved in trying to put order to the Probation List and the HOS back in the day, I can offer the following.  It's a clusterf****.  There are so many procedural rules and orders of steps to follow that you need a copy of Robert's Rules to navigate it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,359 posts

Seller shouldn't be on any list. The events are suspect, but there's only suspicion of bad behavior, not proof of it. The mob has its torches out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,495 posts
7 hours ago, thunsicker said:
7 hours ago, Red84 said:

In essence, the buyer is asking for better answers/explanations for what happened. 

Initially the buyer asked the seller to re-post the images of the book which the seller had removed from the website. The buyer had asked for this so that people could be on the lookout for the book and as a sign of good faith that he was not planning to sell it to someone else. However, the seller claimed that he had deleted the images from the website and his own computer for reasons that seem implausible but could be true. The factual circumstances behind the entire situation are difficult to believe (he scanned the "lost" book 2-3 weeks before the book was listed for sale but somehow lost the book during those 2-3 weeks). But the situation raises the issue of what is sufficient contrition and how much of an explanation is required? 

I was originally for the PL nomination, but after thinking about it more I decided I was against the nomination on the off chance that he was telling the truth. That's why I think in a situation like this that a vote should be used if the nominator chooses not to remove the seller.

I don’t think that’s the kind of thing we should be using the probation list for.  There should be a specific tort and proposed financial settlement.  E.g.  this buyer bounced a check to me and I want him on the probation list until I get my money or he returns my books.  Or, this seller never sent me my books and I want him on the list until I get the books or my money back.  If a buyer or seller is constantly doing shady stuff that’s what the hall of shame is for.  A single instance where there is no tort shouldn’t be on either list.  Or at most on your personal do not buy from or sell to list.

I agree, though I haven't read the Probation Nomination thread yet.  If buyer was refunded for "lost" book I'm not sure how that qualifies for Probation List, someone's Do Not Buy List maybe, but not because you didn't like the lack of apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,433 posts

As has been mentioned, a "jury of your peers" here can pander to the schoolyard mentality that some have accustomed, where a single person gets hammered by a group for really no 'good' reason.

While not everyone is that shallow with pre-determined subjectivity, and there are certainly neutral and more-objective users, there isn't a good method of 'weeding out' those who may taint the pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,433 posts

I agree that the buyer was "made whole" by being almost immediately refunded. The seller, if s/he knows what they're doing and is being transparent/honest, looked for the book for a fair amount of time and couldn't find it.

I get that around here 'not getting the comic but getting refunded' isn't exact the same concept, because you could be getting a unique product, and/or great deal. The seller has offered to sell it at the same price if found. Will it be found? Is it a tactic to retain credibility? We'll never know. I guess we have to take it at face value, though, right?

I agree that this seems like an incident that should avoid the Probation List, and should be filed under the 'personal list'. The seller fumbled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,377 posts

A poll is a great idea to rectify these type of issues instead of giving all of the power to the offended party.  What if it was a buyer who couldn't complete the purchase for lets say their account being hacked (or so they say).  Seller could ask for the mods to check and if nothing is found but the buyer is addement that they didn't buy the book and couldn't afford the $600 (for example).  Seller makes a stink but buyer sticks to their claims.  With the current rules the seller could put the buyer on the PL and there they would stay until they could come up with the $600 to buy the book. 

Where would the poll reside?  There are only a few people who frequent the probation section so I suggest it gets put in the Silver Age sales thread area since plenty of eyes check out that section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,771 posts

I'm still curious about these alleged "other incidents of similar behavior."  Barring proof of that, I'm fine with either outcome of this member's probationary status, as I really don't think that list has much bearing on the day to day transactions on this forum.  I suspect if the right book is offered at the right price, people would buy it from almost anybody, despite their inclusion in the PL/HoS.  Personal history and word of mouth is a much more effective deterrent for me.

That said, I like the proposed rule change.  It adds a touch of impartiality to the process. I'd vote for it if there was a poll. (shrug) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,980 posts
10 hours ago, Red84 said:

Therefore, the alternative where its assumed that both of them will vote I think it works out as a wash.

Mathematically speaking, this wouldn't be the case.  If we're looking to have a 2/3 majority, then the 50/50 split between nominator/nominee votes will drag the percentage down and potentially sway the decision.

Granted, I'm not sure if there is any good solution to this.  I'd be against making the poll public for the same reasons mentioned by others.

Given that we're comparing the voting system to a jury, we may want to appoint an unbiased "judge" to oversee each individual case.  The "judge" could see all the votes (if that's even possible given the features/limitations of the board software) OR poll voters would be required to verify their votes with the judge over PM.

But this creates additional layers of complexity.  More complexity leads to more potential problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,636 posts

I think this seller (even though he made the buyer whole) stayed on the PL list because the people in the nomination thread felt his story was full of holes. Maybe the story is made up maybe it's true. If this seller cares to get off the list there seems to be no way from him to get off the list at the present time. Maybe a vote would work or even some sort of good faith gesture (that doesn't even involve the buyer because of any bad blood)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,619 posts
9 hours ago, thunsicker said:

If a buyer or seller is constantly doing shady stuff that’s what the hall of shame is for.  

Yes. 

HOS is for repeated offenses, or something massively egregious like outright theft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27,551 posts
12 hours ago, Red84 said:

This emphasizes the key problem here: one individual gets to decide both whether another's conduct qualifies for the Probation List AND whether that person's conduct in trying to resolve the dispute qualifies for removal from the Probation List. If someone can be added to the list without a group vote I think there needs to be an option for the group to effectively overrule that decision with a vote to remove from the List.

As the rules currently stand, anyone can nominate someone and after discussion add them to the Probation List.  Even if the nominated person provided a 'reasonable'  explanation and/or the consensus discussion was against adding him, ultimately the nominator could add him at his discretion.

Some have mentioned that the seller refunded the buyer's money and he shouldn't be on the list for that reason.  IMHO a seller failing to ship a book because they left money on the table or they got a better offer elsewhere is unacceptable and 100% PL worthy and a refund doesn't make the buyer complete.  It isn't acceptable on ebay and it shouldn't be acceptable here.  Private lists are fine but don't warn the community and that's why the PL was created.  

 

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