Proposed Change to Probation List Rules
1 1

54 posts in this topic

40,701 posts
5 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:
13 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.  

 

So you have proof?  hm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,217 posts
3 minutes ago, lizards2 said:

So you have proof?  hm

Have you read everything in the GD forum and PL nomination on this?  I would encourage everyone to do so, carefully, that has not unless they are in the camp of “money refunded case closed”.

This one is a bit more nuanced and contradictory reasons for the removal of pictures were given along with other things that just don’t add up.

FTR The seller in question purchased 2 books from me previously however as it stands now I still support his inclusion on the PL.

If folks want a poll for removal go ahead and put one up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27,547 posts
Just now, lizards2 said:

So you have proof?  hm

Very difficult to prove.  I think ultimately we need a vote to determine if the seller's story is consistent and makes sense.  In our most recent nomination I suspect the vote would have been close and if we had a 2/3rd majority required he wouldn't have been added.  For the record, it's clear to me that the seller is lying and I would have voted to add him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,701 posts
1 minute ago, MustEatBrains said:

Have you read everything in the GD forum and PL nomination on this? 

 

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,980 posts
37 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

In our most recent nomination I suspect the vote would have been close and if we had a 2/3rd majority required he wouldn't have been added.

Just a quick point of clarification...
The current proposal suggests that the board member is already on the Probation List and that, if a nominator decides against the removal of a board member from that list, the community can decide to overrule the nominator and remove the member from probation with a 2/3rd majority vote.

 

53 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

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.  

 

All very good points here, especially noting that the PL was created to warn (and therefore help protect) the community.

 

18 hours ago, Red84 said:

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. 

It sounds like we're all in agreement that the community should have some say here.  No single member should have 100% voting power over any other individual members on the PL.  The nominator is free to voice their opinions, concerns, and reasoning as to why the nominee should be kept ON the PL, but those thoughts should only server to defend their case to the voting community (just as the nominee is given the opportunity to state their own case and defend themselves).

The current discussion regarding the most recent failed transaction is the side-story here, but does illustrate the point that many people have differing opinions as to how this should be handled.  Ultimately, the decision should be left to the community, and we just need to hammer out the details.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27,547 posts
4 hours ago, masterlogan2000 said:
5 hours ago, thehumantorch said:

In our most recent nomination I suspect the vote would have been close and if we had a 2/3rd majority required he wouldn't have been added.

Just a quick point of clarification...
The current proposal suggests that the board member is already on the Probation List and that, if a nominator decides against the removal of a board member from that list, the community can decide to overrule the nominator and remove the member from probation with a 2/3rd majority vote.

Thank you, I missed that

"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."

Not good enough, a person should not be added to the PL without some type of agreement or vote.  A poll, private or public, with at least 2/3 of those voting should be required to add someone to the PL or to remove them from the PL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,776 posts

Was the soundman from Jackyl involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,701 posts
2 hours ago, comeaux said:

Was the soundman from Jackyl involved?

:eek:  It's a good theory......,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,699 posts
Posted (edited)

This is a fine discussion and I'll add my 2c in:

First off, @Red84 sent me a PM asking about the poll.  I had no objections to the poll as it seemed like a fair and reasonable request; let a jury of your peers determine your "guilt or innocence"  The poll and associated conditions seem fine as well...so as it stands, I have no objection to the outcome of the poll.

Secondly, someone mentioned that if the nominator and offender don't vote, it shows we don't care.  That couldn't be any further from the truth.  During trail, does the plaintiff or defendant get a vote on the jury?  Last I checked, they don't....so I don't believe it's fair for me to vote.  Besides, the math dictates that an "oppose" vote actually carries more weight than a "remove" vote.  So my vote would be weighted heavier than his...therefore, I choose not to vote this time.

Thirdly, the offending party hasn't piped up AT ALL in regards to this.  I know he's been active on the boards so I'm not exactly sure what's going on.

And lastly, i've seen so many people use the logic of "the buyer was refunded; he was made whole" argument.  In my opinion, that's flawed logic and here's why:  I paid with PayPal...what other option did the seller have?  Had he not refunded my payment, PayPal would have forced the issue (or my CC as a last resort).  Fact is, he didn't take any great step to rectify the situation.  He had zero choice in the matter b/c ultimately a higher entity would have stepped in to resolve the issue.

I've also seen some question the seller's character by asking if this is his first offense, and if not, maybe he should get a mulligan?  Does a drunk driver who injures an innocent get a mulligan simply b/c he was an "upstanding citizen" until he drove drunk?  Do you get a mulligan for CDV or child abuse?  Again, flawed logic IMO...

But I do believe it's a good and fair idea to let the poll decide...

Edited by Columbia Comics
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,490 posts
10 minutes ago, Columbia Comics said:

And lastly, i've seen so many people use the logic of "the buyer was refunded; he was made whole" argument.  In my opinion, that's flawed logic and here's why:  I paid with PayPal...what other option did the seller have?  Had he not refunded my payment, PayPal would have forced the issue (or my CC as a last resort).  Fact is, he didn't take any great step to rectify the situation.  He had zero choice in the matter b/c ultimately a higher entity would have stepped in to resolve the issue.

That doesn't follow. Whether you were refunded by choice by the seller, or by force from Paypal, you were still refunded, which means you were "made whole." How you get the refund doesn't mean you aren't made whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47,689 posts
On 7/1/2019 at 6:16 PM, skypinkblu said:

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;)

 

Ps I would have voted to take him off, if he had shown any interest in the matter.  If he dont care, I dont care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,980 posts
15 hours ago, Columbia Comics said:

I've also seen some question the seller's character by asking if this is his first offense, and if not, maybe he should get a mulligan?  Does a drunk driver who injures an innocent get a mulligan simply b/c he was an "upstanding citizen" until he drove drunk?  Do you get a mulligan for CDV or child abuse?  Again, flawed logic IMO...

I read this from a different angle actually, though I see exactly where you're coming from too.

I think a lot of people question whether this is the first offense to see if there is a pattern of abuse.  If there is such a pattern, then that may sway the vote against the seller, REGARDLESS of the evidence in the current case.

To analogize this similar to your examples... Let's say a man was convicted of theft last year.  There was a recent robbery and this same man was arrested due to the crime being similar to what he was convicted of previously.  Should we automatically assume this man is guilty?  Should we punish him for the second crime because he was simply convicted of the first?

That's at least how I read the inquiries into whether this was a first offense or not.  Then again, I can see it your way as well.  Regardless, asking whether this is a first offense only invites biases to the table.  IMO, each case should stand on its own based on the evidence at hand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,608 posts

Even though I voted to keep him on the list, a great argument could be made to give him the benefit of a doubt if this was his first and only offense a,omg many transactions on the boards as both a buyer and seller. But that argument goes out the window completely if it’s not a first offense 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,699 posts
1 hour ago, masterlogan2000 said:

I read this from a different angle actually, though I see exactly where you're coming from too.

I think a lot of people question whether this is the first offense to see if there is a pattern of abuse.  If there is such a pattern, then that may sway the vote against the seller, REGARDLESS of the evidence in the current case.

To analogize this similar to your examples... Let's say a man was convicted of theft last year.  There was a recent robbery and this same man was arrested due to the crime being similar to what he was convicted of previously.  Should we automatically assume this man is guilty?  Should we punish him for the second crime because he was simply convicted of the first?

That's at least how I read the inquiries into whether this was a first offense or not.  Then again, I can see it your way as well.  Regardless, asking whether this is a first offense only invites biases to the table.  IMO, each case should stand on its own based on the evidence at hand.

 

In your example, I would say no, he should not be charged with the crime without due process.  So I guess the whole idea behind the poll is that it gives the seller due process. 

Sadly like @kav says, if he doesn't care enough to come in and at least voice his side...why should anyone else care.

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