Is the Fall From Grace fatal to the Good Guy Certs?

Originally Posted by bcfos

Ok Wes let me put this into terms you can understand very well. Say some really big name breeder decides Neil is a great guy and ads to his good guy certification without doing business with him. You mean to tell me that would be ok? And you also mean to tell me you wouldn't go nuts because of it and run around whining to anyone who would listen?

And I only use this example because I know you to don't see eye to eye. What would your gut reaction be if this happened? honestly Wes..

And isn't it a form of fraud misleading the public by just giving someone good guy points just because you feel they won't do something fishy? Doesn't that in and upon itself render this whole thing useless?

Personally I don't give a rat's patootie what most people say. The few I do care about, where one of them to vouch for someone I was sure was a bad guy, I would most likely say my peice and then move on. You are familiar with that concept, aren't you Brian? Moving on I mean. Anyway, that's honest.

It's not my job to convince you guys, any of you, of anything. I've stated my opinions and you've stated yours. I don't care whether or not I've changed your minds or what your opinions are on just about anything. Don't feel special though, you're in a large group.

If I've not been clear enough then we will simply have to live with things as they are.

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

It has EVERYTHING to do with the topic of this thread.
If you HAVE NOT DONE BUSINESS with a person, is it right to give them a good guy or bad guy vote? That is the freaking question.

And here is the "freaking" answer.

YES. You do NOT have to have done business with a person or business in order to vote on the Certification Poll nor the Traders Ratings. Simply because it would be impossible to enforce anyway, and fruitless to attempt to do so. How could you possibly do that? It would require that this entire system would need to be a closed loop system, much like Ebay, in that ONLY people buying from people advertising here, within this very site, with a valid transaction ID would be eligible to vote. That means anyone buying or selling something on another site would be immune to your OPINIONS here, no matter what took place there. In my opinion, that just is not a feasible method to incorporate into the Certification system. It would be way too narrow in focus, and terminally self limiting to anyone really wanting to use it.

I had to read over the Certification welcoming thread myself to refresh my memory about any constraints I may have applied to the utilization and participation in the program. It's been a while since I wrote that, and I might suggest that anyone interested do the same for themselves: 1. What this is all about and HOW to apply.

Please read that post. Particularly the paragraph describing the Certification system as a "BOI Lite". Does the BOI require a business transaction in order for you to post your opinion there?

Really, I don't see anything at all about such a requirement of a specific business transaction. That is because I knew it would be an impossible restriction on the system. Even if such a system were feasible here, I personally think it is a tossup as to whether such a system would be a better or worse one then one that is open to subjective opinions such as this one is now set up.

Obviously, Good Guys WILL go bad on occasion. We've seen it happen before, and it will certainly happen again. If they have 50 Good Guy votes, do you really want to have to wait for 51 people to get screwed before the Certification is revoked? Who exactly would be well served by such a system limitation? How quickly do you want the votes to reflect this turn of events to help protect other people, maybe even yourself? Wouldn't a PROACTIVE early warning system NEED to be able to react quickly to be effective?

Is it perfect? Of course not. Can if be abused? Of course! And probably will be, both intentionally and accidentally. Is it worthwhile? Beats me, you tell me. If not, tell me how to make it better, more accurate, and more efficient. Or, if you prefer, convince me that it needs to be scrapped completely. I had no idea where it would go when I set it in motion. I only had hopes it would help. But I am definitely not married to the project if it turns out to just be a real bad idea.

Welcome back Rich. I have a suggestion that may or may not be feasible, and I will try to communicatue it the best I can.
Is there a way to have 2 polls set up per good guy cert. applicant?
One for people who have done business with the person, and one for people who would or would not do business with a person ?
I know it would have to be an honor system kind of thing, but any disputes about the voting, Like if a seller says " I haven't done business with this person" could be worked out in the cert.'s big brother, the full sized BOI.

Maybe the results of the polls could be shown seperate, and another chart could show the combined results of the 2? I don't know.

Also, I noticed that Bill's site has been shut down. Is his poll on the good guy certification going to continue to run, or will it be removed?

Originally Posted by DaveyFig

Welcome back Rich. I have a suggestion that may or may not be feasible, and I will try to communicatue it the best I can.
Is there a way to have 2 polls set up per good guy cert. applicant?
One for people who have done business with the person, and one for people who would or would not do business with a person ?
I know it would have to be an honor system kind of thing, but any disputes about the voting, Like if a seller says " I haven't done business with this person" could be worked out in the cert.'s big brother, the full sized BOI.

Maybe the results of the polls could be shown seperate, and another chart could show the combined results of the 2? I don't know.

Dave,

Sorry, but no, while this may be feasible to do, I do not think it would be practical. It would cost me a bunch of $$ to have my programmer implement it, and to be quite honest I think it would be an exercise in futility. If a Good Guy is turning bad, and someone posts a Bad Guy vote who claims they have a valid transaction with him/her, what is to prevent the subject of the poll from simply denying that the transaction actually took place? Who is going to verify it? Who is going to enforce the requirement? And how exactly would someone do it? Does anyone know of any sort of documentation for something like this that cannot be faked, if someone were so inclined?

Heck, Ebay has a closed loop system in their feeback system and it is still eaten up with abuse. And they certainly have a WHOLE LOT more resources to throw at trying to keep it legit then I do here. No, I am not saying the system here is better at all. It is just a different method to try to obtain hoped for valid and useful results. I think ANY system that is based on the credibility and honesty of the participants is going to have a real tough time with the validity of what it is trying to show. The fault doesn't lie within the system, but within some of the participants. There is just no escaping that possibly fatal flaw in any such system, no matter how we may wish it otherwise. All we can hope for is that there are MORE honest and credible people taking part in it then those who are not. I guess that if that is not the case here, then the results shown in the polls really don't matter anyway, now do they? Why bother if there are more bad guys then good guys?

Originally Posted by DaveyFig

Also, I noticed that Bill's site has been shut down. Is his poll on the good guy certification going to continue to run, or will it be removed?

This in itself is a question I have been pondering myself. What would be best to do? Remove the record here of the voting poll, or leave it for people to inspect? Code is in place to highlight a negative voted poll, which will certainly call attention to it by the casual observer looking through the list of participants. Would this be an effective deterrent for other people with the possibility that THEY would be highlighted in a like fashion for turning to the dark side? Certainly the certificate will be removed from the site of anyone failing to maintain the positive ratings, but what is best to do on this end of it? What would best serve the intent of the program?

I'm still wrestling with this one after seeing that drama unfold, and don't have a ready answer yet.

I can understand the cost of implimenting it being impractical, so I am satisfied by your response.

as for this:

If a Good Guy is turning bad, and someone posts a Bad Guy vote who claims they have a valid transaction with him/her, what is to prevent the subject of the poll from simply denying that the transaction actually took place? Who is going to verify it? Who is going to enforce the requirement? And how exactly would someone do it?

That is where it would become a BOI issue rather than a good guy cert issue. All of the stuff usually shown in BOI threads would need to be broken out.Emails, Receipts, pictures, all of that.There is no thread for text on the good guy cert anyway, so anything that a buyer really had a problem with would be dealt with on the BOI in addition to their vote in the poll anyway.

Well, you have to have a website to be a certified good guy, and to participate in the program. If you don't have a site, you don't get to keep your certification now matter how good you are, so it is a tough one.
I think it is best to leave a visual reminder of the has-been good guy certifieds, maybe in a sub forum below the good guy cert. Hell, you could even call it "Fallen from grace". It would have to be used only for the ones who have been voted out though, since I don't see why a good guy who never did anything bad in the community who shuts down his site would have to be labeled as "fallen from grace" for shutting it down.
Maybe you should just let the polls run their course for a period, say 2 weeks- a month after the sites are shut down. If it doesn't fall into the negative in that time, they just get erased, if they do drop into the red, they get de-graced. Just some thoughts.

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

(CoughJim&DennisCough)

Well, I just found this thread. You know it was hard enough for me to make the post I made on Bill's thread and I decided not to comment anymore afterwards. I made a choice only after Dennis(other Dennis) posted that people would have to vote to remove Bill's "GOOD GUY" status. I made the vote and I stand by it.

Karen, why don't you spend a minute and look a little better at what I wrote to David. This is the second time you either left something out or slanted something I have said.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

The "Good Guy Certification forum" is usually for people who have done business with each person listed there. When I had seen that you posted a negative there, I assumed that you actually have donea transaction with them. If not, then my mistake.
..

Tell me where I said anything like that here.

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

Sorry folks but I did not twist a single thing. I only posted what others have already posted and I posted those posts in their entirety

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

Actually, you did not. I was wrong in my initial assessment of what David was all about in his initial post and I stated it.

It appeared by the way it was posted and I pointed it out in my follow-up post to the one you quoted was that David was someone who had a bad transaction with NERD because he rated them negative in their certification.

The discussion took a different path largely because in the same post he said he actually knew nothing about the true origins of the pictures and everyone could go find out for themselves.
I have also stated that, I don't like what I see in the pictures. Not only should voids be handled as hots at all times, I personally believe there should be no voids in the first place. IMO. Rescues or not, they should be treated with more respect.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

Exactly
That was my interpretation and what I posted.
I have absolutely nothing against you David for making this thread, after that was cleared up.

That is all I posted in regards to David making a post on NERDS good guy certificate.

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

On another thread two people who voted - for Bill demanded another person (David) to retract his - vote for NERD because he had no business dealings with them.

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

(CoughJim&DennisCough)

Cough Cough Karen. I never stated anything of the kind. I said usually and I apologized to David. I never demanded him to remove anything.

I am going to assume that you keep making honest mistakes about what I have said.

Originally Posted by wilomn

You're wrong Brian.

You have to look at WHO it is that you are relying on to give you information about someone else. Do what you think is right, good or bad. When people see that THEY can decide whether or not to give YOUR opinion any weight at all.

Look at Wes' certification for example:

Good guy
Alias47, Casey Hulse, Cheryl Marchek AKA JM, DAND, David Scarboro, Dennis Hultman, dragonflyreptiles, Jim O, KelliH, Living Art Reptiles, lucille, Manhattan Herps, Mike Greathouse, ms_terese, Ophis, Rebel Dragons, robin s., RTBoas, Suncoast Herpetological, Tim Cole, W.Wedeking 21 91.30%

Bad guy
bud mierkey, Neil Gubitz 2 8.70%

Do you think somebody would take bud's or neil's word over anybody else who has voted him a good guy?