? about Good Guy Certification Certificates

The BOI is permanent, the trader ratings are permanent, I think the GGC should be permanent too. If someone can just bail as soon as they receive negative votes, then I think it dilutes the integrity of the whole thing. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Well, I tried the method of setting up subforums for REVOKED, WITHDRAWN, and SUSPENDED to contain certificate holders who are no longer participating in the GGC program for one reason or another. I've gotten nasty grams from three of the people in the WITHDRAWN and SUSPENDED categories. So I will probably be removing those subforums rather then put up with their whining.

This I know about all too well as one of the whiners sent you a welcome to TRR to discuss it there being that they sure can't come here and do so. And Rich I don't hold it against you for not visiting because I know time is something both you and I have less and less of as the years go by.

Granted I am not a huge fan of the good guy cert thing as anyone can vote on it even if that voter never did business with the person they are voting for or against (maybe this has changed if so I was not aware of it).

I like the idea submitted so far though like Rich said it isn't an easy fix and writing guidelines gets time consuming.

But let me throw this out for thought. What if (might flop but I am laying it out) the buyer/trader got a voucher to vote on the good guy thing (if it hasn't been modified yet) and those people were the only ones allowed to vote. This would even it up for the prospective buyer because that person would know the good or bad ratings are from real business deals not something else. It's a win win situation for the buyer and the seller. The seller wouldn't have to worry about someone getting pissed and voting that seller a bad guy, and the buyer would have a boost in confidence knowing that the ratings are only from past business deals.

Just throwing out ideas here. It may become a pain in the rear end going with my idea though as the voucher would have to be issued at the time of sale and what not.

Brian,

Right off the top of my head, I think the voucher style system you are talking about would become a huge pain in the rear. Someone would have to keep track of those vouchers to keep them legitimate, which means some sort of serialized and registered voucher forms. Assuming I would want to be lazy about it, I would want the system programmed into the GGC program so that members could automatically verify their vouchers and then vote using them. Right off hand, I can't think of any good way to automate this and make it fool proof and abuse proof.

Even if I would submit to doing it manually, that means each and every vote on the GGC poll would require that a member submit a request to me with evidence indicating their voucher is legitimate. I would have to verify the voucher, then provide them with some sort of passkey for that one GGC participant, so they could vote there.

Problems I can foresee right off hand are:

• What happens when a seller forgets to provide the voucher in a shipment?
• Does the voucher apply to the WHOLE shipment or per each item in that shipment?
• What happens when the buyer puts in a Good Guy vote the day the animal is received, then a week later it dies and he/she wants to change the vote?
• What happens if in the above situation, the problem gets resolved and the buyer wants to change the vote yet again?
• What happens when a buyer wants to vote, likely a Bad Guy vote, but claims that the seller never provided a voucher?

Personally I get a headache just thinking about it. Yeah if we were talking about a mere dozen participants only sending one or two shipments per year, then it might not be too bad. But suppose someone who sends out dozens or even hundreds of shipments per week is involved? Suppose a DOZEN or more someone's like above is participating in the future? Just handling the details of issuing, keeping track of, and verifying those vouchers would likely become a full time job in itself. So, where in the world would I find the time to administer the details this would entail to make work?

Unfortunately, the only way to keep ONLY customers eligible to vote on a seller (similar to Ebay) is by having a closed loop system whereby a buyer and seller both engage in a transaction on SOLELY on this site whereby each transaction is serialized and encapsulated. I have used scripts for classifieds and auctions that did just this sort of thing, however, this software is a message board script AND most of the transactions between buyers and sellers take place outside of this system. The effort to force this software to become something it was not designed to be, and the additional restriction on both buyers and sellers to ONLY provide feedback for transactions that take place on this site, would be overly burdensome to everyone. Seriously, I can't see where I would want to spend a couple of grand to get my programmer to do something like this, only to have everyone decide that they resent the idea that I have straight jacketed them into a system such as it would become.

Let's face the facts. Kingsnake.com has a heck of a lot more traffic in the classifieds then this site does. Would it really be a smart idea for me to lock out those transactions from being pertinent here as to whether someone is a good guy or a bad guy?

Originally Posted by nicolai

if its from people that have requested it be taken down then i can understand the complaints, they did no wrong and have the right to pull out of it.

Yeah, I agree with this in a sense, but the original reason I put up the WITHDRAWN and SUSPENDED categories was because those were to be sort of holding areas for people who may be temporarily pulled or requested to be removed from the system. This could happen from people who had allowed their paid membership to lapse, or perhaps they were just temporarily getting away from the business for a while. This would allow them to just pick up where they left off if they decide they want to with a simply move of the poll back into the active section.

But maybe this is just a useless complication to the system. Once someone is pulled from it, or they ask to be withdrawn, then that certificate number gets retired and will not be recycled. If they decide to come back again, then it would be under an entirely new certificate number. Of course, the issue with this scenario is if someone sees that they are falling into the Bad Guy zone, they may request to be withdrawn, only to pop up again when things have cooled down somewhat. This could be problematical to keep tabs on, I think.

But regardless, I would like to keep the REVOKED section up, simply because I think it is only fair to allow someone who has had their certificate revoked to be able to build their reputation back up, if they are willing and able to do so. Otherwise, how do I handle it? If you get a certificate and fail, are you then PERMANENTLY blocked from ever having another one issued to you? On the other hand, if someone does fall into the Bad Guy zone, is it fair to everyone, and counterproductive to the system in general to just allow them to WITHDRAW from the system and then start afresh at a later date with a clean slate?

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Brian,

Right off the top of my head, I think the voucher style system you are talking about would become a huge pain in the rear. Someone would have to keep track of those vouchers to keep them legitimate, which means some sort of serialized and registered voucher forms. Assuming I would want to be lazy about it, I would want the system programmed into the GGC program so that members could automatically verify their vouchers and then vote using them. Right off hand, I can't think of any good way to automate this and make it fool proof and abuse proof.

Even if I would submit to doing it manually, that means each and every vote on the GGC poll would require that a member submit a request to me with evidence indicating their voucher is legitimate. I would have to verify the voucher, then provide them with some sort of passkey for that one GGC participant, so they could vote there.

Problems I can foresee right off hand are:

• What happens when a seller forgets to provide the voucher in a shipment?
• Does the voucher apply to the WHOLE shipment or per each item in that shipment?
• What happens when the buyer puts in a Good Guy vote the day the animal is received, then a week later it dies and he/she wants to change the vote?
• What happens if in the above situation, the problem gets resolved and the buyer wants to change the vote yet again?
• What happens when a buyer wants to vote, likely a Bad Guy vote, but claims that the seller never provided a voucher?

Personally I get a headache just thinking about it. Yeah if we were talking about a mere dozen participants only sending one or two shipments per year, then it might not be too bad. But suppose someone who sends out dozens or even hundreds of shipments per week is involved? Suppose a DOZEN or more someone's like above is participating in the future? Just handling the details of issuing, keeping track of, and verifying those vouchers would likely become a full time job in itself. So, where in the world would I find the time to administer the details this would entail to make work?

Unfortunately, the only way to keep ONLY customers eligible to vote on a seller (similar to Ebay) is by having a closed loop system whereby a buyer and seller both engage in a transaction on SOLELY on this site whereby each transaction is serialized and encapsulated. I have used scripts for classifieds and auctions that did just this sort of thing, however, this software is a message board script AND most of the transactions between buyers and sellers take place outside of this system. The effort to force this software to become something it was not designed to be, and the additional restriction on both buyers and sellers to ONLY provide feedback for transactions that take place on this site, would be overly burdensome to everyone. Seriously, I can't see where I would want to spend a couple of grand to get my programmer to do something like this, only to have everyone decide that they resent the idea that I have straight jacketed them into a system such as it would become.

Let's face the facts. Kingsnake.com has a heck of a lot more traffic in the classifieds then this site does. Would it really be a smart idea for me to lock out those transactions from being pertinent here as to whether someone is a good guy or a bad guy?

Yeah I started thinking about the whole process after clicking that darn submit reply button and was afraid I would cause you to have a brain aneurysm going over all the loose ends I left open. It is a good idea in theory but for practical applications it would be a HUGE pain in the rear. Plus I forgot you have a programmer you pay so it would be a waste to try it and have it fail. I am sure a couple grand can be better spent on something that would not get shot down and cause issues with members.

And I do fully agree on giving a second chance to those who may fall on the bad side of things if they work to better themselves and their business practices. After all that is the goal we all want to have happen.

And by me not being a big fan of the GGC doesn't mean it isn't a good concept at all. I know you fixed the rep system issues, and the issue with the name calling (which by the way makes me really think about what I am posting for once). These were big steps on improvement, and I am sure it is a constant goal. The only issue I have with it is the fact that member "X" may mess up and scam member "Y" and sell 100% normals as 100% hets for having two tails (off the wall example). Member "Y" goes to the BOI and outs member "X". Well when member "X" owns up to it members rush to give him votes for a bad guy when they were not effected by this scam besides reading through 100 plus pages of posts on the BOI (let's face it issues like this get off topic and beat to death way too much sometimes). Besides that it is a very good concept. But really thinking about it I don't see how it could change without a layout of cash and time and even then it could end up like you said with everyone hating the darn thing.

And honestly fixing the rep system issue and the name calling has been a really big plus. It kind of lessens the whole "mob mentality". And fact is it happens on a lot of forums but being that it is cut down here maybe a trend will start.

I think if it has been revoked due to the community vote that it should stay there for all to see. And perhaps to rebuild their reputation if possible. You knew when you signed up what could happen with the community vote.

The withdrawn and suspended on the other hand..... are a bit of a quandary. One approach would be if their certificate is in good standing and they want to quit then let them. They are only having a "good thing" about them removed. Just keep the certificate in place for 30 (60?, 90?) days after you are notified that they want it removed. That would be a nice safeguard in case they know crap is about to hit the fan. Then if their certificate is still in good standing after the 30 (60?, 90?) day wait period then let it be removed.

Just a thought anyway.

Heck, I don't know. Perhaps just letting someone drop the certificate and be on their way would be best. The whole idea of this is that I hoped that the GGC banner would mean something. So if someone feels that they can't live up to what I want it to be, then let them go, and take it down from their site. Or has also been the case in some instances, someone feels that this site just is not for them, so does not want to be associated with it in any fashion. Then they can certainly be on their way as well.

There are no perfect answers, unfortunately. A good guy can turn bad overnight and there is no way for anyone to be able to predict it. Best you can hope to do is to limit the damage as quickly as you can after the first flags are on the field, via voting on the poll in the GGC section, the Traders Ratings, and putting out warnings on the BOI. I hope in time that having that GGC banner on a website will really come to mean something, and people will eventually take notice and PREFER dealing with people who have it. THEN, and only then will people really strive to KEEP it when they have it.

And yes, I know it can be abused, but I tried to limit that as much as possible by ONLY allowing voting to take place from paid members. I actually thought of this system a couple of years ago, but it would have been ridiculous to implement it before I could place this kind of control on the participation. I'm sure you all remember what the BOI was like before the paid memberships. Can you imagine them all being turned loose on polls that could get someone they just don't like removed from the GGC program?

But even the paid memberships restriction is not perfect, of course. Anyone willing to spend $10 can abuse it at will. And yes, like just about everything else here, it can be a real headache. I don't think it will change the world, but I do hope it will change somethings for the better.

As for this site starting a "trend" in how people post on other sites, I don't know about that one. Until I made the penalties pretty stern, it was darn tough to catch someone's attention about their mannerisms. Unless other sites do the same, I think the "bark with no teeth" could be a problem. What has REALLY helped is the number of people who are acting as eyes here and reporting posts that need to be looked at closely. With that sort of help, it has greatly reduced the need to even consider adding in more moderators. In effect, nearly everyone can now play that role by keeping an eye out for members who are trying to make this an unpleasant place to participate in.

I'm just really glad it seems to be working. This place was really getting me down sometimes.......

Thanks for all of the help I have gotten from you all.

Rich, As one of the people that red lined, I believe that the way it's set up now should stay.. Revoked - Action taken for cause.
Withdrawn - Requested by holder
Suspended - Administrative reasons (fees due, Fauna fines etc.).the way I see it is if a person wants to and I mean really wants to make his/her way back(long Process) to Good Status with that being there will be a reminder that they messed up big time. Thank you for your time

Originally Posted by Clearwater_Reptiles

Rich, As one of the people that red lined, I believe that the way it's set up now should stay.. Revoked - Action taken for cause.
Withdrawn - Requested by holder
Suspended - Administrative reasons (fees due, Fauna fines etc.).the way I see it is if a person wants to and I mean really wants to make his/her way back(long Process) to Good Status with that being there will be a reminder that they messed up big time. Thank you for your time

Yeah, you are probably right. But I think what I might do is to just combine the WITHDRAWN and SUSPENDED sections, as they both imply a temporary condition based on different circumstances. The REVOKED section, however, really should stand alone.

In reflection, the people complaining about what I had done were ALL people who had been suspended or banned from this site for unacceptable behavior here, so certainly they have their own reasons for complaining to me, none of which certainly have this site's best interests at heart. No telling why they are coming around here anyway, but from past exposure to them while they were here, their actions should have been predictable. They were problems while they were here, so I shouldn't be surprised that they would still try to be problems after they have been booted out the door.

But all things being considered, I would just as soon not give them ANY exposure on this site in that fashion or have them associated with the GGC program, even in a "has-been" status. Plus for the first couple of certificates that got removed, I recycled the numbers for subsequent entries, so the original ones could not be returned to active status anyway. From here on out, certificate numbers will just be retired if they go to inactive status, regardless of the reasons.

Originally Posted by shavemycoinpurse

Revoked - Action taken for cause.
Withdrawn - Requested by holder
Suspended - Administrative reasons (fees due, Fauna fines etc.).

Personally, I agree with this idea. We all are humans, and therefor prone to mistakes. Some of us learn from those mistakes, and make an effort to rectify them, others do not. If this was publicized it could have a bearing on determining future business dealings, for we would be able to see that X or Y has realized their mistake, and either is, or is not, attempting to rectify this. A person who realizes a mistake and humbly rectifies this mistake, is to be commended. It speaks of good strong character.
But what do I know? LOL Apparently it is a lot of work from what I have read. How about a trusted deligate who's sole purpose is to the GGC program? Maybe 2? Like I said, I know not exactly how much effort it takes on your part.

As for the whinners...........Let 'em cry. I know this would annoy the hell out of Me also, but you know what? Accountability is a key ingrediant to maturity. We must all be held accountable for our actions. Part of being a responsible person is stepping up to the plate and dealing with our errors. You would be doing them a favor (however unappreciative they may be) in the long run.

I DO NOT however support the idea of the community vote in these matters. If X and Y do a business deal that falls out, X screws Y, then Y should be the only voter. Not Y's friends A thru M, for this would not be fair and accurate if all the concerned parties friends voted against them also. They were not part of the deal. I am all for community input (BOI) for there are many people here with different ideas and one or more actually may prove helpful. But nobody except the buyer should be able to vote good or bad towards the GGC.


Just My $0.025
Rick