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

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

I've read it, unless he's changed it in the last day it does not specifically say that.

Print the EXACT sentence where it says you DON'T have to have a transaction.

Karen,

Asked and answered. Maybe it would help if you got down off your podium and read what was written in direct response to your question.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

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.

Originally Posted by JimO

Print the EXACT sentence where it EVER said that you HAD to.

I already did but just for you here it is again.

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

On the GOOD GUY CERTIFICATION thread it specifically says: And when you have completed your transaction, be certain to come back here and place YOUR vote on the person you have done business with in order to keep the accounting as current as possible.

Karen,

Does that say that you CANNOT post if you haven't? Not in the English they taught me in school. But if you have ANY questions, read what I posted ALREADY.

Originally Posted by Jim O

Karen,
Asked and answered. Maybe it would help if you got down off your podium and read what was written in direct response to your question.

Jim, I know you can read but comprehension is not your forte. That is NOT what we're talking about here. What is being talked about here is why one day nonpaying members can vote on the cert. and the next they can't. The other question has been answered and you didn't have to reprint it either because I got it the first time.

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

Jim, I know you can read but comprehension is not your forte. That is NOT what we're talking about here. What is being talked about here is why one day nonpaying members can vote on the cert. and the next they can't. The other question has been answered and you didn't have to reprint it either because I got it the first time.

Karen,

Have you gone off the deep end? This is what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

I've read it, unless he's changed it in the last day it does not specifically say that.

Print the EXACT sentence where it says you DON'T have to have a transaction.

This is what you asked, not about whether you have to be a paying member.

Originally Posted by Jim O

Karen,

That NEVER changed. Read what Rich wrote. It was NEVER intended to require a transaction.

Dude you're really pushing me here. I asked the question BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU WROTE ABOVE. Yes it DID CHANGE so quit twisting things around.

From what I understand, Rich has stated explicitly that you MAY post your opinion on the GGC polls if you so desire.

Also, there was a brief period of time where non-paying members could post their opinion, but this was a VERY brief period of time.

Oh SSSSUUUUURRRRE, when I ask if anyone wants to argue semantics, nobody takes me up, but you two are more than willing to duke it out. I see how it is. lol, but can you just agree that ya both interpreted it differently and let it go?

p..pp...ppleeeaase?

I do not think the fall from grace was fatal to the Good Guy Certificates.

Originally Posted by Karen Hulvey

Dude you're really pushing me here. I asked the question BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU WROTE ABOVE. Yes it DID CHANGE so quit twisting things around.

No Karen, it NEVER changed. He has not edited those words and has NEVER required a transaction.

What happened was, when Rich opened the BOI back to non-paying members about 10 days ago or so he also allowed non-paying members to vote in the certification poll. That lasted maybe a week. The text of what was said NEVER changed, DUDE.

No, pay attention. This is what Rich said earlier in this thread regarding whether non-paying members could vote in the good guy certification.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Because upon reading this thread yesterday (in between Comcast dropping out) I realized that having the voting open to members who could likely be false IDs is not in the best interests of the people participating in the BOI Good Guy Certification Program. This includes not only the people who would be the ones having the certificates, but also the people who may be inclined to use the system as a guide for who they may consider doing business with.

And yes, sometimes I do change my mind about things.

Now Dude, what exactly is your question?

Originally Posted by Jim O

No Karen, it NEVER changed. He has not edited those words and has NEVER required a transaction.

What happened was, when Rich opened the BOI back to non-paying members about 10 days ago or so he also allowed non-paying members to vote in the certification poll. That lasted maybe a week. The text of what was said NEVER changed, DUDE.

No, pay attention. This is what Rich said earlier in this thread regarding whether non-paying members could vote in the good guy certification.Now Dude, what exactly is your question?

WHAT DID CHANGE IS THE FACT THAT ONE DAY NONPAYING MEMBERS COULD VOTE AND THEN THEY COULD NOT VOTE. THAT IS WHAT CHANGED. Do you get it now or should I type it even slower and bigger?

I'm done with this. All you hypocrites can debate youreselves. I've made my point.

Sorry Paul, Sasheena, Sirenofthestorm, and even Webslave.