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

[shrap]

No, it makes it an accurate picture of how paying members view a company, not necessarily reality. And as for the claim that paying members are biased, I think anyone only needs to look at the recent ousting of a good guy to someone who made a "bad guy" mistake and how many "regular" members didn't question him as vigorously as they would an unknown to see how there people interpret a bias. Another example would be several "regulars" standing up for a company they knew only by reputation (as they could not recognize the owner from several clear pics of him doing something that is clearly not safe or ethical) and berating a kid for not apologizing, and then themselves not apologizing when the situation became crystal clear.

You are either full of complete BS, a troll, ignorant of reality or brainwashed by your TRR girlfriends.

Bill was questioned, proof compiled and then he admitted it. How many "vigorously" asked questions do you need to ask a man that has pleaded guilty? He killed himself in this business to any and all reputable people. Yep that is biased.

And as far as NERD goes, the reason the kid caught some flack in the beginning is because he was posting all of this as second hand info and when asked for clarification he said it was not his problem. If you accuse people of stuff you should damn well be ready to answer any questions people have about your accusations.

You have done a fine job of trying to twist all of that to suit your conspiracy theory, but in the end it is still just your fantasy. Not reality.

 

[Sasheena]

I think anyone only needs to look at the recent ousting of a good guy to someone who made a "bad guy" mistake and how many "regular" members didn't question him as vigorously as they would an unknown to see how there people interpret a bias.

I normally get to the end of a thread before adding my opinion, but I felt like adding something here.

I think that there is a misconception here that needs to be clarified.

Let's look at an example:

Member A is a "nobody" and also a bad guy, and vehemently denies this, heaping lies, insults, and whining complaints of cliques one on top of the other on top of the other. He gets torn to absolute shreds.

Member B is a bad guy, but somebody that is considered a good guy until his crime is exposed. While he tries to cover it up in the beginning, it is not very long at all before he confesses to his crime. He does not heap insults, try to cover it up beyond the first effort, does not denigrate the membership, he takes his lumps and is meek about it. He gets torn to shreds by some of the members, but others stop the feeding frenzy short of ripping him to bits.

NOW.... this looks like preferential behaviour to some... and infact sparks them to a huge further feeding frenzy and accusations of favoritism.

Frankly, I see no reason to continue to rip apart someone who has already kneeled at my feet with his jugular exposed saying: "Rip out my throat". Where's the fun in that? Where's the justice?

People THINK they see favoritism because Member B has not been torn to shreds... but he hasn't DONE the same things that Member A did. See the Pete Perez thread(s) or other threads of some of the most notorious bad guys out there... they don't ever confess their guilt, at least not with ten other unconfessed crimes waiting to be pulled out of the woodwork. They slam the membership, they creep, skulk, and slime their way aroiund the board, and are justifiably torn to shreds. And when people see this doesn't happen to Member B they think they see something that just isn't there.

Anyway, this was my sudden revelation. I think I see why people see favoritism when it isn't there. Sorry if my post was repetetive... and someone else already probably pointed this out. Now I'll go finish reading the thread.

 

[Wilomn]

I suspect, may be wrong but I don't think so, that when this is brought up it is directed more towards me than anyone else.

The Quote:
Quote:
I think anyone only needs to look at the recent ousting of a good guy to someone who made a "bad guy" mistake and how many "regular" members didn't question him as vigorously as they would an unknown to see how there people interpret a bias.


I think that those of you who want to tell ME, or anyone else for that matter but mostly ME, what to do and how I should do it, who I should ream a new one for, you who wish to make me act a certain way or NOT act a certain way to satisfy your own needs, to you I say, once again, PISS OFF.

I do not play favorites.

There IS something not quite right about clearwater. When I know, if I ever know, what it is THEN I will decide whether or not I acted as I should with him.

WHO THE HELL ARE ANY OF YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO THINK???

I decide each and every INDIVIDUAL time what I will do and why I am doing it. You arrogant nimrods have no clue and until you get one or two would be better off remaining silent instead of proving old sayings true.

NOW, if ANYONE has a problem with how I handled Bill, feel free to start a thread about it and if I think you've got a point I'll join in. But, ASSuming that favoritism is in practice, that bias is in effect and widespread, well, you're wrong. Not for the first time apparently but hopefully one of the last for at least the near future.

Now, what was this thread about again?

 

[WebSlave]

Wendy, real quick, what I meant by that was "anyone, regardless of whether they have or have not done business with the business they're voting on." Does that make it clearer?

Yes, it makes it clearer, but still leaves unanswered about how limiting votes to actual business transactions could possibly be enforced. Just how exactly would you recommend that this be done? Have you read my previous arguments about why, even if this were feasible, that I do not think it would be the best avenue to take? My opinion has not changed since I posted that argument.

As for your choosing not to pay the minimum $10 membership fee, that is fine with me. Everyone here is welcome to make their own choices based on what they want to get out of this site.

 

[Karen Hulvey]

Wendy, when Rich made his changes to the site after his "affair" with Chris he very briefly opened it up to all registered members.

Thank you, an answer.

It looked really shady that nonpaying members could vote up until the time it was decided that you didn't have to have a business dealing w/a person to cast a vote and then poof, only paying members can vote.

 

[Jim O]

Karen,

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

 

[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.

 

[Jim O]

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.

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

 

[Dennis Hultman]

You are either full of complete BS, a troll, ignorant of reality or brainwashed by your TRR girlfriends.

Bill was questioned, proof compiled and then he admitted it. How many "vigorously" asked questions do you need to ask a man that has pleaded guilty? He killed himself in this business to any and all reputable people. Yep that is biased.

And as far as NERD goes, the reason the kid caught some flack in the beginning is because he was posting all of this as second hand info and when asked for clarification he said it was not his problem. If you accuse people of stuff you should damn well be ready to answer any questions people have about your accusations.

You have done a fine job of trying to twist all of that to suit your conspiracy theory, but in the end it is still just your fantasy. Not reality.

Excellent Quote above. Worthy of quoting just to see it again.

I could not have said it better.

 

[WebSlave]

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.

Hmm, you are right. And I also never specifically stated that you cannot live outside of the planet Earth, or cannot have green colored hair, either.....

 

[Jim O]

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.

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.

 

[Karen Hulvey]

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

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

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.

 

[Jim O]

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.

 

[Karen Hulvey]

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.

 

[Jim O]

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:

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.

 

[Karen Hulvey]

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.

 

[Sasheena]

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.

 

[PaulSage]

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.

 

[Jim O]

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.

Rich, I'm curious, why are only paid members able to vote now? That's not how it was last night, why the change?

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?

 

[Karen Hulvey]

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.