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

[Sasheena]

Bill, in regards to your latest question, that will have to be answered by WebSlave... it's a good question and I hope that an adequate answer is forthcoming.

I think, however, that you will find that since this is all "new" that there might be some vagueness in the reply, since it is something that hasn't happened. I have wondered that myself.

Matt, I believe that while your point is also valid, that that ability is coverd in the trader rating section and in the reputation points. To get a poll to include comments would require special programming ($$) and is not likely to happen since it's covered in several other places.

In particular, I believe this has been covered in that the GGC is "BOI Lite" ... you state your most CONCISE opinion... "Bad Guy" or "Good Guy"... if you want to state it more clearly, you go to the badguy or goodguy thread in the BOI and expand on your selection there.

 

[WebSlave]

OK now I know This question wasn't answered, If you wind up in the negative and bring it back to positive and you still don't want the ribbon then what is the same as you have the 30 days to put it on a website or lose it ??? just curious

This is a valid question.

Honestly, I just never thought it through about what SHOULD happen. What best serves the purpose of the system? Does removing someone who was a good guy work better then leaving it up there for people to view? I mean, it's not like someone would voluntarily put a Bad Guy Certification banner on their website.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that people know that someone who has applied for the certification has failed to REMAIN a good guy? Anyone with a negative Traders Rating just will not get accepted into the program from the start. But is it beneficial for people to KNOW about this sort of situation?

My gut reaction is to remove it after a short period of time, but honestly, I'm just not certain what is BEST to do.

So honestly, no, I am not sure at all of the best way to handle this. This is the sort of thing you normally only figure out in hindsight. So you all tell me. What do you think is BEST to do?

Oh about one of the mods removing that Certification thread. It was my recommendation to NOT do that. The entire purpose of the polls and ratings is that it allows all of the members to vote on a person or business. Having myself or one of the mods remove the thread prior to the votes showing the fall into the Bad Guy category would place US into the position of being judges in these matters. Personally, I don't want it to happen that way. We are only going to be the caretakers of the system, and it will be YOU all that make the decisions about whether someone remains certified or not.

Anyway, I hope this help explains it a bit. To be honest, I am getting into MY busy season and I am just not going to be able to involve myself in long discussions like this for a while. I will try to step in when I can, but please understand that this is the time of year that I have to pull back from here to take care of other things.

 

[KelliH]

Does removing someone who was a good guy work better then leaving it up there for people to view?

Yes, in my opinion.

 

[Bill_Leverton]

This is a valid question.
Honestly, I just never thought it through about what SHOULD happen. What best serves the purpose of the system? Does removing someone who was a good guy work better then leaving it up there for people to view? I mean, it's not like someone would voluntarily put a Bad Guy Certification banner on their website.Is it a good thing or a bad thing that people know that someone who has applied for the certification has failed to REMAIN a good guy? Anyone with a negative Traders Rating just will not get accepted into the program from the start. But is it beneficial for people to KNOW about this sort of situation? My gut reaction is to remove it after a short period of time, but honestly, I'm just not certain what is BEST to do.
So honestly, no, I am not sure at all of the best way to handle this. This is the sort of thing you normally only figure out in hindsight. So you all tell me. What do you think is BEST to do? Oh about one of the mods removing that Certification thread. It was my recommendation to NOT do that. The entire purpose of the polls and ratings is that it allows all of the members to vote on a person or business. Having myself or one of the mods remove the thread prior to the votes showing the fall into the Bad Guy category would place US into the position of being judges in these matters. Personally, I don't want it to happen that way. We are only going to be the caretakers of the system, and it will be YOU all that make the decisions about whether someone remains certified or not. Anyway, I hope this help explains it a bit. To be honest, I am getting into MY busy season and I am just not going to be able to involve myself in long discussions like this for a while. I will try to step in when I can, but please understand that this is the time of year that I have to pull back from here to take care of other things.

Rich, It explains it All Thanks Now I'll go back to being quiet.....

 

[shrap]

Rich,

Personally I think that the Good Guy Cert is just one of three valuable tools here. The Trader Rating and the BOI itself being the other two. The three used together should give everyone a clear picture of a person or business.

So in this particular case I say that you should just remove Bill from the Good Guy program completely. He is now ineligible for it. There should be no trace that he was ever in it. The BOI will take care of why Bill does not have a CERT. The Good Guy Program should just be about Good Guys. The BOI will take care of the bad.

Those are my thoughts about it.

 

[ms_terese]

Honestly, I just never thought it through about what SHOULD happen. What best serves the purpose of the system? Does removing someone who was a good guy work better then leaving it up there for people to view? I mean, it's not like someone would voluntarily put a Bad Guy Certification banner on their website.

I think removing them entirely is a bad move, because it removes historical information. I think you might want to consider changing something in their listing, even as minor as font color on their name or something, to indicate "Inactive Member". This could be used for companies that violated the terms of agreement when they signed up for the GGC (displaying the banner,etc.) or those, like Bill, that wish to "resign" their membership in the program. However, it will allow people to see that they once were a member, and see the last activity.

 

[shrap]

I think removing them entirely is a bad move, because it removes historical information. I think you might want to consider changing something in their listing, even as minor as font color on their name or something, to indicate "Inactive Member". This could be used for companies that violated the terms of agreement when they signed up for the GGC (displaying the banner,etc.) or those, like Bill, that wish to "resign" their membership in the program. However, it will allow people to see that they once were a member, and see the last activity.

All you are removing is a poll. And besides, you mean to tell me that once you sign up for this program that you are stuck in it for life? That when you sign up for it that you lose your right to choose for yourself? Sorry but no program on some web site is EVER going to take away my rights to choose for myself. Sounds more like the Mafia than a Good Guy program.

 

[Bill_Leverton]

And besides, you mean to tell me that once you sign up for this program that you are stuck in it for life? That when you sign up for it that you lose your right to choose for yourself? Sorry but no program on some web site is EVER going to take away my rights to choose for myself. Sounds more like the Mafia than a Good Guy program.

That was my thought Sammy But Like someone said in the other post I am non-confrontational and which ever way this goes, It really doesn't matter to me

 

[shrap]

Bill,

I am just glad this came up before my website goes public here in the next month or two....

 

[WebSlave]

As in many things, this is not as simple as some people would wish to make it.

Let's use Bill as an example, shall we?

Bill was a member in good standing when he applied for his certification. I accepted the application based on his Trader Ratings, since that is really all I had to go on, and realistically that is ALL I have to go on with anyone else who does apply for the certification. Things were just fine until very recently, which is obviously being used as a test case for the entire program.

So ,now that Bill has hit a rough spot and his POLL shows a negative value, he has lost his certification in this program. But take a look at his Traders Rating. It is still green all across the board. Suppose I do as some people suggest and delete his entry in the program. Does that mean that the next day he can reapply for certification? If he does, what do I do? ALL evidence that I use to determine suitability for taking part within the BOI Good Guy Certification program has been deleted. SHOULD I then just go ahead and set him up all anew with a new certificate? Is that fair to do? Is that the RIGHT thing to do?

Then lets look at this from another angle. Bill, fell off the wagon, which certainly could possibly happen to anyone. Once this happens, and bearing in mind the above mentioned scenario, does that mean he can NEVER take part in the program ever again? Without having the feedback that the poll affords, which can also be used by Bill as a goal to get it back into the green, there is virtually no way that he could ever prove that he has, in fact, turned things around. How should I handle him re-applying two weeks from now? A month from now? 5 years from now? Will I even remember all this 5 years later? Does time alone change a bad guy determination in a case like this? Just HOW should I handle something like this? Do we just assume that a "bad guy" (meaning ineligible to take part in this program again) has some arbitrary time limit that wipes the slate clean?

So what are you all asking me to do when you suggest that I remove him from the program completely? Are you seriously suggesting that he should be assumed to NEVER be able to be a good guy again? Because from my perspective, that is exactly what is being suggested here. Does anyone seriously think it would be fair to do it that way? Does anyone think that this is the RIGHT way to handle this situation?

Where is the simple answer that some people seem to think is lurking in the resolution of this problem?

 

[Bill_Leverton]

My simple answer is if it's pulled, I will not reapply for it.Cant get no simpler then that.

 

[shrap]

The simple answer is that Bill should be ineligible for the program one year. If Bill wishes to re-apply at that point he should be able to. Then once again the community, via their votes when he re-applies, will decide if they believe he is worthy of the Good Guy Cert.

 

[shrap]

My simple answer is if it's pulled, I will not reapply for it.Cant get no simpler then that.

This really is not just about you directly Bill, you just happen to be the precedent. This is about how the future of this program is going to evolve and how similar situations will be handled.

 

[Jim O]

The simple answer is that Bill should be ineligible for the program one year. If Bill wishes to re-apply at that point he should be able to. Then once again the community, via their votes when he re-applies, will decide if they believe he is worthy of the Good Guy Cert.

Once again, Sammy is a voice of intelligent reason. I agree with this approach.

 

[Wilomn]

Let's see.

There are minimum standards that must be kept to maintain a GGC. K, got that.

There are standards that must be met to get it in the first place. K, got that.

This is a private website that only gives the GGC to those who meet the standards and request insertion (heh heh heh) to the program. K, got that.

I do think that a certificate, once given, should be available forever on this site. I also think that the history of that certificate should be available forever on this site. Perhaps a BRIGHT RED highlight on those who fall below the minimum standards, and I'd bet that Bill won't be the first, would be sufficient to differentiate those still in good standing from those who are no longer meeting the standard orginally agreed to.

Bill's case is interesting because he DOES have a good trader rating. Technically he's still a good guy. NOW public opinion has spoken and IT says he's not.

He still meets the standard of a good guy, yes? According to the rules he orginally agreed to play this game by is he not still rated as a good guy? I am speaking ONLY of the rules NOT any other action he is involved in.

Fine tuning is indeed needed.

I think that a certificate should ALWAYS be available to the general public whether or not it's green. Red, grey for the inbetweeners, perhaps a nice salmon bisque for those on the mend, whatever, but once here I think it should be permanant. This will, in the long run, better the program because those who apply will know that it is forever, no matter what they do.

This program works already as is evidenced by those who have NOT asked to be given this certificate. Look at those who have voted negative on mine and ponder why THEY do not have such certificates. It's weeding out the scumbags already.

When you first go to High School you sort of have an idea of how things will work from past schooling experiance, talking to other students who have been to high school and, if you're any smarter than a box of rocks, your innate ability to deduce by thought alone. THEN you get there are realize that there are SO many interactions and influences and FACTIONS both aligned and opposed and none of them very solid that you have to learn all over again what you thought you knew.

Well, the new year started not too long ago and we're still figuring out how to incorporate what we knew then with what we know now.

It WILL work itself out eventually, we just have to keep level headed and work it through without all the rancor that has followed Bill's hiccup in the system.

Keep them all, differentiate them by color or some other easily identifiable method.

 

[Bill_Leverton]

I'm sorry I didn't mean to come off as it being about me I'm just stating that if it does happen I wont reapply that's all

 

[shrap]

I do think that a certificate, once given, should be available forever on this site.

Any program that takes away my right to choose for myself is not a program that I want to be a part of. By saying that it is there forever, whether I want it there or not, is taking away my right to choose for myself.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin

 

[Wilomn]

THIS is a private site and that certificate is ONLY available by REQUEST. It lends to validity if the requestor knows that it will be here FOREVER.

The rules should be plain and FOLLOWED.

 

[shrap]

THIS is a private site and that certificate is ONLY available by REQUEST. It lends to validity if the requestor knows that it will be here FOREVER.

The rules should be plain and FOLLOWED.

Did the rules say, before Bill signed up, that it would be there for Life? Or is that being added after the fact?

Any rule change that occurs after the person signs up should also come with the option for the participants to remove themselves from the program.

 

[dragonflyreptiles]

this is from the GGC thread about applying and use of the certificate etc.


"When this information has been received, you will receive via email or private message an acceptance of your application along with the HTML code to provide a banner certificate that is linked directly to the thread set up in this forum. At that point you are accepted on a probationary basis pending feedback on the poll and Trader's Rating. If at the end of 30 days you are not showing a satisfactory rating (greater or equal then 0) or your website does NOT have the certificate prominently displaying on it, your right to have possession of this certificate will be withdrawn."