Just one opinion here.
Scott, referencing Ian, asks:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian S.
I feel as though it was the karma points and the GGC portion that failed and needs some reassesment
.
How do you think the Good Guy Certification failed in this situation?
Ian has his reply, and I agree that once a GGC is yanked that it would be nice to see an across-the-board wiping of that individual ... kind of like the old Chuck Conners series "Branded" where McCord lost it all ! Hate calling it "old".
Some of us place very little faith in a GGC, although many who have received it are certainly good folks and full of integrity. It is flawed in our views precisely because any Tom-Dick-or Harry can vote someone as a good guy, and seem to have used very little criteria IMO in awarding it to one such as Chris. Most folks awarded it just as they would have a trader-rating point. I say this because so few (if any) of the 61 original affirmatives ever met this guy, been to his "storefront", or knew anything about him other than what Chris fed them. A few deals where you get what you pay for does not qualify as a voucher for integrity to a few of us. While many assume that GGC relates to integrity, I acknowledge that the actual label makes no such claim, and as Rich has pointed out, is solely for the use of members as they see fit. We give it, and we take it away. Those very familiar with Fauna might hold it in a more proper perspective, especially after having seen a few GGC's fall of late, but to the less-informed, they are likely more easily impressed by it. Rich and I and others had debated "bad guy" labels a while back, and it didn't fly as it is a more complicated thing than one might assume, but I have to applaud Rich for the "revoked certificates" area, which accomplishes the same thing without all the legal concerns.
I cannot buy the assertion that there was no reason to doubt Chris as relating to his qualifying for a GGC, if that is how it was intended. My personal standard in the awarding of a GGC is not that you have no knowledge of that person doing wrong, or a few proper deals, and that they therefore qualify for a "GG" vote. I would take exception to a standard that was "lacking anything bad, it must be good" to get a GGC vote. As I have cast my vote the few times that I have, I wish that such a vote meant that I was vouching for someone's integrity based on a broader experience with that entity.
It will remain "to each his own criteria" in voting a GGC. My guess is that a few won't be so hasty with their votes in the future, but it is also unfortunate that so many were awarded based on minimal criteria. Anyone that may want to debate that a few transactions, some internet dialogue, and maybe even a few phone calls makes a GGC ......... sorry, but my ears are deaf to such, although others may engage you.
(Was it mature).....No. The only thing he had to say about me was his repetative stabs at the age descrimination of a paticular person. He knows nothing of me therefore had no arsonal against me other than some week emails that he never even posted after I blatently told him to do so. I took my expeirience with him as a learning one. Nothing more! You would have clearly seen this had he done so. I.. as the others felt as though I wouldhave just been cutting off my own head, and loosing the respect of all the other great peers & members of this awesome community. 
