Hall Of Shame

[rob3232]

I think that we need facts and not name calling. Rating system was nice and not 100 %. I'll follow whatever you come up with. I think the best way to help when something happens to a member is that other members pick up where the "bad person" left them. Community.... It would be nice to have a thread or whatever it is called for someone to post a maybe bad deal going on that is off forum? Just my 2 cents.

P.S. Edit Silly. Who would vote "NO"

 

[barry richardson]

I'm for a hall of shame, no reservations......

 

[Blueglass]

Maybe make it mods only so only after significant evidence it is used. Then it cannot be used for bashing. The mods can discuss it privately before deciding. I'm for it. I guess I can be nieve I never even thought about getting ripped even dealing with members from other countries.

 

[Kevin]

Maybe make it mods only so only after significant evidence it is used. Then it cannot be used for bashing. The mods can discuss it privately before deciding. I'm for it. I guess I can be nieve I never even thought about getting ripped even dealing with members from other countries.

Please re-read my original post carefully. If everyone would have done this, this would be a real short thread. I don't mean to be harsh at all I swear that is not my intent, but 90% of what has been typed in this thread was already covered in my original post.

 

[Blueglass]

The funny part I had but then after reading all the other posts that was the conclusion I came to. No offense taken.

 

[Kevin]

The funny part I had but then after reading all the other posts that was the conclusion I came to. No offense taken.

I can relate. After reading most of the other posts I was thrown for an absolute loop myself. I thought I might be on another planet or something. I am going to have to reread my original post tomorrow and see how I could have better expressed what I thought was a clear and well-defined message, yet gotten a torrid of replies some of which seemed to be from members that didn't even read my post at all or at least understand its intent.

This is an issue too important to "scan". That information was in my OP also.

 

[SENC]

Take all these responses as affirmation, not as arguments or new ideas, Kevin. My read on nearly all the comments (and certainly the way I intended mine) was that they generally agreed with your message, so I assumed most had read yours (I could be wrong, though I rarely am).

Personally, the messages affirmed for me why I like this site - you, the admins and mods, and the founding and long-term members have fostered a culture where people who are honest and well-intentioned can trade/buy/sell with confidence and, maybe more importantly, can have open and honest dialogue and poke at each other in jest without too much feather-ruffling. I also appreciated that nearly every comment, while supporting the concept, has included at bias towards trusting each other and giving the benefit of doubt - which I read all through your initial post, too. Not to sound namby-pamby or kick off a round of Kumbayah, but I think this thread should feel rewarding to you and other site "leaders".

 

[khobson]

A yes from me....seems that you have put significant thought into this idea and I feel confident that you (read entire admin/mod group) will facilitate any adjustments/tweaks that may be found necessary once implemented. The guidelines you set forth seem sufficient....especially considering nothing short of a list the length of the unabridged dictionary can possibly account for every single possibility that "may" occur!

 

[NYWoodturner]

I find a lot of comfort in the fact that this thread is only about 4 hours old and one of the most active on WB. That tells me what I already knew - We have a lot of great folks who are very passionate about and protective of a strong culture of integrity. That is the foundation of the community here.
Reading through the responses and the emotion behind a lot of them I see an overwhelming response of support. I voted yes. I strongly believe we have an obligation to protect each other, and think when hammered out this will give a more focused way of doing so. I also think that if you really stop and think it through, both sides of the argument are covered in Kevin's proposal. Like Kevin said - keep your reposes coming. They provide a LOT of insight

 

[ironman123]

Greg(Treecycle Hardwoods) last post here seems pretty fair to me and Tony(Tclem) post is one that I have thought about since this whole idea started and is a very important point. Those are my thoughts and I am glad I am not a member of the staff cuz I wouldn't want make that call. You'all got a tough job sometimes. Well that is my 21 cents worth.

Ray

Now that I have read pages 2 and 3 I feel better about it. Bravo for Kevin for covering the "law" aspect of any repercussion from that person or any future people on the list.

I personally (who am I) think there has been enough feedback on the subvject for the Staff to make their decission yea or nay on Kevin's proposal......now I am going back to Wood Bartering.

Ray

 

[ButchC]

I had dealings with our first nominee, and did not voice my negative opinion in any open forum, or to anyone else except Mr Turd. I wasn't wronged in any way, the guy just pissed me off and I decided not to deal with him anymore at all. Where does that fall in the scheme of things? I don't want to be a whiny tattletale, but I also feel that if I had mentioned to someone that I had a bad feeling about this guy, maybe someone else wouldn't have been taken advantage of...especially those that were very new, and this may have been their first buy or trade here on WB.

Butch.

PS - cant we all just trade some wood and get along??? (That's a joke, seriously)

 

[bench1holio]

hang 'em high I says....where everyone can see!

 

[manbuckwal]

Yes, for a banned list . As mentioned there would be verbiage in the thread header or in the rules or both outlining what infractions would/ could lead an individual to end up on the list and I have the utmost confidence that the Mods would investigate the matter thoroughly before putting someone on the banned list. I don't feel there should be any "public" (non-Mod/Admin ) comments posted . Simply a thread showing individuals who have been banned by our WB Admin .........

I have no doubt 99.99% of the members here will continue to look out for one another's best interests !

 

[Mike Jones]

It would be easy to feel fiercely protective of our WB family. It would be wise to step back, sleep on this for a week or so. Make changes and decisions based on sound and reasoned principles. Set the emotional reactions aside and come back to them after chopping some wood or shooting some targets. Decide for what will work going forward. Forget what has passed.

 

[Molokai]

So, after reading all this i have one question:
Kevin, you want to make a hall of shame - to qoute you :It will help others avoid these rascals.
but you said later they will be banned and not possible to trade. Is this to protect people from outside? and why

I like hall of shame just to be here so people will see that we are serious. As a warning to others BUT if someone wants to fool you he will fool you.
I dont know how much damage did the person do. You have much more information then the rest of us. How can we judge others when we dont have all the information.
Looks like you are pissed off for reason so.... i am with you, and i know you will do the best for the Forum.

I am a member of 5 forums and i have only 2 that i made over 500 posts, but this has been the best ride for me.
People here are very nice and trying to help others. That i dont see on some other forums. One of the main reasons i am here....

 

[Hawker 1]

I am for it. Call it the Woodrats list. If you don't know what a wood rat is ,some call them packrats. But then they are not bad rodents and live out in the woods mostly . MMMM maybe sewerrats list would be better.

 

[Kevin]

So, after reading all this i have one question:
Kevin, you want to make a hall of shame - to qoute you :It will help others avoid these rascals.
but you said later they will be banned and not possible to trade. Is this to protect people from outside? ...

The hall of shame would have only members that have purposely scammed another member/s or they have violated the rules so egregiously that they merit being publicly identified. The staff will determine who meets the criteria. Not all banned members would necessarily be on the list, but everyone on the list will have already been banned.

I like hall of shame just to be here so people will see that we are serious. As a warning to others BUT if someone wants to fool you he will fool you.
....

Yes it would be a great example to other potential con men or dead beats that they would be exposed, and ideally would help them decide to take their shenannigans elsewhere. But yes, when someone wants to fool you it is not possible to prevent it 100%.

...
I dont know how much damage did the person do. You have much more information then the rest of us. How can we judge others when we dont have all the information...

Some things I cannot say. For example, if I knew a member was a gambling addict and that it was most likely the cause of his scamming people to get more money to throw away at casino's, I should probably not say it. I could only let you know he has scammed these members x, y, and z but not why I think he has even though I may have firsthand knowledge from various sources that he is a compulsive gambler. This is just an example. But when someone plans a in-your-face "get-away" like our first soon-to-be inductee, and he knows he has collected money from members and never returns their emails, PMs, or phone calls after extensive and repeated attempts, that alone is enough for you to know this guy deserves to be on the list - what more would you need to know. Even if we find someone has since been hospitalized, before any misfortune that may have befallen him he left a clear, vast, indisputable message to us that he intentionally scammed some of us and threw it in our face.

Once he did that, no matter what has or hasn't happened to him since then, he deserves to be named publicly simply so others may be able to avoid him. The woodworking forums community is not all that big and most members belong to more than one forum. Even under a different user name someone like that isn't hard to spot because their modus operandi is usually the same. He may get to someone else on another forum, but the more exposed he is then the less likely he can keep doing the same kind of damage at least to the same extent.

I am a member of 5 forums and i have only 2 that i made over 500 posts, but this has been the best ride for me.
People here are very nice and trying to help others. That i dont see on some other forums. One of the main reasons i am here....

I hope you stay a long time. And to keep it warm and fuzzy and as scammer-free as possible, that's the intent of the HOS, not to try to "get back" at someone, but to expose them for what they are to hopefully keep them from stealing from others because really, that's all they are, thieves.

 

[Tim M]

Being a new member here, and having made zero trades I'm not sure if i really have a say but here ya go anyway.

I didn't vote either way. To be honest I would think that simply banning the ner'do'well is enough. Maybe a small post about it, simply stating that said person is gone for taking advantage should be enough. I think if this is a tight knit group - which it certainly seems to be - everyone is already looking out for each other. Does it do anyone any good to name and shame these people? Maybe in the short term but long term I'm not sure, they'd be gone either way. Think about those in your circle of friends outside the internet, you may talk about those who have slighted you for a brief period of time but it blows over fast enough. I tend to think of this the same way. I get that people can feel angry and I'm not one to say if they should or shouldn't but I worry that things like this can tarnish the whole.

Just my .02, no change needed. =)

 

[Kevin]

38 to zero. I believe we have a quorum to put it mildly. Another lively debate as well it should have been. Thanks to all who gave their thoughts.