31-03-2018, 01:35 AM
Thanks for your time winter, and an understandable approach, it would be dangerous for the development to team set a precedent on forced compensation for mishandled items.
However, it is an equally dangerous precedent to allow ostensibly poor record keeping to justify dubious transactions, especially when you must admit the party who wrong did had walked out of this room having benefited entirely without punishment from the misdoing.
In my time at VLKA, record keeping was not an issue and everyone knew whose items belonged to whom. Woody even belonged to the house a short while that i was still in it. When I left the house, Woody contacted you/reported me to check ownership of items that belonged to me. It goes without saying that he could have easily contacted you again to check where the item he ostensibly believed to have come from thin air actually came from. He did not do this, to the best of my knowledge, he made no attempt to perceive whom the item belonged to.
I believe this to be the nail in the coffin in Woody's defence.
Had he made just and relevant enquires to where the item came from and discovered nothing, I would stand to say that he had done enough to satisfy any requirement of attempting to locate the relevant owner and I would not be here right now writing this lengthy response.
Because he did not do this, because he sold the item with what i believe to be the full knowledge that it did not belong to him I would suggest to you that he is in violation of the trading rules, in particular rule 3.
In essence, and as stated above, I feel that it would be in the best interests of future matters in line with what has transpired here to set a example of what will happen to people which improperly mishandle items, especially house leaders who are under more obligations to record appropriately which items belong to whom.
To say that a house member would be at fault for not properly recording the ownership details of every item in VLKA and set an example of them instead of the house leadership is in my biased opinion an unfair precedent to set. I had records of the item purchase, at the time we kept a spreadsheet drafted by Handef (former house leadership) which contained an ownership minded itemisation of the bank items. Because new leadership have been more tardy in their management the house members are to pay?
Again, we all have lives and other time-consuming responsibilities, i thank the dev team for taking time out of their schedules to provide a response and discussion to the topic and for the communities input both for and against.
However, it is an equally dangerous precedent to allow ostensibly poor record keeping to justify dubious transactions, especially when you must admit the party who wrong did had walked out of this room having benefited entirely without punishment from the misdoing.
In my time at VLKA, record keeping was not an issue and everyone knew whose items belonged to whom. Woody even belonged to the house a short while that i was still in it. When I left the house, Woody contacted you/reported me to check ownership of items that belonged to me. It goes without saying that he could have easily contacted you again to check where the item he ostensibly believed to have come from thin air actually came from. He did not do this, to the best of my knowledge, he made no attempt to perceive whom the item belonged to.
I believe this to be the nail in the coffin in Woody's defence.
Had he made just and relevant enquires to where the item came from and discovered nothing, I would stand to say that he had done enough to satisfy any requirement of attempting to locate the relevant owner and I would not be here right now writing this lengthy response.
Because he did not do this, because he sold the item with what i believe to be the full knowledge that it did not belong to him I would suggest to you that he is in violation of the trading rules, in particular rule 3.
In essence, and as stated above, I feel that it would be in the best interests of future matters in line with what has transpired here to set a example of what will happen to people which improperly mishandle items, especially house leaders who are under more obligations to record appropriately which items belong to whom.
To say that a house member would be at fault for not properly recording the ownership details of every item in VLKA and set an example of them instead of the house leadership is in my biased opinion an unfair precedent to set. I had records of the item purchase, at the time we kept a spreadsheet drafted by Handef (former house leadership) which contained an ownership minded itemisation of the bank items. Because new leadership have been more tardy in their management the house members are to pay?
Again, we all have lives and other time-consuming responsibilities, i thank the dev team for taking time out of their schedules to provide a response and discussion to the topic and for the communities input both for and against.
Going Deep