masterlogan2000

Mathematically speaking, this wouldn't be the case. If we're looking to have a 2/3 majority, then the 50/50 split between nominator/nominee votes will drag the percentage down and potentially sway the decision. Granted, I'm not sure if there is any good solution to this. I'd be against making the poll public for the same reasons mentioned by others. Given that we're comparing the voting system to a jury, we may want to appoint an unbiased "judge" to oversee each individual case. The "judge" could see all the votes (if that's even possible given the features/limitations of the board software) OR poll voters would be required to verify their votes with the judge over PM. But this creates additional layers of complexity. More complexity leads to more potential problems.

Agreed. It's clearly so very obvious. But yet, people are so quick to take credit for policy changes because they've voiced an opinion. That is the premise I don't agree with, as the changes aren't driven by the opinions themselves, but rather the realignment of policies to fit their own best interests. This is why I'm stressing what seems to be so obvious, because it clearly gets lost in the rest of the conversations that have very little to do with the actual outcome. Even in your own example, you illustrated that CGC would change their policy due to the loss of "'x' amount of customers". That has nothing to do with opinions and is simply a business decision.

I completely agree with this sentiment, as these boards do give us a forum to express our displeasure and attempt to enact changes. Despite how one individual has tried to change my narrative, I think this is a wonderful thing! I still contend that CGC makes decisions based on their own metrics and have a responsibility only to their own bottom line. But, sometimes they need to be steered in the right direction as to why that bottom line is shrinking. How else will they know unless they read the opinions expressed here? As @dupont2005 has pointed out, this place is like an enormous focus group where CGC can collect loads of customer feedback. But make no mistake. That feedback is used to shape profitability, not to appease the customer... unless of course, the appeasement of the customer increases profitability (which happens frequently).

Chuck, thanks for the well thought out words here, even if it's in disagreement with my original post. In your example, however, is it really the opinions that would have swayed CGC to change their stance? Or, is it the loss of business due to the original stance they've taken? There is a GREAT point of distinction between the two. What if I were to reframe your example just slightly? Let's say that CGC no longer answers the phone, and people voice their disapproval right here on these boards. However, what if it was determined that there was no loss of customers due to this new "no phone calls" policy? There's plenty of discontent, as expressed by all of the opinions on these open forums. However, no customers have been lost, and CGC has saved a ton of money on customer support costs. What should CGC do in that case? Essentially, as a private company, where do their obligations lie... with a select group posting their the opinions online or to their own bottom line? If a policy has been proven to help their profitability, even if some people have complained about it, would it make sense to change that policy? Shouldn't CGC make their decisions based on data, metrics, and their own bottom line, and not on the opinions expressed on a message board? I believe it would be irresponsible as a company to operate any other way. You may say that my tweaking of your example is far fetched. That's fair, but would miss the point I'm trying to make. Opinions, at their core, are just that... opinions. On their own, they do not matter. However, occasionally you do run across a situation in which those opinions happen to align with the best interests of the company. In those cases, can you really say that it was the opinion that actually swayed the policy... or was it simply that the opinion just happen to align with the company's best interests? And I get it. Everyone wants to feel as if their opinion matters and that their voices are being heard. I'm sure that contributed to the strong reaction to my original post. But, I'll say it again. We have no ownership stake in CGC. People making statements such as "I don't want CGC associated with pornography" is just folly. This is an opinion. This is not a vote. The last I checked, none of us are sitting on the Board of Directors at the CGC offices. Therefore, there is only one effective way to enact change. If you disagree with the policy, then vote with your wallet.

Thank you for this. Really. I've had a busy day with the family, which gave me some time to reflect on this mess (that I've admittedly had a hand in creating). I don't want to waste my life sitting in front of a keyboard constantly defending myself against this troll. Unlike some, I don't have the luxury or energy to argue with people online 24/7/365. Nor is it fair to subject others to this circus act, as this individual gravitates towards every post I make on these boards. If people take exception to my posts or claim to have the comprehension of a 2nd grader, that is their issue and not my own. You won't get another reply on that matter from me.

Where did you find the information that the winner was a friend and original co-owner? The link you posted doesn't appear to mention this.

Just one time. My original post.

Wait, can I only make comments now that are disputable? Are you really arguing because you agree with me TOO much? Again, this is a point that deserved to be emphasized. I'm sorry you feel so strongly in the opposite direction and feel compelled to tell me about it. More than one person (plural) has "Liked" the post, showing that there's support for my sentiments. Let's be clear here. There is no "others" (plural). @NoMan had commented on my post and essentially asked for a clarification. I have no quarrel with @NoMan and find his post amusing given the context. I'm assuming (and hoping) that he has no quarrel with me. But that's it. One other (singular) person reacting to my tone. Don't try to frame this like there is a mob that disagrees with how I post my thoughts on this public forum. That is just untrue, and only serves as an attempt to artificially inflate support for whatever it is you're trying to argue about with me this time.

Wrong. I'm at a loss of words for how your interpretation is to assume that I'm trying to impose posting rhetoric rules on everyone. (However, thank you for allowing me to correct this misunderstanding.) When I made my first post in this discussion, only one person had mentioned that it is within CGC's rights to refuse service and set their own policies. I felt that this was not only important, but THE single most important point in the entire discussion. This needed to be emphasized, or there's the risk that it gets lost in all the discussions of people's own opinions (of which there were many). My strong tone (which you labelled as combative), does seem to have driven that point home. With this emphasis, and through every post I've made since, I've actually accomplished the EXACT OPPOSITE of your interpretation of my words. The FACT that CGC can set their own policies has now been acknowledged... even accentuated by every post you make to attack my own rhetoric (thank you for that as well). Any additional mention of this thought may now be considered redundant, thus making it unnecessary for people to repeat it in every post they make.

In this context, Respect = Acknowledged. Most people have stated their opinions on why CGC should or should not encapsulate the book. Few, up to that point, have acknowledged that it is fully within their rights. When did I tell you (or anyone) to shut up? It's a euphemism. Your language...as noted by others...was more than a bit confrontational.  Show me where it was confrontational. And how does confrontational equate to me telling people to shut up? If anything, it's your posts that attempt to reframe my whole argument that incites confrontation. And as always, the thread gets derailed by you and I bickering. It's funny how you can play the euphemism card for your own words, yet you're so fixated on nitpicking the word "respect" just so you can base a made-up argument with me around it. Let me stress this again, FOR THE LAST TIME... CGC is free to shape their own policy. That FACT is what should be respected, even if one disagrees with said policy.

When did I tell you (or anyone) to shut up? You should take a step back, calm down, and realize that not every post I make is an attack at you or your freedom to post on these boards. Stop chasing down and singling out my posts because it's fun to argue with me. It's tiring. Re-read what I wrote here. My whole argument, and nothing more, is that CGC is free to shape their own policy. That FACT is what should be respected, even if one disagrees with said policy.

Mine did They listened, but a change in labelling request is not really an "opinion".

People are just having a conversation about this. Is that ok? Don't think anybody is advocating picking up guns and torches to storm the Holy Land in Florida. Or, conversely, to pick up guns and torches and find those that they disagree with. People are just talking, while doing stuff around the house. Cool? That's more than cool with me. I'm not sure what my post has to do with gun violence, but if that's what you got out of my post, then I guess my words had a very strong impact on you. I'm simply trying to drive the point home that CGC has every right to shape their own policy and that people should respect that.

That is not accurate. Sorry, let me clarify. Our INDIVIDUAL opinions carry no weight with regards to shaping CGC policy. If they did, then these boards would become even more of a screaming match as people they try to shape CGC policy to fit their own beliefs. CGC makes policy decisions based on what they think is best for CGC, not any individual who spends hours each day chatting on their message boards.

^^^ 100% People may disagree with the stance that CGC has taken here. But, the fact of the matter is that it is completely within their rights as a private entity to take whatever stance they want (or change or make exceptions to that stance). This is the only argument that can be made here, and the only argument that actually matters. There are a lot of opinions being shared in this thread. There are a lot of people who are pushing their own personal beliefs as reasons for why CGC should/shouldn't grade these types of covers. NONE of this matters. Our opinions carry no weight with regards to shaping CGC policy. We should stop acting like our enthusiasm and loyalty to CGC entitles us as part owners of the company with voting rights on all decisions they make. Clearly this is not the case. Everyone should respect the fact that, as a private company, CGC is free to grade (or not grade) whatever books they choose... even if you disagree with the position that they've taken.

You mean like these...? I'm inclined to keep my copies, but what are you offering?

There are a couple Wolverine books up for auction now in case anyone is interested. These aren't mine, but the seller has a few. Two of them can be added to the list. Wolverine #69 - $2.80 AUS https://www.ebay.com/itm/Wolverine-1988-series-69-Marvel-comics-australia-comic/333229635252?hash=item4d9608b6b4:g:qBMAAOSwm6dc~xT4 Wolverine #70 - $2.80 AUS https://www.ebay.com/itm/Wolverine-70-Marvel-comics-australia-comic/333229636831?hash=item4d9608bcdf:g:yiIAAOSw6vhc~xXp

In my opinion, this "emotionally charged" language is no different than calling someone out and flat out telling them that they're wrong. Instead, let's keep the emotion intact, as I'm happy to tell you EXACTLY how I feel about your (or anyone else's) posts. Without these words, there's a chance you misinterpret what I'm trying to convey. I take no offence to your disagreement, nor your own choice of words. I would request you handle this in a similar manner, otherwise that will be your own personal issue to deal with. In other words... sorry, not sorry.

You act as if eBay is the absolute authority here. Was the transaction done on eBay? Sure. Does that mean that eBay's terms of service (which were written solely and strictly to protect eBay's own interests), trump all other terms, contracts, and agreements made by and between all other parties involved? That simply cannot be the case, as eBay has no authority over the agreements made between the seller and USPS. These terms have no legal standing outside of their own platform, and only give the buyer recourse (through the platform) an ability to return the item. This does not give them legal authority to dictate responsibility when another party is involved (which in this case is USPS). The buyer has a choice to return the item, as granted (NOT required), by eBay's terms. Just because the buyer is provided this option, it does not mean that the buyer should exercise that option. Maybe. Maybe not. People change their minds, things happen that cannot be foreseen. The issue here is the can of worms: why even bother opening it? Returning to the seller? No can of worms sitting on the shelf, waiting to be opened. But if you must spout eBay terms and policy, why do you ignore the fact that they state the first step is to always contact the buyer first to try to resolve the problem or work it out? Is this omission because it is counter to your argument on how this case should be handled? Or is it because this supports MY original statement of contacting the buyer first (because you just can't help yourself when it comes to arguing with me)? And no, jumping straight to demanding a return is not an attempt to "resolve the problem". It's spelled out at the very top of the page here: https://resolutioncenter.ebay.com/ We always encourage our members to communicate with each other when there's a problem with a transaction. The first step is to contact the member through the Resolution Center and try to resolve the problem. Need another example? How about here: https://www.ebay.com/help/buying/returns-refunds/returns-missing-items-refunds-buyers?id=4008#section2 If something's gone wrong with your order, the first step is to let the seller know there's a problem. If your item has gone missing, or if it's damaged or faulty, most sellers are happy to work with you to resolve the issue. Still not proof enough? Let's try another: https://www.ebay.com/help/buying/resolving-issues-sellers/resolving-issues-sellers?id=4011 If you're having an issue with an eBay seller, try contacting them directly to resolve your problem. If you can't work things out, we're always here to step in and help.

This advice again goes on the premise that the responsibility falls on the seller. That has not been proven, as not all the details of this case have been laid out. Your concern about further damage to the book in transit is misplaced, as that is a concern regardless of where the book is shipped (whether it be back to the seller for a refund or back to CGC for a reholder). You can't place weight on this concern to argue against sending it in for a reholder while discounting or completely ignoring the same exact concern when it comes to shipping it back to the seller. There is no harm in working with the seller and opening lines of communication FIRST. An agreement through proper communication can be worked out to cover all the scenarios you are concerned about.

Regardless of how much you BOLD your statement, you're wrong here. The seller is responsible for sufficient packaging to protect the comic from damage. Yes, "sufficient packaging" is a subjective term here, but in this case, the OP has stated that the seller did an "extremely good job protecting the book". The title of this thread even insinuates that this issue was caused by USPS mishandling. The seller is NOT responsible for protecting the book against mishandling. That is what insurance is for. This is also a false statement and makes wild assumptions. The seller is under no obligation to insure the package unless 1) it is disclosed as part of the terms the seller has stated for shipping, or 2) the buyer has paid for insurance on the package. If the seller has not stated that the package will be insured, then the responsibility of insurance falls on the buyer to pay for that insurance. You don't know the details in this particular case. (Heck, you don't even know if insurance was purchased in this case.) Making a blanket statement that insurance is the responsibility of the seller is incorrect, and you do this thread an injustice by spewing "advice" based on those assumptions.

You don't need to send it back to the seller necessarily, as CGC would just reholder this. First, you should contact the seller and see if he/she will work with you to get it reholdered. To an extent, it is the responsibility of the seller to ensure proper delivery, so if it arrived damaged, you should see if they will cover the costs of sending it back to CGC. That should be your first step, then you can escalate it from there depending on his/her response.

I can honestly say I have no horse in this race, but am now thinking of loading up on a bunch of More Fun Comics #31.

This is exactly the concern that I had. The "Rule" itself is being used to justify arguments regarding previews/first appearances. The "Rule" really has nothing to do with that, and is only an exercise in valuations based on a very limited data set (and again, a dataset that can be considered the exception, not the norm). The debate and tone here has been serious from the beginning, with multiple thought-out examples, without only one admission to the "Rule" being tongue-in-cheek. We should establish that this "Rule" IS NOT and CANNOT be an actual rule, and that this is simply an exercise to anecdotally relate valuations to a small subset of books with their CGC submission counts.