COI

The market played itself when it decided that paying an average of 5x more for a 9.8 over a 9.6 was reasonable; now that's just shifting to 9.9/9.8. 

If 9.9 is the new 9.8, most 9.8 holders will be too busy playing the 9.9 resub lottery to complain, and when that 1 in 10 lands for big bucks, all will be forgiven.

If you don't like it, stop collecting labels.

Chiming in again, against my better judgment.

Debating something that happened between two people, based almost entirely on conjecture and personal biases, misses the point entirely.

If, on one side, you think the deceased is the victim here because he made a mistake that has been blown out of proportion, then I don't see how you can't apply that same logic to the woman who made the accusations and say that she made a mistake that was also blown out of proportion, because of the way she chose to handle this issue she had with him.

If, on the other side, you think Piskor's actions were wrong and that it's important that she not be blamed for coming forward, it's reasonable to see that there is no proportionality in outcomes here. We don't give out death sentences for being a "creep". Nothing resembling justice was done here, and I would guess that, far from helping her heal whatever wounds she might've had, the woman involved in this has now been further damaged by the outcome as she will undoubtedly be targeted by the backlash mob, in addition to the shock of suicide and the contents of his suicide note. .

Where do these positions intersect? The internet mob escalation made everything in this situation infinitely worse. I get that it's hard to miss an opportunity to look for a single target for your moral outrage - the perpetrator - or a clear victim to sympathize with - the victim -  because it's easier and more satisfying than trying to tackle the much more complicated problem that this scenario, and the rest of us by extension, are nested in. But this kind of discourse just makes things worse.

Terrible situation, ugly thread.

We've had exponential growth in technology, but we have not grown INTO the technology and we seem to have no chance of catching up. 

What's worse is that the nature of social media appears to be projecting, exploiting and amplifying our worst traits. Not individually, but in sum. The most extreme, maladjusted and misinformed voices get to dictate the terms of the discourse.

We've equipped everyone with the tools to express themselves, but not the skills to evaluate the value of those expressions. I don't think any of us know what we're doing here, but I do know that many people actively make things worse when they decide to add to the noise every minute of every waking hour. I'm not the arbiter of worthwhile utterances, and I'm just as guilty as anyone of saying nonsense, but I think it would serve us all to remember that just because you can, doesn't mean you should. In the vast majority of instances where you feel compelled to speak, you don't have much of value to add, and in some cases you might actually do some damage, regardless of your intentions. 

I try to tell myself this on a daily basis, but sometimes I just can't help myself. Like right now.

My condolences to anyone who knew him.. 

On 3/28/2024 at 4:35 PM, Stefan_W said:

Ok, so if the process is that it is flagged as a 9.9 candidate and then it goes to even more (or more senior) graders for confirmation how does this lead to more bias in the process? More graders seems like it would to lead to less bias, unless I misunderstand interrater reliability. 

I don't know if it does or doesn't lead to more bias. My overall point is that the scenario you laid out is plausible, but equally plausible scenarios exist to explain why and how this copy ended up as the first 9.9 to be graded in close to 25 years. It's hard to ignore the great marketing opportunity to feed the modern 9.9/10.0 initiative by having a mega key from 1975 hit the 9.9 mark for the first time. It's a great way to usher in a new paradigm where 9.8 is no longer considered a sort of glass ceiling on submission expectations for moderns, coppers, or late bronze. Whether that's what is happening here or not, I don't think a tin foil hat is required to spot the marketing opportunity. 

On 3/28/2024 at 3:42 PM, Stefan_W said:

I kind of agree with this, but I believe it still goes in a direction that I believe is flawed, which is to conflate CGC motivations with grader decisions. 

The basic argument I am seeing again and again is that CGC may have some motivation for books to be graded in particular ways. But CGC management who has this motivation is not sitting in the trenches grading mountains of comic books. So if this line of argument is correct, how does word get out that they are supposed to give out extra 9.9s especially to "friends" of said management? Is there a memo or something that is circulated that tells graders to start giving out some type of quota of 9.9s? Is there a tag put on books in the anonymous grading process that says "this is a friend book *wink wink*". Does management come along after the fact and erase a bunch of 9.8s in the forms and put in 9.9s?

What sounds reasonable kind of starts to break down in my eyes when one begins to unpack the in-the-trenches process. 

I saw an interview Matt Nelson did sometime in the last few months where he said that the decision to give a book like this a 9.9 is made by multiple people. As in, when the grader decides this is a potential 9.9, more people are called to weigh in. Based on that alone, you could see how a number of circumstances (like introducing a 9.9 prescreen, recently making an official video about 9.9s and 10s, and so on) might impinge on that decision process. 

Again, we don't know, but if you're a fan of simple explanations, it doesn't seem far fetched to bump a high profile book to 9.9 because it dovetails nicely with a new marketing initiative. That doesn't mean this is what actually happened, but I think it's much more plausible than you're making it out to be.

On 3/28/2024 at 10:53 AM, Stefan_W said:

It is an even smaller wonder when using math and stuff instead of conspiracies. Here is a quick rundown:

From the point that CGC opened its doors up until now CGC had never awarded a 9.9 for a GSX 1, so this is the first. Through that entire time only 239 managed to get to 9.8. 

Mega dealers are the ones who submit the largest volume of high value books. 

So up until now, and just like anyone else, these massive dealers like Metropolis/Comic Connect etc had 9.8s for the best copies without a single 9.9. 

Since these big dealers submit the most books of this type (i.e., the highest grade of GSX) the probability is that one of the dealers will hit 9.9 first. To put it another way, if these folks submit 90% of the copies that are at least a 9.8 they are 90% likely to be the first to hit 9.9. 

So nothing even remotely "off" is happening here, at least so far. 

Conspiracy theories make my head hurt, especially when Occam's Razor applies. 

I appreciate your reluctance to go full tin foil hat, but I'm not sure your conclusion is supported by this breakdown.

The problem is, there's nothing mathematical or inevitable about hitting a 9.9 on a GSX 1, because the assigning of that grade is a subjective call made by humans. It's hard to ignore the myriad of incentives that could have potentially played a role in assigning a 9.9 to this particular copy at this particular time. So I don't think Occam's Razor applies here; it might just be a straight up 9.9, or it could just as easily be a marketing decision. There's no way to know for sure, so everyone is just going to believe what they will. 

CGC has become so big and so rich off of collectors pressing and resubbing books dozens of times, or sending cases of brand new books straight from the printers, that they've forgotten what's important: the collectors. We, the collectors, who press, resub and prescreen (9.9 baby!) out of love.

I'm not sure how a business predicated on enriching its clients by facilitating the unregulated, high value trade of commodified non-essential goods through a mostly arbitrary and subjective process, has so thoroughly lost its way? 

Come back to the light, CGC. My retirement depends on it.

Billion dollar companies don't care about me?

On 12/30/2023 at 5:18 AM, AbsoluteCarnage said:

You make alot of good points I have a boatload of disagreements with regards to ppl accepting labels are all that matter. I've loved some of your posts COI so I'm not gonna dig deep into this one. We're in a rough situation We're all burnt on this one.

 

I understand.

To be clear, I'm not saying that on an individual level, collectors only care about labels. Obviously, most people are in this because they love the books. But when you're looking at the way the market behaves, functionally speaking, the label is what ends up mattering. The main function of third party grading is to commodify comics to better facilitate trade. The label then becomes the criteria for assigning value, and therefore the focal point when real money is involved.

Someone loves ASM 300, so they buy a high grade raw copy. Then they want a slabbed copy; then a 9.8; then a newsstand 9.8, and so on. The story they tell is that they want to have 'the best' copy of the book they love, but that pursuit takes them to a place where the label is what counts. The impetus for the pursuit might be a love of the book, but the label is the only real basis for paying those premiums at the highest levels. That's what I mean when I say the label is all that matters.

You guys remember when pressing in and of itself was controversial? Most of you probably don't. 15 to 20 years later, the lesson I learned is that the actual contents of a slab is far less important than what's written on the label. It was inconceivable to me back then that the market would ever be okay with paying a significant premium for some '9.6' when there was a real possibility that the '9.6' in question was sitting in a '9.0' holder just weeks prior. How quaint, right? 

I'm not saying that this situation is analogous to pressing; what I am saying is that the pressing scandal and subsequent change in paradigm surrounding the practice is evidence that the vast majority of people trading in slabs will do the mental gymnastics required to move past this scandal as well, because focusing on the label and ignoring the contents of the slab is the entire game. How else can you explain the market adapting so easily to pressing, or forgetting that there may be tons of unaccounted for 'Ewert Specials'. OR for that matter, the very fact that there is a premium for WHITE pages, or the sometimes obscene price spreads at those arbitrary 9.6-9.9 levels on common-as-dirt books?

The label is all that matters. No one is going to stop buying Hulk 181s because there is some unknown percentile chance that some of them may be qualified books in universal holders. I'm not saying this is good or bad, right or wrong, nor am I saying I agree with the mindset, but that's where we are. No one cares about what's in the slab; what they care about is that the cert number on their book isn't on a list. Some number of provable examples will surface and be taken care of, based on the efforts of CGC and some motivated collectors, then the 15, 25, 35 percent-ish of terminally online buyers who are even aware that this happened at all will move on.

The community isn't going to sacrifice the golden goose because of a bunch of missing value stamps, tattooz, or over graded Mark Jewelers copies, especially in the context of a market where the grading company under scrutiny holds 90%+ of the market share, just as they didn't sacrifice the goose over violated principles in the pressing scandal, or violated books in the Ewert scandal. 

On 11/25/2023 at 6:09 PM, VintageComics said:

Fair.

In social interactions it's tougher to be objective, but on a spectrum, it's much easier to weed out when someone has posted "too much abuse"  than it is when someone has posted "too much content" and that really was my central point. 

I always tell my daughters, you don't have to be sure of what you like, but you absolutely have to be sure of what you DON'T LIKE. 

It's far easier to weed out "bad behavior" than "too much good behavior".

The movie forums are a great example: If we were going to weed out "too much content" nobody posts more than Bosco. Not even me (and THAT's saying something). That's not a knock on Bosco at all, it's pointing out an extreme example. But because people find it entertaining...and PROFITABLE financially (because everyone here is now financially invested) it's allowed. 

But if someone abuses Bosco, they're gone pretty quickly.

-----------------------------------

 

I agree with the part in bold. I think any reasonable person would agree that abuse needs to be addressed and stamped out. But because social interactions are complicated, you can't always neatly delineate these things. We're already in a time and place where abuse is not only acknowledged, but is often overcorrected for in an attempt to make things simple when they just aren't. Hence why being able to read social cues and adjust your own behavior is important.

The other thing is, this is a comic message board and we're all adults. No one has to take any abuse here. I've had nasty things said to me over the years, and I just don't care. As soon as it becomes clear that the person I'm talking to is no longer engaging in discussion and is just trying to insult me, I mentally tag them as knuckleheads and stop paying any attention. Maybe that's easier for some than others, but this isn't like a woman getting harassed on the street or someone being abused at a job they need, so I'm not crazy about words like "bullying" and "abuse" being thrown around casually.

On 11/25/2023 at 3:25 PM, VintageComics said:

Then stop justifying it. 

"She shouldn't have dressed that way." 

You don't have a leg to stand on here. Abuse is a lack of control by the person dishing it out. It is a total lack of maturity. Stop normalizing it. Full stop.

And addressing poor behavior in an objective manner, meaning everyone KNOWS where the line is, is far more equitable, easy, effective and FAIR than trying to subjectively figure out when someone has crossed a line too far. It's the "too far" part that is the problem because it's always different. 

Everyone knows what abuse looks like.

If you start making everything subjective, a decision eventually and necessarily will start contradicting itself and be seen as unfair to some people. 

Additionally, there is always a spin-off effect. Some (agreeable) people when they feel wronged will just leave or quiet down, but if you're a disagreeable personality (like You, Kav and I are) we are obviously going to start trying to push back, raising the heat rather than lowering it.

I can genuinely say my posting volume would have been reduced by 50% or more over the last few years, if I didn't have to constantly address poor behavior being thrown at me, and I think the same goes for many people who end up getting dinged. 

------------

BTW, I read everything you wrote in both posts and agree with most of it, as I usually do. 

I understand the complexity involved. I grew up in a family with 50 1st cousins, I was the oldest of 8 and have 6 kids myself (4 biological and 2 step kids). Being fair is hard, but sticking to objective, simple principles generally rule out the majority of complexity. 

If you use subjective reasoning you end up complicating everything by a factor of a zillion.

-------------

I'll finish by saying that it genuinely was not my intention to discuss this, I just "go where the ball is going" but it's a valid and worthwhile point worth discussing when discuss traffic on social media. 

 

I will say that I've seen a lot of benefits since Mike has started. His ability to discuss things with people has helped turn down the heat a lot around here. My post isn't a criticism of Mike per se, but rather a criticism of the guiding principles Mike operates under. 

I think abuse and bullying are far too common among some people. 

You're using "subjective reasoning" just as I am, because we're talking about perceptions of social interactions here, not quantified data. We're speaking conceptually here about dynamics of socializing based on personal experiences and observation. Not to mention that your perspective on who Kav is and what he contributes is all subjective, just as my perceptions of him are. If you don't get that, then you misunderstand subjectivity vs objectivity. People like to throw out "subjective" when they think they see things as they are and the person they're talking to doesn't, but both of our positions here are subjective.

As far as victim blaming, I appreciate that you're telling me that I'm victim blaming even though I went out of my way twice to say that I wasn't. Thanks, Carnac. We have a different perspective, and you know me well enough to know I'm down to debate anything, so take my argument with good faith and try not to read between the lines, because you got it wrong in this instance.

My point was, socializing is an exchange between individuals and groups; there is feedback. When someone is consistently picked on, that's a type of social feedback. It's UNFAIR and often CRUEL (caps for emphasis, because you need it) but it's how socializing works, and you ignore that feedback at your own peril. The reason I mention this is because it's unpopular to say, and you demonstrated exactly why that is by calling it victim blaming straight out. That's not me "normalizing abuse" that's me saying abuse is normal UNFORTUNATELY, but can be mitigated somewhat by a little introspection. 

Everyone knows abuse is bad. No sheeit. But it exists. Stealing also exists and is also bad, but mentioning that you should maybe lock your doors isn't "normalizing stealing". I thought you liked nuanced conversation?

On 11/25/2023 at 1:01 PM, VintageComics said:

Kav was very generous here with his efforts but was driven out by haters.

The majority of people here are "agreeable", which is a proper psychological definition. It means they're kind and easy going. Agreeable people don't like conflict and conflict drives people away. 

Nobody can dispute that there's a correlation between people who can't ignore what they don't like and driving those people away. 

Someone can only take so much before they've had enough and not come back and people complained about Kav all the time.

They would constantly notify on Kav, and by weaponizing the notify button, it made him look like a nail that constantly needs a hammer to moderation's eyes. 

People often leave just because some boardies can't ignore what they don't like or use the ignore feature because they can't moderate themselves.

By the psychological definition, I'm a pretty disagreeable guy, in real life and online. I like stirring the pot and I don't mind confrontation. I still manage to get along with people just fine for the most part though, because I also understand how others perceive me, and I calibrate accordingly. An example is having a thicker skin and expecting/accepting that some people just won't like me. It's fine. I don't get to have my cake and eat it too by being disagreeable and a little antagonistic, then crying when people say mean things to me, which is a roundabout way of saying I know that if I dish it out, I have to be able to take it. 

I do think that people sometimes get targeted unfairly, but often times, people who are bullied or feel persecuted bring at least some of that on themselves. That doesn't justify bullying or abuse, but social interactions are always a two way street. I agree with you, most people are agreeable, which also means that when someone is being picked on or centered out in some way, there's usually a reason for it. AGAIN, that doesn't justify abuse, but it's often the case that the people who are targeted get extremely defensive, which isn't conducive to self-examination. Because the vast majority of people aren't sadistic psychopaths who randomly target people, when someone is regularly targeted, unfairly or not, I think a little introspection by that person is in order.

I don't really know Kav. I've had some exchanges with him and I definitely teased him a bunch, but there was no malice on my end. I do think, however, that he wasn't the best at reading the room. I vaguely remember the whole "TWSS" thing, where he wouldn't stop spamming threads with it, and it was driving a lot of people nuts. I don't believe in moderating speech except for the most extreme examples, but on the flip side, if you don't understand social cues, you're going to have a bad time. That's just how it is.

*My opinion*, as someone who has been here from year one, is that it's a combination of everything already mentioned as well as a shift in moderation that happened sometime around 2012-2013 or so. As groups get bigger, you get what I would refer to as 'social entropy', which occurs because bigger means more complex, and complexity leads to clashes in terms of personalities, temperaments, and expectations. If you're trying to moderate a growing group, you either let the chips fall where they may and risk alienating some newer people, or you try to appease everyone, which requires a "flattening" of the content to level the field and grind down some of the sharper edges. In the process of flattening, you may get rid of a few bad seeds, but you're also making things a lot less interesting and fun, as well as alienating the long time members who don't like change or see the need for it. The mods here at the time opted for the latter option, and it didn't work. There are no perfectly safe spaces, and you can't create camaraderie with a set of rules and heavy-handed enforcement.

I think Mike's doing a good job with moderation now, but the 'great flattening' combined with the changes in technology and social media engagement over the subsequent years, means this place is probably never going to be what it was 15 years ago. Nothing lasts forever, I guess.