COI

If Dan was the owner of both Heritage and WATA, it still wouldn't change the bad arguments made in the video. People sure do love ascribing motives on the internet.

I wouldn't necessarily argue with this, but my point isn't whether or not the founder of WATA should be on Pawn Stars. My point was simply that the person who made the video didn't make a great case for why his appearance on the show was "market manipulation" and not simply marketing.

It's even funnier because you deleted the post.

There is a middle ground between tin-foil-hat-squad conspiracy theorist, and cutting edge investigative journalism. I said this in the other thread, but I'll give Karl the benefit of the doubt and say that he did a reasonable job with the information he has, attempting to understand a market that is nearly inscrutable even to veteran collectors. And he does present a lot of facts, pointing to potential red flags, conflicts of interest, etc. The problem is, he strings these facts together to construct an argument using bubble gum and melted cheese. At about 10 minutes in, he starts to lose me. He points to the launch site of WATA highlighting an established relationship between WATA and Heritage; more specifically, that WATA games will be featured in an upcoming Heritage auction. He then says :"this doesn't make sense. The entire point of certification is to guarantee authenticity and quality, but a guarantee is worthless if you haven't established a history of accurate work...why would Heritage auctions trust a business who hasn't done any business to begin with?" Ignoring the obvious reasoning error here, he's constructing the narrative that WATA's existence and relationship with Heritage is primarily market manipulation, based on the fact that Halperin is an advisor and that no similar relationship with VGA, a company that has been grading games far longer, exists. Through this lens, he characterizes all of the articles/interviews featuring the owner of WATA as being part of an orchestrated campaign of market manipulation. He actually flashes the phrase "MARKET MANIPULATION ALERT" in red letters, to make sure the viewer interprets everything the WATA owner says in the least charitable way possible. Timestamps: 12:15, 13:02, 13:15, 15:00, and so on. And I'll save you the trouble; the "manipulation" at those timestamps is the founder of WATA essentially saying 'hey, games are awesome, graded games are desirable, they're only going to go up in price, they'll hit millions of dollars, etc'. So the guy who starts a grading company believes in the viability of the games he's grading as long term investments, and wants to encourage the collecting community to embrace WATA and send games his way. SHOCKING. Then he points to the SHEER AUDACITY of the WATA founder making multiple appearances on Pawn Starts to promote games and his company. At 14:15 he says "the point is that there was a very large, very effective campaign to establish WATA as the authority in video games, despite having only been created. It was critical that WATA be seen as the be-all, end-all in video game grading, because then the words of its CEO...would be more effective in increasing the value of games". Then he says "Kahn would continue to ABUSE his authority as the head of WATA games for the next few years, appearing in countless articles and interviews, always pumping up the price." Abusing authority? What does that mean? Who is he abusing? Isn't he just promoting his business? What does VGAs existence 10 years prior have to do with the legitimacy or trustworthiness of WATA? The reason this guy has a relationship with Heritage, multiple appearances on Pawn Stars, and is included in articles written about these record sales, is that he's trying to market his business. Can the guy who made this video clearly articulate the difference between marketing and market manipulation? Oh he's on PAWN STARS! Not PAWN STARS!!! My world is shaken. This is just the first 15-25 minutes of the video. I could keep going, because the rest of the video unfolds similarly. He presents a lot of interesting facts and reasonable questions, which he then rolls up in a messy, sloppy spit-ball of an argument. People are conflating the thoroughness of his fact-finding with the strength of his overall argument. He talks about the subjective nature of grading, pedigree collection designations, "true collectors" vs speculators, and all kinds of stuff that seasoned collectors of cards, comics, games and toys already understand, and present them in the context of video games as somehow exemplifying WATA market manipulation. And he uses lots of evocative language to make fairly serious claims that neither the facts or his underlying argument warrant. Again, great job on the fact-finding, but facts don't constitute evidence unless they're wrapped up in a solid argument, and the arguments here are swiss cheese.

I'm surprised that so many around here found the video to be so impactful. And yes, I watched the entire thing. That's not a knock on the video; it's a well made, reasonable attempt by someone on the outside of the collectibles market to understand how a freakin' Mario 64 could sell for 7 figures. He presents some interesting facts, asks some interesting questions, and is understandably skeptical. He's also going to be motivated to "expose" more than "understand", which leads to a lot of assumptions and leaps in logic. I'm surprised at some of the reactions here because I wouldn't have thought that seasoned collectors who've been dealing with an entity like CGC for a decade or two were the target audience for a video like this. Maybe I should make a video about pressing to get some viral pearl-clutching action from 500,000 people who have never purchased a slab. It's cute, that's all I'm saying.

Can I call you daddy?

1) When you're in your early 20s, you're self-conscious about everything and you care about being "cool". This will pass with age when you realize everyone is a mess, and no one who is concerned with being cool is actually cool. 2) The best way to ensure you're always unhappy is comparison. Someone will always have more or better. 3) In 20 years, what you grew up with will be "cool", as corporations begin pandering to your nostalgic whims to capitalize on your generation's newly acquired spending power. I'm in my late 30s and the stuff I grew up with has only begun to be "cool" in the last few years. Everyone wants to tell stories about themselves. Focus less on your story and more on enjoying your hobby moment to moment, and eventually the narrative will work itself out.

So tell me Kav, is mind-numbing boredom more calm really better? Is this your utopia? In 2013, this thread would've been 26 more pages, locked, with pernts assigned by now. Park can't even get anything going here, and he's a terrible person.

I was gonna say something, but I thought more better of it.

It's almost as if taking feedback from the environment and examining and modifying one's behavior based on that feedback, allows for better social integration. As opposed to, you know, joining a group, not having your immediate feelings and needs met, and assuming the problem is with the group and not with you. What's the word for that? Oh yeah, socialization.

And yet, all those vicious attacks and terrible people didn't stop you from amassing 50,000 posts. We failed.

Hence why some people stop posting, which is the general topic being discussed in this thread. You "play the obstacles" when there's still some value to extract from the game, and you leave when the value is no longer there. The fun I got from this board was directly impacted by the changes in moderation and the general culture of the board. I don't think it's whining to point that out when the topic comes up and I feel like crawling out from under my rock for a few seconds.

When someone gets moderated, there are two parties involved: the moderator and the person who reported the post. The person getting reported on isn't involved. Random Ninny decides to hit the button, the moderator decides what action to take, and it's done. From my perspective, the pattern of appeasing the ninnies suggests to me that the moderators are primarily concerned with keeping complaints to a minimum. So of course this only works one way, as normal adults with healthy self-esteems who go outside from time to time and don't take themselves too seriously aren't going to complain to teacher every time someone annoys them, or has the audacity to express an opinion or conduct themselves in a way that doesn't perfectly reflect whatever is bouncing around in their psyche. So we got this gradual race to the bottom to make the thin-skins and pettiest among us feel safe. They will continue to clamp down tighter and tighter, choking the life out of this place in the process. Having the primary objective of moderation be reducing/eliminating complaints as opposed to, let's say, actually looking at context and intent when deliberating over reported posts, is precisely the problem. The priority seems to be dousing every tiny fire, as if eliminating complaints entirely is remotely possible, instead of aiming to provide an environment where people can express themselves freely, within the scope of a reasonable and clearly defined code of conduct. Nothing will change because the people who don't like it leave, and are replaced by the people who are doing the complaining, or people who are too new to know any better. And the mods are content to keep dousing those imaginary fires.

Bingo. I can post and inevitably get banned, which will stop me from posting, or not post, which stops me from posting but allows me to access my PMs. Or I can moderate myself to the increasingly ambiguous snowflake brigade's standards, which would make me hate myself, so I might as well just not post. I could also be less of a jerk, but that's totally never happening.

Your loss. I have the timeshare opportunity of a lifetime.

The current key craze is hilarious. It's people buying keys to flip for more keys to flip for more keys to flip for more keys. Not sure how much actual collecting is going on. It's a race to literally and figuratively squeeze (look, a pressing joke!) every last dollar out of whatever hot potato you're currently trying to sell to free up cash for the next movie announcement. The idea of dealing to collect is what has created this monster in the first place.

Funny how this thread is like 85% n00b.

I could do with less eristic casuistry.

All I care about is people actually reading posts and addressing/making actual points. Or you can talk at people in italics and platitudes trying to sound profound, like a teenage girl on Instagram.

If the old guard drives away just one newb..... ....that's called a good start.

I got my custom title in a custom spot! Thanks Arch. Time to crawl back under my cozy Old Guard rock.

I get the irony and I get the ebb and flow thing, but at some point there is enough of a change in climate that it's worth discussing and not simply dismissing. And I'm not suggesting that you're dismissing it, but the tongue-in-cheek way that you've kept track of these kinds of threads may have the unintended effect of diminishing or obscuring some of the points being made here. Also, I'd like my custom title back, please.

Can someone explain why we need more members? There were plenty of people here in 2003 to keep things lively, and the membership was a fraction of what it is today. More members won't bring my pernts back or get Dupcak to make an appearance.

There is probably a myriad of reasons why there aren't new members. The biggest reason likely has nothing to do with any of the members here and more to do with the changing online landscape and the multitude of other venues to interact with. When this forum started, social media was barely a thing. And the problem with your analogy is that you go to a restaurant to get served, and you pay for the privilege. This isn't a place to get served, it's a place to participate.