PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[DrWatson]

This is ridiculous. The inmates have truly gained control of the asylum.

[comix4fun]

This is ridiculous. The inmates have truly gained control of the asylum.

 

I tend to agree. This entire argument is circular at this point.

 

People who want the letter of the probationary list law upheld are on one side.

 

People who want the spirit of the list upheld on the other.

 

I really believe we can have both, and we can make it as simple and as clear as possible.

 

We don't have to try and squeeze these people into an existing list if they don't fit. We certainly DON'T have to let them off the hook entirely because they technically don't fit either.

 

We can call it the HIGH PROFILE FAILED TRANSACTIONS/BOARD DEBACLE LIST.

 

The Yannis thing is a straight up board debacle and a massive failed transaction. The difference between Yannis failed transaction and many others is that the full length and breadth of the failure was brought to the board's attention. That should not be forgotten, swept under the rug, or denied. I know some people would deal with the devil for the right books but for the folks that won't do that a story like this needs to be recorded and future board members need something to help them out when making decisions.

 

 

[scottish]

I agree that the Yannis fiasco is concerning. I would not buy or sell to him, however, since there is an actual aggrieved party involved it is up to THAT party to nominate Yannis to the list.

 

I realize (and support) that there are some voted to the list by majority action (i.e., DrFrankenstein), but that is a different kettle of fish. Frank was wholly misleading and went bat crazy when confronted with his actions. His response to the situation is what, in part, put him on the list. (IMHO)

 

Yannis' response wasn't nearly as strong. He DID apologize and didn't act like he was on PCP. Doesn't make what he did right in any respect, but it was wholly removed from Frank's stance.

 

That's the difference I see in these two.

[Jeffro.]

That should not be forgotten, swept under the rug, or denied. I know some people would deal with the devil for the right books but for the folks that won't do that a story like this needs to be recorded and future board members need something to help them out when making decisions.

 

Trust me. It won't be forgotten. We have long memories here.

[KryptoSpidey]

Yep, that's great - now please do it for everyone else on the list.

I'm sure that TFL is going to be very happy that he's now allowed to sell on the boards

TFL stiffed someone to the Nth degree.

 

I'm not disappointed Frank's on the list, but he did not arrive there via the proper channels.

 

The Doc has a point. If board members can vote people in then why note vote yannis in? Is it because he's more popular with board members?

 

In Yannis' case there is a wronged party - and it's up to that person to decide whether he goes on the probation list or not.

Come on bud, we can say that there is a wrong party in franks case (the board members) same thing. No difference.

Did an actual transaction take place with that Avengers 57 before the history was revealed?

I've stayed pretty quiet through-out this whole situation...only adding what i've felt was needed,after starting the original thread over in GENERAL to bring out the situation.

For what it's worth,he was trying to sell me,of all people, the Avengers 57 back,thru PM dealings,until i called him on the B.S....I almost bought the book!

Luckily i caught what was going on,otherwise someone else may have fallen victim.

I don't buy his stories,excuses,lies or whatever you want to call it.

HISTORY has repeated itself here with him,and as stated,he has NO respect for fellow board members.

He's back,and was posting last night,in the Sales forum of all places,with nothing to say in the thread that went on for days about him,without him around.

Looks to me like he is hoping people have forgotten and moved on....dont let it happen.

If my input means anything,he belongs on the list.

 

Edited May 4, 2010 by kryptospidey

[Jeffro.]

Looks to me like he is hoping people have forgotten and moved on....dont let it happen.

 

Trust me. It won't be forgotten. We have long memories here.

[CKB]

This is ridiculous. The inmates have truly gained control of the asylum.

 

I tend to agree. This entire argument is circular at this point.

 

People who want the letter of the probationary list law upheld are on one side.

 

People who want the spirit of the list upheld on the other.

 

I really believe we can have both, and we can make it as simple and as clear as possible.

 

We don't have to try and squeeze these people into an existing list if they don't fit. We certainly DON'T have to let them off the hook entirely because they technically don't fit either.

 

We can call it the HIGH PROFILE FAILED TRANSACTIONS/BOARD DEBACLE LIST.

 

The Yannis thing is a straight up board debacle and a massive failed transaction. The difference between Yannis failed transaction and many others is that the full length and breadth of the failure was brought to the board's attention. That should not be forgotten, swept under the rug, or denied. I know some people would deal with the devil for the right books but for the folks that won't do that a story like this needs to be recorded and future board members need something to help them out when making decisions.

 

 

I see more use for the HoS if it is limited to people who have a pattern of acting maliciously, causing other hobbyists some sort of loss.

 

While the return of the deposit was unfortunate and the circumstances behind it appear to be greed....bad business in general...the bottom line is that there was no loss, no scam, no deception that caused monetary loss.

 

So, in my opinion, no matter what list someone gets put on, it would be useful to have a short summary of what transpired along with the listing.

 

 

[nocutename]

I lost faith in the probation list when putting a member on it for non-payment before the 30-day period, which violated the rules. It was just a few members that decided yes this buyer should be on the list but the rules (to my knowledge) where never changed to accommodate buyers remitting payment before 30-days. Leniency or bending the rules once shatters the process as a whole.

 

Voting to put members on the list or banning sketch sellers who haven’t actually harmed any parties account for this type of circumventing the process. This community does a great job at policing itself and I believe these instances are justifiably handed case by case by individual members. If it is the rules that need to be changed based on an ever-changing selling environment then we should do this as a community and look to use these three cases as examples rather than trying to incorporate them into unfound rules. Once the community loses faith in this probation system, what do you have left?

 

What I see being done here truly saddens me and is so far from the spirit of the boards that I originally joined.

[Loki]

I lost faith in the probation list when putting a member on it for non-payment before the 30-day period, which violated the rules. It was just a few members that decided yes this buyer should be on the list but the rules (to my knowledge) where never changed to accommodate buyers remitting payment before 30-days. Leniency or bending the rules once shatters the process as a whole.

 

Voting to put members on the list or banning sketch sellers who haven’t actually harmed any parties account for this type of circumventing the process. This community does a great job at policing itself and I believe these instances are justifiably handed case by case by individual members. If it is the rules that need to be changed based on an ever-changing selling environment then we should do this as a community and look to use these three cases as examples rather than trying to incorporate them into unfound rules. Once the community loses faith in this probation system, what do you have left?

 

What I see being done here truly saddens me and is so far from the spirit of the boards that I originally joined.

 

In all fairness, I believe this was applied only in one or two instances where the buyer flat out said that they had no intention of paying. It seems harsh to force the seller to wait 30 days under those circumstances. Especially if it means they have to hold onto books for a month instead of putting them back up for sale.

[comix4fun]

I lost faith in the probation list when putting a member on it for non-payment before the 30-day period, which violated the rules. It was just a few members that decided yes this buyer should be on the list but the rules (to my knowledge) where never changed to accommodate buyers remitting payment before 30-days. Leniency or bending the rules once shatters the process as a whole.

 

 

Actually, the 30 day window was created for disputes between the parties to allow for them to be worked out. It was also to allow time for buyers or sellers that went MIA to give them a shot at paying or shipping or communicating in a reasonable amount of time.

 

The allowance for people to be added before the end of the 30 days was an example of the list growing and evolving to adapt to fact patterns not originally anticipated by the original charter.

 

There have been situations that have arisen where parties have affirmatively and clearly made their intentions known that they are NOT going to perform their part of the bargain in an individual deal. They did not fail to respond, there was no gray area in what their intentions were, they were not going to pay (or ship the book, etc.) and there was no point, no reason, no logical cause for waiting some predetermined amount of time (originally set up to clarify potential misunderstandings) before that party was added.

 

The Constitution has amendments. If one of the greatest documents the world has ever created can grow and change I don't think it's the end of the world if the CGC Forum Probation list admits there are gaps in its coverage and moves to close them.

[mschmidt]

I lost faith in the probation list when putting a member on it for non-payment before the 30-day period, which violated the rules. It was just a few members that decided yes this buyer should be on the list but the rules (to my knowledge) where never changed to accommodate buyers remitting payment before 30-days. Leniency or bending the rules once shatters the process as a whole.

 

 

Actually, the 30 day window was created for disputes between the parties to allow for them to be worked out. It was also to allow time for buyers or sellers that went MIA to give them a shot at paying or shipping or communicating in a reasonable amount of time.

 

The allowance for people to be added before the end of the 30 days was an example of the list growing and evolving to adapt to fact patterns not originally anticipated by the original charter.

 

There have been situations that have arisen where parties have affirmatively and clearly made their intentions known that they are NOT going to perform their part of the bargain in an individual deal. They did not fail to respond, there was no gray area in what their intentions were, they were not going to pay (or ship the book, etc.) and there was no point, no reason, no logical cause for waiting some predetermined amount of time (originally set up to clarify potential misunderstandings) before that party was added.

 

The Constitution has amendments. If one of the greatest documents the world has ever created can grow and change I don't think it's the end of the world if the CGC Forum Probation list admits there are gaps in its coverage and moves to close them.

 

Great post

[PovertyRow]

I believe it was pressed before DF got his mitts on it. And I don't think we ever got an answer about digital manipulation vs. cleaning of the back cover.

 

MsSchmidt says "Correct me if I am wrong." regarding the pre/post slab pressing.

 

See this is the thing. Do you know it was pressed prior to it being slabbed?

 

Yes, kryptospidey said so in his very first post:

 

I'm really sad to see stuff like this going on in the forum sales area,especially when it's tied to a book i sold here on the boards with full disclosure as PRESSED and sold as a CGC graded 8.5.

Now the book,"RAW" was being offered as a 9.2,no mention of it being previously slabbed,pressed,and now with a "cleaned" back cover.

And here's a link to the sales thread where he discloses the book has been pressed:

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3887119&fpart=1

 

Thanks. It was so far back I forgot that part. In re-reading I do remember it.

 

We still need to deal with the back cover - manipulated or cleaned?

 

So the question is how is this to be dealt with? Just take the known factor: the book was pressed, disclosed as pressed on the boards, bought on the boards, and re-posted in Forum Selling without disclosing anything.

 

Should we now include in a set of rules that non-disclosure, including pressing and dry cleaning (two things not recognized by CGC as defects) will get someone on the list, or on a currently non-existent other list?

 

Again I am not defending Frank's actions. I am saying there are realities to deal with if the lists are going to be altered or modified as time goes by and as various situations present themselves.

You keep focusing on the non-disclosure, but there's more to it. I care a lot more about the voluminous lies, insulting disdain, and verbal attacks than the possibility that he had a comic cleaned. The guy has zero class and is a liability. It's not a technicality, and I don't think it starts anyone down any slippery slopes. We're a community and I'd say we're free to deal with his kind of grossly unwarranted behavior.

 

The bottom line is he's here to get over on us however he can. He's shown time and again that he has no respect for anyone, doesn't care about the folks here, and will pull his lameness again.

 

Just saw Frank was added to the HOS last night. So I guess any discussion is moot now.

[nocutename]

I lost faith in the probation list when putting a member on it for non-payment before the 30-day period, which violated the rules. It was just a few members that decided yes this buyer should be on the list but the rules (to my knowledge) where never changed to accommodate buyers remitting payment before 30-days. Leniency or bending the rules once shatters the process as a whole.

 

Voting to put members on the list or banning sketch sellers who haven’t actually harmed any parties account for this type of circumventing the process. This community does a great job at policing itself and I believe these instances are justifiably handed case by case by individual members. If it is the rules that need to be changed based on an ever-changing selling environment then we should do this as a community and look to use these three cases as examples rather than trying to incorporate them into unfound rules. Once the community loses faith in this probation system, what do you have left?

 

What I see being done here truly saddens me and is so far from the spirit of the boards that I originally joined.

 

In all fairness, I believe this was applied only in one or two instances where the buyer flat out said that they had no intention of paying. It seems harsh to force the seller to wait 30 days under those circumstances. Especially if it means they have to hold onto books for a month instead of putting them back up for sale.

 

Exceptions to the rules are being made willy-nilly is not right either. The rules need to be changed then if everyone things that a 30 day window is to long. The rules should be enforced to stop the pitch-fork menatility that can develop rather quickly here. I feel that new problems are coming up and perhaps it is time to look at what is happening and make changes together not just have one or two inputs.

[Mac Man]

Here's the only problem I see with this discussion's current direction:

 

There aren't many other involved in it.

 

I think if you guys want to seriously entertain thoughts like this (which is fine either which way), it'd be good to get more a group consensus before moving forward with any decisions on behalf of the community when it appears quite likely much of the community isn't directly involved in the discussion.

 

for what it's worth, but might be a good idea to draw in some other opinions on this before committing ink to paper.

I think there were over 40 people that voted to add Muscleshark to the probation list. A small audience from the forum, but greater than 3-4 people, right?

 

CORRECTED: Excuse me - just checked. 66 board members voted. My bad.

 

 

Yes... but 60-80 out of how many regular participants in the marketplace? I *believe* the Ghastly episode and CERTAINLY the CapFreak incident crossed over into the Comics General to bring the vote a wider base. I do believe that voting aside, you will see there are many of the same people participating in the conversation about this. And as other members who've been here longer than those of us from the esteemed "Class of 07" stated, it can get a little problematic if a smaller percentage of people overdiscuss this.

 

Look, please don't misconstrue my position as advocating on behalf of these individuals. I find it deplorable to take advantage of others especially when many of us here try to foster a community of fellowship and friendship. I just tend to be more cautious about setting a precedent of a smaller group of people being able to place someone on the Probation List / HoF list too quickly. Does Frank deserve it? Perhaps. Yannis? No idea (haven't been following that one as closely). I guess I'm just speaking to the principle of the matter and less these two particular cases.

 

And as I've always said here, that's just my . I never force it on anyone and you're free to take what you like and leave the rest

[nocutename]

I lost faith in the probation list when putting a member on it for non-payment before the 30-day period, which violated the rules. It was just a few members that decided yes this buyer should be on the list but the rules (to my knowledge) where never changed to accommodate buyers remitting payment before 30-days. Leniency or bending the rules once shatters the process as a whole.

 

 

Actually, the 30 day window was created for disputes between the parties to allow for them to be worked out. It was also to allow time for buyers or sellers that went MIA to give them a shot at paying or shipping or communicating in a reasonable amount of time.

 

The allowance for people to be added before the end of the 30 days was an example of the list growing and evolving to adapt to fact patterns not originally anticipated by the original charter.

 

There have been situations that have arisen where parties have affirmatively and clearly made their intentions known that they are NOT going to perform their part of the bargain in an individual deal. They did not fail to respond, there was no gray area in what their intentions were, they were not going to pay (or ship the book, etc.) and there was no point, no reason, no logical cause for waiting some predetermined amount of time (originally set up to clarify potential misunderstandings) before that party was added.

 

The Constitution has amendments. If one of the greatest documents the world has ever created can grow and change I don't think it's the end of the world if the CGC Forum Probation list admits there are gaps in its coverage and moves to close them.

 

I was involved in that CapFreak disaster and if I remember correctly, we all had to wait out the 30 days. Exceptions cannot be made because of favoritism. I believe in living documents but serious are you bring in the constitution. I am not going to debate this, I am stating my opinion and that is it. I think that the rules may need to be revised to suit the new problems that are arising but to penalize these three perceived offenders based on voting is ludicrous.

[Bosco685]

And as I've always said here, that's just my . I never force it on anyone and you're free to take what you like and leave the rest

Your is worth much more than that because your intentions are always so well focused. Don't undersell yourself.

[mschmidt]

I lost faith in the probation list when putting a member on it for non-payment before the 30-day period, which violated the rules. It was just a few members that decided yes this buyer should be on the list but the rules (to my knowledge) where never changed to accommodate buyers remitting payment before 30-days. Leniency or bending the rules once shatters the process as a whole.

 

 

Actually, the 30 day window was created for disputes between the parties to allow for them to be worked out. It was also to allow time for buyers or sellers that went MIA to give them a shot at paying or shipping or communicating in a reasonable amount of time.

 

The allowance for people to be added before the end of the 30 days was an example of the list growing and evolving to adapt to fact patterns not originally anticipated by the original charter.

 

There have been situations that have arisen where parties have affirmatively and clearly made their intentions known that they are NOT going to perform their part of the bargain in an individual deal. They did not fail to respond, there was no gray area in what their intentions were, they were not going to pay (or ship the book, etc.) and there was no point, no reason, no logical cause for waiting some predetermined amount of time (originally set up to clarify potential misunderstandings) before that party was added.

 

The Constitution has amendments. If one of the greatest documents the world has ever created can grow and change I don't think it's the end of the world if the CGC Forum Probation list admits there are gaps in its coverage and moves to close them.

 

I was involved in that CapFreak disaster and if I remember correctly, we all had to wait out the 30 days. Exceptions cannot be made because of favoritism. I believe in living documents but serious are you bring in the constitution. I am not going to debate this, I am stating my opinion and that is it. I think that the rules may need to be revised to suit the new problems that are arising but to penalize these three perceived offenders based on voting is ludicrous.

 

There is no favoritism.

 

If a buyer specifically says "I do not want these books, and I have no intention of ever paying for them", how does it make sense that the seller needs to wait 30 days before:

 

a) he can try to sell those books again

b) he can add the buyer to the probation list

 

?

 

CapFreak used the 30 days like a pro - he strung everybody along by promising he'd send the merchandise (or a refund) "soon", all the while making new deals on the side. It sucked, but that's how the probation list works - if the offending party is pretending to play along, they get the 30 days. If they don't, they go on the list immediately.

 

[Bosco685]

CapFreak used the 30 days like a pro - he strung everybody along by promising he'd send the merchandise (or a refund) "soon", all the while making new deals on the side.

And he suffers now because he lives in his own little Hell called, "his life." That's probation enough for eternity.

[joecgcmaniac]

CapFreak used the 30 days like a pro - he strung everybody along by promising he'd send the merchandise (or a refund) "soon", all the while making new deals on the side.

And he suffers now because he lives in his own little Hell called, "his hair." That's probation enough for eternity.

 

[comix4fun]

I lost faith in the probation list when putting a member on it for non-payment before the 30-day period, which violated the rules. It was just a few members that decided yes this buyer should be on the list but the rules (to my knowledge) where never changed to accommodate buyers remitting payment before 30-days. Leniency or bending the rules once shatters the process as a whole.

 

 

Actually, the 30 day window was created for disputes between the parties to allow for them to be worked out. It was also to allow time for buyers or sellers that went MIA to give them a shot at paying or shipping or communicating in a reasonable amount of time.

 

The allowance for people to be added before the end of the 30 days was an example of the list growing and evolving to adapt to fact patterns not originally anticipated by the original charter.

 

There have been situations that have arisen where parties have affirmatively and clearly made their intentions known that they are NOT going to perform their part of the bargain in an individual deal. They did not fail to respond, there was no gray area in what their intentions were, they were not going to pay (or ship the book, etc.) and there was no point, no reason, no logical cause for waiting some predetermined amount of time (originally set up to clarify potential misunderstandings) before that party was added.

 

The Constitution has amendments. If one of the greatest documents the world has ever created can grow and change I don't think it's the end of the world if the CGC Forum Probation list admits there are gaps in its coverage and moves to close them.

 

I was involved in that CapFreak disaster and if I remember correctly, we all had to wait out the 30 days. Exceptions cannot be made because of favoritism. I believe in living documents but serious are you bring in the constitution. I am not going to debate this, I am stating my opinion and that is it. I think that the rules may need to be revised to suit the new problems that are arising but to penalize these three perceived offenders based on voting is ludicrous.

 

 

Reread what I wrote, it should make sense. If one of the greatest documents ever written has room to be expanded, changed and corrected how can we stand on ceremony that the Probation List rules are untouchable?