PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[VintageComics]

Roy, I can really appreciate how difficult it is to stand up for the guy getting beat up, it isn't easy and shows a great deal of empathy and compassion on your part.

 

I do want to point out that you mentioned that you hadn't read the links or all of the links provided in the original HOS nomination. Is it possible your defense of Chip is based on your need to defend the little guy, and an automatic response when you see a crowd gathering in anger? The portion of your post I highlighted above is a strong example of your forgiving viewpoint and your efforts to protect the weak. This isn't knuckle rap, it's a public shaming and our strongest measure to expel someone from the tribe, and it isn't bad behavior, it's long term systemic theft and lies.

 

Regardless, this is a vote. It's important to have a conversation, weight the issues, respect all sides, vote, and then hang the perp.

 

I'm with my kids on a short trip and commenting when I get a chance, hence the not reading the links.

 

My response is not an automatic response to protect someone by defending the little guy.

 

My responses have come from a position of having a business relationship with Chip over several years that went pretty much flawlessly except for a few isolated incidents.

 

Chip even took returns and wouldn't tell me about it until I found out. He ate the returns because he felt it was a part of the service he offered for me.

 

Chip was also an eBay Power Seller for many years on eBay. You can't be a Power Seller unless you ship in a timely manner. One of the reasons I used Chip was because he was a Power Seller with lower fees than the average eBayer.

 

So based on what I knew from personal experience, the accusations didn't actually ring true to me.

 

Add in the fact that I know a lot about Mental Illness and that Chip was struggling with it, and you can understand why my responses were what they were.

 

I'm not defending Chip. I don't know how much more clear I can make it.

 

No matter what words I use (rap, shame, punish) it's all the same to me.

 

My concern was that the conversation and the facts were laid out clearly before I could say I too felt he was guilty.

 

I don't think Chip is a thief. He had plenty of opportunity to steal a lot of money and didn't.

 

I do think Chip has a problem with procrastination (which can definitely be a symptom of depression - I know this first hand).

 

I do think people need to put him in the HOS if they feel he needs to go there.

 

As I have said, I will agree with whatever the majority decides.

 

And I'll be honest, I'm probably a little too emotionally invested in this conversation now to think clearly.

[topofthetotem]

It's lame if I'm using it to bolster my argument.

 

It's not lame if it's meaning to show a little perspective that not everyone agrees.

 

As topofthetotem said:

"What is a respected boardie? Who decides that?

Is the definition:

Someone who sells HG expensive books?

Someone who attends board functions?

Someone who plays a pickup game of Basket ball?

Someone with lots of post?

Someone with a custom title?

Someone who sets up at a con?"

 

Yeah, I'm going to consider someone respected because they have a big wallet or play basketball with me.

 

I consider a respected boardie someone who spends quality time on the chat forum by adding value over a longish term, someone that I trust to do business with, someone that seems fairly reasonable in their replies, etc, etc.

 

I love ya Roy but what's reasonable? I've said that the plain and simple data related to the failed transaction is all that should be considered whether he is added to the HOS.

All this talk about about mental illness, others experiences with mental health or positive past transactions have zero to do with the current situation but there are those that felt the need to interject those tangents that created this sideshow.

 

If anyone adds digressive aspects to a clear cut and dry simple economic equation they should expect to have those positions challenged. That's the nature of a discussion.

 

By the metric used to show a history with positive transactions that same history can also be used to prove negative results.

By the introduction of unverifiable mental health data to explain his behaviours that same data can be used by others to explain that those same potential emotional and poor coping mechanisms are displayed as obvious history of active deception whether be it by accident or design.

 

And while I agree that the world is not black and white sometimes the simplist answer to the question is 1+1 is 2.

 

Lawrence "the unrespected boardie"

[VintageComics]

I don't think anyone should be trying to dictate how others voice their feelings on the matter. To say the only thing anyone should bring up are the basic facts is only one way to do this. It holds no more weight than anyone else's way of discussing the topic.

 

Really?

 

How would name calling and cuss words go over in a court of law, or on the street?

 

Why should it be different here?

 

I'm starting to think that most people have no idea what Mental Illness is.

 

Mental Illness is far reaching and casts a wide net. It's much better understood today than it used to be even recently but it still is not very well understood by the general public IMO.

 

My wife and I both deal with it in our family life AND in her work so we spend a lot of time learning about it.

 

Understand now THAT I'M NOT SAYING CHIP IS MENTALLY ILL AND THIS IS WHY THIS FIASCO HAPPENED.

 

But I am saying that THIS IS WHY I REACTED THE WAY I DID at the start of the discussion.

 

My business experiences with Chip (which went very well) coupled with what I know about mental illness, I wanted to make sure people weren't attacking someone with mental illness.

 

If someone doesn't like me because of that then I'd just rather err on the side of caution and stay a jerkbutt in people's eyes.

 

[VintageComics]

It's lame if I'm using it to bolster my argument.

 

It's not lame if it's meaning to show a little perspective that not everyone agrees.

 

As topofthetotem said:

"What is a respected boardie? Who decides that?

Is the definition:

Someone who sells HG expensive books?

Someone who attends board functions?

Someone who plays a pickup game of Basket ball?

Someone with lots of post?

Someone with a custom title?

Someone who sets up at a con?"

 

Yeah, I'm going to consider someone respected because they have a big wallet or play basketball with me.

 

I consider a respected boardie someone who spends quality time on the chat forum by adding value over a longish term, someone that I trust to do business with, someone that seems fairly reasonable in their replies, etc, etc.

 

I love ya Roy but what's reasonable? I've said that the plain and simple data related to the failed transaction is all that should be considered whether he is added to the HOS.

All this talk about about mental illness, others experiences with mental health or positive past transactions have zero to do with the current situation but there are those that felt the need to interject those tangents that created this sideshow.

 

If anyone adds digressive aspects to a clear cut and dry simple economic equation they should expect to have those positions challenged. That's the nature of a discussion.

 

By the metric used to show a history with positive transactions that same history can also be used to prove negative results.

By the introduction of unverifiable mental health data to explain his behaviours that same data can be used by others to explain that those same potential emotional and poor coping mechanisms are displayed as obvious history of active deception whether be it by accident or design.

 

And while I agree that the world is not black and white sometimes the simplist answer to the question is 1+1 is 2.

 

Lawrence "the unrespected boardie"

 

You're actually a respected boardie.

 

The discussion evolved.

 

But it seems that people are still stuck on page 1 of the discussion and not following it.

 

Just like everyone else, I learned more as the discussion evolved.

 

I started with discussion.

 

I presented my understanding of the facts as they relate to my experiences.

 

I concluded by agreeing that based on the criteria and the facts you guys should do what you need to do to put him in the HOS.

 

If people simply want me to agree with everyone sooner I ask "what is the urgency?"

 

We're all on the same page now.

 

I function this way in everyday life as well.

 

I try not to jump to conclusions without exhausting the evidence if there is no rush because I don't like being wrong.

 

You should see me when I'm buying an appliance. It might take me 6 months to decide on a toaster oven.

 

Does that make more sense to you now?

 

 

 

 

[topofthetotem]

I don't think there is an urgency, it seems the process is moving forward as it should and a descision will be made collectively. All this other stuff is just static and is not impeding the established process.

 

P.S I just grab what cheapest.

[VintageComics]

All this other stuff is just static and is not impeding the established process.

 

As it shouldn't.

 

But awareness of mental illness was what I was most interested in.

 

P.S I just grab what cheapest.

 

See? Everyone is different but we all get to the same place eventually.

[paperheart]

i don't know if i'm a respected boardie but the glee i detect in this thread at extracting a pound of flesh over the situation is nauseating. the guy is deservedly going into the HOS, he'll likely never be accepted here again. should he have been on the PL already? probably. i'm out a piddling amount of $; i knew when i participated in his latest thread that there was a likelihood that was going to happen. i hope he'll make the other boardies who are in the same situation whole. i don't understand the need to continue flogging this guy (and Roy for that matter). unveil the vote and be done with it; it's a fait accompli it's going to be 90%+ for HOS inclusion.

[VintageComics]

Thanks, Mike.

 

I spoke to Chip today and he did mention that your package is going out asap.

 

 

Any other details of the conversation are for Chip to share if he sees fit.

[topofthetotem]

All this other stuff is just static and is not impeding the established process.

 

As it shouldn't.

 

But awareness of mental illness was what I was most interested in.

 

P.S I just grab what cheapest.

 

See? Everyone is different but we all get to the same place eventually.

From my experience as a Health Director I would say that there would be a very high percentage of boardies that deal with mental health issues be it their own, family or friends. It's sadly ubiquitous.

[sacentaur]

Steve, the only real drama was you getting ticked off because the book took so long to get there.

 

I think a buyer who sent money immediately ("Thanks for the quick payment!") for an expensive book, waited a week and the book didn't mail, then who had to endure more delays because the book was ultimately mailed to the wrong party - twice - certainly could be expected to be a bit ticked off.

 

Sounds like you now think that's unreasonable?

 

I offered a partial refund for the trouble IIRC...

 

I accepted the partial refund you offered because I finally rec'd the book and felt it was over-graded (I reminded you that the centerfold was partially detached, something you neglected to mention in your original sales listing, later edited) - compensation for the technically over-graded (but nice looking) comic, thanks (seriously, you were fair on the final price).

[VintageComics]

Have you ever had one of those deals where nothing goes smoothly? That was me and Steve this year.

 

3 of Steve's purchases were mis-shipped this year.

 

3 of them.

 

Call it bad luck, bad karma, bad uju or whatever. A disturbance in the force between Steve and I.

 

After shipping literally 100's of books on time this past year with little to no complaints, I had 3 late packages all to Steve.

 

IIRC., one was my fault because I was traveling, one my shipping guy had to visit the dentist for am acute medical issue and it was delayed and was shipped a few days late and one was the incident with Chip.

 

I actually couldn't believe it.

 

But Steve was understandably annoyed and I don't blame him.

 

I think a buyer who sent money immediately ('Thanks for the quick payment!") for an expensive book, waited a week and the book didn't mail, then who had to endure more delays because the book was ultimately mailed to the wrong party - twice - certainly could be expected to be a bit ticked off.

 

Sounds like you now think that's unreasonable?

 

I didn't say it was unreasonable. You had every right to be upset.

 

I just wanted people to clarify that the word drama didn't mean there was anything nefarious going on.

 

I accepted the partial refund you offered because I finally rec'd the book and felt it was over-graded (I reminded you that the centerfold was partially detached, something you neglected to mention in your original sales listing, later edited) - compensation for the technically over-graded (but nice looking) comic, thanks (seriously, you were fair on the final price).

 

I believe I offered a partial refund based on the slow shipping before the book arrived.

 

After the book arrived, you asked for a partial refund because you disagreed with the grade which again, was fine. I'm generally easy to deal with and I wanted you to be happy.

 

I hadn't seen the book in a long time and simply went by my notes when I bought the book from October years ago so if I missed the centerfold or it was overgraded, it wasn't intentional.

 

Most people are generally happy with mine and October's grading so this one slipped through the cracks.

 

What you said about the book was that it 'felt dry', Not having ever heard that before I chalked it up to a learning experience for me.

 

Again, not my finest moment but also not a defining moment considering I've had 1000's of flawless transactions as well.

 

[wombat]

I don't think anyone should be trying to dictate how others voice their feelings on the matter. To say the only thing anyone should bring up are the basic facts is only one way to do this. It holds no more weight than anyone else's way of discussing the topic.

 

Really?

 

How would name calling and cuss words go over in a court of law, or on the street?

 

Why should it be different here?

 

I'm starting to think that most people have no idea what Mental Illness is.

 

Mental Illness is far reaching and casts a wide net. It's much better understood today than it used to be even recently but it still is not very well understood by the general public IMO.

 

My wife and I both deal with it in our family life AND in her work so we spend a lot of time learning about it.

 

Understand now THAT I'M NOT SAYING CHIP IS MENTALLY ILL AND THIS IS WHY THIS FIASCO HAPPENED.

 

But I am saying that THIS IS WHY I REACTED THE WAY I DID at the start of the discussion.

 

My business experiences with Chip (which went very well) coupled with what I know about mental illness, I wanted to make sure people weren't attacking someone with mental illness.

 

If someone doesn't like me because of that then I'd just rather err on the side of caution and stay a jerkbutt in people's eyes.

 

Really. I won't tell you how to post and you don't tell me how to post. And you are saying his mental illness is causing this. You say it over and over and over.

[HarveySwick]

Let's clarify something. No one went out and harassed someone with a mental illness. It's not like Chip was walking down the street minding his own business and members of the CGC Boards Gang harassed him.

 

Chip is not the victim here.

 

Chip stole on the CGC Boards.

Chip lied on the CGC Boards.

Chip manipulated members of the CGC Boards.

 

This wildly_fanciful_statement about some level of sensitivity should be used with Chip because he COULD have a mental illness needs to stop already. The only reason it's being discussed is that YOU Roy and YOU Red brought it up and continue to bring it up. Everyone else is just content calling Chip a liar, cheat and a scammer.

[chrisco37]

 

This wildly_fanciful_statement about some level of sensitivity should be used with Chip because he COULD have a mental illness needs to stop already.

 

I agree with this. Any benefit of doubt he may have garnered has been lost. And that is solely based on his own actions (or inaction as it were).

 

As someone else said last evening, mental illness is pretty ubiquitous. To think that a lot of us don't understand it or haven't experienced it is a bit naive (in my opinion).

[Red_Hood]

Let's clarify something. No one went out and harassed someone with a mental illness. It's not like Chip was walking down the street minding his own business and members of the CGC Boards Gang harassed him.

 

Chip is not the victim here.

 

Chip stole on the CGC Boards.

Chip lied on the CGC Boards.

Chip manipulated members of the CGC Boards.

 

This wildly_fanciful_statement about some level of sensitivity should be used with Chip because he COULD have a mental illness needs to stop already. The only reason it's being discussed is that YOU Roy and YOU Red brought it up and continue to bring it up. Everyone else is just content calling Chip a liar, cheat and a scammer.

 

plain and simple,

[JAM_NYC]

I hope to one day become a respected board member.

 

[october]

Roy, is this really the sword you want to fall on? It's over, just back away from the computer.

 

Being the board patron saint of lost causes isn't going to do you any favors.

[crassus]

I hope to one day become a respected board member.

 

 

play your cards right and ya know, there's room to move up...

[jsilverjanet]

I was a respected board member once...(takes a drink)...tough racket

[VintageComics]

I don't think anyone should be trying to dictate how others voice their feelings on the matter. To say the only thing anyone should bring up are the basic facts is only one way to do this. It holds no more weight than anyone else's way of discussing the topic.

 

Really?

 

How would name calling and cuss words go over in a court of law, or on the street?

 

Why should it be different here?

 

I'm starting to think that most people have no idea what Mental Illness is.

 

Mental Illness is far reaching and casts a wide net. It's much better understood today than it used to be even recently but it still is not very well understood by the general public IMO.

 

My wife and I both deal with it in our family life AND in her work so we spend a lot of time learning about it.

 

Understand now THAT I'M NOT SAYING CHIP IS MENTALLY ILL AND THIS IS WHY THIS FIASCO HAPPENED.

 

But I am saying that THIS IS WHY I REACTED THE WAY I DID at the start of the discussion.

 

My business experiences with Chip (which went very well) coupled with what I know about mental illness, I wanted to make sure people weren't attacking someone with mental illness.

 

If someone doesn't like me because of that then I'd just rather err on the side of caution and stay a jerkbutt in people's eyes.

 

Really. I won't tell you how to post and you don't tell me how to post. And you are saying his mental illness is causing this. You say it over and over and over.

 

Obviously you're not reading what I wrote. Even when it's in capital letters.