PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[Logan510]

I've said I won't sell for a while, or something along those words. I welcome a full ban. Anything you see fit.

 

 

If you feel this way, then you don't have to wait for poll results to say so, just take it upon yourself to show us that you are sincere in your intention to take responsibility for your failures and punish yourself by leaving.

 

That's the plan once my final sales reach the buyers.

 

 

Or until you come back to the board under another ID?

We know this is how it will play out. Another Muscleshark

 

I'm not a betting man and I would bet the house on this happening.

[comix4fun]

Maybe I missed something, but I'll play devil's advocate on this most recent infraction:

 

He used an eBay picture as a "stock photo" because he had no scans available. Being primarily a modern collector, he:

 

- paid attention only to the number and not the PQ when selecting an image (when does PQ ever come up with moderns?).

 

- did not think a "stock photo" would be a problem. With moderns, you're typically dealing with 9.8s and the general feeling is that a 9.8 is a 9.8. What's the difference if it's the same exact copy or not? Plenty of sellers sell multiple copies of the same 9.8 modern using the same scan.

 

- did not realize that when dealing with non-modern books, people tend to "buy the book, not the grade". An actual image when dealing with an older book, especially one that is not a 9.8, is important to most.

 

I have nothing to say about his previous infractions, but I believe this one was just sloppiness or ignorance and that there was no intent to deceive. I think if this were a modern in 9.8 and if this was someone else, we wouldn't have an issue.

 

 

Had he said "My book isn't this one, but it's the same grade" that would make sense.

 

However, he was selling a slab. Slabs have their own serial number. White page (bronze and earlier) slabs sell at a premium. To Slab buyers the wrap matters, the visible defects matter, the date of certification (research-able through the serial number) could even matter.

 

He simply listed the book, as if it was his, when he knew it wasn't and without disclosure of any kind.

 

I agree if it was a raw modern that it wouldn't be a problem. It's a problem because it's a slab and a $400 one. Any slab sale that uses a stolen scan is going to be a problem whether it's a modern or and oldie.

[Logan510]

Maybe I missed something, but I'll play devil's advocate on this most recent infraction:

 

He used an eBay picture as a "stock photo" because he had no scans available. Being primarily a modern collector, he:

 

- paid attention only to the number and not the PQ when selecting an image (when does PQ ever come up with moderns?).

 

- did not think a "stock photo" would be a problem. With moderns, you're typically dealing with 9.8s and the general feeling is that a 9.8 is a 9.8. What's the difference if it's the same exact copy or not? Plenty of sellers sell multiple copies of the same 9.8 modern using the same scan.

 

- did not realize that when dealing with non-modern books, people tend to "buy the book, not the grade". An actual image when dealing with an older book, especially one that is not a 9.8, is important to most.

 

I have nothing to say about his previous infractions, but I believe this one was just sloppiness or ignorance and that there was no intent to deceive. I think if this were a modern in 9.8 and if this was someone else, we wouldn't have an issue.

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

FWIW, and I'm sure it will get lost in all the Symbi drama, chriswALKEN was put on the PL on 7/7, and I'm still waiting for a package from him (which I assume I will never see).

 

It was only $10 and I sent it to him via PP personal, so I'll chalk it up as a loss, but just wanted to put in on record.

[Spyder!]

Maybe I missed something, but I'll play devil's advocate on this most recent infraction:

 

He used an eBay picture as a "stock photo" because he had no scans available. Being primarily a modern collector, he:

 

- paid attention only to the number and not the PQ when selecting an image (when does PQ ever come up with moderns?).

 

- did not think a "stock photo" would be a problem. With moderns, you're typically dealing with 9.8s and the general feeling is that a 9.8 is a 9.8. What's the difference if it's the same exact copy or not? Plenty of sellers sell multiple copies of the same 9.8 modern using the same scan.

 

- did not realize that when dealing with non-modern books, people tend to "buy the book, not the grade". An actual image when dealing with an older book, especially one that is not a 9.8, is important to most.

 

I have nothing to say about his previous infractions, but I believe this one was just sloppiness or ignorance and that there was no intent to deceive. I think if this were a modern in 9.8 and if this was someone else, we wouldn't have an issue.

 

Maybe an excuse like this would deserve some consideration if he ONLY dealt in moderns. I don't, so I will assume what you are saying is true. But he repeatedly posts SA and BA books here, and page quality and wrap etc are very important. He then tried to say that it was the same page quality, another lie. Ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back?

Edited July 10, 2014 by Spyder!

[ItsJustRyan]

@ Symbiotic

 

You're mentioning a random Modern 9.8 as a stock photo, but were you not selling a HfH #1 8.5?

[Dr. Balls]

Maybe I missed something, but I'll play devil's advocate on this most recent infraction:

 

He used an eBay picture as a "stock photo" because he had no scans available. Being primarily a modern collector, he:

 

- paid attention only to the number and not the PQ when selecting an image (when does PQ ever come up with moderns?).

 

- did not think a "stock photo" would be a problem. With moderns, you're typically dealing with 9.8s and the general feeling is that a 9.8 is a 9.8. What's the difference if it's the same exact copy or not? Plenty of sellers sell multiple copies of the same 9.8 modern using the same scan.

 

- did not realize that when dealing with non-modern books, people tend to "buy the book, not the grade". An actual image when dealing with an older book, especially one that is not a 9.8, is important to most.

 

I have nothing to say about his previous infractions, but I believe this one was just sloppiness or ignorance and that there was no intent to deceive. I think if this were a modern in 9.8 and if this was someone else, we wouldn't have an issue.

 

 

 

He's got a point - people use stock photos to sell DVDs, etc all the time. However, I think using a stock photo for something of value that is NOT YOURS and that you don't disclose that it's a stock photo - is purposefully deceptive no matter how you slice it.

 

I don't think that anyone familiar with these boards or CGC grading would think that posting up an expensive book that isn't yours is an acceptible business practice.

[Boba]

There's no need for a poll after I ship the last of these orders I'll be leaving the board fr good .

 

 

(thumbs u

[Boba]

Maybe I missed something, but I'll play devil's advocate on this most recent infraction:

 

He used an eBay picture as a "stock photo" because he had no scans available. Being primarily a modern collector, he:

 

- paid attention only to the number and not the PQ when selecting an image (when does PQ ever come up with moderns?).

 

- did not think a "stock photo" would be a problem. With moderns, you're typically dealing with 9.8s and the general feeling is that a 9.8 is a 9.8. What's the difference if it's the same exact copy or not? Plenty of sellers sell multiple copies of the same 9.8 modern using the same scan.

 

- did not realize that when dealing with non-modern books, people tend to "buy the book, not the grade". An actual image when dealing with an older book, especially one that is not a 9.8, is important to most.

 

I have nothing to say about his previous infractions, but I believe this one was just sloppiness or ignorance and that there was no intent to deceive. I think if this were a modern in 9.8 and if this was someone else, we wouldn't have an issue.

 

 

 

. . . just walk away . . .

[1Cool]

If his recent issue was his first strike then I can see forgiving him. But I can't see any reason to not ban him since this is at least his third major issue in the short time he has been on the boards. Just like a bad buyer on E-Bay - ban and move on.

[vaillant]

To Symbiotic’s partial justification I will disclose a thing that (probably) I myself alone have seen.

 

When he started the sales thread, he initially used another picture (not from eBay) of the book, in same grade, and with White pages.

The picture was not nice as the last one he choose, so I guess he kept looking and found one which in his opinion better represented the book, but it has slightly worse PQ (OW/W).

 

Not to justify or second such an idea, and I would never buy an expensive book without a picture, and he should have stated he was using a "placeholder" scan, but just for the record…

 

Besides this, I seem to get a good deal of his transactions were done OK, and he has good feedback from Brock, Chip, and many other boardies – this makes his recent behavior hard to understand. I hope he does right.

[Logan510]

To Symbiotic’s partial justification I will disclose a thing that (probably) I myself alone have seen.

 

When he started the sales thread, he initially used another picture (not from eBay) of the book, in same grade, and with White pages.

The picture was not nice as the last one he choose, so I guess he kept looking and found one which in his opinion better represented the book, but it has slightly worse PQ (OW/W).

 

Not to justify or second such an idea, and I would never buy an expensive book without a picture, and he should have stated he was using a "placeholder" scan, but just for the record…

 

Besides this, I seem to get a good deal of his transactions were done OK, and he has good feedback from Brock, Chip, and many other boardies – this makes his recent behavior hard to understand. I hope he does right.

 

How can anyone read the list of asshatery this guy has committed that Harvey laid out for everyone to see...and find ANY way to defend or justify this clown?

[miraclemet]

Maybe I missed something, but I'll play devil's advocate on this most recent infraction:

 

He used an eBay picture as a "stock photo" because he had no scans available. Being primarily a modern collector, he:

 

- paid attention only to the number and not the PQ when selecting an image (when does PQ ever come up with moderns?).

 

- did not think a "stock photo" would be a problem. With moderns, you're typically dealing with 9.8s and the general feeling is that a 9.8 is a 9.8. What's the difference if it's the same exact copy or not? Plenty of sellers sell multiple copies of the same 9.8 modern using the same scan.

 

- did not realize that when dealing with non-modern books, people tend to "buy the book, not the grade". An actual image when dealing with an older book, especially one that is not a 9.8, is important to most.

 

I have nothing to say about his previous infractions, but I believe this one was just sloppiness or ignorance and that there was no intent to deceive. I think if this were a modern in 9.8 and if this was someone else, we wouldn't have an issue.

 

 

Had he said "My book isn't this one, but it's the same grade" that would make sense.

 

However, he was selling a slab. Slabs have their own serial number. White page (bronze and earlier) slabs sell at a premium. To Slab buyers the wrap matters, the visible defects matter, the date of certification (research-able through the serial number) could even matter.

 

He simply listed the book, as if it was his, when he knew it wasn't and without disclosure of any kind.

 

I agree if it was a raw modern that it wouldn't be a problem. It's a problem because it's a slab and a $400 one. Any slab sale that uses a stolen scan is going to be a problem whether it's a modern or and oldie.

 

He also mentioned in his sales thread that he thought the book had a "chance for an upgrade"... inferring that a press could get a higher grade.

 

Which means the potential buyer would then look at the scan to see if he agreed that the defects were pressable...

 

except the scan the buyer would be looking was not the actual book being sold.

[erazer]

I get all of your points. I'm not saying that he did the right thing. I am only saying I don't think there was malice or intent to deceive. I also agree that he is a screwup that probably deserves to be on the HoS. There are consequences for screwing up, regardless of intent.

 

[vaillant]

How can anyone read the list of asshatery this guy has committed that Harvey laid out for everyone to see...and find ANY way to defend or justify this clown?

 

As usual, you have not even read my post paying attention to what I said.

If you feel like you can insult another person, whatever the reason, I have more reasons to defend a burglar (just an example) than I would have to defend you anyway.

[vaillant]

I get all of your points. I'm not saying that he did the right thing. I am only saying I don't think there was malice or intent to deceive. I also agree that he is a screwup that probably deserves to be on the HoS. There are consequences for screwing up, regardless of intent.

 

And that is what I meant, but Logan knows best. He probably has some faculty which allows him to judge people instead of their actions that I am lacking.

[Boboset]

 

 

 

 

Symbiotic HOS nomination poll with detailed write up courtesy of HarveySwick

[Logan510]

How can anyone read the list of asshatery this guy has committed that Harvey laid out for everyone to see...and find ANY way to defend or justify this clown?

 

As usual, you have not even read my post paying attention to what I said.

If you feel like you can insult another person, whatever the reason, I have more reasons to defend a burglar (just an example) than I would have to defend you anyway.

 

I'm going to chalk this up to a communication gap, because if you honestly believe you have more reasons to defend a thief....

[Columbia Comics]

How can anyone read the list of asshatery this guy has committed that Harvey laid out for everyone to see...and find ANY way to defend or justify this clown?

 

As usual, you have not even read my post paying attention to what I said.

If you feel like you can insult another person, whatever the reason, I have more reasons to defend a burglar (just an example) than I would have to defend you anyway.

 

Per the usual, Logan has decided to spew negativity across the boards. He's quite the piece of work.

 

Had he taken the time to look at what you posted, he would see that my interaction with Drew occurred on 8/1/2012, which is basically two years ago. His misbehavior had not occurred at that time. So yes, we had a good transaction.

 

I've come to expect nothing less from Logan...and the other trolls she associates with.

[N/A]

I get all of your points. I'm not saying that he did the right thing. I am only saying I don't think there was malice or intent to deceive. I also agree that he is a screwup that probably deserves to be on the HoS. There are consequences for screwing up, regardless of intent.

 

Can someone be this screwed up with no intent?