• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

PROBATION DISCUSSIONS
21 21

Started by alwaysbronze,

36,203 posts in this topic

N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted
No one should be forced to work for someone they don't want to work for. This isn't Russia. Also, CGC doesn't provide for exclusive relationships. The creators do. The only other situation that could apply would be a show with only one facilitator. In that case, they are laying out their own money to attend, and under no circumstances should be forced to work with anyone that they don't want to.

 

Unless their reasons are against public policy: race, sex etc.

 

Not entirely true. CGC has been told before 2nd hand that a creator wants exclusivity. Unfortunately there have been many cases where this is not true. Also, it is CGC that polices the exclusivity so I would place at least some of the responsibility with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaybuck43

jaybuck43

Posted
Posted

How does CGC police the exclusivity? I've never seen CGC making sure that only Desert wind was doing Stan at NYCC when they were his exclusive facilitator. Are you saying that if a 3rd party witness mailed in a book witnessed at NYCC to CGC they would reject it as unwitnessed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted
How does CGC police the exclusivity? I've never seen CGC making sure that only Desert wind was doing Stan at NYCC when they were his exclusive facilitator. Are you saying that if a 3rd party witness mailed in a book witnessed at NYCC to CGC they would reject it as unwitnessed?

 

You answered your 1st question with your 2nd and your 1st statement is based on a fallacy. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mschmidt

mschmidt

Posted
Posted
No one should be forced to work for someone they don't want to work for. This isn't Russia. Also, CGC doesn't provide for exclusive relationships. The creators do. The only other situation that could apply would be a show with only one facilitator. In that case, they are laying out their own money to attend, and under no circumstances should be forced to work with anyone that they don't want to.

 

Unless their reasons are against public policy: race, sex etc.

 

Not entirely true. CGC has been told before 2nd hand that a creator wants exclusivity. Unfortunately there have been many cases where this is not true. Also, it is CGC that polices the exclusivity so I would place at least some of the responsibility with them.

 

CGC does not police these exclusivity agreements - if a creator only wants to work through a specific facilitator, CGC will simply accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

Not entirely true. CGC has been told before 2nd hand that a creator wants exclusivity. Unfortunately there have been many cases where this is not true. Also, it is CGC that polices the exclusivity so I would place at least some of the responsibility with them.

 

Facilitators facilitate...that is, they handle the process between CGC and creators. As such, they serve the same function as ambassadors...and ambassadors never make decisions in and of themselves...they represent the interests of the nation they serve.

 

It should be up to the creators and/or CGC to decide who they will, and will not, do business with, if there is "exclusivity."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeffro.

Jeffro.

Posted
Posted
All of my Russian facilitators respond to emails in a timely manner.

 

Is facilitator a euphemism for mail order bride?

 

It's a euphamism for GACollectibles, which is a business specializing in mail order brides.

 

Nice to see he's diversifying

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted
No one should be forced to work for someone they don't want to work for. This isn't Russia. Also, CGC doesn't provide for exclusive relationships. The creators do. The only other situation that could apply would be a show with only one facilitator. In that case, they are laying out their own money to attend, and under no circumstances should be forced to work with anyone that they don't want to.

 

Unless their reasons are against public policy: race, sex etc.

 

Not entirely true. CGC has been told before 2nd hand that a creator wants exclusivity. Unfortunately there have been many cases where this is not true. Also, it is CGC that polices the exclusivity so I would place at least some of the responsibility with them.

 

CGC does not police these exclusivity agreements - if a creator only wants to work through a specific facilitator, CGC will simply accept it.

 

Name the case then.

 

Of course CGC polices it. The creator "may" make the rule but it is CGC that enforces it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted

Not entirely true. CGC has been told before 2nd hand that a creator wants exclusivity. Unfortunately there have been many cases where this is not true. Also, it is CGC that polices the exclusivity so I would place at least some of the responsibility with them.

 

Facilitators facilitate...that is, they handle the process between CGC and creators. As such, they serve the same function as ambassadors...and ambassadors never make decisions in and of themselves...they represent the interests of the nation they serve.

 

It should be up to the creators and/or CGC to decide who they will, and will not, do business with, if there is "exclusivity."

 

You're preaching to the choir except to say I think you are mixing up CAW and Facilitator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
J DUB

J DUB

Posted
Posted

Not entirely true. CGC has been told before 2nd hand that a creator wants exclusivity. Unfortunately there have been many cases where this is not true. Also, it is CGC that polices the exclusivity so I would place at least some of the responsibility with them.

 

Facilitators facilitate...that is, they handle the process between CGC and creators. As such, they serve the same function as ambassadors...and ambassadors never make decisions in and of themselves...they represent the interests of the nation they serve.

 

It should be up to the creators and/or CGC to decide who they will, and will not, do business with, if there is "exclusivity."

 

You're preaching to the choir except to say I think you are mixing up CAW and Facilitator.

 

Branget you are wrong. CGC polices the facilitators. I know of people who can no longer facilitate because of the new feedback policy. (Menace for example)

 

How many times have you messaged people to get exclusive rights to shows?

 

Answer: too many times.

 

Get off of your trolling witch hunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted

Not entirely true. CGC has been told before 2nd hand that a creator wants exclusivity. Unfortunately there have been many cases where this is not true. Also, it is CGC that polices the exclusivity so I would place at least some of the responsibility with them.

 

Facilitators facilitate...that is, they handle the process between CGC and creators. As such, they serve the same function as ambassadors...and ambassadors never make decisions in and of themselves...they represent the interests of the nation they serve.

 

It should be up to the creators and/or CGC to decide who they will, and will not, do business with, if there is "exclusivity."

 

You're preaching to the choir except to say I think you are mixing up CAW and Facilitator.

 

Branget you are wrong. CGC polices the facilitators. I know of people who can no longer facilitate because of the new feedback policy. (Menace for example)

 

How many times have you messaged people to get exclusive rights to shows?

 

Answer: too many times.

 

Get off of your trolling witch hunt.

 

Well, thanks for your 2c , might want to lower the price on that. Not witch hunting anyone and have zero desire to do so.

 

I have never requested exclusivity since I'm not a big fan and who has ever been granted exclusivity for a show???

 

Anyway, weird interruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seanfingh

seanfingh

Posted
Posted

Not entirely true. CGC has been told before 2nd hand that a creator wants exclusivity. Unfortunately there have been many cases where this is not true. Also, it is CGC that polices the exclusivity so I would place at least some of the responsibility with them.

 

Facilitators facilitate...that is, they handle the process between CGC and creators. As such, they serve the same function as ambassadors...and ambassadors never make decisions in and of themselves...they represent the interests of the nation they serve.

 

It should be up to the creators and/or CGC to decide who they will, and will not, do business with, if there is "exclusivity."

 

Spoken like someone who has been banned for being a jack hole.

 

dlak0.jpgvia Imgflip Meme Maker

Link to comment
Share on other sites
J DUB

J DUB

Posted
Posted

Not entirely true. CGC has been told before 2nd hand that a creator wants exclusivity. Unfortunately there have been many cases where this is not true. Also, it is CGC that polices the exclusivity so I would place at least some of the responsibility with them.

 

Facilitators facilitate...that is, they handle the process between CGC and creators. As such, they serve the same function as ambassadors...and ambassadors never make decisions in and of themselves...they represent the interests of the nation they serve.

 

It should be up to the creators and/or CGC to decide who they will, and will not, do business with, if there is "exclusivity."

 

You're preaching to the choir except to say I think you are mixing up CAW and Facilitator.

 

Branget you are wrong. CGC polices the facilitators. I know of people who can no longer facilitate because of the new feedback policy. (Menace for example)

 

How many times have you messaged people to get exclusive rights to shows?

 

Answer: too many times.

 

Get off of your trolling witch hunt.

 

Well, thanks for your 2c , might want to lower the price on that. Not witch hunting anyone and have zero desire to do so.

I have never requested exclusivity since I'm not a big fan and who has ever been granted exclusivity for a show???

 

Anyway, weird interruption.

 

This is false.

 

People talk Branget.

 

I know shocking. But several members are friends outside of the boards.

 

You constantly message facilitators to ONLY take your books at shows. Famous line "how much money would it take for you to only take my books and not accept public subs?"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted

Not entirely true. CGC has been told before 2nd hand that a creator wants exclusivity. Unfortunately there have been many cases where this is not true. Also, it is CGC that polices the exclusivity so I would place at least some of the responsibility with them.

 

Facilitators facilitate...that is, they handle the process between CGC and creators. As such, they serve the same function as ambassadors...and ambassadors never make decisions in and of themselves...they represent the interests of the nation they serve.

 

It should be up to the creators and/or CGC to decide who they will, and will not, do business with, if there is "exclusivity."

 

You're preaching to the choir except to say I think you are mixing up CAW and Facilitator.

 

Branget you are wrong. CGC polices the facilitators. I know of people who can no longer facilitate because of the new feedback policy. (Menace for example)

 

How many times have you messaged people to get exclusive rights to shows?

 

Answer: too many times.

 

Get off of your trolling witch hunt.

 

Well, thanks for your 2c , might want to lower the price on that. Not witch hunting anyone and have zero desire to do so.

I have never requested exclusivity since I'm not a big fan and who has ever been granted exclusivity for a show???

 

Anyway, weird interruption.

 

This is false.

 

People talk Branget.

 

I know shocking. But several members are friends outside of the boards.

 

You constantly message facilitators to ONLY take your books at shows. Famous line "how much money would it take for you to only take my books and not accept public subs?"

 

 

I don't know how famous a line that is but it's a completely different scenario than what we are discussing. That scenario is actually mutually beneficial. It also does not prevent others from facilitating a show or getting sigs from anyone. This also benefits the facilitator in meeting any volume requirements set forth by CGC.

 

The exclusivity we are discussing prevents anyone else from obtaining signatures for SS without going through the exclusive facilitator. So my statement is actually true.

 

 

I realize you want to get at me because a friend of yours no longer likes me. Feel free John. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
revat

revat

Posted
Posted
This has gotten my interest. :popcorn:

 

this has gotten my confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
21 21
Go to topic listing