PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[Logan510]

This guy has had a shady history almost since day 1. He's been nominated for the PL more than once ( please correct me if I'm wrong ). Motive and intent? Obviously he's trying to use the boards to make money..not a crime as I can name a dozen people off the top of my head who do the same and they don't give a squirt about the "community". The issues are with the stream of lies and deceptions...it's ridiculous. Maybe he doesn't belong in the HoS by the letter of the "law", but the eyeball test has HoS written all over this guy.

[crassus]

Teach us Jeff. Explain to the members of the unruly mob carrying torches.

 

How can you simply dismiss HusTruck's actions as "poor communication" or "no different than a presale"?

 

(1) He started a sales thread intentionally hiding the label and certification number.

(2) Scared off the original eBay seller of the book so much with his shady attempts at payment, the seller cancelled the deal.

(3) Informed his buyer of the book that the book had a cracked case so he didn't feel comfortable selling him a book with a cracked case and didn't want to make the buyer wait for it to get back from CGC

(4) Used photos from a completely different book that had been used by another Boardie to further the fraudulent claims of a cracked case.

(5) Attempted to claim that the eBay seller gave him permission to use those photographs.

 

HOW?! How is that "poor communication" or "no different than a presale"?

 

Can't wait to hear your response.

 

This is part of the problem. The only point applicable to the sale is #1. People don't like it but pics with no label or a blocked serial number is not uncommon. I assume any potential buyer could ask.

 

 

He told the buyer that he would send him pictures of the book's broken case to show him why he's not sending it to him. He claimed it was a picture of the very book he was selling to the buyer. Then he sent the picture of a book that was listed here on the forum by another seller that wasn't the book in question and was simply a lifted picture.

 

3, 4, and 5 are all deceptions and lies in the middle of this particular transaction. How in the world would those factors NOT be germane to this discussion.

 

Did you not know that the picture was stolen from another listing here in the boards and wasn't the 181 in question?

 

#1 is the only applicable point for the sales THREAD.

 

3 parts

 

Sales thread - no lies, poor communication. Stating what Dre posted and there would be no problem.

 

2) completing the sale - lies to cover his like any child would do. I think of a cornered animal. Restitution to 4 comix.

 

3) follow up - more lies. If he came here explained, apologized and changed then likely no issues.

 

Maybe I needed to say sales thread as opposed to sale.

 

That makes more sense.

 

It's still incorrect, but at least it makes more sense.

 

The sales thread itself was a lie, he never owned or possessed that book.

 

The completing the sale portion is part of the sales thread. The sales thread created the need to complete the sale. Everything he did or said after that sales thread, to induce someone to buy, is part of the sales thread and is part of the discussion for discipline/warning. #3, 4, and 5 all came in the completing the sale portion. They were all lies in furtherance of the sales thread.

 

Honest people take the bullet themselves when they screw up. Dishonest people find any way possible to put that on someone else, anyone else. It doesn't matter to them who gets hurt, doesn't get their book, relied on their word, or otherwise gets the short end of the stick because they aren't mature enough, honest enough, or forthright enough to take the consequences of their miscalculations and errors.

 

It's the true test of a person, how they react when they've made a mistake or when they face some kind of potential loss. Do they honor their word no matter the personal cost? Or do they break their word, lie, cheat, or otherwise put the burden of that mistake on innocent parties?

 

There's a lot to be learned about Hustruck here if we allow ourselves.

 

Let me say first, apart from all this unpleasantness, welcome back.

 

You are as usual very persuasive. My only concern is the more the argument focuses down on the damning significance of lies, it raises the question whether many other PL cases, past and likely future, will not also qualify for HoS the moment the offending party is caught in even a single lie.

 

If I lie to make excuses for why I haven't shipped a package I was obligated to ship, has this elevated me to an HoS nomination? If the lie need not be tied to the probable benefit of profit, but merely needs be a lie somewhere in the course of a transaction gone bad, is this not a very broad door we're opening?

 

Am I misinterpreting you?

 

 

[NTHstars]

Agreed. I honestly thought you were making these arguments to keep the integrity of the lists intact. That is something that I could respect, even though I disagree with your reasoning. Now it appears you are grasping at straws, arguing just to argue, or completely unwilling or unable to see what is right in front of you.

 

I am still arguing for the integrity.

 

I see a liar. I see a shady seller with bad business practices, poor ethics, cutting corners with no experience.

 

What I don't see is a thief which is what I reserve the HOS for. I disagree that if he was smarter he would steal. I think if he was smarter he would have better business practices and not feel the pressure to cover his for bad decisions.

 

 

 

Why is it less of a transgression to lie in a deal to cover your for bad decisions than it is to lie in a deal to make money?

 

They are both selfish, dishonest, fraudulent actions. Whether it's to put money in your pocket or to prevent losing money from your pocket it's a choice he made to lie and to cheat.

 

He has poor business practices, so he makes up for it by lying to the people he contracts to deal with, even when there's no money to be made. Do you think adding in the opportunity to make money on top of that will provide MORE or LESS temptation for him to act in the same manner? He's already lied and cheated for nothing. Add cash incentive on top and which way do you see it going?

 

That's a pretty big personality revelation you want to discount because he didn't make off with cash at the end.

 

I guess we can't agree. Motivation and intent are very big concepts for me.

 

 

If he was motivated to lie by some big potential payday it might make more sense.

 

I find it far more revealing that he was willing to destroy any and all personal integrity for almost nothing or to prevent himself from losing a few hundred dollars (as he seems to have done here)?

 

The fact that he did it for almost nothing makes him far more dangerous in a transaction than someone who only folded after enough cash was waved in their face. Someone who would lie for nothing would lie for anything.

 

That's a pretty big concept.

 

Ok. Now I'm enjoying this.

 

I disagree. I think one who lies for self preservation is not the same a someone who lies to harm someone else. I do not think it is safe to assume he would cross that line. This is very important to me in discussions like this.

 

But all of these board shenanigans have caused great anxiety, consternation and inconvenience at the very least, tying up buyers/sellers time and money as they entered into deals that were not carried out in good faith.

[A.Romeo]

One thing you learn from these discussions is who may try to pull a fast one in the future...

[comix4fun]

Agreed. I honestly thought you were making these arguments to keep the integrity of the lists intact. That is something that I could respect, even though I disagree with your reasoning. Now it appears you are grasping at straws, arguing just to argue, or completely unwilling or unable to see what is right in front of you.

 

I am still arguing for the integrity.

 

I see a liar. I see a shady seller with bad business practices, poor ethics, cutting corners with no experience.

 

What I don't see is a thief which is what I reserve the HOS for. I disagree that if he was smarter he would steal. I think if he was smarter he would have better business practices and not feel the pressure to cover his for bad decisions.

 

 

 

Why is it less of a transgression to lie in a deal to cover your for bad decisions than it is to lie in a deal to make money?

 

They are both selfish, dishonest, fraudulent actions. Whether it's to put money in your pocket or to prevent losing money from your pocket it's a choice he made to lie and to cheat.

 

He has poor business practices, so he makes up for it by lying to the people he contracts to deal with, even when there's no money to be made. Do you think adding in the opportunity to make money on top of that will provide MORE or LESS temptation for him to act in the same manner? He's already lied and cheated for nothing. Add cash incentive on top and which way do you see it going?

 

That's a pretty big personality revelation you want to discount because he didn't make off with cash at the end.

 

I guess we can't agree. Motivation and intent are very big concepts for me.

 

 

If he was motivated to lie by some big potential payday it might make more sense.

 

I find it far more revealing that he was willing to destroy any and all personal integrity for almost nothing or to prevent himself from losing a few hundred dollars (as he seems to have done here)?

 

The fact that he did it for almost nothing makes him far more dangerous in a transaction than someone who only folded after enough cash was waved in their face. Someone who would lie for nothing would lie for anything.

 

That's a pretty big concept.

 

Ok. Now I'm enjoying this.

 

I disagree. I think one who lies for self preservation is not the same a someone who lies to harm someone else. I do not think it is safe to assume he would cross that line. This is very important to me in discussions like this.

 

 

To avoid a small loss or for no reason at all is not "self preservation". He lied and broke a deal with the smallest possible incentive to do so. What about his actions tell you that with larger temptation he would suddenly sprout ethics?

[NTHstars]

Branget: (So you know it is for you without quoting 7 quotes)

 

How would you ever know why someone lies or what goes on in their heads? By that standard, very few people would be guilty. You have to go by their actions and statements.

 

. I also do not see any lies to complete a sale.

 

Other than, hey, I have a book.

[HarveySwick]

Branget: (So you know it is for you without quoting 7 quotes)

 

How would you ever know why someone lies or what goes on in their heads? By that standard, very few people would be guilty. You have to go by their actions and statements.

 

. I also do not see any lies to complete a sale.

 

Other than, hey, I have a book.

[comix4fun]

Teach us Jeff. Explain to the members of the unruly mob carrying torches.

 

How can you simply dismiss HusTruck's actions as "poor communication" or "no different than a presale"?

 

(1) He started a sales thread intentionally hiding the label and certification number.

(2) Scared off the original eBay seller of the book so much with his shady attempts at payment, the seller cancelled the deal.

(3) Informed his buyer of the book that the book had a cracked case so he didn't feel comfortable selling him a book with a cracked case and didn't want to make the buyer wait for it to get back from CGC

(4) Used photos from a completely different book that had been used by another Boardie to further the fraudulent claims of a cracked case.

(5) Attempted to claim that the eBay seller gave him permission to use those photographs.

 

HOW?! How is that "poor communication" or "no different than a presale"?

 

Can't wait to hear your response.

 

This is part of the problem. The only point applicable to the sale is #1. People don't like it but pics with no label or a blocked serial number is not uncommon. I assume any potential buyer could ask.

 

 

He told the buyer that he would send him pictures of the book's broken case to show him why he's not sending it to him. He claimed it was a picture of the very book he was selling to the buyer. Then he sent the picture of a book that was listed here on the forum by another seller that wasn't the book in question and was simply a lifted picture.

 

3, 4, and 5 are all deceptions and lies in the middle of this particular transaction. How in the world would those factors NOT be germane to this discussion.

 

Did you not know that the picture was stolen from another listing here in the boards and wasn't the 181 in question?

 

#1 is the only applicable point for the sales THREAD.

 

3 parts

 

Sales thread - no lies, poor communication. Stating what Dre posted and there would be no problem.

 

2) completing the sale - lies to cover his like any child would do. I think of a cornered animal. Restitution to 4 comix.

 

3) follow up - more lies. If he came here explained, apologized and changed then likely no issues.

 

Maybe I needed to say sales thread as opposed to sale.

 

That makes more sense.

 

It's still incorrect, but at least it makes more sense.

 

The sales thread itself was a lie, he never owned or possessed that book.

 

The completing the sale portion is part of the sales thread. The sales thread created the need to complete the sale. Everything he did or said after that sales thread, to induce someone to buy, is part of the sales thread and is part of the discussion for discipline/warning. #3, 4, and 5 all came in the completing the sale portion. They were all lies in furtherance of the sales thread.

 

Honest people take the bullet themselves when they screw up. Dishonest people find any way possible to put that on someone else, anyone else. It doesn't matter to them who gets hurt, doesn't get their book, relied on their word, or otherwise gets the short end of the stick because they aren't mature enough, honest enough, or forthright enough to take the consequences of their miscalculations and errors.

 

It's the true test of a person, how they react when they've made a mistake or when they face some kind of potential loss. Do they honor their word no matter the personal cost? Or do they break their word, lie, cheat, or otherwise put the burden of that mistake on innocent parties?

 

There's a lot to be learned about Hustruck here if we allow ourselves.

 

Let me say first, apart from all this unpleasantness, welcome back.

 

You are as usual very persuasive. My only concern is the more the argument focuses down on the damning significance of lies, it raises the question whether many other PL cases, past and likely future, will not also qualify for HoS the moment the offending party is caught in even a single lie.

 

If I lie to make excuses for why I haven't shipped a package I was obligated to ship, has this elevated me to an HoS nomination? If the lie need not be tied to the probable benefit of profit, but merely needs be a lie somewhere in the course of a transaction gone bad, is this not a very broad door we're opening?

 

Am I misinterpreting you?

 

 

 

Those are very good questions. The lies here are at the very crux of the transaction. He never owned the book, never possessed the book, never had the book in hand to sell, the book was never damaged, the pictures he said were of the book were not of the book, etc etc. Everything was a massive house of cards and the cards were made of lies and the house burned down after his pants caught fire...ya know...from the lies.

 

And, frankly, he got himself caught in the lies when he refused to complete the transaction and came up with elaborate false scenarios to extricate himself from the deal.

 

Someone who failed to ship something on time, but did ultimately ship, fulfilled the key components of the deal. They actually owned the book, were in a position to sell the book, delivered the book, and (obviously) didn't have to create huge works of fiction, including visual aids, to forward that fiction.

 

I didn't want to expand the discussion to "benefit" as being a part of the criteria, simply because the fraud is so crystal clear, but there was benefit to be had here. From the posts and texts and ebay screen shots and the amounts noted there was a benefit to himself. A potential loss that would have become an actual loss had he followed through.

 

The ebay sale price was in the area of $2200, and the sales thread price was $1850. If he could not get the book cheaper, or force a partial refund from the seller, or somehow find a way to get his outlay below $1850, he was going to lose money by completing this transaction with 4comix.

 

By lying and fabricating photos, details, and damage to the book and undoing the deal through deceit he was able to avoid a personal loss of almost $400. There was $400 more in his pocket at the end of this saga than they would have been had he completed the deal and delivered the book as promised for the amount agreed upon.

 

So there is that.

[wombat]

So what would happen if someone did another write up and posted a poll? I'm still confused on that part of the process. What has to happen for a HOS poll to be considered legit?

[CAHokie]

So what would happen if someone did another write up and posted a poll? I'm still confused on that part of the process. What has to happen for a HOS poll to be considered legit?

 

[KPR Comics]

Man: I *told* you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We take it in

turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week--

Arthur: (uninterested) Yes...

Man: But all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a

special bi-weekly meeting--

Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see!

Man: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--

Arthur: (mad) Be quiet!

Man: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--

[Red84]

Branget: (So you know it is for you without quoting 7 quotes)

 

How would you ever know why someone lies or what goes on in their heads? By that standard, very few people would be guilty. You have to go by their actions and statements.

 

You're right. I don't know. I am simply stating one possibility which is just as likely. My logic is that the buyer is not out any money. I also do not see any lies to complete a sale.

 

That's not correct. He is out the benefit of the bargain. The difference in price between the agreed upon price and the replacement value of the book. Contracts 101

[EC ed]

So what would happen if someone did another write up and posted a poll? I'm still confused on that part of the process. What has to happen for a HOS poll to be considered legit?

 

 

Technically, I think it's the opposite. The way I see it, anyone can write up and post an HOS poll and call for a vote on any one at any time. Now, if you do that and it's a frivolous nomination, you should be ridiculed, and receive 10 demerits.

[Red84]

One thing you learn from these discussions is who may try to pull a fast one in the future...

 

I completely understand the perception I risk in these discussions. My personal practices exceed all board and eBay rules I am aware of. I'm afraid the assumptions made would be false but I understand and assume all liability.

 

I think he was referring to CGCboy.

 

I do not take your defense of him as any indication of your own dealings. I understand your argument regarding deceit to gain monetarily vs deceit to cover up a prior transgression. I just disagree with you.

[comix4fun]

Agreed. I honestly thought you were making these arguments to keep the integrity of the lists intact. That is something that I could respect, even though I disagree with your reasoning. Now it appears you are grasping at straws, arguing just to argue, or completely unwilling or unable to see what is right in front of you.

 

I am still arguing for the integrity.

 

I see a liar. I see a shady seller with bad business practices, poor ethics, cutting corners with no experience.

 

What I don't see is a thief which is what I reserve the HOS for. I disagree that if he was smarter he would steal. I think if he was smarter he would have better business practices and not feel the pressure to cover his for bad decisions.

 

 

 

Why is it less of a transgression to lie in a deal to cover your for bad decisions than it is to lie in a deal to make money?

 

They are both selfish, dishonest, fraudulent actions. Whether it's to put money in your pocket or to prevent losing money from your pocket it's a choice he made to lie and to cheat.

 

He has poor business practices, so he makes up for it by lying to the people he contracts to deal with, even when there's no money to be made. Do you think adding in the opportunity to make money on top of that will provide MORE or LESS temptation for him to act in the same manner? He's already lied and cheated for nothing. Add cash incentive on top and which way do you see it going?

 

That's a pretty big personality revelation you want to discount because he didn't make off with cash at the end.

 

I guess we can't agree. Motivation and intent are very big concepts for me.

 

 

If he was motivated to lie by some big potential payday it might make more sense.

 

I find it far more revealing that he was willing to destroy any and all personal integrity for almost nothing or to prevent himself from losing a few hundred dollars (as he seems to have done here)?

 

The fact that he did it for almost nothing makes him far more dangerous in a transaction than someone who only folded after enough cash was waved in their face. Someone who would lie for nothing would lie for anything.

 

That's a pretty big concept.

 

Ok. Now I'm enjoying this.

 

I disagree. I think one who lies for self preservation is not the same a someone who lies to harm someone else. I do not think it is safe to assume he would cross that line. This is very important to me in discussions like this.

 

 

To avoid a small loss or for no reason at all is not "self preservation". He lied and broke a deal with the smallest possible incentive to do so. What about his actions tell you that with larger temptation he would suddenly sprout ethics?

 

Again we disagree. I don't know if he even has the money to buy the book so I see it as self preservation.

 

 

Personally, I view both lies as, well, lies. It's a business deal, he didn't lie to get his daughter's name on a donor's list. He lied to avoid a monetary loss.

 

He had the choice to stand behind the deal he made regardless of personal gain or loss, or lie his way out of it.

 

4comix was going to get a book he wanted at a price he wanted to pay and made a deal to do so where he was ready willing and able to perform. He got hurt. The fact that he didn't get hurt in a way that you deem hurt doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

Whether or not Hustruck had the money to buy the book is not 4comix's problem. Hustruck made it his problem. Hustruck is an adult. He created that thread. Made that choice. Made that contract. At the first sign of it not going his way he tore it down and created several works of fiction to do so.

 

It is how we choose to interact in the absence of temptation or incentive that define who we are. Once those incentives or temptations are added they do not make us less of who we have already been revealed to be, but only more so.

[BeachBum]

I voted yes for HOS in the original poll. It came from a place of not liking to see a boardie messed with.

 

After Hector brought up the Red Rocks incident I'm second guessing what is PL or HOS worthy at this point. Yes Hustruck tried a scam but at the end of the day no one is out money here on the boards. Same as with the DT/RR/Beige incident. I probably wouldn't vote HOS on either now.

 

If someone bought something here and mailed a brick to a buyer or tried to pull a chargeback on a seller after receiving an item I would definitely vote yes on HOS.

 

 

 

 

[revat]

One thing you learn from these discussions is who may try to pull a fast one in the future...

 

I completely understand the perception I risk in these discussions. My personal practices exceed all board and eBay rules I am aware of. I'm afraid the assumptions made would be false but I understand and assume all liability.

 

Is one of your arguments that HT never said he owned the book? So that he actually didn't lie about NOT OWNING it? And therefore it isn't fraud?

 

Because that's what it looks like your saying, and its really making it hard for anyone to take anything else you say seriously.

 

As stated by someone smarter than me previously, his LIE about the crack was to save himself $400 (why he didn't realize he was selling for less than his purchase price earlier is beyond me). This is the BEST case scenario, and already worth of HOS. If he just said, "I don't want to sell it anymore, I'm losing money," THEN I agree that it should just be PL. But because he MADE UP THE EXTRA LIE, and NEVER OWNED THE BOOK, it really should be a no doubter.

 

 

[CAHokie]

So what would happen if someone did another write up and posted a poll? I'm still confused on that part of the process. What has to happen for a HOS poll to be considered legit?

 

 

Technically, I think it's the opposite. The way I see it, anyone can write up and post an HOS poll and call for a vote on any one at any time. Now, if you do that and it's a frivolous nomination, you should be ridiculed, and receive 10 demerits.

 

I know, but Swick wrote one up and it resulted in an overwhelming yes vote but somehow did not count because of a vocal minority. I am starting to thing it would take an act of congress to get this one pushed through.

[revat]

One thing you learn from these discussions is who may try to pull a fast one in the future...

 

I completely understand the perception I risk in these discussions. My personal practices exceed all board and eBay rules I am aware of. I'm afraid the assumptions made would be false but I understand and assume all liability.

 

I think he was referring to CGCboy.

 

I do not take your defense of him as any indication of your own dealings. I understand your argument regarding deceit to gain monetarily vs deceit to cover up a prior transgression. I just disagree with you.

 

With or without the second lie, what about the first lie of "trying to sell a book you don't own?"

[oakman29]

So what would happen if someone did another write up and posted a poll? I'm still confused on that part of the process. What has to happen for a HOS poll to be considered legit?

 

 

Technically, I think it's the opposite. The way I see it, anyone can write up and post an HOS poll and call for a vote on any one at any time. Now, if you do that and it's a frivolous nomination, you should be ridiculed, and receive 10 demerits.

 

I would like to vote- Yes for hustruck\CGCguy as a HoS inductee.

There no anonymity from me,and have truly heard enough 500 posts ago. (thumbs u