PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[crassus]

I voted No as well. At this point we have one boardie who was impacted and who got a refund.

 

As regards the timing of this, we went from 8:10PM for an announcement of the intent to have an HOS nomination to a write up and a poll for that HOS nomination 8 minutes later. That is just not how HOS and even PL is done. This process has been in place for years now. The last time I updated the rule list and re-posted it was 7/21/2011.

 

Please review the rules here:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4949997#Post4949997

 

Personally, I don't see this as an HOS offense since we had one member who ended up being reimbursed and, if I understand right, also got to keep the book? Is that correct?

 

I agree with Shad. It is not our place to police the comic book world. It is also not our place to act as enforcers for eBay, Amazon or any other venues outside of these boards. Our place is to focus on transactions made between our members.

 

If a situation occurs, like this one, off the boards on a venue like eBay, we look at as regards to the specific board members involved. In this case one so far, who was reimbursed. For the rest of it, we should be letting the venue such as eBay handle any further disciplinary actions.

 

To clarify, it is the case that 72hrs must pass after nomination before a poll is held?

 

 

[Hudson]

 

I can see the perspective of not wanting to over-reach the boards "authority" since this was an ebay transaction though it did involve two boardies (granted the "offender" is not an oft used account)

 

I can also see the perspective of of wanting to HOS a board memeber who manufactured and sold comic books with an explicit intent to defraud the buyer, even if that transaction occurred elsewhere.

 

BUT, and here's the big one. We don't KNOW he was creating the books or that he was aware of their fake-ness when he sold them (he is careful even when he admits that the friend was manufacturing them that the seller says he didnt know they were fake at the time of sale).

 

So since we dont know, it's hard to be definitive in judgement... and if there's a reasonable doubt, then i guess you have to go no on the HOS.

 

Im glad the OP got his money back in full.

 

Can someone clarify for me what the "burden of proof" is for PL and HOS situations?

 

I agree with Miraclemet that we do not KNOW he was creating the books or knew they were fake, HOWEVER, is 100% certainty the burden of proof the board uses?

 

In law the burden is different for civil than it is for criminal cases, however, in neither case is 100% certainty needed to assign guilt.

 

In civil cases it is usually a simple preponderance of the evidence. In other words something is more likely than not. Maybe a 51% chance that is happened.

 

In criminal cases the burden shifts to beyond a reasonable doubt. What conclusion would a reasonable person arrive at when looking at all the evidence? In this case, would a reasonable person, after reviewing all the evidence, conclude that the seller knew he was selling fakes?

 

In no legal system that I am aware of, is the burden of proof set at the unattainable level or beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

I am newer than MANY of the members here and so I am not trying to say I know how every case should be handled or that I have all the answers. I am simply asking what burden of proof the board (or rather the members) are expected to use before casting their vote.

 

If the board is to be a "jury" than the jury needs proper instructions before deliberation.

 

 

[crassus]

Here the decision is by a vote, so in truth there is no single definition of what is proof. If the votes say you are HoS than you are HoS.

[Chaseman210]

Here the decision is by a vote, so in truth there is no single definition of what is proof. If the votes say you are HoS than you are HoS.

 

I think what he is saying is that the "voters" need to have a definition of what the burden of proof is in order to determine whether one should vote yes or no in these situations. In this case, if the burden of proof was 70% (just an example), the rest of us should think about what munkalunk did, review the information that came out, and then determine if that reaches the burden of proof for the HOS.

[Tomega]

I voted No as well. At this point we have one boardie who was impacted and who got a refund.

 

As regards the timing of this, we went from 8:10PM for an announcement of the intent to have an HOS nomination to a write up and a poll for that HOS nomination 8 minutes later. That is just not how HOS and even PL is done. This process has been in place for years now. The last time I updated the rule list and re-posted it was 7/21/2011.

 

Please review the rules here:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4949997#Post4949997

 

Personally, I don't see this as an HOS offense since we had one member who ended up being reimbursed and, if I understand right, also got to keep the book? Is that correct?

 

I agree with Shad. It is not our place to police the comic book world. It is also not our place to act as enforcers for eBay, Amazon or any other venues outside of these boards. Our place is to focus on transactions made between our members.

 

If a situation occurs, like this one, off the boards on a venue like eBay, we look at as regards to the specific board members involved. In this case one so far, who was reimbursed. For the rest of it, we should be letting the venue such as eBay handle any further disciplinary actions.

 

Should comic-keys not be in the HOS? He refunded every person I know who caught or questioned his books. Not to mention, I am not sure how many transactions here were actually completed.

 

Regardless, we are not policing the comic book world. The seller of married covers spoke up here in this community and was a member. That makes him a HOS candidate. If he did not, I would agree with you.

[Hudson]

Here the decision is by a vote, so in truth there is no single definition of what is proof. If the votes say you are HoS than you are HoS.

 

I think what he is saying is that the "voters" need to have a definition of what the burden of proof is in order to determine whether one should vote yes or no in these situations. In this case, if the burden of proof was 70% (just an example), the rest of us should think about what munkalunk did, review the information that came out, and then determine if that reaches the burden of proof for the HOS.

 

Exactly. One member suggested we could not vote in favor of HoS, because the accused did not admit wrong doing and thus there is room for doubt as to their guilt (I am paraphrasing significantly - but I believe that was the intent of what the poster was saying).

 

So my question was how certain do we as board members have to be that the accused is "guilty" or "innocent" before placing our vote. This is an entirely different question than whether or not one believes the offense (if committed) is worthy of PL or HoS.

 

So first the burden of proof of whether an offense occurred (or knowingly occurred in this case) must be established. Once that is done, IF a member believes the burden has reached the specified threshold, then the member can go on to weigh whether or not the action is worthy of PL or HoS.

 

 

[accessndx]

Guilty or not.....I'm not sure if I care. What I do care about is the CGC boardie crew is great at spotting scams. Even if that guy didn't manufacture double and triple covers, it'd take a insufficiently_thoughtful_person not to realize that nobody has that many in one place...that frequently......and for sale.

 

Unless they're the "House of Multiple Covers".

 

Someone somewhere was knowingly duping folks, this guy was in cahoots with them or was the ringleader. I'm not going to lose any sleep over his HOS nomination especially in light of his tantrums regarding being found out. Someone that was totally innocent may have come across as slightly more ashamed and a lot less angry.

 

At the very least he goes to the top of "never buy from" list on Ebay.

 

 

[MustEatBrains]

Guilty or not.....I'm not sure if I care. What I do care about is the CGC boardie crew is great at spotting scams. Even if that guy didn't manufacture double and triple covers, it'd take a insufficiently_thoughtful_person not to realize that nobody has that many in one place...that frequently......and for sale.

 

Unless they're the "House of Multiple Covers".

 

Someone somewhere was knowingly duping folks, this guy was in cahoots with them or was the ringleader. I'm not going to lose any sleep over his HOS nomination especially in light of his tantrums regarding being found out. Someone that was totally innocent may have come across as slightly more ashamed and a lot less angry.

 

At the very least he goes to the top of "never buy from" list on Ebay.

 

 

+ 1

[accessndx]

Guilty or not.....I'm not sure if I care. What I do care about is the CGC boardie crew is great at spotting scams. Even if that guy didn't manufacture double and triple covers, it'd take a insufficiently_thoughtful_person not to realize that nobody has that many in one place...that frequently......and for sale.

 

Unless they're the "House of Multiple Covers".

 

Someone somewhere was knowingly duping folks, this guy was in cahoots with them or was the ringleader. I'm not going to lose any sleep over his HOS nomination especially in light of his tantrums regarding being found out. Someone that was totally innocent may have come across as slightly more ashamed and a lot less angry.

 

At the very least he goes to the top of "never buy from" list on Ebay.

 

 

+ 1

 

Dirty Jerzy UNITE!!!!

[comix4fun]

I voted No as well. At this point we have one boardie who was impacted and who got a refund.

 

As regards the timing of this, we went from 8:10PM for an announcement of the intent to have an HOS nomination to a write up and a poll for that HOS nomination 8 minutes later. That is just not how HOS and even PL is done. This process has been in place for years now. The last time I updated the rule list and re-posted it was 7/21/2011.

 

Please review the rules here:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4949997#Post4949997

 

Personally, I don't see this as an HOS offense since we had one member who ended up being reimbursed and, if I understand right, also got to keep the book? Is that correct?

 

I agree with Shad. It is not our place to police the comic book world. It is also not our place to act as enforcers for eBay, Amazon or any other venues outside of these boards. Our place is to focus on transactions made between our members.

 

If a situation occurs, like this one, off the boards on a venue like eBay, we look at as regards to the specific board members involved. In this case one so far, who was reimbursed. For the rest of it, we should be letting the venue such as eBay handle any further disciplinary actions.

 

 

While true it was only one boardie....if you looked at his past auctions, feedback, and most recent auctions, he's perpetrated the same action over a dozen times just in the last 3 weeks.

 

Letting a single reimbursement be the salve that washes away the potential warning that all board members should be afforded may be as problematic as a quick HOS vote.

 

This guys doesn't care about doing business here and if he does I am sure he'll use another name. There's value in branding someone who's demonstrated a willingness to repeat the same action so many times over for those actions.

 

The fact that a single boardie was impacted and "got to keep" a now worthless frankenbook, and was reimbursed (no doubt as a means to attempt to avoid the very discussion now being had) shouldn't be the end of the conversation. That's EXACTLY what people who behave in this way hope happens.

[Not*Sure*]

Burden of proof??

 

I was in the thread..HE FLAT OUT ADMITTED that his friend made the fake books up..told us to all screw ourselves he was making money ..

 

He said he was out and out making and selling FAKE MANUFACTURED multiple cover books

 

I have no idea why CGC didn't care enough to leave thos incriminating responses in a thread..so other people could KNOW this guy ADMITTED

 

He was running a scam..

 

He deflected it several times with different excuses but did come clean..

 

So why is this a discussion..

 

If someone else was on here making up fake books..

 

Wouldn't you want them gone for the good of the rest of us??

 

 

[crassus]

Here the decision is by a vote, so in truth there is no single definition of what is proof. If the votes say you are HoS than you are HoS.

 

I think what he is saying is that the "voters" need to have a definition of what the burden of proof is in order to determine whether one should vote yes or no in these situations. In this case, if the burden of proof was 70% (just an example), the rest of us should think about what munkalunk did, review the information that came out, and then determine if that reaches the burden of proof for the HOS.

 

Exactly. One member suggested we could not vote in favor of HoS, because the accused did not admit wrong doing and thus there is room for doubt as to their guilt (I am paraphrasing significantly - but I believe that was the intent of what the poster was saying).

 

So my question was how certain do we as board members have to be that the accused is "guilty" or "innocent" before placing our vote. This is an entirely different question than whether or not one believes the offense (if committed) is worthy of PL or HoS.

 

So first the burden of proof of whether an offense occurred (or knowingly occurred in this case) must be established. Once that is done, IF a member believes the burden has reached the specified threshold, then the member can go on to weigh whether or not the action is worthy of PL or HoS.

 

 

I don't claim to know, although from experience here I doubt, there will ever be a consensus as to what the burden of proof is, but I understand the distinction you are making. But here doubt is defined by each member individually, in their own conscience, albeit we are all influenced by more or less persuasive arguments from other members.

 

The PL is different because its only about a transaction, no concept of wrong doing is really necessary for the PL to function. Wrong doing can be involved in the PL, but it could also be forgetfulness, miscommunication, and once fixed the issue is over. The HoS is moral condemnation, serious wrong doing is assumed to be the issue.

 

If the narrative is correct, the person nominated here has been engaged in serous wrongdoing, I don't think anyone disputes that. I had assumed that since the person nominated had confessed and defiantly so, that the waiting period was probably not necessary, but in retrospect I agree it is always best to go slow, and be sure of everything.

 

I do think it should be clarified, however, whether an HoS must be premised on an incomplete transaction, meaning whatever offense notwithstanding, unless it is founded on an incomplete transaction it cannot stand for the HoS.

[comix4fun]

Does that type of thinking (and I am not saying you are wrong), kind of imply "Hey, if you get caught running straight up scams, just refund the guy that figures it out and you are good to go" type mentality?

 

A refund works fine for the PL and we have had people on the PL with situations that impacted more than one boardie who got off the PL after reimbursement.

 

I have long said and continue to believe we are here under the auspices of a corporate entity: Collectors Society/CGC. As such we need to be careful overreaching into other venues such as eBay, Amazon etc that are NOT part of Collectors Society. We should only be tending to member situations when it comes to these off-board venues. And in that respect this is more a PL nomination that has been reimbursed.

 

 

Had this been a one off I'd probably be saying the same thing, but you really need to take a look at his history. I wouldn't simply bar it from consideration because it didn't happen here. There's over a dozen recent examples of the same attempt. People bought a large dollar amount of these books. If he decides to attempt and do business here in a month, in a year, after the thread is relegated to the back pages of the forum and forum memory, I think having a front page reminder of who we are dealing with for all boardies to see is a pretty valuable thing to consider.

 

As for being cautious on off board transactions....being that the PL and HOS are non-binding, given that the repercussions are almost entirely informative and non-compulsory, I see more danger in LESS notice as opposed to MORE notice.

[Hado]

I haven't voted as I still feel this is another example of a rush vote without all the information.

 

Maybe it's just a coincidence but it seems the HOS has expanded very rapidly in the few short years I've been reading these boards, compared to the short list of the decade before.

[comix4fun]

I can see the perspective of not wanting to over-reach the boards "authority" since this was an ebay transaction though it did involve two boardies (granted the "offender" is not an oft used account)

 

I can also see the perspective of of wanting to HOS a board memeber who manufactured and sold comic books with an explicit intent to defraud the buyer, even if that transaction occurred elsewhere.

 

BUT, and here's the big one. We don't KNOW he was creating the books or that he was aware of their fake-ness when he sold them (he is careful even when he admits that the friend was manufacturing them that the seller says he didnt know they were fake at the time of sale).

 

So since we dont know, it's hard to be definitive in judgement... and if there's a reasonable doubt, then i guess you have to go no on the HOS.

 

Im glad the OP got his money back in full.

 

 

Except that he lied, contradicted himself, and changed his story more than once as to who created the books, where he got the books, etc.

 

Those actions strip away the reasonableness and integrity from his alibi.

 

All that leaves is his possession, and attempt to pass off as real, fake multi cover books.

[accessndx]

I just don't understand why anyone would shield that d-bag from a list that protects everyone. He's the exact kind of insidious, erosive, underhanded scam artist that anyone in their right mind would want to avoid like a pool of diarrhea. Buy hey, let's talk about due process and HIS rights....LMAO.

[Chaseman210]

I haven't voted as I still feel this is another example of a rush vote without all the information.

 

Maybe it's just a coincidence but it seems the HOS has expanded very rapidly in the few short years I've been reading these boards, compared to the short list of the decade before.

 

What information do you need? The guy said that a shop sold them, then he said he was being ripped off, then he said it was his roommate/friend making the covers so they could sell for profit. I'm just wondering how this is a rush without all the information.

[crassus]

I just don't understand why anyone would shield that d-bag from a list that protects everyone. He's the exact kind of insidious, erosive, underhanded scam artist that anyone in their right mind would want to avoid like a pool of diarrhea. Buy hey, let's talk about due process and HIS rights....LMAO.

 

It is not about protecting him, per se, its about protecting the functionality of the HoS. Speaking for myself, I take what has been done as a serious offense, no argument there, but scammers come through these Boards all the time, there was a period a year or two ago where it seemed every day some drifter was trying to sell a fake AF 15 or something. If every scammer went on the HoS it would not be true to its original purpose, as I understand it- to highlight the worst of the worst.

 

Its a Hall of Fame for Shame, so to speak, and not everybody gets in, even if they are having a career season in criminal terms.

[Not*Sure*]

Burden of proof??

 

I was in the thread..HE FLAT OUT ADMITTED that his friend made the fake books up..told us to all screw ourselves he was making money ..

 

He said he was out and out making and selling FAKE MANUFACTURED multiple cover books

 

I have no idea why CGC didn't care enough to leave thos incriminating responses in a thread..so other people could KNOW this guy ADMITTED

 

He was running a scam..

 

He deflected it several times with different excuses but did come clean..

 

So why is this a discussion..

 

If someone else was on here making up fake books..

 

Wouldn't you want them gone for the good of the rest of us??

[Hado]

I haven't voted as I still feel this is another example of a rush vote without all the information.

 

Maybe it's just a coincidence but it seems the HOS has expanded very rapidly in the few short years I've been reading these boards, compared to the short list of the decade before.

 

What information do you need? The guy said that a shop sold them, then he said he was being ripped off, then he said it was his roommate/friend making the covers so they could sell for profit. I'm just wondering how this is a rush without all the information.

Did you read the thread before it was scrubbed?

 

I didn't.

 

What I read was responses in a vacuum, no indication of what was said to elicit those responses. I read people saying both major grading houses missed the books they graded, then people saying they may be legit.

 

All I'm saying is personally, I haven't seen enough actual evidence to vote. Your mileage may vary.