PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[Red84]

I vote No for HOS. I think Chip is a very bad seller who takes way too long to ship and when he gets behind doesn't follow through unless threatened with consequences. He can be manipulative and I wouldn't personally deal with him without safeguards in place such as him shipping before payment. However, I don't think he is a thief and that is my criteria for a HOS vote.

 

A thief would cut and run. A thief would not ship out books during a losing HOS vote.

 

I feel that everyone would agree that you have the right to vote whichever way you feel you should vote.

 

While many will disagree with the vote cast, I fully support your right to vote against the HOS and state your reasons. It's a democracy after all...

 

I'll add one thing though: let's say that the vote was to NOT put him in the HOS and he ships out all the packages and avoids the PL. Under this scenario, how do uninformed buyers protect themselves going forward?

 

That's a very good question. Assuming that Chip completes all of his transactions he seems to fall in-between PL and HOS. He's a bad seller who will eventually deliver. I think we need to add a new category that provides a warning to buyers without the HOS stigma. I think when a member is removed from the probation list, it should be allowed that a boardie can post in his sales thread "Warning - Former member of the Probation List".

 

There is no way that all of Chip's shipments will arrive before the 30 day transaction window so he should be added to the probation list, even if only temporarily. Then boardies can post the above warning in his sales threads.

[bababooey]

I vote No for HOS. I think Chip is a very bad seller who takes way too long to ship and when he gets behind doesn't follow through unless threatened with consequences. He can be manipulative and I wouldn't personally deal with him without safeguards in place such as him shipping before payment. However, I don't think he is a thief and that is my criteria for a HOS vote.

 

A thief would cut and run. A thief would not ship out books during a losing HOS vote.

 

I feel that everyone would agree that you have the right to vote whichever way you feel you should vote.

 

While many will disagree with the vote cast, I fully support your right to vote against the HOS and state your reasons. It's a democracy after all...

 

I'll add one thing though: let's say that the vote was to NOT put him in the HOS and he ships out all the packages and avoids the PL. Under this scenario, how do uninformed buyers protect themselves going forward?

This history of being added & removed plus the discussion works for some - my earlier point was that if they're happening at the same time, the HOS poll decision shouldn't have anything to do with the late orders.

 

For your consideration: How did the HOS poll protect the interests of those who had orders pending and had already nominated him to the PL.

 

Up to the point of the poll creation, Chip had only acted when the threat of being added to the PL was introduced....the HOS poll took that carrot out of the equation. The PL road to redemption was fulfilling the orders and the HOS poll essentially said to him..."we don't care if you fill those orders, you're done here" Red's point is that a thief (ie-HoSer) walks away when there's nothing to gain.

 

For the record I still haven't voted I think I read some links before but haven't revisited them with this latest situation...It's interesting to watch how these HOS polls get created, they're usually too emotionally biased...the only thing I've really learned is that there is such a thing as action figure catfishing on CL

 

[Red84]

I vote No for HOS. I think Chip is a very bad seller who takes way too long to ship and when he gets behind doesn't follow through unless threatened with consequences. He can be manipulative and I wouldn't personally deal with him without safeguards in place such as him shipping before payment. However, I don't think he is a thief and that is my criteria for a HOS vote.

 

A thief would cut and run. A thief would not ship out books during a losing HOS vote.

 

I feel that everyone would agree that you have the right to vote whichever way you feel you should vote.

 

While many will disagree with the vote cast, I fully support your right to vote against the HOS and state your reasons. It's a democracy after all...

 

I'll add one thing though: let's say that the vote was to NOT put him in the HOS and he ships out all the packages and avoids the PL. Under this scenario, how do uninformed buyers protect themselves going forward?

This history of being added & removed plus the discussion works for some - my earlier point was that if they're happening at the same time, the HOS poll decision shouldn't have anything to do with the late orders.

 

For your consideration: How did the HOS poll protect the interests of those who had orders pending and had already nominated him to the PL.

 

Up to the point of the poll creation, Chip had only acted when the threat of being added to the PL was introduced....the HOS poll took that carrot out of the equation. The PL road to redemption was fulfilling the orders and the HOS poll essentially said to him..."we don't care if you fill those orders, you're done here" Red's point is that a thief (ie-HoSer) walks away when there's nothing to gain.

 

For the record I still haven't voted I think I read some links before but haven't revisited them with this latest situation...It's interesting to watch how these HOS polls get created, they're usually too emotionally biased...the only thing I've really learned is that there is such a thing as action figure catfishing on CL

 

Bababooey, that was sig worthy!

[thehumantorch]

I vote No for HOS. I think Chip is a very bad seller who takes way too long to ship and when he gets behind doesn't follow through unless threatened with consequences. He can be manipulative and I wouldn't personally deal with him without safeguards in place such as him shipping before payment. However, I don't think he is a thief and that is my criteria for a HOS vote.

 

A thief would cut and run. A thief would not ship out books during a losing HOS vote.

 

Fair enough.

 

I think of him as a thief by circumstance. He has good intentions, but when bills have to be paid and he's desperate enough, the money that should have covered shipping pays the rent.

 

I have to give Chip a lot of credit for shipping the items at this point knowing there's a reasonable chance he's going into the HOS, and I suspect it must have been extremely painful for him to find the funds to cover shipping.

[bababooey]

Bababooey, that was sig worthy!

hey! that makes it look like I fell for it...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by bababooey

[Red84]

Bababooey, that was sig worthy!

hey! that makes it look like I fell for it...

 

 

 

 

 

That makes it even funnier!

[HarveySwick]

I vote No for HOS. I think Chip is a very bad seller who takes way too long to ship and when he gets behind doesn't follow through unless threatened with consequences. He can be manipulative and I wouldn't personally deal with him without safeguards in place such as him shipping before payment. However, I don't think he is a thief and that is my criteria for a HOS vote.

 

A thief would cut and run. A thief would not ship out books during a losing HOS vote.

 

He started a GoFundMe account and managed to get a Board Charity thread created by garnering sympathy based on stories of woe and despair. He posted pictures of his daughter and talked about being evicted and losing everything. The only way he could save himself was to collect $15,000.

 

Oh, but wait. He really only needs $3,000. The other TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS that he was trying to steal obtain through manipulative ways from this community was to pay off a PayPal loan used to purchase comics and to comfortably support him for several months while he figured things out.

 

Nope. Not a thief at all.

[crassus]

I vote No for HOS. I think Chip is a very bad seller who takes way too long to ship and when he gets behind doesn't follow through unless threatened with consequences. He can be manipulative and I wouldn't personally deal with him without safeguards in place such as him shipping before payment. However, I don't think he is a thief and that is my criteria for a HOS vote.

 

A thief would cut and run. A thief would not ship out books during a losing HOS vote.

 

I feel that everyone would agree that you have the right to vote whichever way you feel you should vote.

 

While many will disagree with the vote cast, I fully support your right to vote against the HOS and state your reasons. It's a democracy after all...

 

I'll add one thing though: let's say that the vote was to NOT put him in the HOS and he ships out all the packages and avoids the PL. Under this scenario, how do uninformed buyers protect themselves going forward?

 

That's a very good question. Assuming that Chip completes all of his transactions he seems to fall in-between PL and HOS. He's a bad seller who will eventually deliver. I think we need to add a new category that provides a warning to buyers without the HOS stigma. I think when a member is removed from the probation list, it should be allowed that a boardie can post in his sales thread "Warning - Former member of the Probation List".

 

There is no way that all of Chip's shipments will arrive before the 30 day transaction window so he should be added to the probation list, even if only temporarily. Then boardies can post the above warning in his sales threads.

 

Respectfully, it would be a cure worse than the disease to allow a "former member..." post in a sales thread. The PL and the history of the list itself are available to search if someone wishes to, but the PL is not meant to be perpetual punishment. Like everything else in society you can only offer the public so much proactive protection before you start to harm unreasonably the liberties of others. If a person on the PL does the right thing and completes their transaction that is that. It is there for the record but vis a vis the PL people should be able to move on without being always reminded of their past.

[VintageComics]

One of the factors (besides the fact that I sympathize with mental health possibility) that preven me from calling Chip an outright thief is the fact that Chip shipped literally 1000's of packages in a timely manner while his eBay account was active (and therefore generating revenue). He could not have maintained his store without doing so.

 

I still also agree though that the general public needs a mechanism to aware of the tendency to not ship at times in a timely manner.

 

Unfortunately, the HOS is the only mechanism available at this time.

 

And yes, I do agree that often emotions influence it.

 

 

[CAHokie]

One of the factors (besides the fact that I sympathize with mental health possibility) that preven me from calling Chip an outright thief is the fact that Chip shipped literally 1000's of packages in a timely manner while his eBay account was active (and therefore generating revenue). He could not have maintained his store without doing so.

 

I still also agree though that the general public needs a mechanism to aware of the tendency to not ship at times in a timely manner.

 

Unfortunately, the HOS is the only mechanism available at this time.

 

And yes, I do agree that often emotions influence it.

 

 

Not calling you specifically out, but comic selling and shipping aside how do you justify the 15K fiasco? If not for that, I completely understand what Red typed earlier. It's everything as a whole, but dang....People were donating their personal items and money that could be spent on their own families to help someone who planned on using the vast majority of the money to pay off a loan, then sit around and buy more comics. Basically repeating the very actions that got him in a hole to begin with.

[crassus]

One of the factors (besides the fact that I sympathize with mental health possibility) that preven me from calling Chip an outright thief is the fact that Chip shipped literally 1000's of packages in a timely manner while his eBay account was active (and therefore generating revenue). He could not have maintained his store without doing so.

 

I still also agree though that the general public needs a mechanism to aware of the tendency to not ship at times in a timely manner.

 

Unfortunately, the HOS is the only mechanism available at this time.

 

And yes, I do agree that often emotions influence it.

 

 

I think part of the difficulty is that theft (and thieves) are not always or even mainly the simple purse snatching cut and run variety. There are many big thieves in the corporate world (some get caught thankfully) who are 90% law abiding but its the 10% law breaking behaviour, fraud, tax evasion, etc that does them in. They are still in the end thieves.

[VintageComics]

 

Not calling you specifically out, but comic selling and shipping aside how do you justify the 15K fiasco? If not for that, I completely understand what Red typed earlier. It's everything as a whole, but dang....People were donating their personal items and money that could be spent on their own families to help someone who planned on using the vast majority of the money to pay off a loan, then sit around and buy more comics. Basically repeating the very actions that got him in a hole to begin with.

 

From your point of view and from mine, there is no justification for it.

 

As i understand it though, Chip didn't lie about what the money was going towards did he? When asked he explained his thought process, whether people agreed with it or not.

 

A lack of accountability for himself (I mean, true accountability and not just saying sorry but planning ahead for his own well being) seems to be a factor through all of this.

 

And while there is no avenue other than the HOS for us so that is what is being applied, I do believe people who continue to repeat past behavior need a boundary to be set so that this doesn't happen again. It's the only way some people function until they learn to self manage. Believe me, I know. I got spanked way much as a kid (and even as a young adult).

 

I say the same thing about every punishment, though. It's purpose should be corrective and not punitive and that is an important distinction.

 

 

 

 

 

[crassus]

I vote No for HOS. I think Chip is a very bad seller who takes way too long to ship and when he gets behind doesn't follow through unless threatened with consequences. He can be manipulative and I wouldn't personally deal with him without safeguards in place such as him shipping before payment. However, I don't think he is a thief and that is my criteria for a HOS vote.

 

A thief would cut and run. A thief would not ship out books during a losing HOS vote.

 

Fair enough.

 

I think of him as a thief by circumstance. He has good intentions, but when bills have to be paid and he's desperate enough, the money that should have covered shipping pays the rent.

 

I have to give Chip a lot of credit for shipping the items at this point knowing there's a reasonable chance he's going into the HOS, and I suspect it must have been extremely painful for him to find the funds to cover shipping.

 

Part of me hopes you are right about the shipping thing, and I mean by that that it would be nice to think he is struggling against the odds to do the right thing. However, there is also a real possibility, given his track record, that he is paying for it with money he has had all along. Here we focus on Boards history, but the information posted detailing his long history of bad transactions (fraud?) also suggests that maybe he has always had enough money to maintain an essentially criminal enterprise. That is also a possibility.

[VintageComics]

One of the factors (besides the fact that I sympathize with mental health possibility) that preven me from calling Chip an outright thief is the fact that Chip shipped literally 1000's of packages in a timely manner while his eBay account was active (and therefore generating revenue). He could not have maintained his store without doing so.

 

I still also agree though that the general public needs a mechanism to aware of the tendency to not ship at times in a timely manner.

 

Unfortunately, the HOS is the only mechanism available at this time.

 

And yes, I do agree that often emotions influence it.

 

 

I think part of the difficulty is that theft (and thieves) are not always or even mainly the simple purse snatching cut and run variety. There are many big thieves in the corporate world (some get caught thankfully) who are 90% law abiding but its the 10% law breaking behaviour, fraud, tax evasion, etc that does them in. They are still in the end thieves.

 

I think you know that you and I see most things alike and I agree that theft has many faces.

 

My main point is that I don't think in this case that Chip is taking the money and running. As I said earlier, he could have done that to several of us board members who were selling literally $10,000's of goods through Chip but he didn't.

 

What Chip did in the past I can't comment on.

 

If it's theft, it's theft through neglect at this point.

 

Both are theft but even in the eyes of the law there is a difference between premeditated malice and simple neglect.

 

I don't think it should be any different here.

 

 

[HarveySwick]

this is what this whole Chip story reminds me of...

 

 

This guy might as well start a GoFundMe page. It's the same thing Chip did. Do you think he's a thief?

 

The difference between the two is that Chip used photos of his daughter instead of a wheelchair.

[joeypost]

One of the factors (besides the fact that I sympathize with mental health possibility) that preven me from calling Chip an outright thief is the fact that Chip shipped literally 1000's of packages in a timely manner while his eBay account was active (and therefore generating revenue). He could not have maintained his store without doing so.

 

I still also agree though that the general public needs a mechanism to aware of the tendency to not ship at times in a timely manner.

 

Unfortunately, the HOS is the only mechanism available at this time.

 

And yes, I do agree that often emotions influence it.

 

 

I think part of the difficulty is that theft (and thieves) are not always or even mainly the simple purse snatching cut and run variety. There are many big thieves in the corporate world (some get caught thankfully) who are 90% law abiding but its the 10% law breaking behaviour, fraud, tax evasion, etc that does them in. They are still in the end thieves.

 

I think you know that you and I see most things alike and I agree that theft has many faces.

 

My main point is that I don't think in this case that Chip is taking the money and running. As I said earlier, he could have done that to several of us board members who were selling literally $10,000's of goods through Chip but he didn't.

 

What Chip did in the past I can't comment on.

 

If it's theft, it's theft through neglect at this point.

 

Both are theft but even in the eyes of the law there is a difference between premeditated malice and simple neglect.

 

I don't think it should be any different here.

 

 

Would you agree that whether premeditated or not, both are punishable? People are either out goods, money or both. And in many instances the feeling of goodwill towards a down and out member of this community were not reciprocated with trust. I wonder if you were a Judge if you would ever throw anyone in jail. Or would you feel different if it were done to you.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

One of the factors (besides the fact that I sympathize with mental health possibility) that preven me from calling Chip an outright thief is the fact that Chip shipped literally 1000's of packages in a timely manner while his eBay account was active (and therefore generating revenue). He could not have maintained his store without doing so.

 

I still also agree though that the general public needs a mechanism to aware of the tendency to not ship at times in a timely manner.

 

Unfortunately, the HOS is the only mechanism available at this time.

 

And yes, I do agree that often emotions influence it.

 

 

I think part of the difficulty is that theft (and thieves) are not always or even mainly the simple purse snatching cut and run variety. There are many big thieves in the corporate world (some get caught thankfully) who are 90% law abiding but its the 10% law breaking behaviour, fraud, tax evasion, etc that does them in. They are still in the end thieves.

 

I think you know that you and I see most things alike and I agree that theft has many faces.

 

My main point is that I don't think in this case that Chip is taking the money and running. As I said earlier, he could have done that to several of us board members who were selling literally $10,000's of goods through Chip but he didn't.

 

What Chip did in the past I can't comment on.

 

If it's theft, it's theft through neglect at this point.

 

Both are theft but even in the eyes of the law there is a difference between premeditated malice and simple neglect.

 

I don't think it should be any different here.

 

 

Wow. I've read this thread with interest without having a clue who this Chip character was. I've just realised now who he is. A while back (a few months ago) didn't he sell a run of really nice WHIZ books for you on ebay? You announced it here on the Boards prior to sale if I remember.

I don't have normally many big dollars to spend on comic books, but at that time I had saved up a few hundred dollars. I actually bid quite large amounts on two of the lots but was outbid, and disappointed.

After reading all this since, this bread and butter collector (me) is glad he now didn't win.

FWIW I voted to put him in the HOS. His pattern appears to be one of controlled and manipulative jiggerypokery, and I agree with Harvey Swick as regards to his label.

[KPR Comics]

 

Not calling you specifically out, but comic selling and shipping aside how do you justify the 15K fiasco? If not for that, I completely understand what Red typed earlier. It's everything as a whole, but dang....People were donating their personal items and money that could be spent on their own families to help someone who planned on using the vast majority of the money to pay off a loan, then sit around and buy more comics. Basically repeating the very actions that got him in a hole to begin with.

 

From your point of view and from mine, there is no justification for it.

 

As i understand it though, Chip didn't lie about what the money was going towards did he? When asked he explained his thought process, whether people agreed with it or not.

 

A lack of accountability for himself (I mean, true accountability and not just saying sorry but planning ahead for his own well being) seems to be a factor through all of this.

 

And while there is no avenue other than the HOS for us so that is what is being applied, I do believe people who continue to repeat past behavior need a boundary to be set so that this doesn't happen again. It's the only way some people function until they learn to self manage. Believe me, I know. I got spanked way much as a kid (and even as a young adult).

 

I say the same thing about every punishment, though. It's purpose should be corrective and not punitive and that is an important distinction.

 

 

 

 

 

Every punishment? HoS is punitive, for one.

[VintageComics]

Would you agree that whether premeditated or not, both are punishable? People are either out goods, money or both. And in many instances the feeling of goodwill towards a down and out member of this community were not reciprocated with trust. I wonder if you were a Judge if you would ever throw anyone in jail. Or would you feel different if it were done to you.

 

You're assuming it has never been done to me. After nearly 14 years of collecting comics since getting back into it and now being a full time dealer, I've lost money to people and I weigh the way I feel about it based on my perception of circumstances.

 

I've lost money to people who I believe were thieves and I've done everything within my power to make sure they were punished including contacting local authorities.

 

But I've also lost money to people who I believe were either poor at managing themselves or ran onto some bad luck.

 

For example, there's a board member who owes me $500 since the mortgage crisis hit in 2008. He was in the job of selling mortgages. He lost his home, his marriage broke down and he's now rebuilding. I know he'll get it to me when the time is right. I'd forgotten about it until now.

 

Punishable? I've already stated multiple times that both are punishable. I do agree that there needs to be consequences to correct bad behavior and to protect people from that behavior. They are just not punishable in the same way IMO.

 

If I'm a judge I weight all the facts before me including past, recent and present behavior.

 

If there is a possibility of mental illness, wouldn't that be weighed in a court of law and taken into consideration?

 

We have a bunch of judges in this thread and many don't believe it's a factor and that is where we disagree.

 

So yes, there needs to be consequences (punishment) but consequences need to fit the crime.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say not to put Chip on the HOS. People need to be aware. I'm just stating the reasons why I think this has all happened and I don't personally believe that there is predetermined malice.

[VintageComics]

A while back (a few months ago) didn't he sell a run of really nice WHIZ books for you on ebay? You announced it here on the Boards prior to sale if I remember.

I don't have normally many big dollars to spend on comic books, but at that time I had saved up a few hundred dollars. I actually bid quite large amounts on two of the lots but was outbid, and disappointed.

After reading all this since, this bread and butter collector (me) is glad he now didn't win.

 

Yes, those were my books.

 

For what it's worth, before putting those books up for auction I offered to back any sale of those books through Chip with my own money and reputation.