PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[skypinkblu]

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.

 

 

 

This, plus the HOS does not mean you are a "thief", just a perpetual bad actor. In my mind there is a big difference.

[Columbia Comics]

Roy I'm gonna ship you a shovel. The one you're using to continue to dig has to be getting dull.

 

You said 3358 posts ago you were done. Geez man. I know you wanna crusade for Chip but no matter how much "mental illness" you bring up, youre not gonna win this one.

 

It's blatantly obvious how you feel. But if you insist, that horse needs another boot to the head.

 

SMH

 

I'm beginning to wonder about your mental state

 

That's completely uncalled for.

 

I think it was tongue in cheek, at least that's how it came over to me, and I can see where he's coming from.

 

Basically

 

The "why do I keep repeating myself over and over" is more fluff than actually moving the discussion forward.

 

Frankly I'm not too concerned what Chifoxfan thinks. Or most for that matter. We are all expressing opinions and beliefs. And they are just that.

 

Chi has his opinions. I have mine. Judge away

[comix4fun]

This has been a very interesting read, to say the least. I've weighed upon commenting because pretty much everything that could be said on the matter has probably already been said, and then said again, so I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion that isn't a rehash. That said, being a part of the community here means being involved, and while I rarely wade into these discussions, I do feel the need to do so on occasion, especially when so many people are passionately involved in the discussion.

 

For the record, I voted for inclusion into the HOS. I did so for two reasons. The first is the criteria laid out in the thread dealing with the Probation List and HOS Rules. It states there "b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender." The bolded part is where there's irrefutable proof that Chip falls into this category.

 

The second reason, as pointed out by others already, is that this is the only recourse to protect newer members (or members who, by some chance, haven't been following this discussion) from potentially being out money in the future by standing as a buyer-beware warning, should Chip continue to post and try to sell here, if he makes clean on the current deals he's involved in and somehow is removed from the PL. As a wise Vulcan once said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, and in this case, protecting the greater community should be primary here. For me, it's as simple as that.

 

The discussion about mental heath issues bothers me because, while there exists the possibility that it may be a mitigating factor as to why Chip has done what he has done -- both now and/or over a longer period of time -- it's not really relevant to the primary reason why we're voting for the HOS. We're not a court, there is no one here who has medical experience to examine Chip to determine anything, and barring that, everything people have said about him -- whether through personal experience or simply opinions made through observation -- the truth of it being relevant cannot be 100% established. (We may think we know with 99% certainty and may be actually correct, but that's still not 100%). In any case, what we're discussing are the shades of grey involved, and while a fascinating discussion, they should not in this case muddle the case of whether Chip falls into the simple definition presented above of a HOS member. Clearly, as a multiple offender, he does.

 

I have the utmost respect for Roy, and think he is one of the nicest people I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with. I admire his willingness to be the contrary voice. I know where he's coming from with his points, but I think the discussion of Chip's issues, whether he really suffers from a mental health issue or whether he's a con man of epic proportions -- or a little bit of both, or something in between -- are taking us aware from the simplicity of what we should be doing here. And I mean that with no disrespect to anyone who's commented so far -- but IMO, the mental health discussion is just noise at this point. Either his documented actions make him a HOS member and we vote him as such to protect the community at large or his actions don't. Everything else should be reserved for examination later down the road, if Chip ever attempted to get himself removed from that list. That would be when a discussion of how he got on there in the first place would be much better warranted, and much more relevant to the discussion and to the potential action that would be at hand.

 

For the record and full disclosure, I have dealt with Roy multiple times and cannot say enough good about our interactions. I don't believe I ever dealt with Chip. I did make a donation to his GoFundMe account before the details about how it was being used came out, and I did find myself feeling somewhat like I'd been scammed. I had told my wife initially that I'd made the donation as much for his daughter as I did for him, and while I felt taken at first, in the end, I made peace with my disappointment and hoped that whatever little I'd donated somehow made its way to her, and I told myself I would not let a bad experience trying to help keep me from doing so with others in the future.

 

FWIW, I had an experience here with a board member who was "well-respected" and very popular, with a lengthy track record of successful sales threads. I bought a good bit from him, and he and I had many PM conversations together. He ran into a hard time, and I sent him money to help him out of a jam, no strings attached, because I thought it was the right thing to do. Not much later, he was running sales threads, while books I'd bought from his previous threads had not been shipped to me yet, and in the end, I'd bought and paid for a handful of books that never arrived. He vanished pretty much from the boards, and my PM's to him went unread or unreplied to. I know he was dealing with personal issues himself, and I have no idea how much of that led to what happened, nor will I ever likely know the truth. I never nominated him for the PL because it seemed a moot point with his disappearance, but if he were to return to run sales threads again, I would definitely bring it up and do so. Again, the past history between this member and myself -- 99% of it very good, but that 1% very bad -- would be irrelevant to the PL nomination, and any mitigating factors he might have had would also be irrelevant to the facts of the case -- much like what we're discussing about this HOS nomination here.

 

My two cents.

 

 

Agreed. That's pretty much exactly how I feel. Let's deal in the facts we know, not the possibilities or probabilities.

 

Roy puts a lot of thought and introspection into his posts, and I respect that even if I don't necessarily always agree with the conclusions. It's good to have a balanced spectrum of perspectives and opinions when making decisions such as this.

[comicquant]

This has been a very interesting read, to say the least. I've weighed upon commenting because pretty much everything that could be said on the matter has probably already been said, and then said again, so I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion that isn't a rehash. That said, being a part of the community here means being involved, and while I rarely wade into these discussions, I do feel the need to do so on occasion, especially when so many people are passionately involved in the discussion.

 

For the record, I voted for inclusion into the HOS. I did so for two reasons. The first is the criteria laid out in the thread dealing with the Probation List and HOS Rules. It states there "b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender." The bolded part is where there's irrefutable proof that Chip falls into this category.

 

The second reason, as pointed out by others already, is that this is the only recourse to protect newer members (or members who, by some chance, haven't been following this discussion) from potentially being out money in the future by standing as a buyer-beware warning, should Chip continue to post and try to sell here, if he makes clean on the current deals he's involved in and somehow is removed from the PL. As a wise Vulcan once said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, and in this case, protecting the greater community should be primary here. For me, it's as simple as that.

 

The discussion about mental heath issues bothers me because, while there exists the possibility that it may be a mitigating factor as to why Chip has done what he has done -- both now and/or over a longer period of time -- it's not really relevant to the primary reason why we're voting for the HOS. We're not a court, there is no one here who has medical experience to examine Chip to determine anything, and barring that, everything people have said about him -- whether through personal experience or simply opinions made through observation -- the truth of it being relevant cannot be 100% established. (We may think we know with 99% certainty and may be actually correct, but that's still not 100%). In any case, what we're discussing are the shades of grey involved, and while a fascinating discussion, they should not in this case muddle the case of whether Chip falls into the simple definition presented above of a HOS member. Clearly, as a multiple offender, he does.

 

I have the utmost respect for Roy, and think he is one of the nicest people I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with. I admire his willingness to be the contrary voice. I know where he's coming from with his points, but I think the discussion of Chip's issues, whether he really suffers from a mental health issue or whether he's a con man of epic proportions -- or a little bit of both, or something in between -- are taking us aware from the simplicity of what we should be doing here. And I mean that with no disrespect to anyone who's commented so far -- but IMO, the mental health discussion is just noise at this point. Either his documented actions make him a HOS member and we vote him as such to protect the community at large or his actions don't. Everything else should be reserved for examination later down the road, if Chip ever attempted to get himself removed from that list. That would be when a discussion of how he got on there in the first place would be much better warranted, and much more relevant to the discussion and to the potential action that would be at hand.

 

For the record and full disclosure, I have dealt with Roy multiple times and cannot say enough good about our interactions. I don't believe I ever dealt with Chip. I did make a donation to his GoFundMe account before the details about how it was being used came out, and I did find myself feeling somewhat like I'd been scammed. I had told my wife initially that I'd made the donation as much for his daughter as I did for him, and while I felt taken at first, in the end, I made peace with my disappointment and hoped that whatever little I'd donated somehow made its way to her, and I told myself I would not let a bad experience trying to help keep me from doing so with others in the future.

 

FWIW, I had an experience here with a board member who was "well-respected" and very popular, with a lengthy track record of successful sales threads. I bought a good bit from him, and he and I had many PM conversations together. He ran into a hard time, and I sent him money to help him out of a jam, no strings attached, because I thought it was the right thing to do. Not much later, he was running sales threads, while books I'd bought from his previous threads had not been shipped to me yet, and in the end, I'd bought and paid for a handful of books that never arrived. He vanished pretty much from the boards, and my PM's to him went unread or unreplied to. I know he was dealing with personal issues himself, and I have no idea how much of that led to what happened, nor will I ever likely know the truth. I never nominated him for the PL because it seemed a moot point with his disappearance, but if he were to return to run sales threads again, I would definitely bring it up and do so. Again, the past history between this member and myself -- 99% of it very good, but that 1% very bad -- would be irrelevant to the PL nomination, and any mitigating factors he might have had would also be irrelevant to the facts of the case -- much like what we're discussing about this HOS nomination here.

 

My two cents.

 

+1

 

[chrisco37]

And in case you are wondering I have dealt with many cases of mental illness and in all of them, at no time, were actions that ran contrary to acceptable behavior acceptable.

Nobody is saying to allow unacceptable behavior.

 

But in every case of mental illness, while acute remedies were applied for the safety of themselves and others, care was also given to understand that it was illness.

 

And since the possibility of illness exists IMO, it's worth keeping it in the discussion.

 

I can't believe I have to keep repeating the same, simple thing over and over.

 

Does it make any difference whether he is mentally ill or not?

If he is, you would be taking a big risk to deal with him.

If he isn't, you would be taking an even bigger risk.

Either way he is a liability. Having sympathy and understanding for a potential unproven condition may make you feel good about yourself, but it's totally irrelevant in as much it has been established that people have been shafted dealing with this guy.

 

And there it is! 100% correct. Who cares if he's got mental issues? This isn't about that. It's about repeated failure of the course of years and years and years to make good on deals or not doing anything until, as others have said, put his feet up to the fire.

 

Roy, you've dug your heels in too deep on this one and you've backed the wrong horse. Doesn't matter what his personal situation is. Let it go.

 

Like I said a few days ago, once he's in the HOS, you can continue to send him stuff and help him out. At your own risk.

[skypinkblu]

Roy I'm gonna ship you a shovel. The one you're using to continue to dig has to be getting dull.

 

You said 3358 posts ago you were done. Geez man. I know you wanna crusade for Chip but no matter how much "mental illness" you bring up, youre not gonna win this one.

 

It's blatantly obvious how you feel. But if you insist, that horse needs another boot to the head.

 

SMH

 

I'm beginning to wonder about your mental state

 

That's completely uncalled for.

 

I think it was tongue in cheek, at least that's how it came over to me, and I can see where he's coming from.

 

Basically

 

The "why do I keep repeating myself over and over" is more fluff than actually moving the discussion forward.

 

Frankly I'm not too concerned what Chifoxfan thinks. Or most for that matter. We are all expressing opinions and beliefs. And they are just that.

 

Chi has his opinions. I have mine. Judge away

 

I'm not trying to say this in a confrontational way, but you've repeated yourself a few times, too.

 

I've never ever thought you were insane, probably just a little emotional.

 

 

That's my opinion;)

 

 

[skypinkblu]

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.

 

 

Roy, just for the sake of clarity, is his eBay account not still active? and if so, do you know why it is not? I'm not talking about a store with fees, I mean the regular account. I know I bought some things from him there maybe 6 months ago.

[VintageComics]

Agreed. That's pretty much exactly how I feel. Let's deal in the facts we know, not the possibilities or probabilities.

 

Roy puts a lot of though and introspection into his posts, and I respect that even if I don't necessarily always agree with the conclusions. It's good to have a balanced spectrum of perspectives and opinions when making decisions such as this.

 

My entire position has not changed.

 

I sincerely believe (and have stated from the beginning) that consequences are important for both the mentally ill and those that are not to protect people from being hurt in any way. So a HOS nomination seems to be the best way to proceed in this situation.

 

From the start, the discussion about mental illness has been in response to the name calling and venom towards Chip, and my position has been that unless you know for certain that there is no problem with mental health, let's stop the name calling. That's a reasonable position and has been echoed by many board members, even some who have been waiting on Chip to ship in this most recent incident.

 

That discussion on mental illness, which was just meant to be an attempt at keeping a level head by me evolved into a combination of discussions including

 

i) "how do you know he's mentally ill" to which I gave my reasons for believing so (as coming from someone who has deals with mental illness personally, has interacted extensively with Chip for several years and has spoken with boardies who have interacted with Chip AND have watched his progress on Facebook along with his interactions among his friends and family)

 

ii) Roy must be a douchnozzle (or insert word of choice) for supporting Chip, even though I'm a long time contributor here and have never defrauded anyone. I never supported Chip's lack of accountability. I only entertained that mental illness has not been ruled out.

 

iii) Roy must not want him to be in the HOS since he's supporting him. Seriously, talk about going in circles, even though I have stated over and over that Chip needs to face consequences.

 

So the discussion of mental health did take many twists and turns from it's initial motive.

 

The discussions about consequences and about mental health can be mutually exclusive in the sense that the mental health discussion DOES NOT keep Chip from being punished.

 

ChiSoxFan - one of the better thought out posts towards Chip in the discussion. Thank you for taking the time and the kind words you said about me.

 

 

 

 

[Buzzetta]

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.

 

 

Roy, just for the sake of clarity, is his eBay account not still active? and if so, do you know why it is not? I'm not talking about a store with fees, I mean the regular account. I know I bought some things from him there maybe 6 months ago.

 

He is no longer a registered user. I just checked "chips-comics" and that is what came up. I went through my feedback to find it as if you search for the storefront it simply says that the store does not exist.

[VintageComics]

Sha, I realize that I said I wasn't going to comment anymore but I felt it was worth reopening the discussion. No harm in it, unless someone wants to call me a liar.

 

Roy, just for the sake of clarity, is his eBay account not still active? and if so, do you know why it is not? I'm not talking about a store with fees, I mean the regular account. I know I bought some things from him there maybe 6 months ago.

 

I searched for his account and couldn't find it.

 

It may have been inactivated for not paying eBay and Paypal fees? I do remember he had a loan from Paypal that he hadn't paid off.

 

 

[skypinkblu]

Sha, I realize that I said I wasn't going to comment anymore but I felt it was worth reopening the discussion. No harm in it, unless someone wants to call me a liar.

 

Roy, just for the sake of clarity, is his eBay account not still active? and if so, do you know why it is not? I'm not talking about a store with fees, I mean the regular account. I know I bought some things from him there maybe 6 months ago.

 

I searched for his account and couldn't find it.

 

It may have been inactivated for not paying eBay and Paypal fees? I do remember he had a loan from Paypal that he hadn't paid off.

 

 

I thought PP was separate from eBay now, but you could be correct about eBay fees. I always had a credit card on file, but I think you could use PP, too.

 

Thanks, Buzz.

[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.

 

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.

 

No, don't see it. He appears to have a long history of financial mismanagement, poor job history, and general screwing up. This is a guy who is always worried about the next bill.

[VintageComics]

Sha, I realize that I said I wasn't going to comment anymore but I felt it was worth reopening the discussion. No harm in it, unless someone wants to call me a liar.

 

Roy, just for the sake of clarity, is his eBay account not still active? and if so, do you know why it is not? I'm not talking about a store with fees, I mean the regular account. I know I bought some things from him there maybe 6 months ago.

 

I searched for his account and couldn't find it.

 

It may have been inactivated for not paying eBay and Paypal fees? I do remember he had a loan from Paypal that he hadn't paid off.

 

 

I thought PP was separate from eBay now, but you could be correct about eBay fees. I always had a credit card on file, but I think you could use PP, too.

 

Thanks, Buzz.

 

I haven't used a credit card in over a decade, so yes, PP is an option.

[MustEatBrains]

Love all this back and forth discussion. Fact is he will be added to the HOS.

 

Chip appears to always do what is in his best interests and only fulfills his obligations to the absolute minimum when his feet are held to the fire. Mental illness or not if the reason he cannot hold up his end of a deal is a result of some illness he has, he has no business buying and selling collectibles here or anywhere else. He's no longer a YMMV seller.

 

I still can't get over his last post here stating these discussions had nothing to do with him now finally getting in touch with folks but rather he lost his job and wanted to get these out before he no longer had time to do so. He's a pathological liar.

 

[F For Fake]

Has any other HOS nom ever generated this much discussion? Personal feelings complicate the issue. The facts are simple. Chip cannot be trusted, the community is best protected via HOS inclusion. I don't take any pleasure in voting, but I voted all the same.

[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.

 

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.

 

 

 

This, plus the HOS does not mean you are a "thief", just a perpetual bad actor. In my mind there is a big difference.

 

My own personal criteria is that a place in the HOS requires that you be a thief. i.e. running shilled auctions; taking money and not shipping, etc.

[Red84]

For the record, I voted for inclusion into the HOS. I did so for two reasons. The first is the criteria laid out in the thread dealing with the Probation List and HOS Rules. It states there "b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender." The bolded part is where there's irrefutable proof that Chip falls into this category.

 

 

I want to address this specific point about Chip being a "multiple offender." I would agree, however, his offense seems to be that he ships late, has poor communication, BUT he will eventually deliver the books that were purchased. I have not heard from anyone that has paid for books and not received the goods (current transactions are still pending as he appears to be in the process of shipping). To me, that behavior is not HOS worthy. It's a nuisance and I wouldn't want to deal with it, but it is not the level of malice that I require for a HOS vote.

 

EDIT - These seems to be some misunderstanding as to what I wrote. I'm saying that I don't think Chip has the requisite malice for me to vote Yes on the HOS.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Red84

[comix4fun]

For the record, I voted for inclusion into the HOS. I did so for two reasons. The first is the criteria laid out in the thread dealing with the Probation List and HOS Rules. It states there "b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender." The bolded part is where there's irrefutable proof that Chip falls into this category.

 

 

I want to address this specific point about Chip being a "multiple offender." I would agree, however, his offense seems to be that he ships late, has poor communication, BUT he will eventually deliver the books that were purchased. I have not heard from anyone that has paid for books and not received the goods (current transactions are still pending as he appears to be in the process of shipping). To me, that behavior is not HOS worthy. It's a nuisance and I wouldn't want to deal with it, but it is not the level of malice that I require for a HOS vote.

 

 

I asked you once earlier today, before the flurry of discussion....where do you place the GoFundMe deception in this entire saga? I ask because you're posts have laser focused only on his comic/merch deals only and not the communications and activities on this board that ran with those deals.

 

And for that matter where do you place his disappearance after accepting funds in November followed by his claims of inability to contact anyone or ship anything due to losing his job, etc. but leaping on craigslist opportunities demonstrating both means and time that he denied having?

 

Does serial lying in the midst of business dealings along with attempting to induce monetary donations under false pretenses move the needle at all?

 

It would seem someone who only fulfills his obligations when the hammer is brought down on them and deceives and lies and hides until he's left with no other option is a pretty low bar for honest dealing.

[telerites]

I have tried to follow the Chip discussion but I don't get on as much so I undoubtedly miss some things.

 

I was curious if there is anyway a person can verify or validate what someone posts here on freely on the Internet. I am not asking can anyone verify Chip's depression claims but I am amazed at how some people believe most or everything they read on the Internet. Even if I personally know someone very well and not just online but in person, I don't know everything going on - even a close relative. A person may be using tragic events in order to gain in some way, whether be financially or to sway opinions one way or another.

 

I have never purchased or sold to Chip and do hope if he is ill in way or under hardship, he receives, accepts, and benefits from any assistance he can find. To me, the mistrust of the GoFundMe effort and the benefit thread here were very offensive regardless of whether an illness exists. Was the GoFundMe the implement of a scammer or a diagnosed, mentally-ill person, or maybe he is both.

 

I don't know the answer. I am doubtful any us, including members here who are close to him can honestly answer. I do think a scammer would tell others of their intent to defraud. For me the illness (if it does exist) is not being punished, but rather the offenses which have been verified to have occurred are the issues to be considered.

 

As many here have said, they have either suffered from or cared for someone with major depression. I myself have been affected by both and my experience is you can be truly cured of the depression but can learn to deal with it more effectively and not let it besiege your life and/or others close to you.

 

Again, I wish Chip and his loved ones all the best regardless but if he is severely ill, the utmost priority should be to take every measure possible to focus solely on healing.

 

 

[Red84]

For the record, I voted for inclusion into the HOS. I did so for two reasons. The first is the criteria laid out in the thread dealing with the Probation List and HOS Rules. It states there "b) The Hall Of Shame is for serious transgressions. For example, selling a book/books and sending nothing of value in the package. Interfering with someone's business. Being a multiple offender." The bolded part is where there's irrefutable proof that Chip falls into this category.

 

 

I want to address this specific point about Chip being a "multiple offender." I would agree, however, his offense seems to be that he ships late, has poor communication, BUT he will eventually deliver the books that were purchased. I have not heard from anyone that has paid for books and not received the goods (current transactions are still pending as he appears to be in the process of shipping). To me, that behavior is not HOS worthy. It's a nuisance and I wouldn't want to deal with it, but it is not the level of malice that I require for a HOS vote.

 

 

I asked you once earlier today, before the flurry of discussion....where do you place the GoFundMe deception in this entire saga?

 

And for that matter where do you place his disappearance after accepting funds in November followed by his claims of inability to contact anyone or ship anything due to losing his job, etc. but leaping on craigslist opportunities demonstrating both means and time that he denied having?

 

Does serial lying in the midst of business dealings along with attempting to induce monetary donations under false pretenses move the needle at all?

 

It would seem someone who only fulfills his obligations when the hammer is brought down on them and deceives and lies and hides until he's left with no other option is a pretty low bar for honest dealing.

 

I didn't see your post about the GoFundMe fiasco.

 

I participated in that charity thread and I was pissed after more information came out. I felt taken advantage of; however, I don't think his deception was intentional. I think he believed that paying off his paypal loan was part of his emergency. It should have been disclosed where all the money he was asking for would be going, but we also should have asked for a more itemized list from the get go. I thought it was on the shady side, but withholding information is not the same to me as actively providing false information. They're both bad, but the latter is worse. I don't see Chip as the master manipulator that seems to be the consensus. I don't give him that much credit. His tendency to wait until pressure is applied is also troubling, but not decisive for me. The fact is that he is now fulfilling his obligations when his fate is all but sealed on this forum. In other words, he's already been smashed by the hammer this time, but he is still following through. I think his behavior is poor and I wouldn't deal with him without significant safeguards in place, but I don't think his behavior is HOS worthy. I reserve the HOS for people like GoodsNewsComics.