CGC et al To Aggressively Defend Against Lawsuit Filed In Pennsylvania 11 11

[Tony S]

Do you mean grading standards from CGC have not remained static? As in my opinion there have been times where grading was very erratic, not static.

 

Or if you're correct and their standards have changed over the last few years to a new level, then does this mean we get free re-submissions to get the correct grade from them?

 

Also does this mean, for example that all the people who bought a CGC Batman 100 in 9.4, which they also paid a premium price for, is in fact the wrong grade because it was graded 9-10 years ago or whenever this grading system has changed so much in the last few years?

 

Yes, I mean standards have changed over time. I believe there is near universal agreement for instance that CGC was much stricter on page quality the first several years. Edge tanning, stains, tape. All different. Sometimes - like with tape - CGC even makes a formal announcemnt.

 

No, you don't get any free gradings.

 

It's not the wrong grade UNLESS it has defects CGC now view differently from when last graded AND you send it in to be regraded. Otherwise, a CGC graded book is what it says it is. It's not a perfect system, but it is a system that is better than the old days on expensive books, where the grade was lawyered to death. You bought it as a VF. Went to sell it a year later and it was a VG+. Sometimes from the same dealer that sold it to you.

 

Not to be snarky, but there are no Batman 100's in 9.4. Highest graded copy is 9.2

[Mark Zaid]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

[Mark Zaid]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

So, that explains why I couldn't find this thread in question when I went looking for it earlier this morning.

 

Certainly could be presented as evidence for an argument against CGC since it could be seen as supporting one of the claims being made by the plaintiffs in this action here.

 

Please see my comments posted above. It is not evidence of anything of the sort.

[Mark Zaid]

Sounds like a lot of conclusory speculation out of the plaintiffs. I don't know if the PA courts are good at tossing things on sj. Any reason you're not removing to federal court?

 

Just so everyone knows, I won't of course comment on legal strategy but I will post updated information as relevant events happen.

[batman_fan]

Sounds like a lot of conclusory speculation out of the plaintiffs. I don't know if the PA courts are good at tossing things on sj. Any reason you're not removing to federal court?

 

Just so everyone knows, I won't of course comment on legal strategy but I will post updated information as relevant events happen.

 

Hey Mark,

 

If this actually goes to trial, may I recommend you re-enact the scene from "And Justice for All".

 

[Mark Zaid]

Sounds like a lot of conclusory speculation out of the plaintiffs. I don't know if the PA courts are good at tossing things on sj. Any reason you're not removing to federal court?

 

Just so everyone knows, I won't of course comment on legal strategy but I will post updated information as relevant events happen.

 

Hey Mark,

 

If this actually goes to trial, may I recommend you re-enact the scene from "And Justice for All".

 

 

I was thinking more of "A Few Good Men"

[Tony S]

Sounds like a lot of conclusory speculation out of the plaintiffs. I don't know if the PA courts are good at tossing things on sj. Any reason you're not removing to federal court?

 

Just so everyone knows, I won't of course comment on legal strategy but I will post updated information as relevant events happen.

 

Hey Mark,

 

If this actually goes to trial, may I recommend you re-enact the scene from "And Justice for All".

 

 

I was thinking more of "A Few Good Men"

 

This forum really needs a "like" button.....

[Transplant]

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

With due respect, Mark, that is only half the story on why threads get deleted around here. Yes, some critical threads don't get deleted. Many get stopped, but stay around. Others go poof for reasons other than violating the board standards.

 

While I'm not asking for a response to every example, that would be better served from the mods who appear to not be involved in a public fashion in any meaningful manner nowadays. I would point to one example in particular. This community continued to post examples of puddling in old cases and, later on, in new cases. In both instances, numerous posts with photographic evidence of the puddling were deleted without explanation. It culminated in a post now stickied, which is IMHO quite funny:

 

 

We made the decision to close the thread about the new CGC holder. While we welcome an open dialogue that includes constructive criticism, we will not allow people to use the CGC message boards to make posts that are misleading, malicious and untrue. After many people provided legitimate feedback, which we acknowledged and addressed, some continued to use this thread to post claims that were completely false. CGC Customer Service attempted to follow up on these claims and complaints only to find that the poster could not substantiate them. This has included numerous posts with images of fabricated holder damage and book damage, as well as claims about books supposedly holdered in Philadelphia with certification numbers that prove otherwise.

 

The vast majority of feedback that CGC has received about its new holder has been positive. As we stated previously, there were a few relatively minor issues with the new holder, particularly an issue that resulted in a slight wavy appearance. Immediately upon hearing this feedback, CGC conducted a thorough investigation, determined the causes and took corrective action. We reached out -- and continue to reach out -- to customers who we believe may have been affected and offer a solution.

 

We are not aware of a single book that was damaged as a result of any of these issues with the new holder. We realize, however, that these issues can be an inconvenience for those affected. If anyone thinks they have a holder that exhibits a slight wavy appearance, CGC would be happy to evaluate it and, if we agree with your assessment, reholder your book at no charge, as well as cover your shipping expenses. If we feel that reholdering is not warranted, we will still cover your shipping expenses. Any such returns will receive Fast Track service.

 

It is no surprise that a few minor issues would be found after a major update to CGC's holder. The overwhelming response has been positive, however, and this has resulted in record-breaking submissions for CGC at recent shows. At our recent Philadelphia on-site grading event, thousands of newly graded books were returned to customers without issue. Reholder submissions to move books from our old holder to our new holder continue to arrive at CGC in large numbers.

 

CGC will always stand by its product and services. We listen to our customers and if there is an issue, we will act quickly to address it. We have done that here and we will continue to do it as we build upon our position as the world's first, largest and most trusted third-party comic book grading service.

 

We sincerely appreciate your feedback and support.

 

Thank you,

CGC

 

 

I didn't participate in the thread you referenced and didn't care much about who the specific presser of choice might be, but the insinuation that the only reason threads go poof is because they violate the board standards is baloney.

 

I'd also welcome a response to this post in the CCS announcement thread:

 

 

 

One major change is the screening service. I’ve discontinued my pro-screens for raw books, due to the conflict of interest arising by setting peoples’ expectations with grade estimates before they are graded by CGC. With CGC graded books there is a grade basis to work from, making it easier to determine if a book would benefit from pressing. We have not ruled out the idea of a pre-screen service for raw books down the road, similar to what CGC offers.

 

Seems like a good decision. I've thought it was one of the biggest possible sources for a potential conflict.

 

There was a great deal of discussion and thought put into the creation of CCS and its now functioning working relationship with CGC, particularly with respect to any potential or actual conflict of interests. I spent two full days with CCS/CGC last month to go over all the details. At some time in the future the plan is to issue a report to the community on the level of transparency that exists and the steps that have been taken to minimize, if not eliminate altogether, any potential or actual conflicts.

 

I do believe the overwhelming vast majority of the community will believe the right steps were taken.

 

Did I miss a later report back to the community on "the level of transparency that exists and the steps that have been taken to minimize, if not eliminate altogether, any potential or actual conflicts"?

 

I'm happy for you in your role working for CGC, but I'm not sure we've seen the outsider intervention we were led to believe would be forthcoming. Maybe I've missed it? If so, my apologies.

 

[Transplant]

For example:

 

A thread about the threads that no one can remember being deleted at the time, but which are now "gone".

 

They were ultimately restored, but that was only after a public outcry.

[ygogolak]

[Badger]

[ygogolak]

In regards to Pete C., it seemed like facts were presented and then lots of members had personal opinions about those facts. There are a number of members that have opinions about me in threads. Who do I send the "delete thread" requests to?

[comicwiz]

For example:

 

A thread about the threads that no one can remember being deleted at the time, but which are now "gone".

 

They were ultimately restored, but that was only after a public outcry.

 

Yep, still waiting with bated breath for a response to my question from that thread from 2014 about how any of those threads violated board standards.

[TheLiamSturgess]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

 

Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless.

 

I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored.

 

Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

[mschmidt]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

 

Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless.

 

I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored.

 

Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

 

You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort?

[comicwiz]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

 

Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless.

 

I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored.

 

Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

 

You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort?

 

Can one of the admin/mods just give this guy a special board-coloured alias already?

[herc2000]

Do you mean grading standards from CGC have not remained static? As in my opinion there have been times where grading was very erratic, not static.

 

Or if you're correct and their standards have changed over the last few years to a new level, then does this mean we get free re-submissions to get the correct grade from them?

 

Also does this mean, for example that all the people who bought a CGC Batman 100 in 9.4, which they also paid a premium price for, is in fact the wrong grade because it was graded 9-10 years ago or whenever this grading system has changed so much in the last few years?

 

Yes, I mean standards have changed over time. I believe there is near universal agreement for instance that CGC was much stricter on page quality the first several years. Edge tanning, stains, tape. All different. Sometimes - like with tape - CGC even makes a formal announcemnt.

 

No, you don't get any free gradings.

 

It's not the wrong grade UNLESS it has defects CGC now view differently from when last graded AND you send it in to be regraded. Otherwise, a CGC graded book is what it says it is. It's not a perfect system, but it is a system that is better than the old days on expensive books, where the grade was lawyered to death. You bought it as a VF. Went to sell it a year later and it was a VG+. Sometimes from the same dealer that sold it to you.

 

Not to be snarky, but there are no Batman 100's in 9.4. Highest graded copy is 9.2

 

Damn, no bat 100 in 9.4, that'd get a nice price then, thanks for info ;-)

[Silver Surfer]

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

With due respect, Mark, that is only half the story on why threads get deleted around here. Yes, some critical threads don't get deleted. Many get stopped, but stay around. Others go poof for reasons other than violating the board standards.

 

While I'm not asking for a response to every example, that would be better served from the mods who appear to not be involved in a public fashion in any meaningful manner nowadays. I would point to one example in particular. This community continued to post examples of puddling in old cases and, later on, in new cases. In both instances, numerous posts with photographic evidence of the puddling were deleted without explanation. It culminated in a post now stickied, which is IMHO quite funny:

 

 

We made the decision to close the thread about the new CGC holder. While we welcome an open dialogue that includes constructive criticism, we will not allow people to use the CGC message boards to make posts that are misleading, malicious and untrue. After many people provided legitimate feedback, which we acknowledged and addressed, some continued to use this thread to post claims that were completely false. CGC Customer Service attempted to follow up on these claims and complaints only to find that the poster could not substantiate them. This has included numerous posts with images of fabricated holder damage and book damage, as well as claims about books supposedly holdered in Philadelphia with certification numbers that prove otherwise.

 

The vast majority of feedback that CGC has received about its new holder has been positive. As we stated previously, there were a few relatively minor issues with the new holder, particularly an issue that resulted in a slight wavy appearance. Immediately upon hearing this feedback, CGC conducted a thorough investigation, determined the causes and took corrective action. We reached out -- and continue to reach out -- to customers who we believe may have been affected and offer a solution.

 

We are not aware of a single book that was damaged as a result of any of these issues with the new holder. We realize, however, that these issues can be an inconvenience for those affected. If anyone thinks they have a holder that exhibits a slight wavy appearance, CGC would be happy to evaluate it and, if we agree with your assessment, reholder your book at no charge, as well as cover your shipping expenses. If we feel that reholdering is not warranted, we will still cover your shipping expenses. Any such returns will receive Fast Track service.

 

It is no surprise that a few minor issues would be found after a major update to CGC's holder. The overwhelming response has been positive, however, and this has resulted in record-breaking submissions for CGC at recent shows. At our recent Philadelphia on-site grading event, thousands of newly graded books were returned to customers without issue. Reholder submissions to move books from our old holder to our new holder continue to arrive at CGC in large numbers.

 

CGC will always stand by its product and services. We listen to our customers and if there is an issue, we will act quickly to address it. We have done that here and we will continue to do it as we build upon our position as the world's first, largest and most trusted third-party comic book grading service.

 

We sincerely appreciate your feedback and support.

 

Thank you,

CGC

 

 

I didn't participate in the thread you referenced and didn't care much about who the specific presser of choice might be, but the insinuation that the only reason threads go poof is because they violate the board standards is baloney.

 

I'd also welcome a response to this post in the CCS announcement thread:

 

 

 

One major change is the screening service. I’ve discontinued my pro-screens for raw books, due to the conflict of interest arising by setting peoples’ expectations with grade estimates before they are graded by CGC. With CGC graded books there is a grade basis to work from, making it easier to determine if a book would benefit from pressing. We have not ruled out the idea of a pre-screen service for raw books down the road, similar to what CGC offers.

 

Seems like a good decision. I've thought it was one of the biggest possible sources for a potential conflict.

 

There was a great deal of discussion and thought put into the creation of CCS and its now functioning working relationship with CGC, particularly with respect to any potential or actual conflict of interests. I spent two full days with CCS/CGC last month to go over all the details. At some time in the future the plan is to issue a report to the community on the level of transparency that exists and the steps that have been taken to minimize, if not eliminate altogether, any potential or actual conflicts.

 

I do believe the overwhelming vast majority of the community will believe the right steps were taken.

 

Did I miss a later report back to the community on "the level of transparency that exists and the steps that have been taken to minimize, if not eliminate altogether, any potential or actual conflicts"?

 

I'm happy for you in your role working for CGC, but I'm not sure we've seen the outsider intervention we were led to believe would be forthcoming. Maybe I've missed it? If so, my apologies.

 

Honestly its stuff like the deletion of many threads throughout the years that kind has a small part of me rooting for the little guy in this situation.

[mschmidt]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

 

Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless.

 

I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored.

 

Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

 

You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort?

 

Can one of the admin/mods just give this guy a special board-coloured alias already?

 

Is there a color for pointing out logical reasons why an action is taken here on the boards? I'll wear it proudly :thumbsup:

[chrisco37]

Speaking of deliberate, real shocker the Pete C vs CGC thread went poof. Still accessible through Google cache for posterity, and those still needing an example speaking to the claims over control, substance and message.

 

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis.

 

Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask?

 

Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards.

 

I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation.

 

Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless.

 

I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored.

 

Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

 

You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort?

 

Can one of the admin/mods just give this guy a special board-coloured alias already?