General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[1Cool]

Sad to hear you have to go thru all this BS Hector. Sounds like you did everything you could do to avoid him having to pay for shipping the book and all he had to do was refund your $150 and move on. He hadn't even shipped the book and he already spent the $150??

 

Side story - Hector bought a nice NM copy of Swamp Thing 37 from me a year or so ago. I think he pressed it and sent it in and it came back 9.6 with color touch and glue on cover. Since I completely missed the restoration, I quickly refunding his purchase price and the cost to get the book graded. In an alternate universe I could have refused to issue the refund and the last year would have been a completely different year all together. Sad that things have gotten this ugly over $150 but people definitely have to live with their decisions.

 

[KPR Comics]

Since he cannot afford defense counsel, defense counsel will be appointed for him.

[1Cool]

I'd go for HOS status at this point unless he gets you your money soon. When that Alleycat guy stole a couple thousand dollars by selling a fake Batman 1 there was no discussion of PL list. I don't care if its $150 or $3,000 - taking someone's money and not providing anything in return is stealing to me.

[bababooey]

I see more HOS requests have come in

 

I can go that route but before I do I would rather allow more discussion before the nominating process

 

It seems that whenever there is a quick HOS nomination those who believe that the criteria for HOS is a unique circumstance they tend show up after the nomination has been made and the discussion is no longer about the offender but about the HOS nomination process and I'd rather avoid all that

I've spoken up in the past about knee-jerk HOS nominations, here's my take on it.

 

I'd recommend going the PL route, that gives you the leverage with the seller, you are the nominator and you can seek removal if he compensates you on your losses.

 

If you're then made whole through Paypal protection, I'd bump it up to a HOS nomination.

 

The possibility exists that he could make you whole and when requesting removal from the PL others might chime in and say "hey, he did this, this, this and this - we should put him on the HOS even though he paid that chick back"

I think that's where a HOS vote might be closer but I still think this guy would go in.

 

 

[comix4fun]

I like the part about 14 day money back guarantee and a special 10% discount for CGC Members.

 

 

14 days is probably the length of time he needs to raise the money from other customers to refund the earlier customers.

[CAHokie]

Looks like SFBoy has gotten a strike and 7 day suspension from Arch for posting personal information about another member.

[comix4fun]

I've said this before: I don't know why many think that PMs are sacrosanct, and cannot be shared publicly.

 

The "private" in "private message" only means that people not invited to that PM aren't able to access it. It's private between you and whomever you are engaged with.

 

It does not mean, nor even imply, that some expectation of enforced privacy on any party involved in the PM is created or maintained through this particular method of communication.

 

The simple rules follows: if you wouldn't say it in public, you probably shouldn't be saying it in private. And if someone sends me a PM, especially an unsolicited one, they should have no expectation that that information is actually private in the sense of not being able to share with others, unless all parties agree otherwise (aka "personal conversations between friends.")

 

Obviously, if a deal falls apart, PMs are going to be important documentation to find out who is really at fault.

 

And if someone defrauds you...they have no right to expect their PMs with you remain "private."

 

Aside from your general reasoning "private" means "private", otherwise it’s public.

And no, I would not say at all in public things I am bound to elaborate with some specific person: that’s the very sense of "private".

 

I agree Claudio that there is a basic common sense expectation of privacy when somebody here communicates via PM. RMA is also right though that in the specific case of a PL process PMs are often disclosed, and sometimes made to be disclosed to substantiate what was or wasn't promised in a deal.

 

 

But that's where common sense and the use of the word "private" can be misleading.

 

If you write me a letter, drop it in the mail, and I receive it. No one can open it before it gets to me. It's sent only to me. Once I have it, however, I can do whatever I want with it. Absent some express agreement between the parties this is like putting your personal items in the garbage...you've let them out of your control. The expectation of privacy is gone once you let that letter out of your control and it's in the hands of its intended party.

 

The PM system is simply a way of allowing people to speak to each other directly without having it be in a regular thread. It's not a Cone of Silence. Both parties have to agree to the privacy of the messages before the communication takes place. And even if there is such an agreement I can see waiver if one party comes to a public area and misstates the content of PM communication and the revelation of the PMs becomes necessary to correct an inaccuracy.

[crassus]

Since he cannot afford defense counsel, defense counsel will be appointed for him.

 

I have in mind the perfect choice

 

[BlowUpTheMoon]

Since he cannot afford defense counsel, defense counsel will be appointed for him.

 

I have in mind the perfect choice

 

 

[crassus]

I've said this before: I don't know why many think that PMs are sacrosanct, and cannot be shared publicly.

 

The "private" in "private message" only means that people not invited to that PM aren't able to access it. It's private between you and whomever you are engaged with.

 

It does not mean, nor even imply, that some expectation of enforced privacy on any party involved in the PM is created or maintained through this particular method of communication.

 

The simple rules follows: if you wouldn't say it in public, you probably shouldn't be saying it in private. And if someone sends me a PM, especially an unsolicited one, they should have no expectation that that information is actually private in the sense of not being able to share with others, unless all parties agree otherwise (aka "personal conversations between friends.")

 

Obviously, if a deal falls apart, PMs are going to be important documentation to find out who is really at fault.

 

And if someone defrauds you...they have no right to expect their PMs with you remain "private."

 

Aside from your general reasoning "private" means "private", otherwise it’s public.

And no, I would not say at all in public things I am bound to elaborate with some specific person: that’s the very sense of "private".

 

I agree Claudio that there is a basic common sense expectation of privacy when somebody here communicates via PM. RMA is also right though that in the specific case of a PL process PMs are often disclosed, and sometimes made to be disclosed to substantiate what was or wasn't promised in a deal.

 

 

But that's where common sense and the use of the word "private" can be misleading.

 

If you write me a letter, drop it in the mail, and I receive it. No one can open it before it gets to me. It's sent only to me. Once I have it, however, I can do whatever I want with it. Absent some express agreement between the parties this is like putting your personal items in the garbage...you've let them out of your control. The expectation of privacy is gone once you let that letter out of your control and it's in the hands of its intended party.

 

The PM system is simply a way of allowing people to speak to each other directly without having it be in a regular thread. It's not a Cone of Silence. Both parties have to agree to the privacy of the messages before the communication takes place. And even if there is such an agreement I can see waiver if one party comes to a public area and misstates the content of PM communication and the revelation of the PMs becomes necessary to correct an inaccuracy.

 

I agree that there is no obligation to keep confidentiality, I was thinking more of certain customs or "best practices" which even here separate some things out as proper to one or the other, for example, if someone in a sale's thread starts opening negotiation in a thread they will be told to "take it to PM", signifying that it is not a proper subject for public scrutiny.

 

Certainly, yes, after the fact, either one may choose to reveal those terms, so I do see your point. And absolutely, when there is a dispute, it by definition becomes subject to scrutiny.

 

I guess it depends on the person. I treat PMs to me as confidential because I assume that they were directed to me personally for a reason, that does not (or should not) concern others.

[jaybuck43]

I've said this before: I don't know why many think that PMs are sacrosanct, and cannot be shared publicly.

 

The "private" in "private message" only means that people not invited to that PM aren't able to access it. It's private between you and whomever you are engaged with.

 

It does not mean, nor even imply, that some expectation of enforced privacy on any party involved in the PM is created or maintained through this particular method of communication.

 

The simple rules follows: if you wouldn't say it in public, you probably shouldn't be saying it in private. And if someone sends me a PM, especially an unsolicited one, they should have no expectation that that information is actually private in the sense of not being able to share with others, unless all parties agree otherwise (aka "personal conversations between friends.")

 

Obviously, if a deal falls apart, PMs are going to be important documentation to find out who is really at fault.

 

And if someone defrauds you...they have no right to expect their PMs with you remain "private."

 

Aside from your general reasoning "private" means "private", otherwise it’s public.

And no, I would not say at all in public things I am bound to elaborate with some specific person: that’s the very sense of "private".

 

I agree Claudio that there is a basic common sense expectation of privacy when somebody here communicates via PM. RMA is also right though that in the specific case of a PL process PMs are often disclosed, and sometimes made to be disclosed to substantiate what was or wasn't promised in a deal.

 

 

But that's where common sense and the use of the word "private" can be misleading.

 

If you write me a letter, drop it in the mail, and I receive it. No one can open it before it gets to me. It's sent only to me. Once I have it, however, I can do whatever I want with it. Absent some express agreement between the parties this is like putting your personal items in the garbage...you've let them out of your control. The expectation of privacy is gone once you let that letter out of your control and it's in the hands of its intended party.

 

The PM system is simply a way of allowing people to speak to each other directly without having it be in a regular thread. It's not a Cone of Silence. Both parties have to agree to the privacy of the messages before the communication takes place. And even if there is such an agreement I can see waiver if one party comes to a public area and misstates the content of PM communication and the revelation of the PMs becomes necessary to correct an inaccuracy.

 

Given the fact that Arch specifically mentions PMs in the areas which are covered by moderation, my belief would be that PMs are not private. I think we have an understanding between our friends that what is said in PM is kept between us, but there is no hard and fast rule to this. This is not attorney-client communication. Arch has said on at least on occasion (blowie, maybe you can help me find it) that people should treat PMs as they would normal public posts. Just my

[jimjum12]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[HarveySwick]

"hey, he did this, this, this and this - we should put him on the HOS even though he paid that chick back"

 

[jsilverjanet]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

thanks for the kind words Jimbo, but really not necessary. I choose to make this decision, so I take full responsibility in not using better judgment

[comix4fun]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

Agreed, and I am stealing "rumploader"...fair warning.

[jimjum12]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

Agreed, and I am stealing "rumploader"...fair warning.

 

.....I had been saving it for a special occasion GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[Logan510]

I see more HOS requests have come in

 

I can go that route but before I do I would rather allow more discussion before the nominating process

 

It seems that whenever there is a quick HOS nomination those who believe that the criteria for HOS is a unique circumstance they tend show up after the nomination has been made and the discussion is no longer about the offender but about the HOS nomination process and I'd rather avoid all that

I've spoken up in the past about knee-jerk HOS nominations, here's my take on it.

 

I'd recommend going the PL route, that gives you the leverage with the seller, you are the nominator and you can seek removal if he compensates you on your losses.

 

If you're then made whole through Paypal protection, I'd bump it up to a HOS nomination.

 

The possibility exists that he could make you whole and when requesting removal from the PL others might chime in and say "hey, he did this, this, this and this - we should put him on the HOS even though he paid that chick back"

I think that's where a HOS vote might be closer but I still think this guy would go in.

 

 

That's the thing though...he already told Hector he can't refund him and that he should go to Paypal to get his money back. IMHO, that's the biggest slap in the face in this incident and totally HoS worthy.

 

Lets not forget he was spending money in other sales threads AFTER he told Hector he didn't have the money to refund him.

 

 

That's textbook scumbag

[skypinkblu]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

thanks for the kind words Jimbo, but really not necessary. I choose to make this decision, so I take full responsibility in not using better judgment

 

Hector, I hope you don't wait and contact your credit card company now. It might actually push PP to do something if they hear from the CC co.

 

Re PMs, we know this is a privately held message board, so they pretty much own everything, but Arch has on occasion said they don't "normally" and I'm paraphrasing, look at pms unless both parties agree. Doesn't mean they can't.

[jsilverjanet]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

thanks for the kind words Jimbo, but really not necessary. I choose to make this decision, so I take full responsibility in not using better judgment

 

Hector, I hope you don't wait and contact your credit card company now. It might actually push PP to do something if they hear from the CC co.

 

Re PMs, we know this is a privately held message board, so they pretty much own everything, but Arch has on occasion said they don't "normally" and I'm paraphrasing, look at pms unless both parties agree. Doesn't mean they can't.

 

Paid with Paypal balance not CC

[skypinkblu]

Out of courtesy I will always ask permission to share information I receive in a PM....but that's me. CGC moderation has access to all PM's, and they probably should. It's pretty easy for me to determine what should be left to discretion, but, like with almost all message boards, there are going to be the resident sociopaths ..... luckily, it's not too hard to spot them. As for Hector, I can't think of anyone less deserving of this than he....but no one deserves to get shagged by some opportunistic Rumpeloader. It would be nice, and something I plan on doing, to toss a couple freebees in the next time Hector purchases something.... to help soften the blow. Chicago ain't cheap and a hundred fifty clams can especially hurt in a place like that. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

thanks for the kind words Jimbo, but really not necessary. I choose to make this decision, so I take full responsibility in not using better judgment

 

Hector, I hope you don't wait and contact your credit card company now. It might actually push PP to do something if they hear from the CC co.

 

Re PMs, we know this is a privately held message board, so they pretty much own everything, but Arch has on occasion said they don't "normally" and I'm paraphrasing, look at pms unless both parties agree. Doesn't mean they can't.

 

Paid with Paypal balance not CC

 

Same thing I did with AjaxFarrel ...