General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[skypinkblu]

Since we are all about maximizing information to protect buyers from ever having any problems I propose we go ahead and add a rule that states that any buyer is allowed to have his/her decision vetted by as many other board members as he/she sees fit, in a timeframe which has no limit, to protect said buyer from ever experiencing any stress during the decision making process, and further to alleviate any future buyer's remorse. If, at any time after the completion of the sale, the buyer experiences any buyer's remorse as a result of a comment made by another board member, an outside source, or an internal feeling, that buyer has the right to full return privileges. Failure of the seller to accommodate the return will result in immediate expulsion from the boards.

I just checked and my step ladder is available, so I can answer this way;).

[Mutie Fan]

 

Phil already knew the rules and decided to list PGX books anyway. I voted yes for the change to the rules, but in the alternative why just not put Phil on the probation list or ban him from selling in the forum for a set period of time.

 

Whoa now. Phil is nice fellow and sells quality material. To immediatly push the probation threat on Phil is premature at best.

 

As just witnessed about a month ago between POV and divad and the "Trey on the probation list - off the probation" list fiasco... whats going on here is to be handled by the Mods and was obviously settled upon with the Trey situation.

 

As I've stated before, if the Mods find a problem with any listing or seller and they deem it necessary for action, then let them do their job.

 

That said, have whatever ammendments made to whatever rules you find necessary to make each and every one of you sleep better at night.

 

Just please don't try to fry a seller UNTIL ANY NEW RULE IS AMMENDED AND PUT IN PLACE by the powers that be. Until then, just push the little "notify mods" button and let them do what they deem fit.

 

Phil really doesn't need the hassle right here at Christmas... does he?

 

 

1) I don't give a mess if Phil is a nice person, it's irrelevant.

 

2) I don't give a mess if Phil sells nice material, it's irrelevant.

 

3) Phil is dishonest. He knowingly sold a PGX book on the CGC board in clear violation of the rules and took steps to cover it up.

 

4) Phil did not break a rule yet to be enacted. He broke a long standing rule (rule number 1 IIRC). He also took specific steps to cover up what he was doing (knowledge and intent). The way I look at it he screwed over the entire board. If CGC decides to stop letting us buy and sell books here how would you feel then? Next time you want to start a Cloonython thread keep in mind you are only able to do so because CGC ALLOWS you to do so.

 

5) The mods have their way of dealing with issues, (vacations/bannings) and the boardies have developed our own for issues relating to the selling threads (the probation list). The mods can do whatever they decide to do on their end as Phil violated their rules, but he also screwed over the rest of us with his little stunt, I think we should at least be able to discuss a remedy of our own.

 

6) This is not the first time something like this has come up with Phil apparently. How many times do you ask someone to abide by the rules of the community and have them flip you the bird before you take action?

 

Edited December 23, 2011 by Mutie Fan

[gaz973]

 

Phil already knew the rules and decided to list PGX books anyway. I voted yes for the change to the rules, but in the alternative why just not put Phil on the probation list or ban him from selling in the forum for a set period of time.

 

Whoa now. Phil is nice fellow and sells quality material. To immediatly push the probation threat on Phil is premature at best.

 

As just witnessed about a month ago between POV and divad and the "Trey on the probation list - off the probation" list fiasco... whats going on here is to be handled by the Mods and was obviously settled upon with the Trey situation.

 

As I've stated before, if the Mods find a problem with any listing or seller and they deem it necessary for action, then let them do their job.

 

That said, have whatever ammendments made to whatever rules you find necessary to make each and every one of you sleep better at night.

 

Just please don't try to fry a seller UNTIL ANY NEW RULE IS AMMENDED AND PUT IN PLACE by the powers that be. Until then, just push the little "notify mods" button and let them do what they deem fit.

 

Phil really doesn't need the hassle right here at Christmas... does he?

 

 

If a change to the official rules is made then I'm sure that infringements would be punished going forward but not retroactively used on those who have broken the rules in the past.

 

Having said that, while I'm sure Phil is a nice guy, it didn't stop him repeatedly breaking the rules of the hosts who allow him and us to list our comics here for free. If the mods did punish him then he completely bought it on himself, Christmas or not.

[Pitboss]

WOW!

 

I was just sent the sample scans, and I would have never known I was looking at PGX encased books. Talk about poor form!

 

(thumbs u

[Bio-Rupp]

 

Phil already knew the rules and decided to list PGX books anyway. I voted yes for the change to the rules, but in the alternative why just not put Phil on the probation list or ban him from selling in the forum for a set period of time.

 

Whoa now. Phil is nice fellow and sells quality material. To immediatly push the probation threat on Phil is premature at best.

 

As just witnessed about a month ago between POV and divad and the "Trey on the probation list - off the probation" list fiasco... whats going on here is to be handled by the Mods and was obviously settled upon with the Trey situation.

 

As I've stated before, if the Mods find a problem with any listing or seller and they deem it necessary for action, then let them do their job.

 

That said, have whatever ammendments made to whatever rules you find necessary to make each and every one of you sleep better at night.

 

Just please don't try to fry a seller UNTIL ANY NEW RULE IS AMMENDED AND PUT IN PLACE by the powers that be. Until then, just push the little "notify mods" button and let them do what they deem fit.

 

Phil really doesn't need the hassle right here at Christmas... does he?

 

 

1) I don't give a mess if Phil is a nice person, it's irrelevant.

 

2) I don't give a mess if Phil sells nice material, it's irrelevant.

 

3) Phil is dishonest. He knowingly sold a PGX book on the CGC board in clear violation of the rules and took steps to cover it up.

 

4) Phil did not break a rule yet to be enacted. He broke a long standing rule (rule number 1 IIRC). He also took specific steps to cover up what he was doing (knowledge and intent). The way I look at it he screwed over the entire board. If CGC decides to stop letting us buy and sell books here how would you feel then? Next time you want to start a Cloonython thread keep in mind you are only able to do so because CGC ALLOWS you to do so.

 

5) The mods have their way of dealing with issues, (vacations/bannings) and the boardies have developed our own for issues relating to the selling threads (the probation list). The mods can do whatever they decide to do on their end as Phil violated their rules, but he also screwed over the rest of us with his little stunt, I think we should at least be able to discuss a remedy of our own.

 

6) This is not the first time something like this has come up with Phil apparently. How many times do you ask someone to abide by the rules of the community and have them flip you the bird before you take action?

 

 

MF (Mutie Fan),

 

MF, I fully understand what you are trying to convey. But does this make a person "dishonest" by breaking a rule imposed here.

 

Yes MF, I fully understand that CGC is our host here and I appreciate the shout out to my Clooneython thread (cheap sealed hardbacks still to be had in CT11 right now btw).

 

Sure you can discuss a remedy on your own. I'm 100% for it. But trashing Phil's name in public with words like "dishonest" isn't the way to go about it. Sometimes that can come back on YOU (as some know too well).

 

Also it breaks this rule here... better watch it MF, you might get banned or put on the probation list according to this rule below....

 

------------------------------

 

Much like "Threads started explicity to bash other members", signatures used to bash other members are not allowed either.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=235115#Post235115

 

-------------------------------

 

I'm all for putting up a vote to see the general consensus like Sharon did. That is totally fine... but when another overly vocal, grandstanding torch bearer (who as I like to bring up has spent some time on the strike list himself ) calls people who don't vote to his liking "nitwits"... then your "vote" loses some of it meaning and becomes a little more null.

 

You want members to respect the rules, then get whoever you've got helping you with your argument to not disrespect others for their opinions. Especially when those very opinions are being asked for in a polling process.

 

Again, its still a Mod issue to take care of. Its up to them and not the torch-bearers to decide.

 

All you have to do is hit that "notify mod" button MF... and your job is done. Calling the man dishonest to me implys he ripped someone off or kidnapped a baby.

 

This is about as "dishonest" as taken two candy bars that fell out of the machine when you pay for one.

[Cimm]

I don't think it's a problem for you to deal with him, but not on the boards...

 

 

 

I would like for us to petition Arch to follow Jim's suggestion. Anyone who sells a graded book, in a case, must show the label.

 

Does anyone object?

 

Would a poll be better than just asking?

(thumbs u

 

I think that either the label should be shown or declaring that the book is CGC graded should suffice.

I like this recommendation!

 

 

I guess I'm in the KISS category, a picture speaks a thousand words. One of the books that was PGX graded, was described as 2 different grades 3.0 to 3.5. The label said 3.0. I could see that happening with CGC, too...Maybe not with this particular seller, but we have a never ending trickle of whackadoodles;) who are forever inventing new ways to confuse buyers (and I'm not talking about our honest, present, in house innovators who are posting here.)

 

I kept the pictures btw if anyone needs them.

 

I always assumed for those that posted a picture with no label it was a situation of what scanner they had available, and those with legal-size scanners could show the entire book/case combination. Is that not the case?

 

If it is the case, then I am totally okay with someone posting a picture of the book and stating it is a CGC X.X with XX Pages.

 

When my scanner doesn't fit the slab (if I have a slab) I do two pictures...not a huge deal...even THEN at least part of the label shows in one scan...but these were digital pictures that were cropped, scanners were not an issue.

 

My scanner does not do slabs, either... I take a scan of the book from the top down, and one from the bottom up, and then merge them in photoshop... they look like this -->

 

 

you can see the slightly different lines where I made the join directly beneath the label, but you can also see that it is indeed the correct book, as well. No big deal, just takes some extra work

[Bio-Rupp]

Love that book too sir

[Cimm]

Oh, and I voted for no change. The rules as stated are clear. No PGX books. I don't see any ambiguity there, and don't see any reason to change the existing rules just to make a tighter noose for any dunderheads that try to circumvent said rules...

[Mutie Fan]

 

Phil already knew the rules and decided to list PGX books anyway. I voted yes for the change to the rules, but in the alternative why just not put Phil on the probation list or ban him from selling in the forum for a set period of time.

 

Whoa now. Phil is nice fellow and sells quality material. To immediatly push the probation threat on Phil is premature at best.

 

As just witnessed about a month ago between POV and divad and the "Trey on the probation list - off the probation" list fiasco... whats going on here is to be handled by the Mods and was obviously settled upon with the Trey situation.

 

As I've stated before, if the Mods find a problem with any listing or seller and they deem it necessary for action, then let them do their job.

 

That said, have whatever ammendments made to whatever rules you find necessary to make each and every one of you sleep better at night.

 

Just please don't try to fry a seller UNTIL ANY NEW RULE IS AMMENDED AND PUT IN PLACE by the powers that be. Until then, just push the little "notify mods" button and let them do what they deem fit.

 

Phil really doesn't need the hassle right here at Christmas... does he?

 

 

1) I don't give a mess if Phil is a nice person, it's irrelevant.

 

2) I don't give a mess if Phil sells nice material, it's irrelevant.

 

3) Phil is dishonest. He knowingly sold a PGX book on the CGC board in clear violation of the rules and took steps to cover it up.

 

4) Phil did not break a rule yet to be enacted. He broke a long standing rule (rule number 1 IIRC). He also took specific steps to cover up what he was doing (knowledge and intent). The way I look at it he screwed over the entire board. If CGC decides to stop letting us buy and sell books here how would you feel then? Next time you want to start a Cloonython thread keep in mind you are only able to do so because CGC ALLOWS you to do so.

 

5) The mods have their way of dealing with issues, (vacations/bannings) and the boardies have developed our own for issues relating to the selling threads (the probation list). The mods can do whatever they decide to do on their end as Phil violated their rules, but he also screwed over the rest of us with his little stunt, I think we should at least be able to discuss a remedy of our own.

 

6) This is not the first time something like this has come up with Phil apparently. How many times do you ask someone to abide by the rules of the community and have them flip you the bird before you take action?

 

 

MF (Mutie Fan),

 

MF, I fully understand what you are trying to convey. But does this make a person "dishonest" by breaking a rule imposed here.

 

In my opinion, yes, it does make him dishonest. Phil knew the rules. Phil devised a subterfuge in order to try and get around the rules. In my book this is dishonest.

 

Yes MF, I fully understand that CGC is our host here and I appreciate the shout out to my Clooneython thread (cheap sealed hardbacks still to be had in CT11 right now btw).

 

Sure you can discuss a remedy on your own. I'm 100% for it. But trashing Phil's name in public with words like "dishonest" isn't the way to go about it. Sometimes that can come back on YOU (as some know too well).

 

Well said and agreed. It can come back on me. However, if we are all to afraid to have a discussion on an issue like this as it may come back on us where will we be?

 

Also it breaks this rule here... better watch it MF, you might get banned or put on the probation list according to this rule below....

 

------------------------------

 

Much like "Threads started explicity to bash other members", signatures used to bash other members are not allowed either.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=235115#Post235115

 

-------------------------------

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I will say that I did not start this thread (it is a probation discussion thread). If by pointing out Phil intentionally violated board rules I am trashing him, then all I can say is he did not break the rules in the first place there would be no trashing.

 

I'm all for putting up a vote to see the general consensus like Sharon did. That is totally fine... but when another overly vocal, grandstanding torch bearer (who as I like to bring up has spent some time on the strike list himself ) calls people who don't vote to his liking "nitwits"... then your "vote" loses some of it meaning and becomes a little more null.

 

You want members to respect the rules, then get whoever you've got helping you with your argument to not disrespect others for their opinions. Especially when those very opinions are being asked for in a polling process.

 

Obviously you are referencing Watson. Watson and I have had only the most minimal of contact on this board. He has not asked me to post anything and neither have I asked him to help me with any argument.

 

Again, its still a Mod issue to take care of. Its up to them and not the torch-bearers to decide.

 

All you have to do is hit that "notify mod" button MF... and your job is done. Calling the man dishonest to me implys he ripped someone off or kidnapped a baby.

 

Ripping someone off or kidnapping a baby are not the only qualifiers for someone to be dishonest. Again, IMHO Phil knew the rules, said screw the rules I am going to do what I want, and I am going to take steps to cover up my actions so I don't get caught. I am comfortable calling that dishonest.

 

This is about as "dishonest" as taken two candy bars that fell out of the machine when you pay for one.

 

[Mutie Fan]

Oh, and I voted for no change. The rules as stated are clear. No PGX books. I don't see any ambiguity there, and don't see any reason to change the existing rules just to make a tighter noose for any dunderheads that try to circumvent said rules...

 

A very good point.

[Bio-Rupp]

 

Phil already knew the rules and decided to list PGX books anyway. I voted yes for the change to the rules, but in the alternative why just not put Phil on the probation list or ban him from selling in the forum for a set period of time.

 

Whoa now. Phil is nice fellow and sells quality material. To immediatly push the probation threat on Phil is premature at best.

 

As just witnessed about a month ago between POV and divad and the "Trey on the probation list - off the probation" list fiasco... whats going on here is to be handled by the Mods and was obviously settled upon with the Trey situation.

 

As I've stated before, if the Mods find a problem with any listing or seller and they deem it necessary for action, then let them do their job.

 

That said, have whatever ammendments made to whatever rules you find necessary to make each and every one of you sleep better at night.

 

Just please don't try to fry a seller UNTIL ANY NEW RULE IS AMMENDED AND PUT IN PLACE by the powers that be. Until then, just push the little "notify mods" button and let them do what they deem fit.

 

Phil really doesn't need the hassle right here at Christmas... does he?

 

 

1) I don't give a mess if Phil is a nice person, it's irrelevant.

 

2) I don't give a mess if Phil sells nice material, it's irrelevant.

 

3) Phil is dishonest. He knowingly sold a PGX book on the CGC board in clear violation of the rules and took steps to cover it up.

 

4) Phil did not break a rule yet to be enacted. He broke a long standing rule (rule number 1 IIRC). He also took specific steps to cover up what he was doing (knowledge and intent). The way I look at it he screwed over the entire board. If CGC decides to stop letting us buy and sell books here how would you feel then? Next time you want to start a Cloonython thread keep in mind you are only able to do so because CGC ALLOWS you to do so.

 

5) The mods have their way of dealing with issues, (vacations/bannings) and the boardies have developed our own for issues relating to the selling threads (the probation list). The mods can do whatever they decide to do on their end as Phil violated their rules, but he also screwed over the rest of us with his little stunt, I think we should at least be able to discuss a remedy of our own.

 

6) This is not the first time something like this has come up with Phil apparently. How many times do you ask someone to abide by the rules of the community and have them flip you the bird before you take action?

 

 

MF (Mutie Fan),

 

MF, I fully understand what you are trying to convey. But does this make a person "dishonest" by breaking a rule imposed here.

 

In my opinion, yes, it does make him dishonest. Phil knew the rules. Phil devised a subterfuge in order to try and get around the rules. In my book this is dishonest.

 

Yes MF, I fully understand that CGC is our host here and I appreciate the shout out to my Clooneython thread (cheap sealed hardbacks still to be had in CT11 right now btw).

 

Sure you can discuss a remedy on your own. I'm 100% for it. But trashing Phil's name in public with words like "dishonest" isn't the way to go about it. Sometimes that can come back on YOU (as some know too well).

 

Well said and agreed. It can come back on me. However, if we are all to afraid to have a discussion on an issue like this as it may come back on us where will we be?

 

Also it breaks this rule here... better watch it MF, you might get banned or put on the probation list according to this rule below....

 

------------------------------

 

Much like "Threads started explicity to bash other members", signatures used to bash other members are not allowed either.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=235115#Post235115

 

-------------------------------

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I will say that I did not start this thread (it is a probation discussion thread). If by pointing out Phil intentionally violated board rules I am trashing him, then all I can say is he did not break the rules in the first place there would be no trashing.

 

I'm all for putting up a vote to see the general consensus like Sharon did. That is totally fine... but when another overly vocal, grandstanding torch bearer (who as I like to bring up has spent some time on the strike list himself ) calls people who don't vote to his liking "nitwits"... then your "vote" loses some of it meaning and becomes a little more null.

 

You want members to respect the rules, then get whoever you've got helping you with your argument to not disrespect others for their opinions. Especially when those very opinions are being asked for in a polling process.

 

Obviously you are referencing Watson. Watson and I have had only the most minimal of contact on this board. He has not asked me to post anything and neither have I asked him to help me with any argument.

 

Again, its still a Mod issue to take care of. Its up to them and not the torch-bearers to decide.

 

All you have to do is hit that "notify mod" button MF... and your job is done. Calling the man dishonest to me implys he ripped someone off or kidnapped a baby.

 

Ripping someone off or kidnapping a baby are not the only qualifiers for someone to be dishonest. Again, IMHO Phil knew the rules, said screw the rules I am going to do what I want, and I am going to take steps to cover up my actions so I don't get caught. I am comfortable calling that dishonest.

 

This is about as "dishonest" as taken two candy bars that fell out of the machine when you pay for one.

 

MF... would you leave that second candy bar in the machine or take it? Ever went over the speed limit? Maybe ran a stop sign when someone is not looking? Took more than two pennies out of the penny fund? If you did... did that make you dishonest?

 

A wise man once said "all this back and forth when really only a reminder to the party in question would have been enough" should be all thats needed in this case.

 

Phil has done nothing to be discussed concerning probation. Again this issue was covered in the Trey back and forth a month ago.

 

Rather than using the term "dishonest" ...why not just say you assume "he broke a board rule". Calling this man dishonest could hurt his reputation and his livelyhood. Is that what you want to do to this man?

 

To each his own...but I don't think that the torchbearing is worth doing that in this case.

[whomerjay]

I think we need an amendment to the selling rules which would state that any photographs depicting graded books should also show pictures of the labels.

 

There is currently a sales thread with what appears to be graded books, but no photographs of labels. I have already had two separate PMs from people asking me if I thought the books might be PGX books.

 

Amen

 

It would be nice if you two made up your minds...

 

Do we need an amendment or is rule 1 unambiguous?

[Mutie Fan]

 

Phil already knew the rules and decided to list PGX books anyway. I voted yes for the change to the rules, but in the alternative why just not put Phil on the probation list or ban him from selling in the forum for a set period of time.

 

Whoa now. Phil is nice fellow and sells quality material. To immediatly push the probation threat on Phil is premature at best.

 

As just witnessed about a month ago between POV and divad and the "Trey on the probation list - off the probation" list fiasco... whats going on here is to be handled by the Mods and was obviously settled upon with the Trey situation.

 

As I've stated before, if the Mods find a problem with any listing or seller and they deem it necessary for action, then let them do their job.

 

That said, have whatever ammendments made to whatever rules you find necessary to make each and every one of you sleep better at night.

 

Just please don't try to fry a seller UNTIL ANY NEW RULE IS AMMENDED AND PUT IN PLACE by the powers that be. Until then, just push the little "notify mods" button and let them do what they deem fit.

 

Phil really doesn't need the hassle right here at Christmas... does he?

 

 

1) I don't give a mess if Phil is a nice person, it's irrelevant.

 

2) I don't give a mess if Phil sells nice material, it's irrelevant.

 

3) Phil is dishonest. He knowingly sold a PGX book on the CGC board in clear violation of the rules and took steps to cover it up.

 

4) Phil did not break a rule yet to be enacted. He broke a long standing rule (rule number 1 IIRC). He also took specific steps to cover up what he was doing (knowledge and intent). The way I look at it he screwed over the entire board. If CGC decides to stop letting us buy and sell books here how would you feel then? Next time you want to start a Cloonython thread keep in mind you are only able to do so because CGC ALLOWS you to do so.

 

5) The mods have their way of dealing with issues, (vacations/bannings) and the boardies have developed our own for issues relating to the selling threads (the probation list). The mods can do whatever they decide to do on their end as Phil violated their rules, but he also screwed over the rest of us with his little stunt, I think we should at least be able to discuss a remedy of our own.

 

6) This is not the first time something like this has come up with Phil apparently. How many times do you ask someone to abide by the rules of the community and have them flip you the bird before you take action?

 

 

MF (Mutie Fan),

 

MF, I fully understand what you are trying to convey. But does this make a person "dishonest" by breaking a rule imposed here.

 

In my opinion, yes, it does make him dishonest. Phil knew the rules. Phil devised a subterfuge in order to try and get around the rules. In my book this is dishonest.

 

Yes MF, I fully understand that CGC is our host here and I appreciate the shout out to my Clooneython thread (cheap sealed hardbacks still to be had in CT11 right now btw).

 

Sure you can discuss a remedy on your own. I'm 100% for it. But trashing Phil's name in public with words like "dishonest" isn't the way to go about it. Sometimes that can come back on YOU (as some know too well).

 

Well said and agreed. It can come back on me. However, if we are all to afraid to have a discussion on an issue like this as it may come back on us where will we be?

 

Also it breaks this rule here... better watch it MF, you might get banned or put on the probation list according to this rule below....

 

------------------------------

 

Much like "Threads started explicity to bash other members", signatures used to bash other members are not allowed either.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=235115#Post235115

 

-------------------------------

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I will say that I did not start this thread (it is a probation discussion thread). If by pointing out Phil intentionally violated board rules I am trashing him, then all I can say is he did not break the rules in the first place there would be no trashing.

 

I'm all for putting up a vote to see the general consensus like Sharon did. That is totally fine... but when another overly vocal, grandstanding torch bearer (who as I like to bring up has spent some time on the strike list himself ) calls people who don't vote to his liking "nitwits"... then your "vote" loses some of it meaning and becomes a little more null.

 

You want members to respect the rules, then get whoever you've got helping you with your argument to not disrespect others for their opinions. Especially when those very opinions are being asked for in a polling process.

 

Obviously you are referencing Watson. Watson and I have had only the most minimal of contact on this board. He has not asked me to post anything and neither have I asked him to help me with any argument.

 

Again, its still a Mod issue to take care of. Its up to them and not the torch-bearers to decide.

 

All you have to do is hit that "notify mod" button MF... and your job is done. Calling the man dishonest to me implys he ripped someone off or kidnapped a baby.

 

Ripping someone off or kidnapping a baby are not the only qualifiers for someone to be dishonest. Again, IMHO Phil knew the rules, said screw the rules I am going to do what I want, and I am going to take steps to cover up my actions so I don't get caught. I am comfortable calling that dishonest.

 

This is about as "dishonest" as taken two candy bars that fell out of the machine when you pay for one.

 

 

 

Rather than using the term "dishonest" ...why not just say you assume "he broke a board rule". Calling this man dishonest could hurt his reputation and his livelyhood. Is that what you want to do to this man?

 

I have no desire to hurt Phil personally, financially, or professionally. Frankly we have never met or done business together. While you say calling him dishonest may hurt his reputation... how does being dishonest affect his reputation? Something he might have wanted to think of before he knowingly tried to sell PGX books on the CGC board in such a clear violation of the rules he took steps to cover it up. Is that the action of someone being honest? I guess it is worse to you to call someone on dishonest behavior than it is to engage in dishonest behavior itself.

 

I would say his actions in his sales thread would have a far greater effect on his reputation that some guy behind a computer on the internet (me) calling him dishonest.

 

 

Edited December 24, 2011 by Mutie Fan

[whomerjay]

 

Phil already knew the rules and decided to list PGX books anyway. I voted yes for the change to the rules, but in the alternative why just not put Phil on the probation list or ban him from selling in the forum for a set period of time.

 

Whoa now. Phil is nice fellow and sells quality material. To immediatly push the probation threat on Phil is premature at best.

 

As just witnessed about a month ago between POV and divad and the "Trey on the probation list - off the probation" list fiasco... whats going on here is to be handled by the Mods and was obviously settled upon with the Trey situation.

 

As I've stated before, if the Mods find a problem with any listing or seller and they deem it necessary for action, then let them do their job.

 

That said, have whatever ammendments made to whatever rules you find necessary to make each and every one of you sleep better at night.

 

Just please don't try to fry a seller UNTIL ANY NEW RULE IS AMMENDED AND PUT IN PLACE by the powers that be. Until then, just push the little "notify mods" button and let them do what they deem fit.

 

Phil really doesn't need the hassle right here at Christmas... does he?

 

 

1) I don't give a mess if Phil is a nice person, it's irrelevant.

 

2) I don't give a mess if Phil sells nice material, it's irrelevant.

 

3) Phil is dishonest. He knowingly sold a PGX book on the CGC board in clear violation of the rules and took steps to cover it up.

 

4) Phil did not break a rule yet to be enacted. He broke a long standing rule (rule number 1 IIRC). He also took specific steps to cover up what he was doing (knowledge and intent). The way I look at it he screwed over the entire board. If CGC decides to stop letting us buy and sell books here how would you feel then? Next time you want to start a Cloonython thread keep in mind you are only able to do so because CGC ALLOWS you to do so.

 

5) The mods have their way of dealing with issues, (vacations/bannings) and the boardies have developed our own for issues relating to the selling threads (the probation list). The mods can do whatever they decide to do on their end as Phil violated their rules, but he also screwed over the rest of us with his little stunt, I think we should at least be able to discuss a remedy of our own.

 

6) This is not the first time something like this has come up with Phil apparently. How many times do you ask someone to abide by the rules of the community and have them flip you the bird before you take action?

 

 

MF (Mutie Fan),

 

MF, I fully understand what you are trying to convey. But does this make a person "dishonest" by breaking a rule imposed here.

 

In my opinion, yes, it does make him dishonest. Phil knew the rules. Phil devised a subterfuge in order to try and get around the rules. In my book this is dishonest.

 

Yes MF, I fully understand that CGC is our host here and I appreciate the shout out to my Clooneython thread (cheap sealed hardbacks still to be had in CT11 right now btw).

 

Sure you can discuss a remedy on your own. I'm 100% for it. But trashing Phil's name in public with words like "dishonest" isn't the way to go about it. Sometimes that can come back on YOU (as some know too well).

 

Well said and agreed. It can come back on me. However, if we are all to afraid to have a discussion on an issue like this as it may come back on us where will we be?

 

Also it breaks this rule here... better watch it MF, you might get banned or put on the probation list according to this rule below....

 

------------------------------

 

Much like "Threads started explicity to bash other members", signatures used to bash other members are not allowed either.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=235115#Post235115

 

-------------------------------

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I will say that I did not start this thread (it is a probation discussion thread). If by pointing out Phil intentionally violated board rules I am trashing him, then all I can say is he did not break the rules in the first place there would be no trashing.

 

I'm all for putting up a vote to see the general consensus like Sharon did. That is totally fine... but when another overly vocal, grandstanding torch bearer (who as I like to bring up has spent some time on the strike list himself ) calls people who don't vote to his liking "nitwits"... then your "vote" loses some of it meaning and becomes a little more null.

 

You want members to respect the rules, then get whoever you've got helping you with your argument to not disrespect others for their opinions. Especially when those very opinions are being asked for in a polling process.

 

Obviously you are referencing Watson. Watson and I have had only the most minimal of contact on this board. He has not asked me to post anything and neither have I asked him to help me with any argument.

 

Again, its still a Mod issue to take care of. Its up to them and not the torch-bearers to decide.

 

All you have to do is hit that "notify mod" button MF... and your job is done. Calling the man dishonest to me implys he ripped someone off or kidnapped a baby.

 

Ripping someone off or kidnapping a baby are not the only qualifiers for someone to be dishonest. Again, IMHO Phil knew the rules, said screw the rules I am going to do what I want, and I am going to take steps to cover up my actions so I don't get caught. I am comfortable calling that dishonest.

 

This is about as "dishonest" as taken two candy bars that fell out of the machine when you pay for one.

 

 

 

Rather than using the term "dishonest" ...why not just say you assume "he broke a board rule". Calling this man dishonest could hurt his reputation and his livelyhood. Is that what you want to do to this man?

 

I have no desire to hurt Phil personally, financially, or professionally. Frankly we have never met or done business together. While you say calling him dishonest may hurt his reputation... how does being dishonest affect his reputation? Something he might have wanted to think of before he knowingly tried to sell PGX books on the CGC board in such a clear violation of the rules he took steps to cover it up. Is that the action of someone being honest? I guess it is worse to you to call someone on dishonest behavior than it is to engage in dishonest behavior itself.

 

I would say his actions in his sales thread would have a far greater effect on his reputation that some guy behind a computer on the internet (me) calling him dishonest.

 

 

Give up Rupp, he really doesn't have a clue.

[Mutie Fan]

 

Phil already knew the rules and decided to list PGX books anyway. I voted yes for the change to the rules, but in the alternative why just not put Phil on the probation list or ban him from selling in the forum for a set period of time.

 

Whoa now. Phil is nice fellow and sells quality material. To immediatly push the probation threat on Phil is premature at best.

 

As just witnessed about a month ago between POV and divad and the "Trey on the probation list - off the probation" list fiasco... whats going on here is to be handled by the Mods and was obviously settled upon with the Trey situation.

 

As I've stated before, if the Mods find a problem with any listing or seller and they deem it necessary for action, then let them do their job.

 

That said, have whatever ammendments made to whatever rules you find necessary to make each and every one of you sleep better at night.

 

Just please don't try to fry a seller UNTIL ANY NEW RULE IS AMMENDED AND PUT IN PLACE by the powers that be. Until then, just push the little "notify mods" button and let them do what they deem fit.

 

Phil really doesn't need the hassle right here at Christmas... does he?

 

 

1) I don't give a mess if Phil is a nice person, it's irrelevant.

 

2) I don't give a mess if Phil sells nice material, it's irrelevant.

 

3) Phil is dishonest. He knowingly sold a PGX book on the CGC board in clear violation of the rules and took steps to cover it up.

 

4) Phil did not break a rule yet to be enacted. He broke a long standing rule (rule number 1 IIRC). He also took specific steps to cover up what he was doing (knowledge and intent). The way I look at it he screwed over the entire board. If CGC decides to stop letting us buy and sell books here how would you feel then? Next time you want to start a Cloonython thread keep in mind you are only able to do so because CGC ALLOWS you to do so.

 

5) The mods have their way of dealing with issues, (vacations/bannings) and the boardies have developed our own for issues relating to the selling threads (the probation list). The mods can do whatever they decide to do on their end as Phil violated their rules, but he also screwed over the rest of us with his little stunt, I think we should at least be able to discuss a remedy of our own.

 

6) This is not the first time something like this has come up with Phil apparently. How many times do you ask someone to abide by the rules of the community and have them flip you the bird before you take action?

 

 

MF (Mutie Fan),

 

MF, I fully understand what you are trying to convey. But does this make a person "dishonest" by breaking a rule imposed here.

 

In my opinion, yes, it does make him dishonest. Phil knew the rules. Phil devised a subterfuge in order to try and get around the rules. In my book this is dishonest.

 

Yes MF, I fully understand that CGC is our host here and I appreciate the shout out to my Clooneython thread (cheap sealed hardbacks still to be had in CT11 right now btw).

 

Sure you can discuss a remedy on your own. I'm 100% for it. But trashing Phil's name in public with words like "dishonest" isn't the way to go about it. Sometimes that can come back on YOU (as some know too well).

 

Well said and agreed. It can come back on me. However, if we are all to afraid to have a discussion on an issue like this as it may come back on us where will we be?

 

Also it breaks this rule here... better watch it MF, you might get banned or put on the probation list according to this rule below....

 

------------------------------

 

Much like "Threads started explicity to bash other members", signatures used to bash other members are not allowed either.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=235115#Post235115

 

-------------------------------

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I will say that I did not start this thread (it is a probation discussion thread). If by pointing out Phil intentionally violated board rules I am trashing him, then all I can say is he did not break the rules in the first place there would be no trashing.

 

I'm all for putting up a vote to see the general consensus like Sharon did. That is totally fine... but when another overly vocal, grandstanding torch bearer (who as I like to bring up has spent some time on the strike list himself ) calls people who don't vote to his liking "nitwits"... then your "vote" loses some of it meaning and becomes a little more null.

 

You want members to respect the rules, then get whoever you've got helping you with your argument to not disrespect others for their opinions. Especially when those very opinions are being asked for in a polling process.

 

Obviously you are referencing Watson. Watson and I have had only the most minimal of contact on this board. He has not asked me to post anything and neither have I asked him to help me with any argument.

 

Again, its still a Mod issue to take care of. Its up to them and not the torch-bearers to decide.

 

All you have to do is hit that "notify mod" button MF... and your job is done. Calling the man dishonest to me implys he ripped someone off or kidnapped a baby.

 

Ripping someone off or kidnapping a baby are not the only qualifiers for someone to be dishonest. Again, IMHO Phil knew the rules, said screw the rules I am going to do what I want, and I am going to take steps to cover up my actions so I don't get caught. I am comfortable calling that dishonest.

 

This is about as "dishonest" as taken two candy bars that fell out of the machine when you pay for one.

 

 

 

Rather than using the term "dishonest" ...why not just say you assume "he broke a board rule". Calling this man dishonest could hurt his reputation and his livelyhood. Is that what you want to do to this man?

 

I have no desire to hurt Phil personally, financially, or professionally. Frankly we have never met or done business together. While you say calling him dishonest may hurt his reputation... how does being dishonest affect his reputation? Something he might have wanted to think of before he knowingly tried to sell PGX books on the CGC board in such a clear violation of the rules he took steps to cover it up. Is that the action of someone being honest? I guess it is worse to you to call someone on dishonest behavior than it is to engage in dishonest behavior itself.

 

I would say his actions in his sales thread would have a far greater effect on his reputation that some guy behind a computer on the internet (me) calling him dishonest.

 

 

Give up Rupp, he really doesn't have a clue.

 

This coming from the guy who can't figure out what a raw comic is. I know, so ambiguous it makes my head hurt. You'll figure it out someday.

[Bio-Rupp]

It was hard to follow your last post without the "bold" type MF... but I got the most of it.

 

And yes it is worse to me to "call someone on dishonest behavior" when you are only stating your version of dishonest.

 

Call him on breaking a "board rule"... if he did in fact break one.

 

His actions... no matter what they were... should be handled by the Mods... you or I... or anyone really... have no bearing and no say in the matter in terms of punishment / or the brandishing the aspect of punishment.

 

And I knew you would take that second candy bar too

[Mutie Fan]

It was hard to follow your last post without the "bold" type MF... but I got the most of it.

 

And yes it is worse to me to "call someone on dishonest behavior" when you are only stating your version of dishonest.

 

Call him on breaking a "board rule"... if he did in fact break one.

 

His actions... no matter what they were... should be handled by the Mods... you or I... or anyone really... have no bearing and no say in the matter in terms of punishment / or the brandishing the aspect of punishment.

 

And I knew you would take that second candy bar too

 

Of course I would, I'm fat. And if I am being totally honest, in doing so I would be dishonest. Same as if I was speeding (and I have).

[Mutie Fan]

BTW in case you missed it...this is one of the books that were for sale.

 

 

Now I am no carnival employee, but that looks like a PGX graded book to me.

 

 

[Cimm]

Trying to circumvent a rule does not a dishonest man make. Sneaky? Yes. Slightly underhanded? Yes.

 

I've got no dog in this hunt, but simply selling the books with the labels hidden (while clearly against the rules), makes him a rule-breaker, but not a dishonest man, in and of its ownself.

 

Edited December 24, 2011 by Cimm

[whomerjay]

BTW in case you missed it...this is one of the books that were for sale.

 

 

Now I am no carnival employee, but that looks like a PGX graded book to me.

 

 

well, if that's what he posted in his sales thread I stand corrected. That certainly looks like a PGX graded book to me.