General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[comix4fun]

Interesting aside:

 

The conflagration that's been kindled on this Christmas Eve Eve was sparked in the RMA vacuum that is today's CGC forum.

I fail to see the relevance of RMA to anything?

 

We're surely allowed to discuss selling guideline violations in his absence?

 

He was kidding.

 

Happy Holidays, and have one on me.

 

 

 

 

Yay!!!

 

Everyone thinks they have good taste and a sense of humor. This was a test of the latter.

 

[Bosco685]

Interesting aside:

 

The conflagration that's been kindled on this Christmas Eve Eve was sparked in the RMA vacuum that is today's CGC forum.

I fail to see the relevance of RMA to anything?

 

We're surely allowed to discuss selling guideline violations in his absence?

 

I still think RMA would argue with a closed door as to why it should be open

Ewwwwww. A good thread topic.

You have my total support sir... start that sucker up

 

Hold on a sec. Practicing with finger puppets.

 

[skypinkblu]

Interesting aside:

 

The conflagration that's been kindled on this Christmas Eve Eve was sparked in the RMA vacuum that is today's CGC forum.

I fail to see the relevance of RMA to anything?

 

We're surely allowed to discuss selling guideline violations in his absence?

 

I still think RMA would argue with a closed door as to why it should be open

 

 

So would Watson, and I can't keep up with either of them:) IT seems to be the part of the hobby they love;)

 

Seriously...this thread is full of a bunch of bright people. All of you have made interesting points...

 

I just don't see the big deal about being courteous, and no matter how you cut it, selling a competitor's product on a free sales site is not courteous, especially when it's so easy to change the item, so it's not a competitor's product.

 

I posted what I hoped was a fair solution in the poll, sorry if it upset some people (well, not Phil, he's on my stand in the corner for a month list) ...

 

But if someone else can phrase it better, I won't be insulted if that person who writes better than I do, or can express themselves better, starts a new poll.

 

If this one stands, I'm just going to send Arch a link to it after the weekend. If a new, better poll is started, I'll let that person continue with absolutely no hard feelings.

 

 

[Bio-Rupp]

Interesting aside:

 

The conflagration that's been kindled on this Christmas Eve Eve was sparked in the RMA vacuum that is today's CGC forum.

I fail to see the relevance of RMA to anything?

 

We're surely allowed to discuss selling guideline violations in his absence?

 

I still think RMA would argue with a closed door as to why it should be open

Ewwwwww. A good thread topic.

You have my total support sir... start that sucker up

 

Hold on a sec. Practicing with finger puppets.

 

 

The one finger is yelling... " that door should be open" !

[Bosco685]

And now for a musical intermission.

 

[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.

 

 

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

 

Well to be honest it is not what he posted. He cropped all the sides of the picture to hide the label and the bottom posts of slab.

 

hmmm.. so let me get this straight.

 

He engaged in a sales thread in which the rules state no PGX books are to be offered.

 

He posted a picture of the book in which he cropped all the sides of the picture to (presumably) hide the label and the bottom posts of slab.

 

He never mentioned that the book was PGX graded.

 

I'm pretty sure I know what the reality was here, and I might characterize what he did as foolish, but it's way out of bounds to call him dishonest. Especially when the circumstances give him plausible denial.

 

What circumstances? You are the only one that is having problems with the definition of the word "raw". Reminds me of Clinton having problems with the definition of the word "is".

 

For all you know he has deslabbed the books and the buyer would have received them in mylar (that's what I would have done if I had a PGX book I wanted to sell). He may have been too lazy to rescan the deslabbed book and just decided to crop the scan he had. I don't think this is the case, and I think he miscalculated his whole approach here (personally, if he thought someone would figure the book was PGX slabbed and ascribe better value, he's wrong). My point here and the one I made in CG (where you gleefully joined the circle jerk), is that I don't think he was necesarrily violating the rule the way he was selling,

 

And again, you appear to be the only one making that argument. What part of NO PGX BOOKS FOR SALE ON THE CGC BOARD is hard to understand?

 

and the rules need to be little more specific and clarify how one needs to offer books to eliminate any ambiguity as to whether they are offering a PGX book.

 

The rule is clear, Phil has run up against this rule in the past apparently.

 

 

[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.

Being honest is not hiding a PGX book for sale. Being dishonest is deliberately covering it up. I'm not trying to say that there aren't levels of dishonesty but deliberately hiding facts after having been caught doing it before is certainly a level of dishonesty.

 

To be fair, it wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't a repeat offender but any excuses of ignorance or "not thinking it was a big deal" are well past used. I've never had any contact with VTcomics before so have no personal agenda but if he wants to use the selling forum then he shouldn't be spitting at the rules.

 

He didn't hide the book... He was trying to sell the book. He should have taken it out of the case, thus making it no longer a PGX book, but he didn't try to sell it AS a PGX book, just as a book. The case still being there was irrelevent (as are most PGX grades, anyway :: )

 

The only dishonesty that could be inferred from his actions is that PGX is not exactly a restoration expert, thus making all PGX books subject to question, and hiding the fact that they are PGX books tantamount to... I just talked myself around. He was being dishonest.

[skypinkblu]

By the original...one of my all time favorite artists, she was an alumni of my HS...

 

[Bosco685]

Nice!

 

Sometimes remakes come out okay. This one was used for an ending on True Blood.

 

[DrWatson]

Of course, I should have thought better. Scanning the label when you scan a graded book requires so much extra time that selling would become a herculean task and therefor no longer worth the time or the effort.

Got anything other than sarcasm?

 

Doubles the number of scans if you don't have a scanner compatible with the entire slab. I think the sales rates for someone like Foolkiller make it clear that a seller of high integrity shouldn't be forced to show labels.

Brian isn't going to try and sell slabs by posting a picture of a graded book sans the label. Plus, if one is selling so many graded books that doubling the number of scans is a deterrent then it's high time they invested in a legal size scanner. I think mine cost around $200 and GACollectibles picked one up off of eBay a few months ago for about the same.

 

In regards to your above reproach argument, I remember when Jason Ewert was above approach.

 

Besides, I thought you were all in favor of any and all information one could glean from the seller in order to analyze a potential sale to death before pulling the trigger. Surely the label would contain a wealth of information as not to be omitted.

[whomerjay]

Of course, I should have thought better. Scanning the label when you scan a graded book requires so much extra time that selling would become a herculean task and therefor no longer worth the time or the effort.

Got anything other than sarcasm?

 

Doubles the number of scans if you don't have a scanner compatible with the entire slab. I think the sales rates for someone like Foolkiller make it clear that a seller of high integrity shouldn't be forced to show labels.

Brian isn't going to try and sell slabs by posting a picture of a graded book sans the label.

 

Dude, you're not a very good lawyer.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=5304618&fpart=1

 

 

 

[DrWatson]

I'm not a lawyer at all. Plus, I don't shop Brian's sales threads. Thirdly, more power to him. It's a shame one rotten apple can spoil the entire barrel so that label scans are a requirement.

[Bio-Rupp]

Ouch

[whomerjay]

Of course, I should have thought better. Scanning the label when you scan a graded book requires so much extra time that selling would become a herculean task and therefor no longer worth the time or the effort.

Got anything other than sarcasm?

 

Doubles the number of scans if you don't have a scanner compatible with the entire slab. I think the sales rates for someone like Foolkiller make it clear that a seller of high integrity shouldn't be forced to show labels.

.

 

In regards to your above reproach argument, I remember when Jason Ewert was above approach.

 

.

 

Nor a very good debater. This is called a non sequitor. Namisgar's statement meant Foolkiller's integrity allowed him to sell slabs sans label successfully. Ewert and his story are irrelevant to the point.

[whomerjay]

I'm not a lawyer at all. Plus, I don't shop Brian's sales threads. Thirdly, more power to him. It's a shame one rotten apple can spoil the entire barrel so that label scans are a requirement.

 

So you just make sheet up to argue? Do the facts matter?

[DrWatson]

I'm not a lawyer at all. Plus, I don't shop Brian's sales threads. Thirdly, more power to him. It's a shame one rotten apple can spoil the entire barrel so that label scans are a requirement.

 

So you just make sheet up to argue? Do the facts matter?

Sign post. Wrong road home. Have at it.

[Bio-Rupp]

I'm not a lawyer at all. Plus, I don't shop Brian's sales threads. Thirdly, more power to him. It's a shame one rotten apple can spoil the entire barrel so that label scans are a requirement.

So you just make sheet up to argue? Do the facts matter?

Sign post. Wrong road home. Have at it.

GIFSoup

[mikenyc]

Which is a greater offense, and I'll qualify that by saying, to the board members not CGC. Selling PGX books on the sneak or selling to probation members?

[bababooey]

I already expressed in the Trey Cannon thing that I felt the moderator guidelines already had moderator enforcement defined for a breach of their rules (strikes etc...) & if there was community interest in enforcing the CGC rule then create one, whether it be one month probation or whatever... Presumably the proposed probation action can only come as a result of a mod thread lock; the logical approach: use the mod button & if/when the strike is issued, move it to probation for community enforcement.

 

The point here seems to center around selling a PGX graded book in the slab - I would personally have no problem if CGC took that a step further.

 

I would be surprised if CGC is thrilled to see people selling cracked books here alongside scans of the PGX label showing a competitors opinion on grade. Though the slab is the "guarantee" that the book contained is the one that was graded - someone coming on here and selling a cracked out book and scanning the old PGX label to show 3rd party opinions is just as bad as selling a PGX in the slab - I would say scanning another company's label/opinion should also be forbidden - the most that someone should be able to post on a cracked out PGX should be "previously 3rd party graded at _____" PM for details. I would support CGC if they said you CANNOT make reference to grades provided by other 3rd party grading services - it's their site.

 

This type of policy might rub some of the proactive disclosure proponents the wrong way but it's within CGC's right to say that they simply don't want people to utilize opinions offered by competitors in their sales descriptions.

 

I see CGC's point of view as "We don't just put them in plastic....we are a professional grading company & people pay for and respect our opinions. Sharing opinions of grades offered by prior buyers/sellers is fine - however any disclosure of the opinions offered by other 3rd party grading companies is not allowed"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

Which is a greater offense, and I'll qualify that by saying, to the board members not CGC. Selling PGX books on the sneak or selling to probation members?

 

 

Probably the former.

 

Selling PGX books on the sneak is a lot like farting on a crowded elevator just as you are getting out. By the time people realize what you've done to them it's too late to do much about it.

 

Selling to probation list members is more like picking up someone of a questionable gender from the club. You are taking a massive risk but it's mostly your own regardless of the possibility of personal shame if outed.

 

Both are pretty disrespectful to this particular community. So they are probably 1A and 1B on the bad quotient.