[CLOSED] Aliens Nominated to the Hall of Shame - Poll Included
4 4

Should Alien be in the CGC Hall of Shame  

124 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Alien be in the CGC Hall of Shame

    • Yes
      121
    • No
      3

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 08/25/2021 at 11:14 PM

89 posts in this topic

:news: Aliens is hereby nominated for the Hall of Shame :news: 

AKA chameleoncolors on the CBCS Boards AKA "Vincent"

On July 1st, 2020, Board Member Aliens posted a thread in the Gold/Silver/Bronze area of the for sale boards advertising various lower grade comics signed by Steve Ditko and Steve Ditko alongside Stan Lee.  He sold a copy of Amazing Spider-man 9 advertised in lower grade as signed by Steve Ditko and Stan Lee to board member Dinesh_s (Link HERE) for $700 + shipping.  He sold a copy of Amazing Spider-man 20 advertised in low grade signed by Steve Ditko and Stan Lee for $700 + shipping to board member Xatari (Link HERE).  Upon a public display of scrutiny from skeptical board members, Aliens refunded the money and later admitted that he had sold forged signatures of Steve Ditko's name on the comics.  He also tried to delete his posts and asked to be banned. 

Aliens has held similar sales threads in the past where he offered what he claimed were signed pieces by Steve Ditko.  Due to his actions on July 1st, 2020, it casts a shadow of doubt on the authenticity of any signed items supposedly signed by Stan Lee or Steve Ditko sold by Aliens in those previous threads as well as any non Signature Series autograph that has passed through his hands.  Here are two examples of Alien selling unwitnessed items purportedly signed by Steve Ditko and Stan Lee.

Although he deleted his original post, selling the forged signatures, I have a screen cap of that as taken from Google Cache.  I also immediately subscribed to the thread and can offer any and all original posts by Alien that he later edited. 

In the General Discussion thread of the selling area of the boards, Alien admits to selling forged Steve Ditko's signature and claims that he did it to pay for medical bills for his ailing grandmother.   Link to that is HERE Since he has already edited it, I have taken a screen shot of the comment and included it below in the event it is further edited after this nomination.  He wrote and I quote, "I did know that the signatures were not authentic and I was willing to risk the collecting community and multiple individuals (comic lovers) hard working and righteously earned money for my own selfish needs." 

Aliens has admitted to defrauding two members of the boards by forging signatures on books.  Since this was an attempt to defraud the forum and comic collecting community at large then it is of the belief that such actions are Hall of Shame worthy.  Had he not walked back on what he did those books would have been out there for unsuspecting buyers in the future.  There is no coming back from this.  To be honest, he committed a criminal act by selling, invoicing, and receiving over $1400 for forged signatures.   Just because he got cold feet doesn't change that fact.  If someone walks into a bank and robs the place, they still face consequences even if they turn around and put the money back on the counter.  Saying, "I am sorry" does not negate that.

 

At this time, Aliens is being nominated to the Hall of Shame.

Screen Shot 2020-07-02 at 3.08.05 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-07-06 at 11.20.57 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-07-06 at 11.24.25 PM.png

Edited by Buzzetta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One point of clarification. Did he admit to actually making the sigs himself or just that he knew they weren't real? It doesn't change anything for me, but just wanted to make sure we were being as accurate as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wombat said:

One point of clarification. Did he admit to actually making the sigs himself or just that he knew they weren't real? It doesn't change anything for me, but just wanted to make sure we were being as accurate as possible. 

I read through the entire conversation earlier today and don't believe he mentioned doing them himself. Just that he knowingly tried to sell fake signatures. 

All I can say is, this is a truly unfortunate situation.  I'm glad everyone got their $$ back promptly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, wombat said:

One point of clarification. Did he admit to actually making the sigs himself or just that he knew they weren't real? It doesn't change anything for me, but just wanted to make sure we were being as accurate as possible. 

I edited it now to reflect that what he has said in the edited version.  However, I am 99% sure he said he forged them himself in one of the Marketplace General Discussion posts before he edited it.  I was not following that thread so I do not have a copy of the original posts like I do with the Ditko thread he started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would Alien need to do to prompt a vote to remove himself from the Hall of Shame ?  The rules suggest a vote can take place to get taken off the Hall of Shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max Carnage said:

What would Alien need to do to prompt a vote to remove himself from the Hall of Shame ?  The rules suggest a vote can take place to get taken off the Hall of Shame.

My understanding is that he could request it at any time. In the event there was a parallel PL problem as well, ie. outstanding transactions, money owed, books owed that kind of thing, a Boardie on the HoS would also have to clear those obligations in addition to convincing a majority of Boardies that he/she deserves to be taken off the HoS. Here it looks like straight HoS, but of course if the Boardie is voted on to the list, the assumption is that you would need to be doing something towards changing peoples minds before any such follow on vote would make any sense, or have any chance of success. 2c

There are some people on the HoS who I strongly suspect would never get a vote for removal, and wouldn't even try...that said, it has been done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inconceivable!!!  Just the thought of defrauding/deceiving someone over a comic book makes me shake my head...no matter the excuse, lie, etc.  Hall of Shame for sure.  Asking to be banned after all that...kinda leaves me wondering if they aren't trying this con somewhere else online. (shrug)  

This is all my opinion, of course.  (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should a nomination to the HOS be a factual based post only and free from personal opinions? 

I have no issues with the nomination and am able to discern the facts and make my decision. I would vote yes to him being placed on the list based on the known facts which speak for themselves.

But this paragraph makes me uneasy as it is laced - in my opinion - with opinion:

12 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

Since this was an attempt to defraud the forum and comic collecting community at large then it is of the belief that such actions are Hall of Shame worthy.  Had he not walked back on what he did those books would have been out there for unsuspecting buyers in the future.  There is no coming back from this.  To be honest, he committed a criminal act by selling, invoicing, and receiving over $1400 for forged signatures.   Just because he got cold feet doesn't change that fact.  If someone walks into a bank and robs the place, they still face consequences even if they turn around and put the money back on the counter.  Saying, "I am sorry" does not negate that.

Are phrases like "there is no coming back from this" and "it is of the belief that such actions...." appropriate to a nomination regardless of how many people may subsequently agree with them? At the point the poll was posted there was no community 'belief that such actions...' only the nominators belief. And is it the nominators place to say whether there is any way back for the nominee? 

Please don't misunderstand me - I personally think that the actions of the nominee were beyond the pale and it is right that this nomination be put forward. But I would prefer nominations to be a simple statement of facts and free from comparative scenarios such as "it's no different to going into a bank..." which are personal to the nominator who, in this case, was not even one of the directly wronged parties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add, I believe looking at his thread that someone else located the ebay auctions he had up where in the auctions he acknowledged they were not legitimate signatures. I can't find the link at this time but that evidence could be quite useful here as well. I would also agree with Galen that Hall of Shame is the way to go. Banning him would open him up to returning in another form and making it more difficult to connect those individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Should a nomination to the HOS be a factual based post only and free from personal opinions? 

I have no issues with the nomination and am able to discern the facts and make my decision. I would vote yes to him being placed on the list based on the known facts which speak for themselves.

But this paragraph makes me uneasy as it is laced - in my opinion - with opinion:

Are phrases like "there is no coming back from this" and "it is of the belief that such actions...." appropriate to a nomination regardless of how many people may subsequently agree with them? At the point the poll was posted there was no community 'belief that such actions...' only the nominators belief. And is it the nominators place to say whether there is any way back for the nominee? 

Please don't misunderstand me - I personally think that the actions of the nominee were beyond the pale and it is right that this nomination be put forward. But I would prefer nominations to be a simple statement of facts and free from comparative scenarios such as "it's no different to going into a bank..." which are personal to the nominator who, in this case, was not even one of the directly wronged parties. 

Seriously?  Yeah I will keep that in mind the next time that someone confesses to fraud and at around midnight I write it all up.   You are wrong about the second part if you read the general discussion thread where it was discussed by quite a few people over the course of a few days. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jginsberg79 said:

Just to add, I believe looking at his thread that someone else located the ebay auctions he had up where in the auctions he acknowledged they were not legitimate signatures. I can't find the link at this time but that evidence could be quite useful here as well. I would also agree with Galen that Hall of Shame is the way to go. Banning him would open him up to returning in another form and making it more difficult to connect those individuals.

Aliens was the one asking for himself to be banned.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Aliens was the one asking for himself to be banned.

 

Yes, apologies if I was unclear. I meant we shouldn't ban him inorder to more easily identify him. I was just agreeing with Galen on that and trying to add the fact that someone tracked down his ebay offer. That offer pretty clearly lays out what he was doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jginsberg79 said:

Yes, apologies if I was unclear. I meant we shouldn't ban him inorder to more easily identify him. I was just agreeing with Galen on that and trying to add the fact that someone tracked down his ebay offer. That offer pretty clearly lays out what he was doing.

No need to apologize... I misunderstood... Just back inside after doing more work in the yard and I did not process it right.  I am the one owing you and apology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, wombat said:

One point of clarification. Did he admit to actually making the sigs himself or just that he knew they weren't real? It doesn't change anything for me, but just wanted to make sure we were being as accurate as possible. 

Indeed, this is an important distinction, though he is HoS no matter the answer.

At one level he is a thief at another level he employed the forger in a racketeering scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, NP_Gresham said:

Indeed, this is an important distinction, though he is HoS no matter the answer.

At one level he is a thief at another level he employed the forger in a racketeering scheme.

I edited that out.  I am pretty sure he originally admitted to that but that is what he may have changed when he later edited it out in one of his responses concerning what happened in the FS thread.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
4 4