[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

2 hours ago, Poekaymon said:

I'm sorry, but "righteously earned money" is hilarious.

His words... read the screen caps of his posts for full effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DocHoppus182 said:

2 votes so far for No.  Interesting. 

Now there are three.  One of those no votes was from someone who said they clicked the wrong button.  They volunteered that information.  
 

is the poll supposed to be public or private @crassus @skypinkblu?  I forgot so on the side of caution I made it private.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

 One of those no votes was from someone who said they clicked the wrong button.  

Those dam hanging chads...... get you every time...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

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.   

I am not sure if he said he did the sigs or not, but he admitted that they were fakes, so how would he know that they were fakes for definite if he didnt do them or was complicit in someone else doing them, its all the same to me.

As as someone who would have been in the market for a genuine Ditko sig he put enough doubt in my mind that it is something I will now never have as we have seen he has had activity here, other boards and on Ebay, he may have some out there already :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

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. 

I agree with this sentiment. 

To be clear,  my vote is in. I watched the auction go up,  was really excited to see Steve signatures on comics, then read all the chaos that followed.  This is HOS worthy. 

However,  I do think the HOS nomination should be a statement of fact without attempt to bias voters.

In this case, the facts are damning enough.  

The only real question in my mind is,  how many times did he sell or attempt to sell forged signatures? His rush to delete the past record of his conduct on the boards is suspicious. And his story seems like nonsense. 

I do appreciate his colorful use of words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Now there are three.  One of those no votes was from someone who said they clicked the wrong button.  They volunteered that information.  
 

is the poll supposed to be public or private @crassus @skypinkblu?  I forgot so on the side of caution I made it private.  

Of course everyone can vote whichever way they feel.  I’d like to hear the reasoning is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Now there are three.  One of those no votes was from someone who said they clicked the wrong button.  They volunteered that information.  
 

is the poll supposed to be public or private @crassus @skypinkblu?  I forgot so on the side of caution I made it private.  

I do not think there is any specific rule about this. What is the difference with a "public" poll? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Poekaymon said:

I am aware they were his words.

I am sure you are aware as you were reciting what was an obvious quote.   I am telling you that if you are raising an eyebrow at those, then check out the rest of what he said in all of his posts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, crassus said:

I do not think there is any specific rule about this. What is the difference with a "public" poll? 

We see who voted for what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Poekaymon said:

I'm sorry, but "righteously earned money" is hilarious.

I am curious as, "the new guy" as to your thoughts on the whole matter.   Is this guy someone that could be forgiven?  Is this someone that should be trusted for people to do business with on the boards? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buzzetta said:

We see who voted for what.

In that case you made the right choice. IMO it ensures that in especially contentious cases people are not "brow beaten" into voting a certain way, or worse discouraged from voting either way because they don't want to deal with the drama. My 2c is that this is not an especially contentious case, but we can all appreciate from some past examples just how bad it can get on the peer-pressure drama-meter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buzzetta said:

I am curious as, "the new guy" as to your thoughts on the whole matter.   Is this guy someone that could be forgiven?  Is this someone that should be trusted for people to do business with on the boards? 

Can't say I am a fan of a public lynching, speaking as someone who has recently been lynched, and if you were to post a similar poll about me right now, I'm not sure I'd survive.

He is definitely suspect and his name needs to go somewhere.  As you said I'm new, but I think you have a probation list as well.  So if he admitted fault and refunded everyone, maybe you could put him on that and give him a chance to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Poekaymon said:

Can't say I am a fan of a public lynching, speaking as someone who has recently been lynched, and if you were to post a similar poll about me right now, I'm not sure I'd survive.

He is definitely suspect and his name needs to go somewhere.  As you said I'm new, but I think you have a probation list as well.  So if he admitted fault and refunded everyone, maybe you could put him on that and give him a chance to change.

Let me say first I appreciate your point of view, whenever the HoS comes up there is a natural and proper concern that a person not get railroaded based on popularity or merely contingent circumstances (i.e. "I like you so its ok" vs "I don't like you so that same thing is now not ok" etc). That said unfortunately the PL does not provide that kind of remedy you are suggesting above. The PL is not intended to be a judgment, but a way to force the meeting of outstanding obligations, to strictly if possible complete transactions, and once that is done the offending party is off the PL list. To be honest, it is not always that simple and the PL has had its share of big controversies also, in how its applied, but in principle the PL cannot serve as a "time out" corner for bad behaviour. So if on the PL and one admits fault and completes the transaction (issues refund, replaces item or otherwise "makes things right") than they must come off the list. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, crassus said:

Let me say first I appreciate your point of view, whenever the HoS comes up there is a natural and proper concern that a person not get railroaded based on popularity or merely contingent circumstances (i.e. "I like you so its ok" vs "I don't like you so that same thing is now not ok" etc). That said unfortunately the PL does not provide that kind of remedy you are suggesting above. The PL is not intended to be a judgment, but a way to force the meeting of outstanding obligations, to strictly if possible complete transactions, and once that is done the offending party is off the PL list. To be honest, it is not always that simple and the PL has had its share of big controversies also, in how its applied, but in principle the PL cannot serve as a "time out" corner for bad behaviour. So if on the PL and one admits fault and completes the transaction (issues refund, replaces item or otherwise "makes things right") than they must come off the list. 

It also seems as though you can be voted off the HoS as well.  Alright, HoS it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Poekaymon said:

It also seems as though you can be voted off the HoS as well.  Alright, HoS it is.

This was discussed for a few days prior to the poll as to whether or not he should be named in the HoS.  This is not something that has been taken lightly over the years as the last time such an event happened was around three years ago.  This was something that was HoS worthy and not PL worthy because it does not just impact the the two buyers who were refunded, or the local community of the boards.  Aliens has run sales threads before, on eBay, and on the CBCS boards of Lee and Ditko signatures.  It throws into question every sale that he has ever made and raises suspicion that there may be more fakes out there.    Over on the CBCS thread that Mr Sigs linked us to after this poll was created, he sold something called the Ditko Package explaining that he was in contact with someone 'in the know' with that book who claimed that Ditko did randomly sign a few of them as a 'lucky find'.    Let's assume that is true.   Who is to say that he has not duplicated that signature on other copies?   The problem with forgery in the collectables field is that once a shadow of doubt is cast upon the dealer because they were caught knowingly dealing with fakes, it no longer becomes a question of, "What is faked and what is not?"  You kind of now have to assume that everything in front of you is a possible fake and that the question now is, "Which fake is better than the other?"

Hopefully, and I honestly mean this, I hope that CBCS did not verify any signatures that have come from him.   Major companies that authenticate and grade have been duped before.  CGC with the microtrimming from years ago comes to mind as well as AFA comes to mind with the MOC Star Wars figures that came out of England.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he ever post photos to prove that he actually smudged out those forgeries, as he claimed to have done?  It certainly won’t save him from the hall, but for his sake it would at least be a small initial step towards reputation rehab.  Assuming he even desires that of course, there’s a whole lot of attempted rear end covering going on from his side.

Who knows, maybe the self-imposed banning request is just a noble gesture on his part, but I highly doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mattn792 said:

Did he ever post photos to prove that he actually smudged out those forgeries, as he claimed to have done?  

Yes.  In the general discussion thread.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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