Exposing FRAUD And DECEPTION - A Must Watch! 18 18

[COI]

On 8/27/2021 at 3:22 PM, kav said:

Only if your video strongly features a particular book he pressed and consigned to heritage. 

Anyone know who sold the Action 1 to Nic Cage that eventually got stolen? And who sold it to the person who sold it to Nic Cage? It's super relevant, I swear.

[COI]

On 8/27/2021 at 3:27 PM, kav said:

This is the "everyone else is doing it" defense.

Who am I defending?

[kav]

On 8/27/2021 at 12:31 PM, COI said:

Who am I defending?

ok the "everyone else is doing it" argument if you prefer.

[Sweet Lou 14]

On 8/27/2021 at 3:25 PM, COI said:

Hey guys, anyone want to have a conversation about the "ethics" of social media influencers/content creators who gets to enjoy the benefits of reaching a large audience without having their content filtered through any semblance of editorial rigor, potentially causing harm to any number of people in the process in the age of clickbait, motivated reasoning and hyper-reactivity, or are we only concerned about the ethics of five or six guys purportedly trading games back and forth? 

I think this is a very valid topic.  But it should be possible to have that discussion separately from a fair discussion of the points and questions they raise.  And it should also be possible to point out inaccuracies, misunderstandings due to lack or expertise, or even intentional falsehoods (if any exist) while also weighing the facts they present that are actually on target.

[COI]

On 8/27/2021 at 3:32 PM, kav said:

ok the "everyone else is doing it" argument if you prefer.

Doing what? 

I'm asking the people who are so concerned about the ethics of Heritage/Halperin/WATA if they see an ethical problem with Karl Jobst's reputation smearing. 

[kav]

On 8/27/2021 at 12:35 PM, COI said:

Doing what? 

I'm asking the people who are so concerned about the ethics of Heritage/Halperin/WATA if they see an ethical problem with Karl Jobst's reputation smearing. 

nevermind.

[COI]

On 8/27/2021 at 3:34 PM, Sweet Lou 14 said:

I think this is a very valid topic.  But it should be possible to have that discussion separately from a fair discussion of the points and questions they raise.  And it should also be possible to point out inaccuracies, misunderstandings due to lack or expertise, or even intentional falsehoods (if any exist) while also weighing the facts they present that are actually on target.

Fair. I'm all for being super clear about what we're actually discussing, and what is relevant to what we're discussing. 

Since the catalyst for this discussion was the video, and since Karl is the one making the claims, I'm focused on evaluating his arguments.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

Original Sale promotion artwork for the 'Promise' sale.

Pulled for being 'too honest'

 

[Bronty]

I could have reacted better to the video but the 40% of so of it that I watched, from my perspective, was neither interesting nor accurate.

It also frankly didn't seem to say much of anything important.    It pointed out that some of the personalities knew each other, which is hardly surprising in what was and still is a small hobby.

The parts of it I did watch had inaccuracies, at least to my understanding.     I found that frustrating.     

There are a lot of videos out there.    I'm not going to watch something that doesn't appear to make a point other than relationships existed between people, and that gets details wrong along the way.

Additionally, some of the Abramson reports seem irresponsible to me.    I read something where Abramson questioned if Wata had a side deal with heritage to sell "moldy" games without the red label.    To my understanding, the red label is very new.   One wouldn't expect auctions from before the red label even existed, to carry the red label!   That is simply one example.

Understand that OF COURSE there is speculation.   In ALL markets.    Joe down the street buys land because he thinks it will appreciate.    Martha up the block bought some stock in Pepsi because she thought it would appreciate.    

There is nothing improper about that.    The current generation of collectors in both, from what I can see, sports cards and games, do speculate heavily.    I suspect its further exacerbated by the covid collectibles demand spike, but frankly, it turns me off.     The market of the last little while has taken the enjoyment out of the hobby for me.    I am priced out of new purchases.    So I really can't engage with the hobby in any way at all, other than through original art which has really been my passion for 14 years now.     Let me restate that more clearly:   I have not in any significant way considered myself a sealed game collector for fourteen years now.    Yes, I still have some games, and I've bought the odd one, and I've followed closely, but it has been a long long time since art collecting made everything else take a back seat for me.    

I'm simply really, really disappointed in the video, the article, and some of the related reaction.

 

 

[HighVoltage]

On 8/27/2021 at 1:25 PM, COI said:

Hey guys, anyone want to have a conversation about the "ethics" of social media influencers/content creators who gets to enjoy the benefits of reaching a large audience without having their content filtered through any semblance of editorial rigor, potentially causing harm to any number of people in the process in the age of clickbait, motivated reasoning and hyper-reactivity, or are we only concerned about the ethics of five or six guys purportedly trading games back and forth? 

Well - and don't forget any potential gifts/products or cash that some influencers receive to push a particular agenda.

I'm not saying this is the case here, specifically.

[kav]

On 8/27/2021 at 12:46 PM, HighVoltage said:

Well - and don't forget any potential gifts/products or cash that some influencers receive to push a particular agenda.

I'm not saying this is the case here, specifically.

I'm a social media influencer influencer!  

[MatterEaterLad]

At the end of the day, this is where we're going to end up. 

 

[kav]

"Dear Bob's Steakhouse of Sacramento-I am a social media influencer-if you give me free food for a year I will give you a shout out.  This will work out amazing for you.  I have over 25 followers on instagram from all over the country!  Dont miss out on this incredible opportunity to expand your business.  Just free food for me and my guest or guests for one year!  Just free food and air fare for my friends and I guarantee they will dine at your establishment when they visit!  I do not make this offer to many establishments but I really like your steakhouse so am giving you the chance to grab the golden ticket!  If my projections are accurate I could have as many as 40 followers by the end of the year!  If you also agree to pay for rental cars this will bring even more of my friends to your restaurant!"

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

On 8/27/2021 at 11:54 AM, Jimmy Linguini said:

This group is worth paying attention to just to see how these losers on facebook are manipulating the market on these Disney Black Label videos. They have put up so many fake posts about gamestop "verifying" the print number of videos which has resulted in people going to gamestop and being kicked out by management.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2316368845152270
 

 

 

A fool born every minute.  

I have always picked up movies as it was my on demand before there ever was streaming. This was my Disney +

(One of my spare bedrooms/media/comic  rooms) 

There have always been a few that were/are valuable, but grading? 

I know there is one "company" that "grades" these still...   Nope...

I still watch most of these with my family as a lot of these are the original, unedited versions. (Pre PC ) 

Now if someone wants to fork out cash for them I may have to empty the shelves.  

Truth is that some do sell and it is a form of media that requires specific conditions to survive well. So I could see it being another eclectic niche. 

That said some of those crazy evaluations/ sales you see on ebay for the " black diamond " Disney Vhs are mostly burner accounts that you can be sure are either money laundering or sale of illicit goods . 

Do not get me wrong I had several sealed copies of a BUNCH of Disney and Horror movies as well as loads of Hard to find VHS that I have slowly sold some off for the last few years. 

Definitely not turning down good money. 

More money for comics. 

Can't take it all with me.

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 8/27/2021 at 1:11 PM, COI said:

Maybe he shouldn't have reacted so quickly, but we're all guilty of that from time to time. It doesn't change the fact that his involvement of the hobby is irrelevant to this discussion, yet that was the focus for several pages after he stopped commenting.

I wrote two giant posts critiquing the video, and people don't seem too interested in engaging those criticisms. I actually took the time to watch the video, then watched portions of it again to make sure I was clear on the claims he was making, I addressed those claims, with timestamps no less, wrote another giant post about why I think videos like his are a problem, and I got accused of not liking the video because of the guys voice, or some other arbitrary reason.

So I took the opposite route that Dan did with my responses, and it didn't go anywhere. That's what happens when people get entrenched in a view and aren't actually interested in discussing anything.

The entrenched view is that Halperin can’t be trusted.  There’s no reason to believe that any of the claims against him aren’t true. 

[COI]

On 8/27/2021 at 3:46 PM, HighVoltage said:

Well - and don't forget any potential gifts/products or cash that some influencers receive to push a particular agenda.

 

Exactly. 

In gaming communities on youtube specifically, there is a very clear "callout culture" where independent youtubers are chomping at the bit to uncover the next conspiracy or major controversy. On the surface you'd think it's great that so many people are asking questions and trying to uncover things that really should be uncovered. The problem is that the nature of views/folllows/likes and how those things tie into ad revenue and sponsorships creates a perverse incentive for creators to adopt this style of shoot-first, ask questions later journalism, if it can even be called journalism. And they have no reason to be concerned with, nor are they accountable to, any serious code of ethics, beyond staying within the guidelines of the youtube terms of service. Even when they risk legal action with the claims they're making, any legal trouble they run into will be followed by some flavor of "gofundme" or "Patreon" with an appeal for help with the legal fees associated with "speaking truth to power!" or some other similar sentiment.

It's great that people have the ability to report independently, accrue revenue and an audience, and I'm sure that real good has been done because of it. But this isn't 2003 anymore where the worst that happens is someone is embarrassed and forced off the boards in some spectacular FDQ exit; making serious claims has potential serious ramifications for the people involved, financially or otherwise, including absurd/irrational/crazy stuff like death threats. So for all the people worried, understandably, about the ethics of auction houses and a small number of people getting rich off of another small number of rich folks, the least you could do is demand some commensurate level of ethics from the people "blowing the whistle". 

 

[Sweet Lou 14]

On 8/27/2021 at 4:35 PM, COI said:

Exactly. 

In gaming communities on youtube specifically, there is a very clear "callout culture" where independent youtubers are chomping at the bit to uncover the next conspiracy or major controversy. On the surface you'd think it's great that so many people are asking questions and trying to uncover things that really should be uncovered. The problem is that the nature of views/folllows/likes and how those things tie into ad revenue and sponsorships creates a perverse incentive for creators to adopt this style of shoot-first, ask questions later journalism, if it can even be called journalism. And they have no reason to be concerned with, nor are they accountable to, any serious code of ethics, beyond staying within the guidelines of the youtube terms of service. Even when they risk legal action with the claims they're making, any legal trouble they run into will be followed by some flavor of "gofundme" or "Patreon" with an appeal for help with the legal fees associated with "speaking truth to power!" or some other similar sentiment.

It's great that people have the ability to report independently, accrue revenue and an audience, and I'm sure that real good has been done because of it. But this isn't 2003 anymore where the worst that happens is someone is embarrassed and forced off the boards in some spectacular FDQ exit; making serious claims has potential serious ramifications for the people involved, financially or otherwise, including absurd/irrational/crazy stuff like death threats. So for all the people worried, understandably, about the ethics of auction houses and a small number of people getting rich off of another small number of rich folks, the least you could do is demand some commensurate level of ethics from the people "blowing the whistle". 

 

These are great points.  I hadn't thought of YouTube "journalism" quite this way before, but it makes perfect sense.  Even before the internet, journalism took a wrong turn with the advent of 24/7 cable news and television network news being run like ratings-hungry profit-centers instead of a public service.  Now in the age of click-bait and people searching for "news" that fits their pre-established viewpoints, the whole landscape is extremely fraught.

That's why a dialogue (or if necessary a debate) between alternate viewpoints can be so valuable.  Since we're unlikely to see the accuser and the accused share a stage until and unless there's literally a lawsuit, maybe a discussion forum like this is where some of that dialogue can take place.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Sweet Lou 14

[COI]

On 8/27/2021 at 4:30 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

The entrenched view is that Halperin can’t be trusted.  There’s no reason to believe that any of the claims against him aren’t true. 

The view that Halperin can't be trusted isn't in conflict with the view that this video has errors and glaring flaws. So to put it another way, criticism of the video isn't a defense of Halperin. 

[Bronty]

Deleted - already said it all really. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Bronty

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 8/27/2021 at 4:45 PM, COI said:

The view that Halperin can't be trusted isn't in conflict with the view that this video has errors and glaring flaws. So to put it another way, criticism of the video isn't a defense of Halperin. 

I understand this