Should we maintain a list of suspicious buyers and sellers?

[the 'stache]

I stumbled across a blog last night called "For the Love of Cards", and under the links section, one of the destinations was listed as "t206museum.com is a fraud". I found this surprising, as the few times I had visited the site, it appeared on the surface to be quite helpful. Naturally my curiosity was piqued, so I Googled the site name to see what discussions might have occurred on our forum. Without going into great detail, as longtime members of Net54 already know this, the owner of the site was exposed trying to sell previously undiscovered variations of T206 Old Mill backs that he himself completely fabricated. The sordid details can be found in a discussion I bumped last night, if anybody is interested.

I am not creating this discussion and poll to rehash the past, however. This is merely an example of a site that has been associated with criminal behavior. What I am proposing here is that we as a group become more proactive in documenting the names, user ids and websites of those unscrupulous persons who infect our hobby. I believe that knowledge is power, and collectively, we already make a difference by exposing unethical people within the hobby. A list simply makes these names more easily accessible.

One area I would like to address is Ebay, as I have seen several discussions lamenting the insufficiency of their feedback system. Since it is impossible to leave negative feedback on a buyer, honest sellers are precariously placed in harm's way. Unless a seller delves deeply into the comments left for previous transactions, they cannot know if the person they are shipping to is trustworthy. A searchable list of problematic buyers, with a link to any discussion providing supporting documentation, would represent a big step forward. The user ids of buyers with excessive retractions, and a history of shill bidding, should be included as well. As for sellers, negative feedback, though indicative of a possible problem, is simply not always accurate. A buyer can leave negative feedback without even contacting a seller, whether it is warranted or not. It would be wise for us to keep a list of sellers that do not meet the level of honesty the hobby deserves.

In the "Joseph M. Pankiewicz" discussion, Pete Ullman made a comment that has stuck with me for much of the last week:

Maybe there should be a section in the archive on this site that discusses suspect sellers/auction houses. Maybe a timeline of hobby indescretions over the last decade up to present...naming names...so users of this message board will have such info to help with future transactions?

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=174608&page=30

The responses to his post were positive, yet I have not seen this idea acted upon yet. So I am going to build upon his idea, expanding it to Ebay users, auction houses, and suspicious websites. This would serve as a caveat emptor of sorts. The ultimate decision of who would appear on the list would be made by Leon or one of the other forum admins/moderators.

So, I ask you, my fellow friends and hobby enthusiasts, if you feel this list would be beneficial?

[Mark]

I would expect more drama than information as the anger and libel flow along.

[the 'stache]

I could see that being a problem, Mark, but the list would basically be comprised of names that have already appeared in discussions. Just a quick reference of sorts.

[quinnsryche]

I think that's an excellent idea although who would have the final say as to which people make the list? Many people come on here to bitch about stuff and we only find out later the original poster is the problem. It would be rather difficult to police such things as there are always 2 sides to a story (and sometimes more it seems).
Rather interested to see the outcome of the poll.
Always enjoy your posts 'stache. Well thought out and well written.
Best,
Tony

[PolarBear]

I would expect more drama than information as the anger and libel flow along.

Exactly.

[cyseymour]

I could see there being a baseball card version Yelp which reviews the different dealers and auction houses/other businesses. But for anyone who is not a business, it is treading on thin ice. People don't like to have their names out on the internet and it would be possible to make false allegations against anyone. Plus, if it were a list, who would have the authority to maintain such a list and decide who's on it? That would be a pretty powerful person... too much power, if you ask me.

So I think it's a bad idea... but a review website for the dealers/auction houses might be a good one for anyone who wants to take it up. Just leave collectors out of it... I think it has to be a registered business.

[ALR-bishop]

Exactly.

+ 3

[Leon]

Great discussion and very well thought out opening post. The other mods and I always want to listen to new ideas to help the board and the hobby, where the board is concerned. That being said.....
I can't imagine me ever being convinced this would be a good thing for this site due to the liability issues, the management of the sections and the drama. Those are my initial concerns.

[batsballsbases]

Great discussion and very well thought out opening post. The other mods and I always want to listen to new ideas to help the board and the hobby, where the board is concerned. That being said.....
I can't imagine me ever being convinced this would be a good thing for this site due to the liability issues, the management of the sections and the drama. Those are my initial concerns.

Leon,
Good post I to think some kind of list would help out as so many new members come on daily. But as we know where the fish swim the sharks are soon to follow. I think for now you sum it up well with what is written at the top of the B/S/T :eek: CAVEAT EMPTOR:eek:

[KCRfan1]

I would expect more drama than information as the anger and libel flow along.

The drama seems to be garnering the most attention as of late. And you're right that libel will follow suit. The simple solution , to me, is if you do not like how someone does business don't deal with them. That does not mean others have had the same experience.

[D.P.Johnson]

This type of forum could work with some rules such as:

1: Check with a STAFF member before posting any new threads about who might be a suspicious buyer/seller.

2: Make sure you can provide some type of PROOF.

3: If you don't follow rule #1, your account will be suspended for 30 days.

[Bestdj777]

In theory I think a list would be a great idea. In practice, maybe not so much. From what I've seen, Leon bans anyone problematic from the BST part of the forum, which prevents any need for a list there. And, on eBay, you can change your account name or open new accounts. So, identifying someone by name or email handle would not be a permanent means of alerting people to the problem.

[the 'stache]

The drama seems to be garnering the most attention as of late. And you're right that libel will follow suit. The simple solution , to me, is if you do not like how someone does business don't deal with them. That does not mean others have had the same experience.

Lou, I understand your thoughts, as well as those expressed by Leon and other members. And I respect your position. But I don't think it would create any additional liability, or rancor. Remember, the list would be comprised of people that are already being discussed on the forum. If a forum member starts a topic on an Ebay buyer named John Q. Public because they backed out of a buy it now commitment, the specifics of what happened should be presented within the thread. Say Mr. Public bought a 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth, and the next day our forum member a message that he has changed his mind, and doesn't want the card. The forum member would document this here, and open an unpaid item case. A message would then be sent to Leon, or another forum admin or moderator with the link to the discussion. If approved for inclusion on the list, Mr. Public's name and Ebay user ID would be added to the list. Since everything has been presented factually, there can be no libel accusation. No further comment would be made as the the Ebay buyer on the list. Just the facts. They would simply be listed for reference as a non payer on one auction. With their name and user id now in the searchable database, anybody on Net54 could check and see this user has at least this one time been problematic. If they choose to block the buyer, all future problems with said buyer have been averted.

Of course it is not a perfect solution, but the list would serve as a preemptive strike of sorts.

[RCMcKenzie]

I think it makes more sense to point out some dealers that someone new to the hobby can be comfortable buying from, like the list on www.oldcardboard.com/ref/ebay-sellers/ebay-sellers.asp

Even a positive list like that could make some folks upset that they are not on it.

After a while, collectors can make up their own minds about what to buy and where.

[the 'stache]

I think it makes more sense to point out some dealers that someone new to the hobby can be comfortable buying from, like the list on www.oldcardboard.com/ref/ebay-sellers/ebay-sellers.asp

Even a positive list like that could make some folks upset that they are not on it.

After a while, collectors can make up their own minds about what to buy and where.

That is a different, and viable approach. But you're right, RC, invariably, somebody is going to be left off, and feel slighted.

I don't know, guys and gals. I'm looking for something that we can do to make the hobby a little safer for everybody here. Maybe this isn't the best answer. Or, perhaps some variation of this idea will work if we focus on the positive instead of the negative. There's certainly no legal ramifications if a seller is left off a positive list.

I am reminded of Doug Goodman's response to my point about the apathy of the major players in the hobby (the tpgs, card manufacturers, Ebay, auction houses, etc)


It's the honest hobbyists who need to change their ways. The major players who you speak of have no reason to change, because to them the "hobby" matters less than their bottom line.


There's just got to be more that we can do. And I believe we can affect changes. Ultimately we are the ones that wield the power. It is our discretionary income that makes it possible for these large players to rest on their laurels.

[Bocabirdman]

Due diligence is the answer. Read a seller's feedback. Put a good eye on the scan. Ask questions here on the board. PM people you trust and respect for their opinions. Read the threads where people express their public opinions. This hobby is best enjoyed with a modicum of caution but everyone's experiences differ. Tolerances for card condition and acceptable shipping times vary. To list sellers, good or bad, is a short cut with glaring consequences. Who to include or omit would be a fulltime headache that the moderators here do not need. We are all adults. Transactions, positive and negative are bits of data to be learned from, first-hand. There is no instant, painless alternative to years or, hell, decades of time in this hobby. Newbies need to, "Step lightly but keep a steppin'. ".

I shall now step down from the soap box. :D

[D.P.Johnson]

Silence is the scammer's best friend; knowledge is the scammer's worst enemy.

[barrysloate]

I said yes to the list, but you do want to be really careful that you've got your facts straight before you post somebody's name.

[ullmandds]

I also said yes...with caution of course.

When I'm on call(I work for a group dental practice encompassing 25 someodd dental practices)...we keep a potential "drug seekers" list so we can be prepared for callers seeking narcotic Rx drugs. This has proven very effective in the past.

[D.P.Johnson]

Due diligence is the answer. Read a seller's feedback. Put a good eye on the scan. Ask questions here on the board. PM people you trust and respect for their opinions. Read the threads where people express their public opinions. This hobby is best enjoyed with a modicum of caution but everyone's experiences differ. Tolerances for card condition and acceptable shipping times vary. To list sellers, good or bad, is a short cut with glaring consequences. Who to include or omit would be a fulltime headache that the moderators here do not need. We are all adults. Transactions, positive and negative are bits of data to be learned from, first-hand. There is no instant, painless alternative to years or, hell, decades of time in this hobby. Newbies need to, "Step lightly but keep a steppin'. ".

I shall now step down from the soap box. :D

While I agree with this, a lot of times these "scammer" buyers and sellers strike quickly. I'm dealing with several "scammer" buyers right now and would like to share that information with other sellers, but there's really no place for me to do that...

[Leon]

While I agree with this, a lot of times these "scammer" buyers and sellers strike quickly. I'm dealing with several "scammer" buyers right now and would like to share that information with other sellers, but there's really no place for me to do that...

No place to do it? How about starting a thread? Warn all you want to.

[Bocabirdman]

I also said yes...with caution of course.

When I'm on call(I work for a group dental practice encompassing 25 someodd dental practices)...we keep a potential "drug seekers" list so we can be prepared for callers seeking narcotic Rx drugs. This has proven very effective in the past.

Pete,

But that is "your" drug seekers list used for "your" purposes. You don't post that list for public consumption and condemnation. In the hobby, we all have lists of sellers and/or buyers that we will or won't deal with based on past experiences, some of which the whole hobby might need to know about. How do you decide who's to be "scarlet lettered"? How do you repair the reputation of a person included erroneously? How do you answer a person who says, " I sent him the money because he WASN'T on the Net 54 SH*T LIST and got burned."?

[ullmandds]

good point, Mike!

[tschock]

No place to do it? How about starting a thread? Warn all you want to.

Leon (and others),

I see what the OP is proposing as a viable option. I don't think he is talking about a place for discussion of scammers, etc, but a place to list those already discussed. What I see as viable is a list of possible people to deal with caution, with a slight summary and a reference back to the vetting thread.

Using the Panky thread as an example. This were was a long discussion on this, but the "list" would contain a reference back to the original thread with (possibly) a brief summary. With the thread reference in place, should Panky change his ebay ID (for example), that can be detailed in the original thread and would be easy to locate and update, if the reference was handy in the list. I don't see the list containing any real discussion at all.

Not sure if this is exactly what the OP was intending, but I could see this working without an increased risk of liability. We could even provide the ability for the entity to respond, either in their own thread (which would be added as a referenced thread on the list), or their response could be inline with the original referenced thread.

[D.P.Johnson]

No place to do it? How about starting a thread? Warn all you want to.

Oh, ok...I didn't realize there was a section on this board where I could do that. I've looked around before but couldn't find it. I'll look again. Thanks...

[Leon]

Oh, ok...I didn't realize there was a section on this board where I could do that. I've looked around before but couldn't find it. I'll look again. Thanks...

It is this front page. Don't look too far. See BBG thread if you are unaware of where?

[rainier2004]

The list would be a nice reference, but Id rather have a list of good sellers as previously mentioned...if someone gets left out then no biggie b/c eventually they'll make the list. It would serve as nice reminder of the good people in the hobby.

Leon monitors the hell outta the BST, he also provides reference checks extremely quickly and promotes further checks. If those weren't all in place then the list idea would be better, but I just don't think we need it here. I just bought a card from a member and feel comfortable enough to ask him to hold it for 3 week while we are on vacation...crap happens, but reference checks on Leons BST seems to eliminate that.

[D.P.Johnson]

It is this front page. Don't look too far. See BBG thread if you are unaware of where?

Outstanding! Thank you!

[RobertGT]

Lou, I understand your thoughts, as well as those expressed by Leon and other members. And I respect your position. But I don't think it would create any additional liability, or rancor. Remember, the list would be comprised of people that are already being discussed on the forum. If a forum member starts a topic on an Ebay buyer named John Q. Public because they backed out of a buy it now commitment, the specifics of what happened should be presented within the thread. Say Mr. Public bought a 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth, and the next day our forum member a message that he has changed his mind, and doesn't want the card. The forum member would document this here, and open an unpaid item case. A message would then be sent to Leon, or another forum admin or moderator with the link to the discussion. If approved for inclusion on the list, Mr. Public's name and Ebay user ID would be added to the list. Since everything has been presented factually, there can be no libel accusation. No further comment would be made as the the Ebay buyer on the list. Just the facts. They would simply be listed for reference as a non payer on one auction. With their name and user id now in the searchable database, anybody on Net54 could check and see this user has at least this one time been problematic. If they choose to block the buyer, all future problems with said buyer have been averted.

Of course it is not a perfect solution, but the list would serve as a preemptive strike of sorts.

Uh...seriously? I have been an eBay seller for about 14 years now. People back out of transactions, never pay and send rude and even threatening messages. A couple of times people have claimed to have never received cards when I knew for a fact they had. Ask anyone who runs even a small operation - it's all part of the cost of doing business. You open your unpaid item case, block bidder, recoup your fees, relist and move on.

Is it frustrating and annoying? Absolutely. Is it worth making a federal case out of it and creating a public thread to malign someone over $50? No. The truth is you don't know what the other person's situation is or what is going on in their life. I think the Adrian threads were a pretty good example of this, even though some of his dealings were definitely questionable.

Plus I am sure Leon and other mods have better things to do than babysit hundreds of he-said/she-said discussions all day long over minor spoiled ebay transactions.

Now if it's a big scam, at an institutional level (i.e. auction house/grading companies) or affecting hundreds of buyers, by all means out the scam. That's where this board really rocks.

[Buythatcard]

Uh...seriously? I have been an eBay seller for about 14 years now. People back out of transactions, never pay and send rude and even threatening messages. A couple of times people have claimed to have never received cards when I knew for a fact they had. Ask anyone who runs even a small operation - it's all part of the cost of doing business. You open your unpaid item case, block bidder, recoup your fees, relist and move on.

Is it frustrating and annoying? Absolutely. Is it worth making a federal case out of it and creating a public thread to malign someone over $50? No. The truth is you don't know what the other person's situation is or what is going on in their life. I think the Adrian threads were a pretty good example of this, even though some of his dealings were definitely questionable.

Plus I am sure Leon and other mods have better things to do than babysit hundreds of he-said/she-said discussions all day long over minor spoiled ebay transactions.

Now if it's a big scam, at an institutional level (i.e. auction house/grading companies) or affecting hundreds of buyers, by all means out the scam. That's where this board really rocks.

I agree with Rob 100%

[Leon]

I agree with Rob 100%\

Me too.

[cyseymour]

I think we need fewer witch-hunts and more focus on collecting. I know it is kind of a slow period of time where not many cards are up for auction, plus the playoffs haven't started yet. So there isn't much focus on cards or on baseball right now, it seems. Most of the popular threads have been on potential scammers and people who have already been thrown off the message board for bad behavior. Some of the recent accusations don't have much substance to them and seem to be a considerable amount of conjecture. But even if proven true, eventually, it gets tiresome. There's no reason to be involved in a hobby if your main focus is simply the greed and dishonesty displayed by some. But 95% of the folks out there are straight dealers. They deserve as much of our attention, if not moreso. Not to say that the big scams like Mastro don't deserve attention, or if people are getting ripped off really badly. But otherwise, let's try to stay positive and not obsess about it. Just my perspective.

[Prof_Plum]

I voted "yes" in the poll but only because I wouldn't be the one having to deal with any issues that arise out of it. Of which, there would probably be plenty.

As I'm sure others do, I have a "saved sellers" list on ebay and add any names that come up from discussions here. It's up to 19 questionable sellers right now.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Stuff trumps all. The tiny percentage of people who will take a stand and not buy from people whose fraud has been outed won't make a difference, in my humble opinion. The problem can only be solved -- if at all -- by law enforcement. If the most sophisticated financial crimes can be successfully prosecuted one would think a bunch of clowns trimming and sanding baseball cards wouldn't be that hard. Here's hoping that is true anyhow.

[ullmandds]

These "witch-hunts" have been warranted and justified. They're not being done out of boredom from what I have seen. I believe the cheaters...liars...crooks...and thieves need to be kept on the run...whether anything gets done to solve the problem or not...they just can't keep getting away with this!

[cyseymour]

These "witch-hunts" have been warranted and justified. They're not being done out of boredom from what I have seen. I believe the cheaters...liars...crooks...and thieves need to be kept on the run...whether anything gets done to solve the problem or not...they just can't keep getting away with this!

Yeah but we can't just forever be police officers... we need to enjoy the hobby as well, or what is the point? The last few threads I have seen... we had the thread on Adrian, who has already been banned from the boards. The thread on Joseph P. may have been warranted, but other than buying cards and cracking them out and having them regraded, what else was there... I didn't see any evidence of doctoring and all that they really had on him were some low bids on his own card. That's not a good thing, really, but other than that, there was the thread on Bubble Bath Girl that seemed unwarranted as everyone rushed to his defense. Just saying that lately we've had a lot of threads with people reaming each other out with little evidence of wrongdoing. Not saying that it is bad to expose liars and cheaters, just making the point that it can get tiresome and they will always be there. You can think you've gotten everybody but then the next ebay scam will just appear with some re-sealed wax pack or something. Yawn.

[Tao_Moko]

I come on here to see cards and learn about the hobby and baseball but somehow lack the discipline to avoid these threads. "Caveat Emptor" is all that is needed for me. I think the forum gets bogged down by posts not directly related to the cards. Sometimes they are warranted but many times they are unnecessary and why I have stepped away some and even left the hobby in the past. I would have to say " no" to the witch hunt.

[vintagetoppsguy]

The thread on Joseph P. may have been warranted, but other than buying cards and cracking them out and having them regraded, what else was there...

Serisously? Did you miss the whole part of him shilling many, many of his own auctions?

[botn]

The thread on Joseph P. may have been warranted, but other than buying cards and cracking them out and having them regraded, what else was there... I didn't see any evidence of doctoring and all that they really had on him were some low bids on his own card.

This is a joke, right? The cards that were shown in that thread were perfect examples of cards which had been doctored. Are we looking at the same pictures?

[vintagetoppsguy]

This is a joke, right? The cards that were shown in that thread were perfect examples of cards which had been doctored. Are we looking at the same pictures?

Those are just minor details :D

[tschock]

Similar to "collect what you enjoy". Read what you want. It's obvious from most thread titles what the thread will be about. To grouse about reading too many of these types of threads leads to the obvious question.

I also find it curious that some of same people that seem to imply there is nothing that can be done (since the scammers will always be there or find another way to scam) are the same ones who say we should do nothing. I guess it make's an easy justification for doing just that.

[nsaddict]

I am on the fence on this topic, and the voting is somewhat close too. There have been several postings on the issue that was worthy to reveal, such as the legendary Pank. And others that were a joke such as the link below. The OP almost had a mental breakdown calling the dealer every name in the book over a 3.00 card that had a 14 day return policy???

http://tinyurl.com/kqhh3u7

[D.P.Johnson]

Similar to "collect what you enjoy". Read what you want. It's obvious from most thread titles what the thread will be about. To grouse about reading too many of these types of threads leads to the obvious question.

I also find it curious that some of same people that seem to imply there is nothing that can be done (since the scammers will always be there or find another way to scam) are the same ones who say we should do nothing. I guess it make's an easy justification for doing just that.

Absolutely.
I don't need a seperate list of suspect buyers and sellers; I can figure out who I don't want to do business with just by reading this thread...

[cyseymour]

Serisously? Did you miss the whole part of him shilling many, many of his own auctions?

Honestly, I didn't look at it too closely, just skimmed it a bit. So if I mischaracterized it then I apologize. I only said it might have been warranted as opposed to fully warranted because I don't want to indict the guy myself. Don't want to get involved. But it is not your thread I am objecting to, just a larger tone of the mb since then where some threads have involved hashing up old garbage or other mudslinging.

[KCRfan1]

Creating a " Black List " is not the answer. I'll go back to my original post and say do business with who you are comfortable with, and don't deal with those whose business practice you do not like. This is very simple and not complicated. ( read ebay feedback for example )There is enough information for all of us to form our own opinions w/o the use of a list, be it comprised of " good " sellers and buyers or " bad " sellers and buyers. These lists always turn into question marks as there will be ones who wrongly end up on said list. Scammers will always scam and we know this. If we do our research we, and others, can buy and sell with confidence.

[E93]

A feedback system on the BST would be nice.
JimB

[Luke]

but I voted No because if we asked for this to be implemented, we'd be asking the mods to wade through all of the drama posts, and make a ruling about a person, while sticking their neck out legally. Not something I think we should ask them to do.

[PolarBear]

A feedback system on the BST would be nice.
JimB

Best idea so far.

[oldjudge]

Suspicious to who?

[Leon]

Best idea so far.

If it just took flipping a few buttons it would be done. I would like to have that kind of system too but I think it will require an upgrade of s/w.....to a newer version..Which is something I haven't wanted to tackle. I have yet to ever have anyone email me for a reference and at the end of the whole thing they didn't do a deal because of not being able to vette out the seller. Again, I would like a feedback system too. Maybe one will be in the future...

[ullmandds]

Seymour...I hope your investigative work :Dwill be more thorough on your novel!!!!

[cyseymour]

Suspicious to who?

Suspicious to whom?

Sorry... just sayin'.

[cyseymour]

Seymour...I hope your investigative work :Dwill be more thorough on your novel!!!!

What if the author had included an introduction? All he wrote was that a guy was a disgrace to the hobby and included three links. That's four threads to read because you've got the original thread plus the three other threads... well, sorry if I wasn't interested. Maybe I was busy writing the next great American novel! (Or some other P.O.S. that couldn't come close)

Pete, I think you've got a Dick Francis novel in you somewhere...

[ullmandds]

Ha ha Jamie...It's definitely in there...just needs to be extracted and written down!!!!

[cyseymour]

Ha ha Jamie...It's definitely in there...just needs to be extracted and written down!!!!

Check your anal sphincter for the extraction... it's got to be down there somewhere.:eek:

[ullmandds]

only thing that came out of my but was lyle overbay to take the lead?!

[the 'stache]

Leon (and others),

I see what the OP is proposing as a viable option. I don't think he is talking about a place for discussion of scammers, etc, but a place to list those already discussed. What I see as viable is a list of possible people to deal with caution, with a slight summary and a reference back to the vetting thread.

Using the Panky thread as an example. This were was a long discussion on this, but the "list" would contain a reference back to the original thread with (possibly) a brief summary. With the thread reference in place, should Panky change his ebay ID (for example), that can be detailed in the original thread and would be easy to locate and update, if the reference was handy in the list. I don't see the list containing any real discussion at all.

Not sure if this is exactly what the OP was intending, but I could see this working without an increased risk of liability. We could even provide the ability for the entity to respond, either in their own thread (which would be added as a referenced thread on the list), or their response could be inline with the original referenced thread.

Taylor, perfectly summarized.

The list would be just that. A collection of names, with no discussion whatsoever. It would be a quick reference for Net54 members to refer to before doing business with a person for the first time.

An example of what the list could look like:

"Exercise caution when doing business with the following Ebay buyers:

Public, John Q: purchased two cards buy it now, and reneged on the purchases. Net54 member ______ had to enter two unpaid item cases with Ebay. Link to the discussion on Net54: "______".

Public, Michael Q: won an auction for a Ty Cobb T206 red back being sold by Net54 member ______. Dispute resolution was started after non-payment despite several attempts to contact the buyer by e-mail. Unpaid case item created.

-----

There would not be anything that could expose the forum to legal troubles, as the only thing the list would contain would be indisputable facts of the issue(s) at hand: the user ID and name of the buyer/seller, the name of the website or auction house, a brief summary, and a link to whatever discussion (if any) has already taken place on Net 54. And before anybody's name would appear on the list, proof would need to be provided documenting the facts: a copy of an unpaid item case, for example.

I would never suggest or do anything that would put Leon or Net54 in harm's way whatsoever.

[the 'stache]

Yeah but we can't just forever be police officers... we need to enjoy the hobby as well, or what is the point?

You are absolutely right, Jamie. But how can you enjoy the hobby as a seller on Ebay if you are spending a substantial portion of your evening reading the feedback left for people bidding on your items? It seems to me that this list would make you less of a police officer, as it would help to eliminate many of the people that could cause you problems.



“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”--Edmind Burke

[Leon]

I would never suggest or do anything that would put Leon or Net54 in harm's way whatsoever.


I appreciate your thoughts and we can keep debating this but..... It's not going to happen because of -

1. liability (regardless of what anyone thinks, I already get enough threats)
2. management of the section
3. added drama

I don't think there is anyway to overcome those obstacles. **And as everyone knows, I don't think change is good unless it's an overwhelming majority that wants it. Not only is it not that, it's not even a majority in this case.

[the 'stache]

but I voted No because if we asked for this to be implemented, we'd be asking the mods to wade through all of the drama posts, and make a ruling about a person, while sticking their neck out legally. Not something I think we should ask them to do.

The mods wouldn't have to wade through any posts.

If I buy a card on Ebay, and the seller tells me that "he lost the card", and then I see him sell it for more money the next day, I would start a thread here. But then I would begin the appeal process on Ebay. Then I would contact a mod or admin with the facts of the dispute. They wouldn't have to wade through the discussion at all, as what I'd present to them would be pretty cut and dry. They would make their decision having never taken a look at what the members here were saying.

[cyseymour]

You are absolutely right, Jamie. But how can you enjoy the hobby as a seller on Ebay if you are spending a substantial portion of your evening reading the feedback left for people bidding on your items? It seems to me that this list would make you less of a police officer, as it would help to eliminate many of the people that could cause you problems.



“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”--Edmind Burke

Well, I think that ebay affairs are really for ebay to manage. They have their system and way of doing things. You may or may not agree with their methods, but their profits are greater than anybody's. They've chosen to create a system where, apparently, it is almost impossible for a seller to leave negative feedback for a buyer. That was their choice. But it's hard to create a sort of vigilante blacklist on the side because there would be no way to get off it. I think you have to go with the ebay system and address whatever complaints to them. That doesn't mean it isn't flawed, or that you or I might not do things differently, but ultimately I believe that when you sign up for ebay there must be some sort of contract that you agree to follow their rules. Otherwise you can sell somewhere else...

[the 'stache]

Well, I think that ebay affairs are really for ebay to manage. They have their system and way of doing things. You may or may not agree with their methods, but their profits are greater than anybody's. They've chosen to create a system where, apparently, it is almost impossible for a seller to leave negative feedback for a buyer. That was their choice. But it's hard to create a sort of vigilante blacklist on the side because there would be no way to get off it. I think you have to go with the ebay system and address whatever complaints to them. That doesn't mean it isn't flawed, or that you or I might not do things differently, but ultimately I believe that when you sign up for ebay there must be some sort of contract that you agree to follow their rules. Otherwise you can sell somewhere else...

Ebay does have it's way of doing things, and it sucks. And yes, their profits are incredible. But I'm not interested in their profit margin. I'm interested in my safety, and the safety of my fellow Net54 members, when dealing with new members. We can say "well, it's easy to avoid trouble, just read the feedback left for buyers." I'm sorry, I don't want to waste 15 minutes reading feedback every time I want to sell an item when I could bring up a spreadsheet, hit ctrl-f, and enter the user ID and enter, and accomplish the same thing in 10 seconds. And it's not a vigilante blacklist; calling it such somehow insinuates that I am out to get people that have demonstrated poor behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth. I could care less about the people that would appear on the list. Their names would exist just to save me the trouble of having to go through a prolonged appeal process.

There are people out there like Zone91 who have perfect feedback as a buyer even though we know he has not paid for several items in the past (confirmed by members of this forum). And there's really not even any bad comments that have been left for him. People like this would appear on the list.

I guess it's a moot point, as it's not going to happen. And it's too bad, because I think some of the people voting "no" are making a lot of assumptions about how the list would be managed instead of asking questions first. Hell, if it were a concern of liability, put the list on my website. I would be the only person in harm's way. I would be responsible for maintaining the list, and if somebody wanted to shoot off a pissy email, they could send it to me. I have no problem with making my email public.

[cyseymour]

Ebay does have it's way of doing things, and it sucks. And yes, their profits are incredible. But I'm not interested in their profit margin. I'm interested in my safety, and the safety of my fellow Net54 members, when dealing with new members. We can say "well, it's easy to avoid trouble, just read the feedback left for buyers." I'm sorry, I don't want to waste 15 minutes reading feedback every time I want to sell an item when I could bring up a spreadsheet, hit ctrl-f, and enter the user ID and enter, and accomplish the same thing in 10 seconds. And it's not a vigilante blacklist; calling it such somehow insinuates that I am out to get people that have demonstrated poor behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth. I could care less about the people that would appear on the list. Their names would exist just to save me the trouble of having to go through a prolonged appeal process.

There are people out there like Zone91 who have perfect feedback as a buyer even though we know he has not paid for several items in the past (confirmed by members of this forum). And there's really not even any bad comments that have been left for him. People like this would appear on the list.

I guess it's a moot point, as it's not going to happen. And it's too bad, because I think some of the people voting "no" are making a lot of assumptions about how the list would be managed instead of asking questions first. Hell, if it were a concern of liability, put the list on my website. I would be the only person in harm's way. I would be responsible for maintaining the list, and if somebody wanted to shoot off a pissy email, they could send it to me. I have no problem with making my email public.

Remember that most ebay bids are snipes, at least the winning bids are often snipes. So unless you are going to block the person from bidding ahead of time, there is no reason to be checking out feedback. You just hope they pay and go with it. If they don't pay, you run the auction again.

As far as Zone91 goes, I think that he mostly paid but then wound up returning a lot of the cards. That's not going to win any awards, but it's different than being a non-payer.

As far as your maintaining the list, it's more than someone shooting off a pissy email. You'd have to make judgment calls about who is and isn't a good ebayer. That is going off the grid, man, that really is being a vigilante and creating your own set of rules. If you think checking bidder feedback is hassle, try setting up a blacklist and see what a hassle that is!

[Eric72]

As far as Zone91 goes, I think that he mostly paid...



Yep, he paid for most of his transactions...what a piece of trash!

Post # 1

[cyseymour]

Yep, he paid for most of his transactions...what a piece of trash!

Post # 1

I don't think it's right to go on ripping the guy. He's not even here any more to defend himself. Bad ebayer, no doubt, but there's far worse. I don't think he stole from anyone, although he was an incredible nuisance. There's been far worse, but he did wind up being incredibly annoying and a pathological liar.

But if you're an ebay seller and you haven't blocked him, then you are getting what you ask for because his ebay ID has been mentioned several times. The protocol is decent enough as it is... make your own decisions about who you are going to block/not block.

[Leon]

We shouldn't say too much about folks that are banned from the board. It's not fair as they can't defend themselves.

[Eric72]

We shouldn't say too much about folks that are banned from the board. It's not fair as they can't defend themselves.

Leon,

Please accept my apologies on this. Adrian flat-out lied to me on this board...early on during his tenure here. Forgiving him is something I have struggled with mightily.

Best Regards,

Eric

[Eric72]

To answer the question posed by the OP...for those deemed suspicious, no. Such a list would be detrimental to quite a few honest sellers.

As it pertains to those who are confirmed fraudsters, please feel free to start a thread, Bill. Just be careful to get your ducks in a row before doing so.

Best Regards,

Eric

[cyseymour]

People tell lies all the time. Everyone on this board has probably told a thousand lies without even realizing it. Maybe ten thousand or more. It can't be that hard to handle being lied to, and that was like six months ago.

What is it with this guy that people are still airing out dirty laundry with him six months after his being banned? Let it go, folks, it's over. Sometimes you just have to let things go.

[Eric72]

I don't think it's right to go on ripping the guy. He's not even here any more to defend himself. Bad ebayer, no doubt, but there's far worse. I don't think he stole from anyone, although he was an incredible nuisance. There's been far worse, but he did wind up being incredibly annoying and a pathological liar.

But if you're an ebay seller and you haven't blocked him, then you are getting what you ask for because his ebay ID has been mentioned several times. The protocol is decent enough as it is... make your own decisions about who you are going to block/not block.

Cy,

I agree that "ripping" Adrian further is in poor taste. Out of curiosity, though, I wonder why you were compelled to defend a "pathological liar" in the first place.

Please let me know what led you to do this. I am understandably curious.

Best Regards,

Eric

[the 'stache]

As far as Zone91 goes, I think that he mostly paid but then wound up returning a lot of the cards. That's not going to win any awards, but it's different than being a non-payer.

As far as your maintaining the list, it's more than someone shooting off a pissy email. You'd have to make judgment calls about who is and isn't a good ebayer. That is going off the grid, man, that really is being a vigilante and creating your own set of rules. If you think checking bidder feedback is hassle, try setting up a blacklist and see what a hassle that is!

No, Adrian simply did not pay for these items. It was not a matter of him returning the cards and getting refunds. He made a commitment to buy the items, then reneged. He said he did not have the money to pay for them, and he did it more than once. In one instance, he bought a $500 card, and backed out on the transaction. Then he bought $200 worth of cards the next day.

I don't want to go into the whole Zone thing again, as it's been beaten to death, but before you comment on what he did and did not do, you really should know what really went down:

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=169148

And I'm hardly some vigilante. A vigilante is somebody that doles out retribution to somebody they feel has slipped through the legal system. I'm simply trying to provide a list of people that voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract, and are backing out of their commitment. I am trying to protect you, myself, and the good and honest members of this forum that are tired of the crooked behavior that is running rampant throughout our hobby. And as I've said at least two or three times now, nobody would be put on to the list unless there was clear, incontrovertible facts to establish their culpability.

[Eric72]

People tell lies all the time.

No, they don't...at least, not everyone. Find different people to socialize with.

Sincerely,

Eric

[cyseymour]

No, they don't...at least, not everyone. Find different people to socialize with.

Sincerely,

Eric

Even that's a lie... you're saying that they don't is lie, and then you're speculating that I socialize with the wrong people, which is another lie. That you're saying you're sincere, and frankly I'd doubt that as well, which is a third lie.

[cyseymour]

Cy,

I agree that "ripping" Adrian further is in poor taste. Out of curiosity, though, I wonder why you were compelled to defend a "pathological liar" in the first place.

Please let me know what led you to do this. I am understandably curious.

Best Regards,

Eric

I am not defending him. I am just against the idea of a blacklist.

[the 'stache]

Sports Card Forum.com, which I am an active member of, has a "bad trader" list at the very top of their home page. This is precisely what I was proposing for here, only extending it to websites like t206forum.com where the FBI has been involved investigating the criminal activity of the site's owner.

Here's the URL:

http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/badtrader/page

I know that SCF pools information with other sites like Blowout Cards. When there is a theft by a member on one of the forums, they are entered on a shared resource, and prohibited from entering into monetary transactions on the other site(s).

[Eric72]

Even that's a lie... you're saying that they don't is lie, and then you're speculating that I socialize with the wrong people, which is another lie. That you're saying you're sincere, and frankly I'd doubt that as well, which is a third lie.

Cy,

I'm not speculating at all. I know for certain that my sincerity is not in doubt.

Regarding the people you socialize with, that's your business. As for your assertion that, "people tell lies all the time," you are absolutely incorrect.

There are truly honest people in this world. I am very sorry to hear that you have yet to encounter them.

Best Regards,

Eric

[Luke]

The mods wouldn't have to wade through any posts.

If I buy a card on Ebay, and the seller tells me that "he lost the card", and then I see him sell it for more money the next day, I would start a thread here. But then I would begin the appeal process on Ebay. Then I would contact a mod or admin with the facts of the dispute. They wouldn't have to wade through the discussion at all, as what I'd present to them would be pretty cut and dry. They would make their decision having never taken a look at what the members here were saying.


This sounds like you're just arguing semantics. In your example, you're sending an un-solicited PM to a mod, which they have to:
a. Read
b. Form an opinion
c. Post that opinion on the internet (which opens them up to liability)

The mods may not have to wade through "ANY" posts, but they are still spending a decent amount of time on something because you asked them to. Not to mention sticking out their necks in a legal sense.

[the 'stache]

Even that's a lie... you're saying that they don't is lie, and then you're speculating that I socialize with the wrong people, which is another lie. That you're saying you're sincere, and frankly I'd doubt that as well, which is a third lie.

Dude, you said that all people lie, thousands or tens of thousands of times, and don't even know it. I'm sorry, that's just bogus. And calling Eric insincere in his statement is an ad hominem statement that you cannot back up.

You seem to be at ease with pathological liars. I'm sorry that I'm not. I think it's a very clear character flaw. And with Zone91, it wasn't a simple white lie like "no, that dress doesn't make you look fat, honey". He was taking money out of people's pockets. He was creating a criminal act by entering into a legally binding contract, and then backing out.

[cyseymour]

Cy,

I'm not speculating at all. I know for certain that my sincerity is not in doubt.

Regarding the people you socialize with, that's your business. As for your assertion that, "people tell lies all the time," you are absolutely incorrect.

There are truly honest people in this world. I am very sorry to hear that you have yet to encounter them.

Best Regards,

Eric


People ask how you are and you say "fine", even when you are having a bad day. But that is actually a form of social intelligence. It would be moronic to pour your guts out to every passing casual question. Lying is sometimes what gets us through the day. We don't live in Disneyland - life is not a fairy tale.

No offense, but if you are still angry about a lie someone told you six months ago, and it wasn't a lie that damaged you financially or physically in any sort of way, that is an over-sensitivity. Philosophically, you might want to examine whether you are being honest with yourself about all facets of your life.

And that is my bit of wisdom for the night!

[the 'stache]

This sounds like you're just arguing semantics. In your example, you're sending an un-solicited PM to a mod, which they have to:
a. Read
b. Form an opinion
c. Post that opinion on the internet (which opens them up to liability)

The mods may not have to wade through "ANY" posts, but they are still spending a decent amount of time on something because you asked them to. Not to mention sticking out their necks in a legal sense.

How am I arguing semantics? There's no interpretation necessary when a criminal act has been committed.

And again, if it's so dangerous for the moderators, admins or forum owner, how is it that Sports Card Forum has the exact thing I am proposing openly displayed at the top of the site's home page?

http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/badtrader/page

There are at least six pages with 50 + names per page. User names, real names, the member's address, and a summary of what they did.

Know why the mods aren't liable for posting names to that list? Because there are facts which support their decision to include the wrongdoer on the list. And you cannot be accused of defamation when there are facts to substantiate your claim.

[Eric72]

I am not defending him. I am just against the idea of a blacklist.

"Pathological liars" within this hobby should be, "outed," no?

I understand that my role on Net54 is not to be the beat cop; however, collecting cards these days is a hobby fraught with peril. And trying to deal with it has become a full time job.

Punks like Adrian should be forced to the sidelines, in my opinion. Either deal straight or go somewhere else! True collectors have better things to do than put up with BS.

Just my two cents.

Best Regards,

Eric

[Eric72]

Lying is sometimes what gets us through the day...

...And that is my bit of wisdom for the night!

Duly noted, sir.

Good luck with lying to get you through your days.

Best Regards,

Eric

[cyseymour]

Dude, you said that all people lie, thousands or tens of thousands of times, and don't even know it. I'm sorry, that's just bogus. And calling Eric insincere in his statement is an ad hominem statement that you cannot back up.

Definition of sincere - "free of pretense or deceit"

If the other two statements I consider to be lies, then wouldn't they be insincere by definition?

You seem to be at ease with pathological liars. I'm sorry that I'm not. I think it's a very clear character flaw. And with Zone91, it wasn't a simple white lie like "no, that dress doesn't make you look fat, honey". He was taking money out of people's pockets. He was creating a criminal act by entering into a legally binding contract, and then backing out.

LOL, I am not at ease with pathological liars. I thought Adrian should go, just like most the rest of you. But that doesn't mean we haven't lied. Zoner was kind of a grey line because his lies didn't do much financial damage but he was a large nuisance. It wasn't good for the community. The rest can be argued all day long. But I don't think he committed any crimes where he would be persecuted by the state and you wind up behind bars. It would probably be a civil offense. So there you have it - another potential lie by yourself about Adrian committing criminal acts. Just my case in point that we lie all the time without realizing it. Cheers.

[cyseymour]

Good luck with lying to get you through your days.



Thanks, but do you really mean that, because I note a hint of sarcasm. Isn't sarcasm a form of lying?

[cyseymour]

Let me also say, Eric, that you misquoted me in post #82... another one of your deceptions. In my original post my wisdom was referring to the concept that if you are still upset with Adrian's lies six months after the fact that maybe there is a part of you that is not being honest with yourself.

[the 'stache]

So there you have it - another potential lie by yourself about Adrian committing criminal acts. Just my case in point that we lie all the time without realizing it. Cheers.

When you buy it now on Ebay, it is a legally binding contract.

"You are agreeing to a contract -- You will enter into a legally binding contract to purchase the item from the seller if you're the winning bidder. You are responsible for reading the full item listing, including the seller's instructions and accepted payment methods. Seller assumes all responsibility for listing this item."

Breach of contract allows the complainant, the seller in this case, to pursue damages in civil court.

[Luke]

How am I arguing semantics? There's no interpretation necessary when a criminal act has been committed.

And again, if it's so dangerous for the moderators, admins or forum owner, how is it that Sports Card Forum has the exact thing I am proposing openly displayed at the top of the site's home page?

http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/badtrader/page

There are at least six pages with 50 + names per page. User names, real names, the member's address, and a summary of what they did.

Know why the mods aren't liable for posting names to that list? Because there are facts which support their decision to include the wrongdoer on the list. And you cannot be accused of defamation when there are facts to substantiate your claim.

There's not much point in continuing this conversation since Leon has already explained why it won't happen. The only part of your post I disagree with is where you say the mods aren't liable for what they post. They are. And just because you have facts that support your claim, doesn't mean that you can't be sued for libel or defamation. You would just have to defend yourself in court.

[Eric72]

People ask how you are and you say "fine", even when you are having a bad day. But that is actually a form of social intelligence. It would be moronic to pour your guts out to every passing casual question. Lying is sometimes what gets us through the day. We don't live in Disneyland - life is not a fairy tale.

No offense, but if you are still angry about a lie someone told you six months ago, and it wasn't a lie that damaged you financially or physically in any sort of way, that is an over-sensitivity. Philosophically, you might want to examine whether you are being honest with yourself about all facets of your life.

And that is my bit of wisdom for the night!

I post this for the sake of posterity...

People ask how you are and you say "fine", even when you are having a bad day. Yeah, right. The people who work for me know better than to blow smoke up my @$$.

But that is actually a form of social intelligence. Actually, it is a form of @$$-kissing stupidity.

It would be moronic to pour your guts out to every passing casual question. I agree, which is why I typically do not engage morons like you. That said, you chose to attempt to "win" this Internet argument.

Lying is sometimes what gets us through the day. Cy...this statement speaks volumes about your character.

We don't live in Disneyland - life is not a fairy tale. Agreed...I may be a bit utopian; however, my rose colored glasses have steered me the right way thus far.

No offense, but if you are still angry about a lie someone told you six months ago, and it wasn't a lie that damaged you financially or physically in any sort of way, that is an over-sensitivity. I'm not angry. I simply judge people based upon their actions. Adrian is a liar, plain and simple.

Philosophically, you might want to examine whether you are being honest with yourself about all facets of your life. I am exceedingly honest with myself and others. You seem to be the one with issues. After all, you have vigorously defended a pathological liar who was banned from this board. Why?

Best Regards,

Eric

[the 'stache]

There's not much point in continuing this conversation since Leon has already explained why it won't happen. The only part of your post I disagree with is where you say the mods aren't liable for what they post. They are. And just because you have facts that support your claim, doesn't mean that you can't be sued for libel or defamation. You would just have to defend yourself in court.

They are liable in the eyes of the law if they defame a person by spreading falsehoods about them.

They are not accountable in any way for what they post if said posting is supported by fact. A person would have to be an idiot to take somebody to court for defamation of character when the posting was clearly factual in basis.

There is no arguing this.

[Eric72]

Thanks, but do you really mean that, because I note a hint of sarcasm. Isn't sarcasm a form of lying?

Cy,

Yes, I do mean what I have said. I truly wish you the very best of luck. You have apparently been misguided somewhere along the way.

And...just to clarify...on the Internet, I set my sarcasm meter to zero.

Best Regards,

Eric

[the 'stache]

And by the way, LukeLyon, I am not trying to argue with ya. :D I am just clarifying.

Edit: I poorly worded one part of my post. A person can be accused of anything. I could accuse Kate Upton of being too damned gorgeous. http://www.jonrb.com/emoticons/drums3.gif /rim shot

If a mod on SCF posted somebody's name, and that person wanted to sue the mod for defamation, they could try. They wouldn't get anywhere, however, because no attorney would take the case when there is no actionable cause.

[Eric72]

Cy,

BTW - do you have your 30 greatest Pre-war player list posted yet?

Just wondering...

Best,

Eric

[cyseymour]

I post this for the sake of posterity...

People ask how you are and you say "fine", even when you are having a bad day. Yeah, right. The people who work for me know better than to blow smoke up my @$$.

But that is actually a form of social intelligence. Actually, it is a form of @$$-kissing stupidity.

It would be moronic to pour your guts out to every passing casual question. I agree, which is why I typically do not engage morons like you. That said, you chose to attempt to "win" this Internet argument.

Lying is sometimes what gets us through the day. Cy...this statement speaks volumes about your character.

We don't live in Disneyland - life is not a fairy tale. Agreed...I may be a bit utopian; however, my rose colored glasses have steered me the right way thus far.

No offense, but if you are still angry about a lie someone told you six months ago, and it wasn't a lie that damaged you financially or physically in any sort of way, that is an over-sensitivity. I'm not angry. I simply judge people based upon their actions. Adrian is a liar, plain and simple.

Philosophically, you might want to examine whether you are being honest with yourself about all facets of your life. I am exceedingly honest with myself and others. You seem to be the one with issues. After all, you have vigorously defended a pathological liar who was banned from this board. Why?

Best Regards,

Eric

Eric, you can have your dogmatic, black-and-white view of the world, but it is a simple one that doesn't hold ground under examination. You seem to think you know the truth about everything, and that is the biggest lie of your life.

[cyseymour]

Cy,

BTW - do you have your 30 greatest Pre-war player list posted yet?

Just wondering...

Best,

Eric

Huh?

[cyseymour]

When you buy it now on Ebay, it is a legally binding contract.



Breach of contract allows the complainant, the seller in this case, to pursue damages in civil court.

Yes, but that is civil offense, not a criminal act, which you previously claimed Adrian committed. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one.

[the 'stache]

Eric, you can have your dogmatic, black-and-white view of the world, but it is a simple one that doesn't hold ground under examination. You seem to think you know the truth about everything, and that is the biggest lie of your life.

You are a master of hyperbole, Cy.

[cyseymour]

You are a master of hyperbole, Cy.

That is no lie. :p

[Eric72]

Huh?

Apparently, your memory is faulty...

Does Smokey Joe Wood ring a bell?

[cyseymour]

Apparently, your memory is faulty...

Does Smokey Joe Wood ring a bell?

I remember the thread but what on earth does it have to do with anything written in this thread? It is crazy...

[Eric72]

How about Ross Barnes?

[Eric72]

My point is this. You are defending a liar. 'Nuf said.

Best,

Eric

[cyseymour]

How about Ross Barnes?

One thing is for certain, I would much rather talk baseball with you than deal with this other nonsense... but I am on the east coast as well and my #1 preference is to go to sleep. So goodnight, y'all... sleep tight.

[cyseymour]

My point is this. You are defending a liar. 'Nuf said.

Best,

Eric

Didn't I myself write that he deserved to get kicked off the board? So how is that defending him?

[Eric72]

Eric, you can have your dogmatic, black-and-white view of the world, but it is a simple one that doesn't hold ground under examination. You seem to think you know the truth about everything, and that is the biggest lie of your life.

My life is unaffected by lies, sir. Nor is it guided by dogma.

As for the black-and-white realities of life, they hold up under the strictest of scrutiny.

Best Regards,

Eric

[cyseymour]

Sure, Eric, well, you called me a moron because I don't agree with your concept of truth, a.k.a., The World According to Eric. As far as the things you've written, I could easily find ten falsities of yours just in this thread alone.

"My life is unaffected by lies, sir." That's a really funny one.

[the 'stache]

Yes, but that is civil offense, not a criminal act, which you previously claimed Adrian committed. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that one.

By legal definition, you are right. Any remedy for his breach of contract would be sought in civil court. I was thinking more along the lines of disgraceful behavior though. I should have chosen my words more carefully.

[Eric72]

One thing is for certain, I would much rather talk baseball with you than deal with this other nonsense... but I am on the east coast as well and my #1 preference is to go to sleep. So goodnight, y'all... sleep tight.

I concur...let's agree to disagree regarding Adrian...and discuss baseball over the weekend.

I look forward to conversing...and I am on the East Coast, too.

Best Regards,

Eric

[cyseymour]

By legal definition, you are right. Any remedy for his breach of contract would be sought in civil court. I was thinking more along the lines of disgraceful behavior though. I should have chosen my words more carefully.

Even in civil court I don't think anyone could win because a) you'd have to prove damages, which is very difficult, other than the shipping charges and maybe some ebay fees, and b) with his mental illnesses it would be difficult to prove that he wasn't insane when he did it.

[cyseymour]

I concur...let's agree to disagree regarding Adrian...and discuss baseball over the weekend.

I look forward to conversing...and I am on the East Coast, too.

Best Regards,

Eric

Cheers, Eric, we can agree to disagree, I like that. And I would enjoy talking baseball with you, as well.

Best regards,

Jamie

[Eric72]

The World According to Eric.

"My life is unaffected by lies, sir."



Actually, it's a fairly nice place to be. The BS is practically nonexistent, and the banter is quite productive.

I look forward to speaking with you this weekend.

Best,

Eric

[the 'stache]

Even in civil court I don't think anyone could win because a) you'd have to prove damages, which is very difficult, other than the shipping charges and maybe some ebay fees, and b) with his mental illnesses it would be difficult to prove that he wasn't insane when he did it.

I would agree with you, except that he openly acknowledged what he did was wrong, and then he did it again, and boasted about doing it. He said (paraphrasing) "why would this seller care if I didn't pay them this $500, because they know in two weeks I'm going to buy and pay for a $1,000 card".

And if Adrian were to plea insanity (now we're beyond my legal education. I cannot recall if insanity can be a defense in civil court. Maybe one of our attorneys can answer definitively), I do know that insanity would mean he could not enter into a legally binding contract, which would preclude him from buying on Ebay anymore.

[sbfinley]

I am trying to protect you, myself, and the good and honest members of this forum that are tired of the crooked behavior that is running rampant throughout our hobby.

I would guess that I've made ~1000 transactions (buying and selling) in the past five years since I have returned to the hobby. That total includes this forum, eBay, auction houses, and multiple other card and coin forums. In that time I have had a grand total of 0 issues. Knock on wood. Sure I've had a couple of NPB's, but in the end I'm really out nothing but time. How have I accomplished this?

- I've been lucky.
- I use common sense.
- I study high dollar items before I make a purchase.
- I pay immediately.
- I ship securely within two business days of payment with tracking.
- I make sure the buyer is receiving exactly what he/she is expecting.
- I only pay gift to trusted members of the community.
- I am patient.
- I never "take a chance".
- I use common sense.

I do not believe this site needs a running blacklist because it is in all probability one of the safest collecting communities online. The vast majority of message board scammers are under 18, deal in shiny cards, or both and that pretty much leaves this little oasis on the fringe. I'm sure some will sneak through the cracks here, but as long as you protect yourself in unsure situations the most you should have to face is a hassle and not a loss. Not to mention the liability Leon would be putting himself up against. I have seen many names called out on this forum before and some of them have deep pockets, huge egos, and a retainer already paid in full. The responsibility should be on individual raising the issue, not the forum in which the issue is raised.

If eBay is the market the scares you then just check the CU forums daily. They offer up a half-dozen names for the BBL list everyday. It is like a sport over there.

If you are afraid that you are getting shilled follow this advice someone once gave me: "Never bid more than you are willing to pay." If I put a $500 bid in on an item and win it for $498 I don't look to see if I might have been shilled up. I look and see when/who I have to pay. Until eBay reverses there "hidden bidder" policy it will continue and even if high volume consignment brokers like Probstein took it upon themselves to police the thousands of auctions that they run someone who wants to shill their auction will find an alternate/friend's/new account to do so on.

I'm not trying to insinuate that this thread was a bad idea or that you are wrong for bringing up the issue, I just feel that being smart protects you in 99.9% of transactions and paypal protects you in the other .01%. (If you're the buyer. :D)

[Bocabirdman]

Duly noted, sir.

Good luck with lying to get you through your days.

Best Regards,

Eric

"Does this dress make me look fat?":D

[ullmandds]

Steve...youve changed my mind! I too have han many transactions virtually with nary a hiccup... And I practice similar virtues as you.

Caveat emptor...educate yourselves and proceed with caution.