Banning people....one more down.....Jay B. [Archive]

Archive

09-27-2007, 11:49 AM

Posted By: leonWith much thought given to it I have taken the advice of so many respected board members and banned Jay Behrens, at least for the time being. I am sort of sorry it had to come to this but at the end of the day I do have to listen to the board members. The welfare of the board depends on these types of decisions. As Joann so eloquently put it I really do feel it is OUR board and not my board. I have gotten so many emails, it's not even close, about doing this. After many chances given, and the continued rants, I feel I was losing credibility with the board. Jay and Scott have their own board where they can do what they want. I will not let 1-2 bad apples spoil a good thing.. Thanks again for the support from so many board members. It's truly humbling. I know a few will disagree with this decision but I have spoken to enough people whom I respect, and got their input, that I feel this is not only warranted, but needed... ...Now we can get back to cards...best regards

Archive

09-27-2007, 11:54 AM

Posted By: barrysloateI guess the other board will be pretty busy over the next few days.

Archive

09-27-2007, 12:09 PM

Posted By: T206Collector...try not to lose too much sleep over these kinds of decisions. It is not a democracy -- and, in any event, it is not a communist state of equal access with no profiteering allowed. If someone is being a jerk, by all means cut them off. The standard for expulsion from an internet chat board about old cardboard need not be set so high.

Archive

09-27-2007, 12:24 PM

Posted By: Jason LLife is far far too short to be wasting time dealing with incessantly negative behavior. Leon, he has another Board? that he runs? How does he stay so active on this one, then? No matter. On to bigger and better things! How does everyone else like their eggs? Slabbed or raw? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-27-2007, 12:27 PM

Posted By: Ed McCollumcracked out of their shell.

Archive

09-27-2007, 01:19 PM

Posted By: JimmyI tried staying away as much as I could and the situation got real bad. When I started using this website I was hoping to use this as a resource for my new website - maybe a banner advertising in the near future, posting items in the B/S/T. I am a bit quiet when it comes to most of the trends as many become get to personal and way off topic. Let’s face it, I am glued to this hobby and will continue to support this board, but this is a hobby and we are talking about baseball cards. There are not too many places we can go and find the resources - both for collectors and advertisers. I myself still hope to advertise with Leon, because I think he runs this website very well and gives options to everyone in the hobby. Many of us are collectors first, but we are all dealers in some way or another because of our expertise whether we are doing eBay auctions, shows, buying and trading with one another. If I had a lot of money, sure I would be doing less dealing and more collecting, but the hobby is in my thoughts all the time. I am always trying to learn more and help others along the way. Everyone has the right to voice their opinions, but sometimes it just goes in the wrong direction. Jimmy

Archive

09-27-2007, 01:32 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisI've avoided getting into this fray....and at some point I lost track, but was Dorskind also banned....or, at least suspended ?

Archive

09-27-2007, 01:34 PM

Posted By: RIch KleinLike I said; being called a liar is a severe personal attack. At that point, Jay either needed to apologize or leave. HE made the choice -- Regards Rich

Archive

09-27-2007, 01:35 PM

Posted By: Brian McQueenJust wanted to add a small point of my own to all of this. You know, it sucks when Leon and I receive emails or see posts that read along the lines of “…you know, I’d post a lot more if it wasn’t for all the fighting and bickering…”. I think even Jimmy is saying that to a degree in his post above. This is horrible for us to hear because so many of the people that I’ve heard this from in the past are individuals who have contributed a lot to this board in the past and no longer feel comfortable doing so. I think the community as a whole loses out when people with knowledge and true passion for this hobby no longer are interested in posting their own beliefs, experiences and insight. I see really solid questions asked all the time that are really great questions, yet they fall straight to the second page right away because people with the knowledge or answer to that question no longer feel like contributing. Like Chris was saying in another thread, the “popular” threads on this board always seem to be of the “train wreck variety” where a bunch of fighting breaks out. These are the ones constantly bumped to the top (until they’re locked) and the ones that go over 100 for a post count. How often do you see us breaking the 100-post mark without a huge fight going on inside the thread? Seems to me that it happens very seldom nowadays. So when it comes down to it, we have certain individuals on the board that are making the forum a less enjoyable experience in general. I have nothing against Jay personally as I’ve always gotten along with him in the past, but at some point, you have to look at what certain individuals are contributing and if their contributions are mainly personal attacks and negativity, then maybe this forum isn’t the best place for that individual. Heck, maybe that person feels the same way since the negativity and complaining has to come from somewhere. I think it might be best to part ways with some of these individuals because I feel people should feel free to come here, post their thoughts and ideas, learn a little bit and enjoy their time spent on our board. If there are a couple individuals who consistantly prevent others from doing that, we need to take a closer look at things. If we need to lose a couple people for the betterment of the entire community as a whole, then I think it’s time we consider doing so. When I hear that people are afraid to post because they fear personal attacks and ridicule, then there’s something wrong with the system. When the number of threads consisting of fighting and personal attacks start to outnumber the number of threads covering solid hobby discussion, then there’s something wrong with the system. I certainly don’t blame Jay for all the fighting that goes on but I am hoping that this sets a precedent for behavior on the board. That maybe we’re a little closer to no longer having to deal with such a large amount of negativity, personal attacks and pessimism on this forum. Brian McQueen redmaccie@hotmail.com

Archive

09-27-2007, 01:45 PM

Posted By: peter chaoAt first, I felt some reservations because Jay B. shared the death of his babies with us...but it is clear that he was the same way before the miscarriage. So at least a temporary ban is a good idea. Peter C.

Archive

09-27-2007, 01:46 PM

Posted By: JosephGod help us all!

Archive

09-27-2007, 01:49 PM

Posted By: leonBruce Dorskind has not been banned. He has promised to stop sending private emails to folks unless he is buying, selling, or trading. At least this stuff can be left on the board. I think, at this point, that was enough. If he doesn't keep his word then we will deal with it at that time....I do feel I have a responsiblity to protect board members from abusive people when it originates from board issues. take care...

Archive

09-27-2007, 02:11 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaIf there are people out there who are too timid or intimidated to post because of something Jay B, Jim C or Bruce said then they probably should just disconnect from the internet or stay away from chatboards in general. I have no problem with Leon banning whoever he wants, but I expect all those folks who emailed Leon and are intimidated by Jay to start coming out of the woodwork to post now. It's now up to these lurkers to actually contribute something to the board other than the occasional drive by hit. edited out irrelevant content.

Archive

09-27-2007, 02:14 PM

Posted By: barrysloateAs Brian and others have said (and I think that was Brian's longest and most eloquent post <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>) this board should always be a civil place where people can come to visit. As Leon can corroborate with the daily hits, there are many people looking at the board each day who do not post. Some of them may be new to the hobby, and as such feel insecure about posting. But they may also be afraid to do so, because they see how easily someone can be attacked. They may feel that if they post something stupid, they will become the butt of somebody's sarcasm and nastiness. This is not the first time the issue of decorum has been brought up. And to take it a step further, and I discussed this with Leon earlier today, Leon does have one specific obligation to all his advertisers, and that's to keep as many people looking at this board as possible. If we make ourselves out to look like a bunch of uncouth yahoos, then we are going to lose a lot of that traffic. Jay is not the first to be banned, and while Bruce hasn't been, he likewise has an obligation to carry himself around here with a little more class. All of these distracting threads hurt the board. Period.

Archive

09-27-2007, 02:19 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaWell Barry now that Jay has been banned and Bruce has been warned I'm guessing the discourse with all those timid lurkers will skyrocket the conversation around here. All those who complained to Leon should be inundating this messageboard with questions and their knowledge.

Archive

09-27-2007, 02:30 PM

Posted By: leonI want to point out how I feel with respect to something you said. I feel my biggest obligation is to the forum members and then somewhere after that the advertisers. The banners could go and it wouldn't hurt me too much, believe it or not. If too many board members left I would hate it. Otherwise I agree with everything you said. Dan B- I understand your feelings and I do want to clarify something if I wasn't clear or miscommunicated before. Of the folks that emailed me there might have been 1 lurker. The rest are regular board memebers saying they very much supported banning Jay. It was folks on the board every day but they didn't really want to get too involved publicly. Sorry if I mispoke ....regards edited grammar....it still ain't good <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-27-2007, 02:35 PM

Posted By: Dave FWell hopefully it does bring out some more folks to add input or questions. It is amazing to think of all the people that do come across the board daily and you have maybe what 20 people that might post on a daily basis? Just like the other week when Bill sold his entire T206 collection to a lurker...you would think that lurker would have some knowledge to add to the T206 discussions....and would be nice if folks like that would join in from time to time. If Peter C would just calm down and quit jumping on people <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-27-2007, 02:38 PM

Posted By: peter chaoActually, I've noticed that you have been posting less on the main board recently. Any ideas on making posting more enjoyable for lurkers? Peter C.

Archive

09-27-2007, 02:40 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultzplease allow me to post my dissent. I think it was a bad idea.

Archive

09-27-2007, 02:42 PM

Posted By: Paul SBruce's posts were (and no doubt will continue to be) overinflated pomp, often interesting, but were never name-calling or threatening. I think most people lived with that and make fun of it as well and that was that. (Jay was of course a different set of circumstances.) Where I have a problem with Bruce was his garnering of our emails and their tone to the recipients. I happened to get a chance to read some and, although the ones I saw were not literally threatening, they could easily be interpreted as downright crazed and spooky. This seems to have occured over a protracted period of time. I hope the idea of that doesn't keep others way from here. All I can say is, Leon, if I ever have to appear in court I hope you are my judge! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-27-2007, 02:47 PM

Posted By: leonTwo questions. 1. Why do you think it was a bad idea to ban Jay? 2. If you were me would you have banned him? It's everyone's right on this board to express their views, per the forum rules.

Archive

09-27-2007, 02:48 PM

Posted By: Tom Boblittyou had to do that but I think you gave him every chance....again..... I understand some people's concern about banner ads, I do. I also understand some people's concern about appearing improper when defending Mastro or other advertisers. I can see the point. But you can only beat the dead horse so long. Hopefully we'll have another period of just good threads until the next train wreck. Not a matter of IF but when............

Archive

09-27-2007, 02:55 PM

Posted By: JoannLeon - thanks for the follow up comment to the conversation about your duty to advertisers. Frankly, I thought it was a perfect example of what I talked about at length yesterday - the tiny little things that start linking advertisers' interests to board policies. Board decorum? Good. Becuase of duty to advertisers? No. Your only duty to advertisers should be to display their ads in the place and at the times paid for. Anything more starts down the slippery slope. And I would have preferred Jay not be banned. It's no secret that I support Jay in general, so obviously I would prefer to see him here. I think he does have a lot to add in terms of card knowledge and a somewhat unique collecting style and history. But I also know what you mean about having to defend yourself frequently. It can't be easy and Lord knows you have more patience than I do. Personally, I think that once Jay started the other board more of his posts related to cards and the hobby were reserved for that forum. Then the posts here about advertising, etc, were more isolated and less in the context of a knowledgeable regular contributor voicing a concern. He had been posting on general topics more the past few weeks, and I was glad to see it. But disagree as you may with his style, I firmly believe that his drive is his appreciation for this board. Like he said once, it's like home. Seriously. I think he really loves this forum, and has been advocating for what he believes is right. At least there's that. I vote for it to be temporary. Joann

Archive

09-27-2007, 02:58 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaI can understand why Jay was banned....I too got tired of the banner ad discussion and I don't have a problem with it. I also understand Jay's point about biases, but hey it's Leon's board and Leon's the boss....over on Jay and Scott's page they are the boss. This ain't a democracy. I still think with all the lurkers here they should add more to the board...and I also think this board suffers a bit when there isn't a good argument going...not that I think it's healthy for the board to be arguing, but I bet this place gets more hits when there is a controversy going on...take Jay out of the equation and that equals less hits which in the long run equals less advertising dollars. My favorite posts are when someone chimes in at the 300 or so post mark to say "This BS needs to stop, I come here to leave my stress at work". Ummmmm.....then why did you just read 300 posts of "BS"?

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:02 PM

Posted By: barrysloateDan- there's nothing wrong with a good controversial thread, with people exchanging heated opinions about something going on in the hobby. I think we all find them interesting and many of us participate in them. But there's that fine line where it regresses into train wreck mode, and that usually begins with the personal attack. There is no place for those on the board.

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:05 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaI agree Barry. Jerry Rucker came straight out of "LURKER" mode to make a personal attack on Jay and it went unnoticed. I call for a ban on Jerry Rucker.

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:12 PM

Posted By: peter chaoBarry, Dan We can argue all day long about what is or isn't a personal attack. Leave it to Leon, he has a very thick skin, when he feels that there's a personal attack that's good enough for me. Peter C.

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:16 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaPeter, I assure you what Jerry R wrote was a personal attack worthy of Bruce Dorskind. I've also seen lots of personal attacks on you that have gone completely ignored.

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:18 PM

Posted By: Marc S.Can you imagine what would happen in corporate America if every single employee was allowed to openly, in a public forum, critique and micro-manage every decision that mangement made? It's one thing to talk around the water cooler -- quite another for Leon's every move (or lack thereof) to be openly debated and questioned.

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:21 PM

Posted By: anthonypersonal dealings with jay have always been fine with me eventhough it was just a handful, but i do believe he was trying to "call leon's bluff" on this to see if leon would back down and allow him to stay. well, jay got what i think he wanted. i dont think the board will suffer without him and maybe someday he can come back under certain circumstances. like someone said in the other thread, he does have some good input regarding cards. now on with cards!!!!

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:21 PM

Posted By: peter chaoDan, Leon is doing the right thing, you need to give people as much leeway as possible to express their opinion. And some of those opinions can get very personal. So far, I've been satisfied with his moderating. Peter C.

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:33 PM

Posted By: ErlandStevensI will certainly miss Jay's input on the board. Jay knows his stuff concerning cards (and many other things as well). I'd vote for a temporary ban, but bringing Jay back probably will result in another ban. Jay and Leon disagree on the ads. Neither is going to change his mind and I doubt Jay would let the issue slide if he returns. I don't fault Leon (who along with the others who run the board deserve all the praise they get) for the decision to ban Jay, but I'm not glad he's gone. It's just an unfortunate situation that doesn't have a clean solution.

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:33 PM

Posted By: JoannNot trying to hijack the thread, but something Peter C just posted has me burning with curiosity. Peter - you just posted that so far you are happy with the way Leon moderates. Just out of curiosity - and absolutely no judgment of your position on this, really - what would you do if you weren't happy with it? Seriously, I'm genuinely curious. I'm working on that question myself. Because as much as people here say that all of these decisions shouldn't be debated, I suspect that may be because for the most part people don't have a big problem with Leon's moderating. I think if anyone with this opinion suddenly had a really really big issue with something, that person would absolutely feel it should be debated and we'd all hear about it. I'm just glad Leon allows it. Joann And I'm with Dan on the lurker issue. Could there really be legions of people dying to post that won't because they are afraid of attacks? And, like Dan, I also note that many of the controversial threads contain names I absolutely don't recognize.

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:37 PM

Posted By: barrysloatePeter- you have been attacked many times on this board and to your credit you have never let it get you down. I admire that. Dan- I'm not sure the first personal attack necessitates immediate banning. A couple of warnings are reasonable. Joe P. attacked me many times, entirely unprovoked, and went at quite a few other people too. Leon cut him an incredible amount of slack but in the end he was too detrimental and had to go.

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:44 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaYeah I do not understand the attacks against you Barry from Joe P. I didn't even realize he had been banned though. I also did not see any warnings from Leon when Joe was incessantly attacking you, although I may have missed them or he may have done it through email. I just think the "personal attack" issue needs to be meted out fairly if it's going to be used as a reason for banning someone. I expect Mr. Rucker will be getting a warning from Leon - even though he apparently has gone back and deleted the attack. Doesn't change the fact that many of us saw it and now have someone else to add to the list of people not to do business with.

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:46 PM

Posted By: Bob PomillaSad that it came to this, because Jay has an impressive wealth of knowledge about prewar cards and contributed more than most. However, there are two questions I have to ask myself. Firstly, was Jay's repeated badgering of Leon something I wanted to see on a continuing basis. Answer is no. And two, did I believe Jay was ever going to let this go? Given Jay's admission and I don't recall the exact wording, but it was along the lines of wanting to stick around the board to break Leon's chops, it wasn't likely that he was going to give this harassment a rest anytime soon. Knowing that he was provoking most members of the board, Jay persisted. He made his own bed.

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:50 PM

Posted By: peter chaoJoanne, If I was dissatisfied with the moderating, I would bitch and moan and then if the moderators didn't make any changes, I would quietly go to a more satisfactory board. Right now, my only concern is that maybe one day only thick-skinned people will post. Peter C.

Archive

09-27-2007, 03:54 PM

Posted By: Paul SI thought Marc S had a good point and I hope he doesn't mind me launching from it. Society has expected norms of social conduct in any given situation/place, and people who fall too far out of its expectations for too long a time are usually fired at jobs, shunned by their friends, or generally ostracized (no, not changed into a giant flightless bird with a long neck). Hopefully before that happens they are given warnings by their boss, or a friend tells them how they feel about their actions, etc. In this case it happens to be an online forum. Same type of rules apply. A person can't be around here and continually complain about the place and not know what to expect. Jay is smart enough to realize that. In this case Jay had an option and choose what he did. I think he did it to himself. In Bruce's case he ("they") chose to cease and desist.

Archive

09-27-2007, 04:00 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJay B went "bananas" on the "Banner" kick....but, my take on what really was bugging Jay, and was the last straw for him....was that vile email that brother Lee received. And, that the offender was just given a "slap on the wrist". I might be off base on this, but I was one who read that despicable email to Lee when he first posted it. If I had received such disgusting diatribe, or even worst if it was directed to a family member of mine, I would be damn furious; and, I would've demanded that the offender be barred. I think I speak for others on this forum when I say Lee Behrens is a great guy. Since I've been on Net54, he and I have had some great T-card conversations (via emails) and some great T206 deals between us. And, although he doesn't post as often as he used to, he always asks intelligent and thought-provoking questions on any given vintage thread. Finally, all I can say about this entire incident is...it's amazing how the "Arrogance of Affluence" in some individuals can drive them to despicable extremes....and, more amazing is that such individuals, invariably, get a pass.

Archive

09-27-2007, 04:00 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaLet me be clear about this - Jay got what he deserved - and I do believe he was wanting to be banned. He was warned repeatedly and Leon gave him more leeway than I think he's ever given anyone. With that said I also think Jay had some good points about the appearance of a bias with regards to advertisers. It's really no sweat to me though because I don't really care one way or another....but with regard to personal attacks we've seen people get away with plenty here and the moderating of that seems a bit uneven to me. edited to add: Good thoughts Ted, and I'll add that I think Jay has gotten more leeway than anyone besides Bruce. That email to Lee was despicable and beyond the pale and should have been grounds for immediate and permanent banishment. edited one more time to add that I have corresponded with Jay and he did not want to be banned and was not trying to get banned.

Archive

09-27-2007, 04:06 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultz1. Why do I think it was a bad idea? Well, first and foremost, I abhor censorship. I didn't find his comments that out of line, and although his delivery could have been better, I believe questions about your objectivity are fair game, as I mentioned in the locked thread. I believe you should be held to a higher standard, like he said. I would be happy to go into that further, but others claim it's a dead horse, so I'm not sure it's a good idea to do so. As for the allegation that you were a liar, that referenced e-mails between the two of you concerning REA, and since e-mails are off limits, I don't see how that one gets resolved. The rest was a rehash of prior battles over the ad banner debate, and even if it is concluded that such subject is old news, so what? Members should just go to another thread; in fact, we are often told that if something bothers us or we find it uninteresting, to just move along. I also do not find this thread very persuasive. First, I don't believe Jay was frequently at the epicenter of any 100 post threads that have caused some to sour on this forum--re-read those threads, and you will see others more prominently displayed. Rather, what got Jay banned were his pointed questions to you, Leon. Now I'm not necessarily saying you have to put up with it until the end of time or as it gets worse and worse, but I find it odd that you say you banned Jay because you had to listen to what the board says. As far as I'm concerned, if you were not offended or bothered, or did not think his shots at you were worthy of banishment, then that's the end of it. If YOU felt otherwise, then act upon it, but don't give us that had to listen to the membership line. That particlar explanation, combined with the insinuation that Jay was at the heart of many 100 post "trainwrecks" both sound like copouts to me. Incidentally, I find it amusing where people keep saying it's Leon's board and he can do what he likes. While I disagree with that, if people truly believe it, then why are so many sending you e-mails to throw in their bitching and moaning? Several other points are probably worth discussing, but I already started this 45 minutes ago and got a lengthy phone call I had to take. 2. Would I have banned him? No.

Archive

09-27-2007, 04:17 PM

Posted By: JKI have, to this point, stayed out of this mess. I will first state that I agree with Todd that banning Jay was a bad idea - though in all honesty, I dont believe that his contributions will be missed because, quite frankly, he hasn't really attempted to contribute positively in some time. My problem with the banning is that Jay's attacks were directed at Leon and Leon decided to ban Jay simply because he was tired of it. Jay has an opinion and while its old and tired, his "attacks" weren't all that insulting. On the other hand, Ive seen others attacked - I mean truly attacked and insulted - without so much as a "tone it down" from any of the mods. This reeks of a double standard. A post above made an analogy to the workplace - well, certainly management would not stand for constant insubordination directed toward management. However, nor would management allow employees to go about attacking other non-management employees with abandon. So if you are going to stop one, be consistent and stop the others. Personally, I dont think the board needs to be free of all "attacks". Often times, they person attacked brings it on themselves (not saying this is the case with Jay/Leon). I just have a problem when most everything is allowed to go unfiltered as long as you put a name next to your post, yet Jay is banned simply because we are collectively tired of hearing his rants. Finally, a lot has been mentioned about a post generally being negative before it generates any interest. That is too true. Unfortunately, I dont believe banning Jay will stop the train wrecks or increase the quality of the posts that are actually on topic - to me, I'd rather see something being done to try generate more on topic posts and quality dialog within those posts.

Archive

09-27-2007, 04:21 PM

Posted By: dennis"Arrogance of Affluence" in some individuals can drive them to despicable extremes....and, more amazing is that such individuals, invariably, get a pass." well put ted

Archive

09-27-2007, 04:40 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI responded to Todd in the other thread and asked him a question and now it's locked.

Archive

09-27-2007, 04:48 PM

Posted By: randThanks to Leon for putting an end to the misery. Jay's words were way out of line and he pushed, pushed, and pushed until he finally got tossed. Todd its easy for you to judge Leon, but i guarantee if this was your board and you were attacked endlessly you would do the same thing. bottom line, the board is free, if people want to act poorly, they can go else where. when one person leaves another will take their place. Great Job Leon, Finally.

Archive

09-27-2007, 04:49 PM

Posted By: Tim NewcombUnfortunately, given my genuinely high regard for Leon, I have to agree that there appears to be a double standard here. I'm sure if I were Leon, Jay would be on my last nerve, and I really do sympathize. But no one has provided any evidence that Jay was going around making personal threats, attempting to terrorize people, as Dorskind clearly has been doing via email. Jay was expressing unpopular opinions and refusing to stop, which is the basis of our Bill of Rights. Sure, you can say things like "this isn't a democracy" (some people are suspiciously eager to say this), that "it's X's forum and he can do what he wants" and that "if X doesn't like it, he can go over to his own board" -- but frankly I find these comments disturbing. They do not square with the "it's your forum" position that Leon asserts repeatedly. Nor, as I recall, was another longtime board member banned when (off his meds or something) he began making personal threats and racist comments to various people in emails--worse than Dorskind, as I remember. This is before the time of many current posters, and I don't want to stir it all up again, but he's still around and to my knowledge, was never banned or penalized in any way. The old folks know what I'm referring to. It won't be the end of the world for Jay, Leon, or the board if Jay is banned, hopefully temporarily. But I do find it disturbing that the contrarian gets banned for unpopular opinions, while the psychos get slaps on the wrist. Tim

Archive

09-27-2007, 04:52 PM

Posted By: leon I abhor censorship too. That's the reason I am so hesitant to ban anyone, ever. I have to really be pushed hard. Comments about objectivity with respect to ads are very fair game. No argument there. I agree Jay, at least recently, hasn't been at the epicenter of most 100 post arguments. You are dead wrong about why Jay got banned. He got banned for his incessant rants about the ads that would never stop. He had at least 2 final warnings before. Maybe when you give warnings you won't act on them. I will. I only listened to what the board said to validate what I was already going to do. If it was overwhelming to NOT ban him then I wouldn't have. I will continue to believe it is not "my" board as long as I moderate it. It's the members board but I do have to manage it. It would be worse than it is if no one managed it, I believe.... Dan B- Joe P was banned a few weeks ago. I warned him in private emails to stop the attacks on several people. Nine days after my warning he did it again. For the record I emailed with Joe today and he is doing well. WE are cool between us. I like him. He just wouldn't do a small thing I asked. I am also in email correspondance with Jay B this evening.....I hope he and I can work things out. I can only take so much though before I have to do something. I only ask others opinions to make sure I am not way off base.... I hope this clears a few things up and gives a little more of my thoughts on the subject. I HATE banning anyone...I really do....regards

Archive

09-27-2007, 04:55 PM

Posted By: JoannWow. Josh and Tim and Todd - I wish I had even a shred of your eloquence. If I did I certainly wouldn't be struggling so much with the school assignment I'm working on this week! Dang. And it's not just that I agree with the substance of your comments. It's that they are so well crafted, constructed and presented. Tim, I'm so glad that someone else sees comments about not a democracy, X's board, etc are disturbing. Honestly, I felt a bit like a lone voice on that front and was starting to feel a bit like a kook! J

Archive

09-27-2007, 04:56 PM

Posted By: Tim NewcombI do disagree with this one on principle, but I agree that Leon has taken an awful lot from Jay, that Jay did seem to be repeating himself rather than adding to the debate, and that someone has to manage us animals so we don't maul each other too badly. Joann: don't mention it, happy you find my post helpful. BTW, you underestimate your own eloquence. You are going to make a great lawyer--

Archive

09-27-2007, 05:14 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesWell colleagues, I have no doubt that Leon speaks the truth when he states that he has acted in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the board. I hope that you are up to it; because from my perspective, I am watching the expertise of this board one by one walking out the door. You have a heck of a legacy. I sure hope that you have more than that.

Archive

09-27-2007, 05:18 PM

Posted By: peter chaoGil, Leon doesn't have to be judge and jury here. All he needs to do is to make a reasonable decision...and he's done it. Peter C.

Archive

09-27-2007, 05:22 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzLeon, I guess I find your last post just as disquieting. Jay got banned "because of his incessant rants about the ads that would never stop". So now it wasn't a personal affront but the subject matter that led him to be banned? What if I or anyone else wanted to revisit that issue and was as persistent as Jay--are we warned and then booted? Barry, I do believe that personal attacks could form the basis of someone getting banned, although I would probably have to see them reach a particularly serious level, have little or probably nothing to do with sportscards and be repeated after warning. I believe that Jay Behrens' posts on ad banners fails to satisfy two of those criteria.

Archive

09-27-2007, 05:26 PM

Posted By: Dave FI think for the record it is pretty much known the majority of people Leon has talked to did agree with this decision. Can you make everyone happy? Of course not. I've been coming on this board now for two years. Honestly...I can't recall Jay having been involved in a whole ton of educated card discussions, unless most were based before that two year period. Maybe he was more involved before Leon became the moderator? I really don't know. Maybe he has and I just didn't notice...but for the most part I can name off most the people that do get in those threads. I'm not trying to speak badly of Jay...I don't know him for one. Have never conversed with him other than one time a few weeks ago he said something smart-alecky in a thread related to me and I emailed him privately about his comments...he never replied. I do think that Jay is probably extremely educated when it comes to cards (lord knows i'm not)...I just wish he would have shown more of that instead of going off on his crusade or throwing a jab here or there.

Archive

09-27-2007, 05:43 PM

Posted By: barrysloateYou know, there are times in life where you can either take door A or door B and you just have to make a decision. I know Leon gave this a lot of thought, and he went with his gut. He was fed up with what was going on. If he and Jay work things out he can undo the ban. It takes two seconds. I disagree with Tim, Joann, and others that there was some higher principle involved. No higher principle at all- he just got fed up and did what he did. I have no problem with it at all. If Jay can stop complaining about the same damn thing every time, then Leon will reinstate him.

Archive

09-27-2007, 05:48 PM

Posted By: BcD<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2yVZCVLK3E" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2yVZCVLK3E</a> BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-27-2007, 05:51 PM

Posted By: Ricky YI hate to see Jay go...but you have to do what is best for all as the mod. I hope at some point the hatchet can be buried and he can come back again. I've been a moderator on a message board before..and its not a easy job by any means..you do it because you love it and care. This one seems to be one of those that require a lot of monitoring..and my hat is off to Leon. Despite some of the viciousness that rises up occasionally here..its still a wonderful place to come to, read, learn about and see some wonderful cards and stories. Ricky Y

Archive

09-27-2007, 05:59 PM

Posted By: leonYou are failing to take into account the other times I have been ripped apart by Jay over the banners. How much does it take to get to a point of taking action, in your opinion? I believe this is at least the 3rd time so far that Jay has done this. How many more times Todd?

Archive

09-27-2007, 06:03 PM

Posted By: ScottIngoldBoy Josh hit the nail on the head for me. I think banning Jay was bad.....Especially since it was between Leon and himself. Jay had some very good points that others tend to ignore.

Archive

09-27-2007, 06:04 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanSuch talk of lofty principles and ideals is making me hungry. What a utopian society we live in here! Alas, I was unaware. Leon banned Jay for the same reason Jay would ban Leon: he got sick and tired of him. As for Leon, I've ripped him pretty good out here over his Mastro stance; that being said, I consider him a good friend and an incredibly decent guy. You can disagree with someone and still like them. Really.

Archive

09-27-2007, 06:10 PM

Posted By: barrysloateIf this were my board- and thank goodness it isn't- here is how I would deal with a board member who I felt was out of line: I would look for a really, really tall stairwell, with lots of steps, and I would have the perpetrator stand at the very top and bend over. Then I would kick him in the ass really hard and watch him tumble all the way down, head over heels, like Groucho Marx did when he was kicked down three flights of stairs in "A Night at the Opera." Hey, I run a very tight ship! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-27-2007, 06:41 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusWhich two. As I see it, Jay (1) questioned Leon's character (by saying his posts on Mastro Auctions were influenced by their banner advertiser status) and called him a liar (the undefined REA situation) and (2) was asked to stop saying such things but persisted. I would think (1) falls under "particularly serious level" and (2) falls under "repeated after a warning". So as I see it there are your two. What am I missing?

Archive

09-27-2007, 07:08 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzI believe Jay's comments were repeated, and I do not believe anyone else thinks otherwise. I do not believe his comments about Mastro rose to any level of seriousness that warrants banishment, and I think those comments were more than tangentially related to sports cards. You may say that Leon's character was assailed by the Mastro reference. I would agree to some extent, but again, I do not believe it is/was all that personal or serious. Fact is, if you are accepting any remuneration (and I mean anything more than a Happy Meal--certainly $30K would apply)from someone(s) about whom you later render an opinion or endorsement, you are subject to criticism about the objectivity of your opinion. Period. Does that make you an evil person whose opinion must be readily discarded? No, but it does not mean that you are above having your motives questioned either. Hey, with all due respect, Leon solicited opinions about banner ads before taking the step of implementing them, and he was told by some of how it might look and what misgivings others might have about it. He made the choice,and in my view, he has to take the bad with the good. Frankly, it's a logical extension of any conflict of interest analysis, IMHO, and explains why many times people excuse themselves from a position so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Mr. Lichtman, I do not disagree with you when you said Leon got fed up and reacted. My beef is with some notion that it was for the good or at the will of the board. I don't see that at all, and I'd rather it was simply called for what it was. And yes, you are correct, one can disagree with someone and still like them.

Archive

09-27-2007, 07:18 PM

Posted By: quanif there's a poll, i'm against banning jay. i like jay/leon's symbiotic relationship (mostly jay needing to rip on leon <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>), kind of a checknbalance system. when everyone say it is leon's board...that is jay's whole argument that it should be a board of collectors for collectors, not this revenue-generating machine. jay may be over-estimating how much leon makes and how that affects leon's decisioning concerning board matters. i've met both and they're nice and fair people (and would probably have no problem sitting down drinking coors light together)...i support and contribute whenever i can to both boards and hope they can work things out. at the end of the day i just want to buy and talk about cards (preferably caramels) and thinking about how every year leon can afford to outbid me by 20k or so <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>.

Archive

09-27-2007, 07:24 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultzthere you go stirring the pot again Quan-- Coors light? You could have named any one of a hundred beers and an equal number of other beverages preferable to Coors light. The only thing fostered (pun intended) by sharing Coors light is a good case of the, well, you know.

Archive

09-27-2007, 07:25 PM

Posted By: Joe D.remind me to stand behind you whenever we head down a flight of steps. I don't want the boot. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-27-2007, 07:27 PM

Posted By: Tom Boblittsomeone and CONSTANTLY baiting them to the point where they just can't win. That's what Jay did/does with Leon. He baits him to the point and pushes the issue to the point where Leon CAN'T walk away or Jay says he's hiding something. If he acts on it, he's a bad guy. I've seen MANY people disagree with something Leon does, portray it in a constructive manner and he takes it fine. Might not mean he changes his behavior, or, for that matter, even should change it but respectful disagreement is fine. It's when it crosses a line into the attacks and all the baiting. I think it's always bad to ban someone and when any other alternative exists, it should be taken. This is by no means the first time that this happened with Jay and I'm sure, over time, Leon had just had it....

Archive

09-27-2007, 07:30 PM

Posted By: Rob DewolfFor what it's worth, when I saw Leon's request that skydash e-mail him about choosing an auction house, my first thought was that skydash was going to hear a sales pitch for Mastro. I base that soley on what I view as Leon repeatedly going to the mat for Mastro and seemingly becoming emotionally involved while defending that company when negative posts were made. And I know Leon has argued to the contrary that he treats all the advertisers the same, and that's fine. My perception differs from what he's saying, but hey, maybe that's a shortcoming on my part. I honestly don't get too worked up over it. That being said, I'm amazed that Leon waited so long to ban Jay and don't blame him a bit. One other thing: I shake my head that when certain threads reach a certain length, someone will post a plea to Leon to lock it. And how some people complain so vehemently when contentious threads that aren't soley related to cardboard have a long shelf life. What's the big deal? You have to know 20-30 posts in just what a thread is about and where it's headed. If it bugs you, ignore it ... don't click on it! How hard is that? When I see a topic about "What's Stan Musial's rookie card?" or "What would you do with Barry Bonds' home run ball?" I know they don't interest me, so I don't read them. Again ... how hard is it to do that? If a topic has 150-plus posts, it must be interesting to quite a few folks. But just because a person doesn't like it or in their mind it's lived long enough, he calls for it to be locked? I don't get it.

Archive

09-27-2007, 07:34 PM

Posted By: quanyea seems like everyone's had their say so i'm doing my part to help push the thread past 100 posts.

Archive

09-27-2007, 07:39 PM

Posted By: Cat (ret.)If there is a poll, I say Leon didn't ban him fast enough. If I didn't know better I would think Jay had a side bet on the over/under of how quickly he could get banned. Leon warned him over and over and over "to stop it." Jay went on and on and on. P.S. Also, I hope Jay wins the lottery soon so we also don't have to listen to how little money he has [again]. OK, I'll crawl back into my cave now!!! Promise.

Archive

09-27-2007, 07:41 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaQuan, post some youtubes and Seinfeld quotes and this thread will get over 100 in no time. If you're really daring, claim that you know more about SNL than Barry and Hal. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-27-2007, 07:49 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusThanks for the response. I guess this is something about which we'll agree to disagree. I don't disagree that Jay was not alone in raising the issue of the potential for bias or at least the perception of such when Leon instigated the discussion about whether banner adverstising should be allowed. Where we disagree pertains to how to interpret the totality of Jay's posts. It seemed crystal clear to me that he was accusing Leon of being unduly influenced by banner advertising revenue when making his various posts, that those posts would have read materially differently had there been no banner advertising. Yet other Board members who also opined Leon should not accept banner advertising never came close to such accusations. In addition, as I said, in regard to that REA situation he flat out calls Leon a liar. Those to me are what distinguishes Jay's case and at least in my estimation makes his cross the line. With that said, though, I will say that I greatly respect Jay's knowledge about card issues and the informative nature of many of his posts, and hope that in time this can be resolved and that he will be reinstated, and that should that happen he will concentrate his posts to card issues.

Archive

09-27-2007, 07:54 PM

Posted By: JoannDang. Add Corey to the All-Eloquence list of Josh, Tim and Todd above. In this case I don't agree with the content, but cannot help but admire the construction and presentation of the argument. Of course, Jeff L still wins in the most-humor-per-word basis among the lawyer types. And Jason L wins the most-humor-period award. hee OK. Enough awards for one night. Back to homework so I can try to finagle my writing to make it better! J

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:00 PM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliI don't really have anything of value to add, I just want Joann to tell me I'm eloquent. -Al

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:04 PM

Posted By: eric p.joe p. deserves to be banned, i can't stand him myself, i would probably give up my entire collection for the opportunity to get him inside the octagon and i wouldn't be choking him out either!

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:05 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaEric, really? You do know that Joe is like a 75 year old little dude right?

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:07 PM

Posted By: barrysloateDon't I get a little credit for my Groucho Marx reference? Jay made his point about his dislike for the banner ads a very long time ago. He made it, and we all got it. He conveniently reiterated that point any time he disagreed with Leon on just about anything. If you looked back at all the times he protested, I doubt many of them were on threads that were even discussing banner ads. He has harangued Leon to no end on this issue and I think anyone has the right to say enough is enough. And keep in mind Jay has not been exiled to Devil's Island. He simply lost his posting privileges on a chatboard. Those can be reinstated by mutual agreement. Where I do agree with some of the dissenters is there have been worse transgressions on the board that have slipped by without being punished. Fine, Leon showed less than consistent judgment there. If it were me a lot of people on the board would have been banned sooner. But like I said, you wouldn't want me running the board. Leon does it well enough.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:07 PM

Posted By: Tim NewcombCorey, Your reasoning on the "two things" post escapes me: "[Jay] (2) was asked to stop saying such things but persisted. .... [this] (2) falls under "repeated after a warning". Isn't the whole point of free speech, which Leon says he supports, that you can't legitimately be forced to "stop saying such things" that are unpopular? Let's see: X says something Y dislikes. Y warns X not to do it again. X does it again. Then Y can do anything he wants to X, just because X was warned???? Doesn't sound like free speech to me. _________________________ This issue seems like the crux of the whole Leon-Jay problem. On the one hand, I'm pretty sure Leon was a lot more patient with Jay than many would have been in his position, and that Jay did his position no favors by being so relentless in expressing it. On the other hand, Jay (or anybody) should have the right to express the unpopular opinion AS OFTEN AS HE WANTS, period. That doesn't mean you, I, or anyone has to pay attention to him. I for one did pay attention to his contentions, at least for a long time until they seemed to become merely repetitive, because I am deeply suspicious of Mastro and I don't like the idea that they might be given sweetheart status by those who run the board. I think Leon knows my view on this. I am also willing to agree to disagree with him on this issue without destroying our relationship. But I don't think anybody who disagrees more vocally should be stifled. And it's clear from this thread that a lot of regular posters feel it was not a good decision. But maybe a cooling-off period was necessary for emotional reasons. That I can live with.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:07 PM

Posted By: eric p.i don't know what he looks like or how old he is but i do know i can't stand him.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:09 PM

Posted By: E, DanielIn extremely short hand. If anyone doubts at all that JayB style scything and demeaning commentary keeps people away from this board...don't. From the time I came here first perhaps 2 1/2 or so years ago, JayB and Gil were on my a*& big time, and in fact did manage to run me off for perhaps 6 or so months. Weirdly enough, at that time JayB loved to exhort his efforts and claimed proudly his ability to run people off was in fact the VICTIM'S fault, that if they weren't able to hang around and be castigated and made mockery of - well they just weren't strong enough for this world. I must have read him write that sentiment 30 times in 2 years. And he chuffed and lorded over it, even as the extraordinary mean spirited nature of his posts poured forth, and as apologists on this board wrote amazingly of admiring his 'straight shooter'ness' and 'telling it like it is'. What a bunch or bull dust. He told it like HE SAW it. Not how it is. But all along claiming virtue, and moral high ground, and not once did I see signs of a truly morally virtuous human being. He was nothing but rude, and condescending, and bullying through it all, while currying a couple of friends on the board to share his venom with. And perhaps, once ever 8-10 weeks he'd show his zeenut Jim Thorpe, and every other month make some semi-useful suggestion to someone. Outside of that, he was a malicous canker whose 'charming candor' - whilst (<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>) appreciated by Joann and a couple others, ABSOLUTELY scared off many other board members and read as nothing but school yard bravado. He, in my opinon, was 100% one of those people who would have been smacked in the mouth by any number of people (including myself) if he said to their face what he typed about them on this board, and surprise surprise - by private email. Yes, that's right, he was a player in that regard too. Tim, and others who wonder if he had really reached a threshold..... He reached it several times over, and it was only because you might not have been the target of his abuse that you might find contrary argument to his banning. No one, I will state with absoluteness no one, would have taken the number of shots Leon has from this guy - and just lived with it because this is America and people can say whatever they want. The guy was pure muck in my opinion, committed the 'Dorskind' act 100's of times over, just never so long windedly. Glad he's got his own aimoo box to stand on somewhere else so he can share that special personality with others who tolerate that 'quirky' kind of vicousness. There, just my O. Daniel Edited for one gramatical correction.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:09 PM

Posted By: Charlie BarokasTodd, Why do you insist on stating incorrectly that Leon's take is $30,000? The man said on a number of occasions that his take is $15,000? Furthermore, are you saying that Leon could remain impartial with regard to his advertisers if they paid him in Big Macs but not with $300 a month? Are you suggesting the man has no personal integrity? No matter how much money he makes as moderator it is possible that he could still maintain a level of impartiality. There is no evidence that he is taking money for the sole purpose to argue on behalf of a rogue auctioneer. The burden of proof with such an accusation is on Jay and yourself and not the other way around. Based on the amount of hits this site gets, I think Leon could make a lot more money and I hope he does at some point, if only to defray the pain of threads such as these. edited for typos

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:11 PM

Posted By: barrysloateTim- I don't interpret free speech to mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences. Earlier today some dimwit who nobody even knows compared Leon's ways to Hitler. Leon banned him moments later. Do you have a problem with that banishment?

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:18 PM

Posted By: leonHere is a piece of wisdom I learned from a very smart man. When someone is part of a community they give up certain rights for the betterment of the community, and to be a part of it.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:20 PM

Posted By: peter chaoBarry, If it were an old board member that just lost his temper, I would have a problem with it. But Jay had been warned a number of times. As long as Leon's actions are reasonable then he should exercise his right to ban people. I don't think we should expect him to act like a judge and spend days weighing the consequences before he acts. Peter C.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:24 PM

Posted By: leonI agree with you so much, and you said everything I feel, so well, I want to kiss you. (well, sort of) If anyone wants to know how I really feel, read his post again and imagine my name in the "your name" spot as the author...You hit the nail squarely on the head. Some won't like your honesty though....

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:26 PM

Posted By: JoannWell Al - succinctness DOES have its virtues too! Another one I could learn from. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> And Barry, I think you hold the spot tonight for stepping out of character. lol. When the King of Sage starts posting about kicking people's rear ends down staircases, that's stepping out of character even with the cool classic movie tie-ins. And E-Dan. Wow. I don't know what to say. You are usually very good about stating your point. But your method is usually a meandering, poetic stream, and tonight it was a rushing, roaring river. I feel bad that you felt that way, or that anyone would. I honestly don't see Jay that way - maybe I take him with a grain of salt. But you have certainly made your view of things clear and compelling. Joann Oh - and Dan B. I did get that Super-Size Me photo, and don't quite know what to make of it. Will email you sometime when I can fully describe it. Strange thing, that's for sure.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:29 PM

Posted By: barrysloateWell Joann, truth be told, I wouldn't really kick anybody down a long flight of stairs. But it was a metaphor for how quickly I would give a malcontent the boot...it was a joke, but I'm sure you knew that. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:30 PM

Posted By: Dave FWell...I've pretty much agreed with Leon's stance these last few days as well as the action taking this far into it..but now that he wants to kiss Daniel.....I feel dirty <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:30 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaLeon, I'm wondering how far a person can go before they get a warning...is this kind of talk acceptable on the board? "joe p. deserves to be banned, i can't stand him myself, i would probably give up my entire collection for the opportunity to get him inside the octagon and i wouldn't be choking him out either!" How about what Jerry Rucker said yesterday about Jay? Dorskin gets a pass because he apologized on the phone to YOU. And someone already mentioned the other unnamed person whom we all know that made far worse email threats than Dorskin could ever imagine and I see he's posted in this thread.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:35 PM

Posted By: leonI can't hardly warn everyone on the forum can I? C'mon, there aren't enough hours in the day. I'll tell you what. You have my blessing, and backing, to start policing the board. Cool? Just run it by the board, as I do, with what you are doing and lets see how it goes....

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:42 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaNo, I don't want the job...I'm trying to make a greater point that I always thought you could say whatever you wanted as long as it didn't cross a line and you put your full name next your post. What Jay said doesn't seem like it crossed the line to me, but then again I have never been under the constant pounding that Jay liked to dish out to you and apparently to Daniel E. I also have met Jay in person and have a better grasp of his personality and I'm sure that biases me in some way.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:43 PM

Posted By: Randy TrierweilerI also support what E. Daniel wrote 100%. What ever happened to being responsible for your own actions. Jay has nobody to blame but himself. I find it hard to believe the excuses some people (whom I respect) make for him. Wasn't this Jays second or third chance here? He was banned before and re-instated by Leon. History repeated itself. Same behavior, same result. At some point in your life, you have to learn from your mistakes. I wish Jay well. Maybe some anger management would do him well.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:45 PM

Posted By: Lee BehrensFirst of all I want to say I do not have a problem with Leon banning Jay. Contrary to what he says (and he has said it in the past) this is his board, so you have to go with his decisions or move on, or in Jay's case pester him until he has enough. I believe that there have been far worse going on than read Jay's rantings. The whole Dorskin thing still amazes me that he was not banned when so many people came forward that they also received disturbing emails. We do not give warnings to criminals when they are caught and punish them if they do it again. A one time incident is one thing but the numerous emails just warrant some kind of suspension. As far as the REA thing, don't jump to conclusions until you ask yourself why REA used the Scott/Jay board as the one they have point a link to on there emails. Leon, I ask you this. Allow me to start a thread (one time)with a link to the other board and allow the people that wish to find it and participate to do so. To me if you do not it just goes to show that YOU are making decisions for the whole group. Lee

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:50 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesGlad you had your big O Standing up to Jay. Not only behind his back, but when he is forbidden to even view your post. What a man. Stand up to him in the schoolyard? They are still yelling at you from the bus. And flinchfree: you are still cowering.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:53 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaWhy not just harvest emails from Net54 and send out a mass emailing with a link to the other board. From what I understand there are no rules against unsolicited emails. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> Yes....I know I'm a smartass, but I can't help it.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:59 PM

Posted By: Kenny ColeWhat a thankless job Leon has. It is somewhat like. but perhaps more difficult than, herding cats. Whatever decison he makes on any topic is suject to criticism. He has persisted, generally with pretty good humor, for much longer than I would have. Had I been subjected to the crap that Leon's been subjected to recently, I would probably have banned myself. I don't always agree with Leon's decisions. In that regard, insofar as Jay is concerned, I'm riding the fence -- a position that is admittedly hard on the crotch. However, whether or not I agree with Leon on Jay or any other given issue, I absolutely respect the fact that he has the guts to make a decsion, unpopular though it may be, and that he has both the guts and the patience to deal with the backlash that some of those decisions create. Debate and discussion is fine. However, ultimately, decisions have to be made and no decision will please everyone. Had it been me, I would long ago have offered my position as moderator to any one of the many backseat drivers who always have the right answer (after the fact) so that: 1) they could learn what it's like to deal with all of the silly bull**** that goes on here; and 2) I could take my turn sitting back and second-guessing them. Assuming that there would actually be any takers, I suspect that many, if not most, would soon decide the the position of moderator was not all that wonderful and quickly seek to be relieved of that responsibility. To my way of thinking, that is the crux of the matter. Leon can't always (ever?) make 100% of the people on this board happy. Nor should he be held to that standard because it is an entirely unfair expectation. If you think you can do a better job, let Leon know. Maybe he'll be willing to let you try. Just my two cents.

Archive

09-27-2007, 08:59 PM

Posted By: eric p.dan, i don't know you and you don't know me, i rarely ever post on this board, if leon feels he wants to ban me from the board he can do that, i have no problem with leon, where i live and grew up, if you run your mouth recklessly like joe does, the are consequences for your actions, i don't allow anyone to talk to me in a demeaning way or to disrespect me, period.

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:03 PM

Posted By: Lee BehrensGil, You have such a good point. Did you notice the he didn't even leave an email address. With the likes of unbanned participants I can understand why you wouldn't want to put your email address up. I believe that the board consensus here is that REA is perceived as the most reputable auction house yet Leon never seems to mention them and stand up and defends them. This is another example of LEON's board. yes, Leon you are held to another standard because you are our leader in our community. Lee

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:04 PM

Posted By: leonNo, I don't want it posted. It's been a rule all the way back to Elliot.....If your 135 members want to participate they will....if not, then they won't. edited to add...in retrospect I don't care therefore I posted it for you....

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:06 PM

Posted By: Lee BehrensIt's up to 140. It's jabs like that Leon that will send more and more over there. There has been 10 new members since Jay got banned. Why not give people the opportunity? So Elliott all of Elliot's rules still stand? Lee

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:06 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanYeah, but Kenny, the life of a moderator! The dough! The women! The glamour! I can see Leon right now rubbing his hands together saying "First you get the power, then you get the money, then you get the women ...."

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:08 PM

Posted By: leonYou might start by asking your brother about what we emailed about this evening and all of the issues with REA. He even agreed on some of them. Get back to me on that one....BTW, I might get held to a higher standard but I am still no different than anyone else. I am glad you agree with me about banning your brother. You are a wise man....

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:08 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaEric, I don't hold anything personally against you and I sometimes felt the same way about Joe P. and I sure didn't like the way he treated Barry, but he really got away with a lot and I was just testing Leon with your quote. Joe P and I got into some real good squabbles that almost always went to email. It seems to me that the banishments and what it takes to get banished here are not meted out evenly. I didn't even know that Joe P got banned from here...I sure didn't see Leon start a thread over that event like he did with Jay, but maybe I missed it. I think their are two others on this board who should not be posting here. It's not my call, but I still think I should be allowed to question it. I just won't keep pushing it as hard as Jay did and I've had my say and that's that.

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:11 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaJust for the record why does all the REA stuff have to be off the board, behind the scenes? Why isn't someone stepping up to the plate here and making it an issue?

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:16 PM

Posted By: Lee BehrensYour REA comment is a deflection from the 2 comments I have made about REA and did not address either of them, you just asked another question to deflect from my initial comments. Yes, you do have your own opinions and you should but in the end you have the final word here no matter what you say about it as a community as a whole. Lee

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:26 PM

Posted By: whitehseWell I rarely post here and I certainly am not intimidated by any of the regulars. I lurk everyday and have for at least the last 4 years, even though I think I registered 2 years ago. I come here to escape a rough day at work, I come to escape boredom, I come to escape the pressure of the world....heck I come here to just learn about cards I will never own short of them falling from my ceiling! I come here to see how the shows this past weekend were. I come to learn about a new find in pre war cards. I come to see photos posted by many collectors I have never seen before. Whats the point of all this you might be asking???? I come here to learn about my hobby that I enjoy to escape the everyday grind. I enjoy reading about cards and hearing others stories. But (and excuse me for swearing) dammit,this crap is getting old guys! It really is. Leon, who cares how much you make.....I enjoy reading the threads and I really hope you sell more banners. Its not like they are really noticeable anyway, since they are not pop up type ads. Anyone else..... you dont like how its run..leave and start your own board and stay there! Geez who really cares, its cardboard and supposed to be fun!! or did everyone forget that!? I am done...move along... nothing to see here! Lets get back to collecting and talking about it edited to add my email address ajw111@hotmail.com

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:27 PM

Posted By: E, DanielI'm here cowering Gil, so as soon as you can undo those pesky straps on your jacket you should come look me up. Be pleased to fix you right up. Oh, and I was under the impression JayB could read all he wanted - simply not post....I'd be disappointed if he was unable to read of others, not merely my own, opinion of his person. Daniel Edited for an extra thought.

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:30 PM

Posted By: Randy TrierweilerLee, apparently people are finding your board OK without the link. 5 new members tonight, thats great, seriously. I signed up myself this morning. Why should Leon let you put a link to your site? Would you guys put up a link to his site? I doubt it. If people want to see your site, they'll find it.

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:31 PM

Posted By: Kenny ColeJeff, If you think the life of a vintage cardboard chatboard moderator is glitzy, think about what it would be like if Leon gave all that up to become a rock star. Unlike vintage baseball card chatroom moderators, rock stars aren't held to a higher standard. In fact, they're expected to do things that piss people off. Think of THOSE perks -- roadies, women, fans, women, kowtowers, women, ass kissers, women, hundreds of thousands of hero worshippers, women . . . and money -- maybe even more than $30K a year. I know Leon could do it if he wanted to. That's where its at.

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:37 PM

Posted By: leonlJay can read everything on this board even though he's banned. He mentioned several things this evening about your post.....

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:40 PM

Posted By: Lee BehrensAnd what about REA? I don't want to bust your chops Leon but don't skirt around the questions. If you don't want to talk about say no comment don't skirt around it. Lee

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:42 PM

Posted By: Lee BehrensVery commendable Leon, on putting up the link. I now that you follow the board and know that most everyone there frequents both boards. Lee

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:44 PM

Posted By: leonlMy feeling about the last REA auction was 1. The 1914 Baltimore photo was a farce....total absurdity. It was photo that Rob got PSA to slab and he called a card. Period. Any knowledgable photo, or card, collector will agree. 2.The George Wright bat could have been his...or mine...it was that much of a probability, from my understanding. The other thing happened a long, long time ago and I don't want to bring it up. Is it better to erase a pencil mark on a card or call a photograph a card, in order to get more money?...Chew on the photo a little while and get back to me....

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:47 PM

Posted By: Lee BehrensNow list all the transgressions of Mastro that have been listed on the board. As I stated the board feels they are the most reputable, I think you can find faults with all of them (even Barry's, I think <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> ). Lee

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:49 PM

Posted By: leonlThis is my last post. You asked about REA and I told you my thoughts. Now you bring up Mastro. YOU asked about REA. I told you honestly. Can you answer my question? This isn't about Mastro this time. They get beat up everyday. Or do you want to be like your brother and only know 1 trick? Answer the questions......

Archive

09-27-2007, 09:53 PM

Posted By: Randy TrierweilerLee, HE PUT UP A LINK TO YOUR GUYS SITE. He answered your question about REA. Geez, give him a little room to breath. Now you want more...more...more... You guys are relentless. Leon beat me to it. Take a breather folks!!!!!!!

Archive

09-27-2007, 10:00 PM

Posted By: Lee BehrensJust to let you know I was writing the response when he put up the link and didn't notice. As far as your question Leon, I don't understand what you are asking. If I can figure out your question I will gladly answer. If I had only one trick I would be more boring than I already am. Lee

Archive

09-27-2007, 10:04 PM

Posted By: leonlOne question about the last REA auction. I will keep it simple. How do you feel about what Rob did with getting the 1914 Ruth Baltimore photograph slabbed as a card by PSA? Everyone and their brother knows it was a photograph. It was laughable.

Archive

09-27-2007, 10:04 PM

Posted By: peter chaoThis is getting out of hand...looks like we're going into "trainwreck" mode. Peter C.

Archive

09-27-2007, 10:10 PM

Posted By: leonlIt's no more out of hand than normal, is it?

Archive

09-27-2007, 10:11 PM

Posted By: Dave FPeter, either get on the train or get off the tracks. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-27-2007, 10:17 PM

Posted By: Lee BehrensLeon, I have no knowledge of the card/photo so can't say anything about that case. But, if it is a photo it is more proof why not to use PSA and that is a strike against Rob. Is this Rob's version of the Wagner PSA 8 card? Lee

Archive

09-27-2007, 10:18 PM

Posted By: peter chaoDave, I'd like to have a few more alternatives. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Peter C.

Archive

09-27-2007, 10:25 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusTwo points.... First, to answer your question, in the context of a private chatboard such as this the moderator sure can legitimately stop someone from saying things that are unpopular if the moderator reasonably believes that the exercise by that person of his free speech rights would have the chilling effect of preventing or limiting the participation by others on this Board. The moderator's first responsibility is to take actions to safeguard the viability of this Board, and sometimes doing that may legitimately take precedence over the right of a person to say what he wants on that Board. Leon is not having Jay incarcerated, nor is Leon telling Jay he can't take a protest sign and organize a march protesting the corrupting nature of banner ads. All Leon is doing is saying that Jay can't do it on this Board. Second, I was responding to the criteria that Todd enunciated as being grounds for banning someone. One of those criteria was repeating the comments after a warning. Another was that they be particularly serious. Those were Todd's criteria, not mine, and I merely opined that I felt Jay's posts met them. EDITED for grammar

Archive

09-27-2007, 10:26 PM

Posted By: Lee BehrensI found a link about the card/photo in question: <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1161354862/New+1914+Babe+Ruth+Card+Discovered" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1161354862/New+1914+Babe+Ruth+Card+Discovered</a> Lee

Archive

09-27-2007, 10:29 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaI have started a new post about the REA/Baltimore "Card" and I think all further posts about that topic should be under that thread.

Archive

09-27-2007, 10:30 PM

Posted By: Lee BehrensCory, I don't think anyone wants a CU type situation where if you write something bad about PSA it gets erased and you will probably get banned. Then it becomes a one sided board. If you like to keep a narrow mind go for it, but I don't think that is what Net 54 is about. Lee

Archive

09-27-2007, 10:49 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusNot sure what a CU situation is. But to the extent that the gist of your post is that this Board should not become what I've heard PSA's is -- negative posts about PSA are deleted and the perpetrator banned -- I agree. As I interpret what Leon did, he banned Jay because the persistent negativity of his posts were impacting others participation on and enjoyment of this Board. I feel Leon's action would have been no different if it were someone other than Leon who was being hammered, which I don't think can be said about PSA's motives/actions.

Archive

09-27-2007, 11:37 PM

Posted By: JKE Daniel - you stated: "I will state with absoluteness no one, would have taken the number of shots Leon has from this guy - and just lived with it because this is America and people can say whatever they want." I can assure you that there are people on this board, posting in this very thread, who dont happen to be the moderator and have taken many more shots on a day to day basis than Leon has from Jay. Peter - care to comment? Consistency of treatment? I think not. Again, some of the shots taken by people on this board are well deserved, some are not. In Leon's case, he does accept money from advertisers. I have no problem with that. However, as a result of that decision, I believe he should either avoid commenting in any thread where it might look like a conflict or stop taking advertising dollars. Such a concept is not unheard of. Indeed, in the legal profession, judges recuse themselves from cases all the time to avoid even the appearance of a conflict - regardless of whether there is truly a conflict or not.

Archive

09-28-2007, 12:33 AM

Posted By: JimBIn my opinion, the unfortunate thing is that Jay could have been, and once was, a very productive contributor to this board. He is quite knowledgable about a number of vintage issues. But he chose not to be. Rather, it seems he chose to be a sort of antagonist and cancer on this board at every turn. He seemed to be determined to bring it and/or Leon down. I think this mostly stems from his issue with advertisers. I am not sure if it was the fact of advertisers or just that Jay was envious that he was not financially benefiting from it. I remember when that discussion began, he suggested that he and a few other knowledgable members should be able to share the wealth. Otherwise, why contribute to Leon's money-making machine? After he found out that he would not be financially benefitting from it, he basically stopped sharing his knowledge and became almost entirely antagonistic and confrontational. It is not that he wasn't confrotationional before <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> ; he was. It is just that before it was in good spirit, or at least, mixed with productive contributions. I, personally, don't know how Leon tolerated it as long as he did. It seems to me that Leon has an incredible amount of patience and tolerance in moderating this board. I hope that some day Jay finds it in himself to be a productive contributor again and that he and Leon can work it out. But for now, I support Leon's decision. I think Jay's presence of late has been bringing the board down and no doubt, keeping lurkers away from contributing. I know that is the case because I have heard it from several. JimB edited to add a couple of commas.

Archive

09-28-2007, 04:55 AM

Posted By: barrysloateGood morning to all. Just a quick comment to Lee- no, I am not a saint either. I just try to do my best. And there isn't an auction house in the country, and that includes every last one of them, that has been nominated for sainthood, best as I know. It's a business, and people do what they have to do to make a profit. Sometimes it's not pretty.

Archive

09-28-2007, 06:01 AM

Posted By: ChadMan, what a thread. My only half way original thought on this is that once Jay started his own site, he should have stopped attacking Leon here. That never sat well with me as it made it seem he was just trying to bring a competitor down. I wish the lurkers out there wouldn't refrain from posting because of the occasional fireworks--it's the same 15 or 20 of us who always end up posting in these threads. The vast majority of people in this site lurk and will jump into a thread if it's something they have expertise in. So, seriously, if you ever have a question, no matter how esoteric, post it and you'll see how constructive this place can be. --Chad

Archive

09-28-2007, 06:18 AM

Posted By: Tom Boblittkinda like a shot at the bow of the old S.S.Barry up above........ I've never seen anyone disparage Barry's auctions. He seems to have great knowledge and care about the items he auctions. And shares his knowledge here with everyone.... Kenny.....love the 'herding cats' comment.....

Archive

09-28-2007, 07:29 AM

Posted By: Lee BehrensJust to make it clear on my comment about Barry. It was put in there because I have never heard anything bad about him or his auctions, that is why I put the smiley behind it. I am currently contemplating whether to consign items to him. Not saying there is not problems but he seems to have a pretty good record. Barry is a asset to this board and hobby. Lee

Archive

09-28-2007, 02:58 PM

Posted By: GilJimB: good summary, and accurate. I had forgotten Jay's original position on advertisers. And Leon: thank you for the clarification. I was unaware that a banishment was solely the inability to post. Can one also make use of the b/s/t if banned? Are there different levels of exclusion at your option?

Archive

09-29-2007, 06:13 AM

Posted By: JinCrandellI think Leon has made a much greater attempt to take a neutral view on controvertial issues in the hobby. I think his views are generally ones I do not agree with but nonetheless he is striving to stay neutral. I have not read what Jay said to get him banned but he has a wealth of card knowledge and is one of the few posters that I try to read whatever he says. I hope he is allowed back. Whoever said personal attacks of any kind should not be allowed on this board I agree wholeheartedly with and I would also be against the publishing of private e-nails here.

Archive

09-29-2007, 08:04 AM

Posted By: leonMy understanding is that someone can read the forum if a moderator blocks their IP address. They can not log into any place on it, B/S/T included. The other night, after I blocked Jay's IP address, he was still in the chatroom. I am not sure why nor do I care. I told him it was no biggie. I don't hate him. I do think he's hypocritical for playing the banner sponsored games AFTER he was informed that is how they were paid for. I hate how much grief he gives/gave me on the board. I also disagree with how much he contributes in a positive manner, at least for the last year, while the banners have been up. I understand that as he is the most outspoken person against them. I don't mind folks disagreeing with me at all re: the last few days. It's when it gets to such a personal nature and he questions my every move and continues the negativity, after repeated warnings, that I feel compelled to stop it. I just had enough. I hope this answers your question. regards

Archive

09-29-2007, 11:13 AM

Posted By: ItsOnlyGilWell, if I understand this correctly, the term "Bannisment" is a bit of an overstatement. What my current understanding is that this level of response is more akin to a reff throwing a flag on the field, indicating a penalty. And this "offense" merits undisclosed time in the penalty box. And of course, while in the penalty box, you can not come on to the ice. But you are not actually thrown out of the stadium either. Nor relegated to the locker room. From time to time I self-impose a similar penalty when I find myself overly wrapped up in the soap opera. This is a valuable tool, if used as such; and not so dramatical an event as is currently associated here. Or perhaps, I still do not understand.

Archive

09-29-2007, 12:24 PM

Posted By: leonI think you pretty much nailed it. Though I do understand the "banning" (blocking of IP)is a form of punishment and I try very hard never to impose it. When it becomes overwhelming to me then I do. I guess that's the best way I can put it. I would think Jay will be back in the future, at some point, if he wants to be. Just because I don't care for someone is not a reason to be banned. I offered Joe P to come back the other day if he would stay away from 3 certain people, unless provoked. He said he couldn't do that and I said so be it. I still like him though and I think he's ok with me..........I could see he and Jay coming back in the future, again, only if they want to. regards