Quote:
Originally Posted by jchcollins
This whole thing seems to be much more a slippery slope about people being po'd at the INTENT of messing with cards than it is what was actually done in the final analysis to the physical card.
|
Yes, I think we agree that this debate is about intent, rather than a metaphysical debate about whether a card with a Dorito stain or booger can announce that it's been wiped clean. I'd disagree that focusing on intent sends us down a slippery slope. That particular battle line is drawn pretty clearly. If you mess with a card with the specific intent to conceal that fact from a third-party grader and/or potential buyer, then you're choosing to deceive others to advance your self-interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jchcollins
Just based on the "act" of someone doing something which may or may not be illicit - then what is the point of all of this empty discussion and wasted emotion? Alteration has to be provable on a card later, or it isn't alteration, by any practical or realistic judgment. Period.
|
This is where we simply disagree. You're taking a purely consequentialist approach,
i.e., if I can't prove you did it, and you're not saying whether you did, then it didn't happen and no one was harmed. I say that card doctors who profit from deception are still acting unethically, even if the target is oblivious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jchcollins
The cards as ephemera / artifacts are not logged upon some blockchain of history where you can go back and see what was or was not done to them over the course of their existence. They are not conscious beings who can say "Hey, a dealer pressed my left corner back down for a little bit too long at a show in 1982, maybe you should tell PSA I'm altered!"  |
I'll grant you the point that cards aren't sentient historians, but you seem to be spinning off into a separate discussion about whether the original deception is negated when the card changes hands among unwitting parties.
I'm not advocating for the unsuspecting guy who bought an improbably sharp PSA 9 from Probstein to flog himself and surrender the card to local authorities. I
am advocating for full disclosure of known facts whenever possible, with varying degrees of moral culpability along the "blockchain."
Hypothetically speaking:
If Evan trims a card and sends it to PSA without disclosing what he did, then he's a cheat. It's clear-cut. "PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity."
If PSA knows Evan trimmed the card but gives it a 9 anyway, then PSA is complicit in the fraud. If PSA doesn't know the card is trimmed and gives it a 9, then PSA's actions may fall somewhere on the negligence spectrum, but there's no ill intent.
If Probstein knows Evan trimmed the card and sells it as a PSA 9 without disclosing the known alteration, then he's complicit in Evan's fraud. Probstein might be tempted to argue that PSA's failure to detect the trimming absolves him of blame, but he'd be wrong. Another party's negligence doesn't mitigate Probstein's own knowledge and intent to deceive for profit. On the other hand, if Probstein suspects Evan trimmed the card but takes a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach, it becomes a moral gray area for Probstein.
If I buy the card from Probstein without knowledge that Evan trimmed it, I'm a blameless victim in the scheme, even when I go to re-sell it as a PSA 9. Now, if Evan tells me he trimmed it and I turn a blind eye because it's his word against PSA's, we're venturing into that gray area where self-interest leads to lame rationalizations. It might not be fraud, but it certainly raises an ethical eyebrow.
Finally, let's say Evan tells me he trimmed it, shows me a video of him doing it, and even points to unique markers that leave no doubt that he chopped that particular card before sending it off to PSA. If I sell you the PSA 9 slab without disclosing what Evan showed me, then I'm a PSA-10, PWCC-S Top 5% Certified scumbag, and I deserve to be tarred, feathered, and strung up by my thumbs.
That might not be a popular viewpoint, but I'm a little more Kant and a little less Rand.