PSA / JSA liability

[btcarfagno]

But what about when an alphabet soup third party authenticates something (auction LOA style) and then later refuses to authenticate the same item? So not a different opinion from a different TPA. Same TPA. Same item. Originally authenticated. Then refused.

Tom C

[drcy]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

But what about when an alphabet soup third party authenticates something (auction LOA style) and then later refuses to authenticate the same item? So not a different opinion from a different TPA. Same TPA. Same item. Originally authenticated. Then refused.

Tom C

At the least, it is proof of the margin of error in their system, and why the hobby anointed arbiters shouldn't be treated as infallible.

I see some institutionalized design problems with the hobby, in particular where fallibility is treated as infallible. As I've said, there is nothing errant with there being a margin of error and there is a margin of error in everything-- but the margin of error has to be part of the design.

You can likely guess what I think of card registry "scores" that are simply calculations to the 0.00 of the numbers on the labels. Beyond the bad science, I would argue that the math itself is bad.

I remember when my grandmother complained that the weatherman being wrong, because he had said that there was a "30% chance for rain" and it was sunny all day. I fruitlessly tried to explain to her that his prediction was accurate.

[Klrdds]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

But what about when an alphabet soup third party authenticates something (auction LOA style) and then later refuses to authenticate the same item? So not a different opinion from a different TPA. Same TPA. Same item. Originally authenticated. Then refused.

Tom C

Exactly. then it becomes TPA LOA ping pong between the AH and the TPA and the so called statute of limitations as they call it at the AH , even though Statute of Limitations applies to criminal activity , which in some ways this is. And the amount of liability from the TPA for the price paid for the item versus what they consider their financial liability for their "error".

[mighty bombjack]

Don't forget that there are very few cases where a TPA can be proven incorrect without the use of another party's opinion (e.g., situations where the signed card was printed years after the player's passing). Those do exist, sadly, but the vast majority of "errors" that I've seen are along the lines of "this other expert disagrees" (Nash's site is notorious for this in its worst, anonymous form: "Experts we spoke with thought..."). Whether or not you and I agree with that expert's judgements, these things are very difficult to prove in a court of law because it comes down to one expert's opinion over another.

Example: In the court of Net54, a TPA-slabbed item that Ron K. says is bad is going to be deemed BAD. Many members will take that as truth, many others will research (or already have researched) the auto and form their own opinion. But a jury in a court will hear the opinion of Ron K. vs. that of TPA Jabroni X and not know what to think or who to believe. They'll conclude what many here are rightfully saying: this is opinion, not demonstrable fact.

To put it another way: Whether or not the person whose name is written on an item was actually written by that person is VERY difficult to prove. We have opinions and opinions of the people giving opinions.