After paying their dues, should hobbyists who committed fraud be allowed back ?

[Leon]

I was chatting with some hobbyists last night at dinner., (go figure). The subject came up about letting hobbyists, convicted or fraud in the hobby, be on Net54baseball. I have mixed feelings on it but want to get the forum's ideas. These are people who have already paid their debt to society for what they did. I, for one, definitely believe in 2nd chances but crime within the hobby isn't black and white to me. There have been a few hobbyists denied in the past...
What say ye?

[icurnmedic]

Unfortunately I believe yes, they should be allowed, if they have "paid their debt" . However if someone is currently engaged in nefarious activity, of course the answer is no. This is a tough one and glad I don't have to make the choice.

Leon, great site and many thanks for your wise moderation.

Thomas

[skelly423]

Is there a way to admit them to the forum without BST privileges? If there is, I'm ok with it, but otherwise I'd rather not have them.

[iwantitiwinit]

Absolutely not. Similar to the way an individual in say the finance industry is barred from practicing again after conviction and completion of sentence and/or payment of a fine.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by skelly423

Is there a way to admit them to the forum without BST privileges? If there is, I'm ok with it, but otherwise I'd rather not have them.

For practical purposes lets say there is not a way to do this...
.

[Pat R]

No not if they committed fraud in the hobby, we've seen more than one person on here say that they were sorry for what they did after they got caught and turn around and do it again.

[oldjudge]

I'm good with a second chance, but only one. Screw up again and you become radioactive.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Pat R

No not if they committed fraud in the hobby, we've seen more than one person on here say that they were sorry for what they did after they got caught and turn around and do it again.

So, if they've paid their debt, there is no acceptance? What, then, is the purpose of paying one's debt?

I say yes, if they were caught, convicted and incarcerated or otherwise served out whatever punishment as a result of judge or jury.

If we engage in speculation that someone is guilty of this or that, based on our own circumstantial evidence, that is different, and the owner/moderator should make the final decision.

If they are incorrigible, repeat offenders, then the answer should clearly be no.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

As I get older I see more shades of gray than I used to. 10 years ago it would've been "absolutely not." Now I personally know one person I would make an exception for. Of course the more details of the story I've heard, the more I think (and he's never said this himself) that he got set up and screwed over.

Of course if part of their sentencing was that they are never allowed to go into business in the hobby again that might be a different story.

[notfast]

Nope. Why would anyone want to associate with someone who has defrauded the industry we are all involved in?

[EddieP]

The best way to be aware of fraud is to be taught by a fraudster. But I’d put them on a very, very, very, very, very short lease.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by jingram058

So, if they've paid their debt, there is no acceptance? What, then, is the purpose of paying one's debt?

To fulfill their obligation in the eyes of the law.

Some people will obviously still be wary of recidivism. That can't be blamed.

I remember a recorded jailhouse phone call with one fellow most of us are familiar with. Once his time was served, he stated that he would come back bigger and stronger than ever. While that may be doubtful, would anyone wish to give such a person that opportunity within the confines of this forum? I know how I feel about it.

[SAllen2556]

I don't think you have to worry. Anyone in this hobby who's actually dumb enough to have been convicted probably can't read anyway.

[brunswickreeves]

It depends on the scope of the incident by the bad actor, so suggest is taken up on a case by case basis. Maybe via a small governance or review committee. But generally say no, yet hold: 'Once is an outlier, twice is a trend.'

[Leon]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

I don't think you have to worry. Anyone in this hobby who's actually dumb enough to have been convicted probably can't read anyway.

You haven't been around the hobby very long then. I think smart, good people can make mistakes and atone for them. As far as them being on the forum, I want to see what others think. All comments and votes are welcomed.

and a card....of a black sox
Buck was never reintstated.....
.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Leon

For practical purposes lets say there is not a way to do this...
.

If it includes BST, please no. Free speech grounds I get, but the BST is a nice and safe place right now that doesn’t need a bunch of fraudsters thrown in to destroy it and rip a bunch of good people off.

[90feetaway]

I mean anyone not registered can still see posts on the site and be "involved" in that sense just not respond to posts or part B/S/T? I'm comfortable with that.

[Casey2296]

One of the things I enjoy most about this forum is the trust that is built between members here, I find the vast majority of folks here tend to have a strong moral character and integrity, characteristics that are built over time and can't be switched on and off like a lightbulb.

A large part of that is due to your vigilant moderation Leon, thank you for that.

There's a lot to be said for 2nd chances, we've probably all needed one at some point in our life, and I do believe as long as you're honest and remorseful there is a way to build back trust.
The answer is certainly not black and white but I trust your judgement. I just wouldn't want the hard earned trust we have with each other to be eroded.

I would ask this;

What if a current member here was a victim of the convicted fraudster? Would part of his inclusion be predicated on some form of restitution for that member?

[Smarti5051]

I feel like Net54 is supposed to be for true fans of the hobby. I don’t see how one that committed fraud in the hobby can be a true fan. How can you intentionally damage the hobby if you have any respect for it?

Also, i am not sure our justice system really meters out penalties that match the harm caused. As a society, obviously there are tradeoffs to what is prosecuted and to what extent in an effort to keep society safe. Unfortunately, these tradeoffs often mean that major breaches of trust in the hobby are given a slap on the wrist, at best. If you commit tax fraud, you may live a life of indentured servitude to make things right. If you counterfeit or trim $2 million in collectables, you might spend 30 days in jail and have to pay back a small fraction of what you stole. Let’s face it, for every $1000 in counterfeit cards that is discovered and provable by a prosecutor, there were likely 5-20x that amount actually sold by the fraudster.

It is bad enough that there are 100s of unidentified criminals to navigate in this hobby. Why let the known wolves back into the chicken coup? Like the old adage goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[hockeyhockey]

agree on BST privileges, think that should be earned versus just handed out.

but if you can't restrict that, is there a way to add a tag to these people, so we know who they are? not scarlet letter levels, but certainly good to know who you're buying from or selling to.

[x2drich2000]

Lots of gray areas with this one. If you are going to say no, where do you draw the line? Are we talking just convicted in a court of law (Mastro) or convicted by public opinion (PWCC)? What about those caught committing a crime at a young age and are generally now considered to be among the most trustworthy (Lifson)? How about those that have used the courts to avoid paying debts through bankruptcy (Goldin)?

[commishbob]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Absolutely not. Similar to the way an individual in say the finance industry is barred from practicing again after conviction and completion of sentance and/or payment of a fine.

My thoughts exactly. I have a friend I've known since college who was convicted of participation in some sort of loan kickback scheme. He served some (easy) time and then got his second chance but he's not allowed to work in the finance/banking industry.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jingram058

So, if they've paid their debt, there is no acceptance? What, then, is the purpose of paying one's debt?

I say yes, if they were caught, convicted and incarcerated or otherwise served out whatever punishment as a result of judge or jury.

If we engage in speculation that someone is guilty of this or that, based on our own circumstantial evidence, that is different, and the owner/moderator should make the final decision.

If they are incorrigible, repeat offenders, then the answer should clearly be no.

Well Leon asked about someone that was convicted of fraud in the hobby and there are different types of second chances if you had an employee steal money from you would you give them a second chance to work for you or if someone screwed you in a card sale would you buy from them or sell to them again?

[jingram058]

This comes up all the time, not just net54. All the holiers than thou have opinions on this. What constitutes paying one's debt that squares things in their eyes? Can it even be done? Should a convicted felon who has by all accounts paid his debt to society be allowed to vote?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Well Leon asked about someone that was convicted of fraud in the hobby and there are different types of second chances if you had an employee steal money from you would you give them a second chance to work for you or if someone screwed you in a card sale would you buy from them or sell to them again?

When you look at all the stuff Blowout has brought to light, and how little has been done in terms of actual arrests, it seems to me it would have to be a very big, very obvious and deliberate offense, to actually be charged and then convicted.

So, we're not talking about a guy who just trimmed a card or two, or swatted a few baseballs to add "game use" to a GU bat. We're talking about very egregious behavior - reported, investigated, arrested, tried, convicted.

[bnorth]

My vote is to let them or anybody else that wants to join, join. If they do something wrong then ban them or maybe not depending on who they are.

I did notice easily 100s of new members this morning that might need to be banned. It was like new accounts popping up every few seconds.

[Tomi]

Might as well be a case by case basis. Some crimes are huge and some are minor. Some are forgivable and some not.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When you look at all the stuff Blowout has brought to light, and how little has been done in terms of actual arrests, it seems to me it would have to be a very big, very obvious and deliberate offense, to actually be charged and then convicted.

So, we're not talking about a guy who just trimmed a card or two, or swatted a few baseballs to add "game use" to a GU bat. We're talking about very egregious behavior - reported, investigated, arrested, tried, convicted.

My answer is still no in regards to these people too if there is strong enough evidence. I only pointed out the convicted part in my reply to James because that's what Leon stated.

[ejharrington]

No. I doubt any of them paid all the restitution for all of their crimes. Probably just the one where they got caught.

[Leon]

There are a hundred or more fake registrations trying to get in, per day. They get snagged and eventually deleted. Of course a few scammers have gotten in but we have beaten that horse.

Originally Posted by bnorth

My vote is to let them or anybody else that wants to join, join. If they do something wrong then ban them or maybe not depending on who they are.

I did notice easily 100s of new members this morning that might need to be banned. It was like new accounts popping up every few seconds.

[raulus]

Hi Leon:

Thanks for raising this question, as I think it's worthy of some introspection and calm deliberation as we evaluate the best approach to take here. And while I am still a bit of a n00b around these parts, hopefully my opinion counts as something north of nothing, although others can debate just how big the spread should be there.

When I was a younger man, I would have encouraged you to go full old testament on them. Full lifetime ban, and erase them from existence. Now that I'm a little bit more of a seasoned chap, I'm inclined to be a bit less old testament, as I've learned that I need grace as much as the next fellow, and I'm grateful that death is no longer the punishment for even the most minor infractions.

At the same time, I am a big believer that all things should be done in wisdom and in order. Doing nothing seems like it could be a recipe for disaster, as acts of recidivism have the potential to harm those around us again, particularly if they are not familiar with the past indiscretions, high crimes, and misdemeanors against the hobby.

As an accountant, I’ve always found that a bit of disclosure is a helpful approach, as it is often short of more draconian censures, and yet still a lot more than nothing. I wonder if there might be some ability to disclose to the reader that the poster in question has been guilty in the past of misconduct in the industry. At the risk of going full Nathanial Hawthorne, maybe a big “F” for fraudster somewhere in their handle and/or in the footers to their posts? While still incredibly embarrassing and ignominious, this would at least allow the perpetrator an opportunity to move amongst us and participate in discussions, while still allowing the unsuspecting and trusting of us to be on notice about who we are dealing with.

Just an idea! And perhaps something that the technology might render difficult to address. But perhaps an option that walks the line between all or nothing.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

This comes up all the time, not just net54. All the holiers than thou have opinions on this. What constitutes paying one's debt that squares things in their eyes? Can it even be done? Should a convicted felon who has by all accounts paid his debt to society be allowed to vote?

It’s not a court of law. We can choose to associate or not with people who scam us. It seems clear to me. I don’t deal with scammers and fraudsters, convicted or unconvicted(the vast majority). It seems a common sense policy to avoid headaches and getting robbed.

I get a free speech argument that even the most detestable should be allowed to speak. I don’t disagree with it, if there was a rule that speech of any kind is allowed and anyone may speak. Letting more scammers into the BST seems to be an unnecessary disaster to create though.

[Yoda]

Would you buy a card listed on B/S/T section of our beloved Net 54 from Bill Mastro? Bill has paid his legal dues but many hobbyists have long memories.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Would you buy a card listed on B/S/T section of our beloved Net 54 from Bill Mastro? Bill has paid his legal dues but many hobbyists have long memories.

If priced correctly there would be a line around the block to buy from Mr Mastro or any other seller.

One of my favorite conversations I have had many times over the years goes something like this.

Do you know who this eBay seller is?

Me: yes that is ----.

OH, I didn't know that was his account. He has a card I want.

Me: Is it one of the obviously altered cards he has listed?

No, I think I will buy it and hope I don't see any problems with the card when I get it.

Me: Good luck you know he throws a hissy fit when someone tries to return one of his altered cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

If priced correctly there would be a line around the block to buy from Mr Mastro or any other seller.

One of my favorite conversations I have had many times over the years goes something like this.

Do you know who this eBay seller is?

Me: yes that is ----.

OH, I didn't know that was his account. He has a card I want.

Me: Is it one of the obviously altered cards he has listed?

No, I think I will buy it and hope I don't see any problems with the card when I get it.

Me: Good luck you know he throws a hissy fit when someone tries to return one of his altered cards.

Stuff
trumps
all

In a hobby where elite card doctors and their enablers are in positions of power and influence, and we see endless threads praising them, the purported concern about associating with fraudsters seems a bit inconsistent.

[butchie_t]

Leon,

It all comes down to you in the end. I am new here and do not know a lot of the background of who has cheated the collector and their membership here.

My personal opinion is no. Once a cheater always a cheater. Pretty harsh, I am sure but you did ask.

Regards,

Butch

[BearBailey]

No

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Would you buy a card listed on B/S/T section of our beloved Net 54 from Bill Mastro? Bill has paid his legal dues but many hobbyists have long memories.

Absolutely, and I wish Bill and his family nothing but the best!

[Bobsbats]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I'm good with a second chance, but only one. Screw up again and you become radioactive.

I agree 100% with Jay

[JustinD]

This is a difficult coin flip.

On one hand if people choose to use that knowledge for good and expose other fraudsters and contribute to the good of the hobby in the future, it can help our knowledge base.

Also, a second chance has helped many move on to great heights and I would appreciate it myself if I found myself in an issue due to an extreme circumstance.

The other would be those back on to do more trouble, take advantage of knowledge to advance dark skills, or have access to remove prior posts about their crimes.

I guess in the end, I agree with a second chance…not a third.

[Jim65]

To me, it depends on the person. If they are truly remorseful, then yes. If they refuse to take responsibility, blame others, etc, then no.

Everyone makes mistakes.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Stuff
trumps
all
.

Only
If
You
Let
It

[refz]

No. I would like to say yes as everyone deserves a second chance, but what purpose would they serve? Limited to chat but no b/s/t makes no sense and to help broaden our defenses on scams/cons/counterfeits etc I think we are well covered with all of our experience. I say let it be

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Jim65

To me, it depends on the person. If they are truly remorseful, then yes. If they refuse to take responsibility, blame others, etc, then no.

Everyone makes mistakes.

I like this…”remorseful”

Story time…

10+ years ago I was selling on eBay to fund my life during my first cancer surgery. I must have had at least 50-100 listings up at the time. One unknowingly to me as I really did not know, was a forged Mantle signature. The only autoed item in 100 listings. Obviously, I was not an autograph seller.

That listing was posted on the board and I was called out as a scammer, forger and just about everything possible by numerous well known members. I don’t take it personally because I knew jack shit about autos at the time (I’ve gained a little over the past 13 years but still have only a starting base).

What didn’t happen was one person sending me a message on eBay to inform me, I saw the post almost a decade later searching my ID. The true backstory is that I sold it, the seller found it fake and I refunded the entire amount with an apology. Well before eBay required refunds. Lesson learned, happy buyer and I was remorseful for selling a bad item.

However, if you google search my 5000+ Feedback and 100% positive eBay ID, I sell forgeries. So, yes…I like second chances. ( I know many of those we talk about were convicted of actual crimes, but not all.)

[BobC]

This is likely to get a lot of divided, and possibly interesting (ie: extreme), answers. There was a thread back right after it came out about how CSG had agreed to partner with PWCC in providing PWCC customers with preferred/preferential grading services. And even though as has already been mentioned in this thread, PWCC has not ever been formally convicted or found guilty of any actual hobby theft or fraud, let alone ever even actually being formally charged with any crime, yet there were people posting in that earlier thread that were more or less accusing, judging, and sentencing CSG as being just as guilty as they felt PWCC was. And as a result, stated they would not do business with CSG, and more or less seemed to be urging others to do the same and avoid using them as well. All to basically punish CSG for daring to do business with PWCC.

I'm surprised you haven't gotten an even more resounding and emphatic NO vote in the poll based on that type of logic and thinking among members on here. Also found it somewhat amusing that those same people who were so quick to condemn CSG through nothing more than guilt by association haven't dared (apparently) to utter a single word about how CSG is now a prominent advertiser here on Net54. They were so against CSG and refusing to use them as a result, I'm a bit surprised they haven't likewise quit being on Net54 since it is now advertising for them. Guilt by association, right? Funny how some people can turn their dislike and prejudice off or on, when they like and in whichever way best suites them at the time.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

This is likely to get a lot of divided, and possibly interesting (ie: extreme), answers. There was a thread back right after it came out about how CSG had agreed to partner with PWCC in providing PWCC customers with preferred/preferential grading services. And even though as has already been mentioned in this thread, PWCC has not ever been formally convicted or found guilty of any actual hobby theft or fraud, let alone ever even actually being formally charged with any crime, yet there were people posting in that earlier thread that were more or less accusing, judging, and sentencing CSG as being just as guilty as they felt PWCC was. And as a result, stated they would not do business with CSG, and more or less seemed to be urging others to do the same and avoid using them as well. All to basically punish CSG for daring to do business with PWCC.

I'm surprised you haven't gotten an even more resounding and emphatic NO vote in the poll based on that type of logic and thinking among members on here. Also found it somewhat amusing that those same people who were so quick to condemn CSG through nothing more than guilt by association haven't dared (apparently) to utter a single word about how CSG is now a prominent advertiser here on Net54. They were so against CSG and refusing to use them as a result, I'm a bit surprised they haven't likewise quit being on Net54 since it is now advertising for them. Funny how people can turn their dislike and prejudice off or on, when they like and in whichever way best suites them at the time.

To the part I made bold. LOL, you have to take those type of claims with a grain of salt. Most are completely full it BS and still deal with Brent and all the others they call out as scammers anytime they can get a good deal.

[Tyruscobb]

I'm in the No camp. Everyone deserves a second chance in society. However, this is not general society. It's a private community.

No “I trust everyone. I just don’t trust the devil inside them.”
Quote by Troy Kennedy Martin

[BuzzD]

No. There are plenty of other venues for those folks to participate in the hobby. Doesn't have to be here

[Exhibitman]

Hobby-related cheats, frauds, etc., resounding NO!!! Like betting on baseball and being DQ'd for life. I give zero cred to the opinions or perspectives of shillers, card doctors, internet fraudsters, etc. As my grandmother would have said "f*** them and the horses they rode in on." Salty broad, the old lady.

A little perspective also, guys. We aren't talking life or liberty here, we are talking about participating on a sports collectibles chat board. It is a voluntary association of hobbyists. There are plenty of other chats where no one will bother to screen out the Doug Allens of the world. We can do better. Not having engaged in blatant fraud against your fellow hobbyists is not a high bar to meet.