I'm okay with it as long as they must wear a shirt with a large scarlet

on the front at all times.

Impossible to set parameters on this.

However, I firmly believe most collectors would buy from the Devil himself if he was selling a card under comps.

+1 and I think it pertains to everything, not just cards.

Reminds me of this.

Can there be a disclaimer on their profile? In the world we live in, I have not been in the hobby very long (2 years), so I don’t know the history like a lot of guys on here do. I will say, in my life history, my wife is a Marine AND Army veteran (Bosnia) and was a contractor in the Middle East after both of those. She is a disabled veteran as well, and was a correction officer at one point. I also know from work, that certain types are not rehabilitable material. She knows that as well. They know the “tricks” to the trade. To me, I need to know who I am buying from on here. I know who to trust, and have learned a lot from a lot on here. Maybe someone who knows keeps up a registry, or the guys that Leon lets on, they must add themselves to a thread for all of us to view?

Hilarious cartoon, I think I have met several of those 2 buck people over my lifetime.

Just because someone has done prison time and "paid their dues" does not mean they are reformed, which to me are two different things. Some people need prisons to make them correct their ways, while others can do it without such an extreme measure.

I would simply state that if there are members here who are playing well with others and have done time for hobby crimes, or even other crimes, then let them stay. From what I am gathering Leon has tossed more people off the board who were not prior felons.

As is probably true for many chat forums, there is a long and colorful list of folks who have been banned, sometimes reinstated, sometimes not. Each one is its own story, but from memory not many here were directly for fraudulent activities. That may be the case for applicants turned down though, although we wouldn't have visibility into that.

I know Ben, but it most definitely speaks to who they are and how they feel and think about such things. I fully expected this poll to be a resounding NO in the end, which is exactly where it is headed. Quite honestly, I didn't even respond to the poll as none of the choices are what I consider completely the right answer. Leon does a great job of running the forum, so would be okay with leaving it to his discretion and decision.

Which also gets me wondering why Leon would even be bringing up such a potentially loaded question in a poll format to begin with. It certainly isn't a carefree question you would expect someone to innocently just have pop into one's head and immediately make them say to themself, "Hey, that's a great idea for a fun and interesting poll!" Instead, such a poll gives the impression of trying to determine the nature and thinking of the forum membership, possibly in advance of some decision or action made or performed that involves the basic issue being addressed/questioned in that poll. Which is exactly why I made reference to the other thread about CSG bashing. The people doing that bashing didn't automatically extend it to the forum, and Leon, when he picked up CSG as an advertiser, which demonstrates he has some goodwill/cache' with most everyone on this forum. (Or that they forgot about what they said before, or never even took the time to notice.) My mentioning it was just a way to remind Leon he has some leeway with his decisions when it comes to forum/member opinions. In other words, no one is likely to give him $hit for his decisions and opinions like they happily do for you or me. Now granted, accepting advertising from a PWCC partner versus having a known and convicted hobby criminal walking among us as a member are not exactly on the same level of distaste to most people. But in the end, I think it would/should be Leon's decision alone to make, if there even is any such decision to be made.

Leon runs a tight ship ,,12 yrs here never a problem,,

Bob C.

Your second paragraph makes it sound like that would be a bad thing. I would think taking the pulse of the room is a very good step to take if this were more than a mere hypothetical.

It also may have come up and Leon already decided, but then though, "wonder what the gang would think" or any one of a number of other scenarios.

Weird to jump to making it sound like something somehow nefarious is going on.

People that are arrested for issues that have to do with violation of ethics can pay their debt to society and be released back into society, but this doesn't mean that they are any more ethical than the day they started to pay their debt to society. Of course, some do grow in the process. It's just hard to know who has grown and who hasn't. There are also outside factors that may have compelled the person to do what they have done. In the end, I think assessments need to be made on a case-by-case basis. One idea might be to create a small review panel consisting of folks that are among the most trusted members on this site and whose opinions would be viewed as representative of all board members since they would be able to contribute different perspectives as needed.

Let's forget about all this hemming and hawing. The one thing that everybody can agree upon: none of us wish to get scammed. A person who has already been busted and served time for scamming collectors is far more prone to do so again than others. The answer is so damned simple: Keep them away from here. Thus far, by a vote of nearly 3 to 1, the consensus agrees. The end.

The university I attended (way back in the 1960's) had a very-long-standing, student-run honor system that I fully supported and felt was highly effective. There was single penalty for being convicted of lying, cheating or stealing - expulsion. A few times over the subsequent decades, students voted regarding whether or not to maintain the single penalty, and it was upheld, but by a smaller margin each time until recently, when sadly, it was defeated. Now there is a lesser penalty for a first honor offense. This should tell folks how I voted on this issue.

Agree that none of us want to be scammed, I was along time ago on a different site. However, saying the majority vote is 3 to 1 against is correct - EXCEPT there are 151,272 members or so. Therefore the majority vote of those replying are against would be a better statement. Nevertheless, my thoughts ramble back and forth and, in the end, I am of the mind that, no matter why he is asking, Leon has done a fabulous job on his site and I think, in the end, the decision is his and I would support it unequivocally.

Justin, with all due respect, this was not even fraud.

Let's use a recent example. It looks like Paul Slapnicker still isn't banned. Why? Does anyone think this fraudster might improve the place or provide anything of value?

Scott, I'm not saying it is a bad idea to take the pulse of the room at all. Just that Leon should lean more toward what he thinks is the right thing to do, and not necessarily worry about what some others think. The people that come to this forum aren't likely to find one like it elsewhere, and so would likely stay and just not say something to upset Leon, even if they didn't agree with him.

And what exactly was I implying was nefarious? The definition of nefarious typically applies to describing an action or activity as wicked or criminal. Thinking about letting someone convicted of a hobby related crime on here as a member is in and of itself wicked or criminal how? And if you're instead referring to the CSG issue and how I mentioned that no one gave Leon any grief I know of for letting them advertise on here, that was in reference to others who posted their extreme dislike for CSG and were literally accusing them of being engaged in nefarious activities because of their agreement to work with PWCC. I never said or implied CSG did anything nefarious, I merely pointed out that other members had. And I never said or implied that Net54 accepting CSG as an advertiser was in any way nefarious either. What I was saying/implying was that I was a bit surprised that none of the people accusing CSG of nefarious activity by agreeing to work with PWCC didn't then automatically extend that same accusation of nefarious activity to Net54 when Leon decided to let them advertise and be promoted on here. At least not publicly give Leon/Net54 grief about it. Which demonstrates, to me at least, that Leon will likely not be subjected to the same public ridicule and negativity from others that pretty much anyone else not Leon is going to get. So to the poll question, I trust that however it does ultimately turn out, that Leon will not let the poll results dissuade him from doing what he thinks is right if this poll is more than just a hypothetical one.

my 2 cents...
I bought a card from someone and was told that the only issue was the paper loss back of the card (implying that the front was solid). The card had noticeable creases when in my hand. This is not 'fraud' but I would never deal with this person ever again.

the bar here should be higher. we should strive for people who we can pay with F&F and not have any issues ever. if someone once deceived someone for money, I forgive them but not sure they need to be floating around here doing deals. Fraud requires intent to deceive - it is basically stealing.

❓ QUESTION ❓ In the card collecting, investing, grading, buying, selling world, how does someone get to be forgiven for whatever they have done? The overwhelming responses to OP question to this point say there is no forgiveness. Once found out, convicted or otherwise, you are not ever forgiven and carry the stigma for good.

Yes. If someone rips me off and cheats me, I do not forget it and then deal with them again.

As I said before, plenty of people who have been "found out" are in the upper echelons of the business, don't kind yourself. Including convicted criminals.

That’s impossible. There’s no way we’d all tolerate a bunch of fraudsters, scammers, criminals and dirtbags to run the auctions we trust. Surely you jest :D

You mean beyond hilarious comedic value?

Only if they have cards we want. And I do not exempt myself.

I get allowing them to post for a couple days to have fun with the comedy train, because that was hilarious. But fraudsters are allowed already as our last one appears to still be unbanned after the comedy was had.

Agreed, it was not. However, in zeal at the time it was portrayed as such. I guess I am looking at it in a personal view. I am thinking some situations we don’t know all the facts.

I have been here quite a long time and I trust the group to handle their self-preservation. Although, that may be a poor assumption as many folks have been scammed by what seemed somewhat obvious things of late (I am NOT victim blaming or insulting people, just stating a personal observation.) I liked the idea earlier of no BST access…as that is not a possibility per Leon, I am getting convinced by the crowd that perhaps it is best to have it be No.

Ha Ha! I figured that Leon was joking with this poll when I voted to let them in without having I read all the comments. The sort of implied premise that there is no one on the board that has previously committed a “crime against the card collecting community” is the joke. It’s sort of like believing that no one in the baseball HOF ever took PED’s. This hobby has always been the Wild West to me which is kind of the sport. Even the smelly catalog guy has made mistakes. I know a guy who has paid his dues, he is a good man, a good family man and better than most and would likely be fun to have on the board.

We are often judged by the company we keep.

I voted no. Net54 is a hobby treasure; it truly is a special place. Collectively, its membership has a greater amount of vintage sports card knowledge than the rest of the hobby put together. Generally speaking, the members are honest and respectful. Those who aren't...well, they tend to go away.

Net54 should hold itself to a higher standard than other hobby sites.

+1

Yes, I would. I have seen an interview with Bill during which he provides with great honesty all of the details involved in bringing that notorious PSA 8 T206 card of Honus Wagner to auction. I believe he has moved past those earlier temptations . . . and there are strong temptations for auction owners who can see every max bid and know just how much to shill it up to that max.

Please don't get me wrong; I'm not necessarily sympathetic toward convicted scammers and fraudsters. But I don't believe anyone is completely honest in this life either. Since I do believe in second chances, I will echo what a previous member said - go ahead and admit them, but if they screw up one time, ban them for life.

In God I trust in all others NCIC.

+1

I trust your judgement in this matter, Leon.
I go back to the Full Count days and have been fortunate to interact with/learn from many.

Ben

"I love baseball history backstory; especially when it involves cards."

He was only allowed on in the first place to defend himself. He tried and failed miserably. My mistake on not putting him back in the banned bucket. He is now.

Leon,

I don’t think it’s a black and white call and tend to think you’ve run things very well here and are a good judge of character. I know there is at least one former convict on here that has paid his dues, is a huge asset to the hobby now, and continually tried to make things better. He should certainly be on here.

Chris

I Say No
 

Right now 72 percent say NO. I'm with them. Thank you.

Agreeing with others that we should give people a second chance if they have paid their dues, however the B/S/T area is already under constant threat from dishonest people, so for "hobby criminals" who have been rehabilitated, yes for the forum, but no for the B/S/T. And if that isn't feasible, then I guess no overall.

I'm ok with second chances if we are privy to who these people are by some notation, then maybe, otherwise no. Also 1 strike and you're out...

I vote no. Paying their dues doesn't mean they're rehabilitated.

I remember a lecture at college many years ago when we were told that only 2% of the population truly change something about themselves. Whether it's how we eat, how we exercise, our relationships, etc... most people revert to their default behaviors. Only 2% of people make a meaningful change that remains permanently. Experience has shown that the 2% figure is pretty much accurate.

Criminal behaviour is a mark on someone's character. There are some who are truly remorseful and really change, but 98% won't.

this.

Just curious, how does one define "paid their debt to society"? Does this mean that a court of law has determined a perp has met what the court feels is sufficient restitution or incarceration?

What if someone happens to be a victim and they don't feel that the perp "paid their debt" because the victim didn't receive sufficient compensation (or any at all) or the victim just can't get over that feeling of being violated?

This place is supposed to be a haven for hobbyist that truly enjoy pictures of dead guys on card board. If someone violates the trust of hobbyist, should those perps be allowed to interact in this forum (again) and possibly be allowed to become a repeat offender? Isn't that like providing a path to temptation to an ex-offender that thinks they're rehabilitated but might get sucked right back into illicit dealings after a while?

I'm all for second chances but perhaps some guidelines/rules/limitations should be set up to mitigate a chance of a repeat offense. And as has been mentioned, if the ex-perp offends again, then that's it.

How about a new poll, would you rather allow a rehabilitated axe murderer that never cheated a fellow hobbyist to participate on this board or would you rather allow a known card doctor, shill bidder or someone that has committed unfair acts to other hobbyist to participate and interact with the general board population?

Is this a "hypothetical" question to allow ex-offenders on the board?

In any case Leon, it's your board so you'll do as you want but it's nice to know you'd try to get some feedback first.

I agree with the idea of allowing a second chance but the persons past hobby crimes and name/username must be noted.

what is a hobby criminal?

like being a criminal is your hobby?

or being so good at a hobby...it's criminal

:cool::cool::cool:

I thought the second card in this thread should be another D310 Pacific Coast Biscuit Buck Weaver. The next one shown will be the third strike, and then future D310 Pacific Coast Buck Weaver cards should rightfully be banned from this thread.

Brian

This was basically my reasoning when I voted no.

Brian

The poll question and the question Leon asks in his OP are different. Committing fraud isn't the same thing as being convicted of committing fraud.

I don't think it would be a stretch to say there's already people here who have committed fraud.

As for me, my vote is no for either phrasing.

“ Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril”, from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. It advocates for gaining an intimate understanding of your enemy so that you know how to defeat them.

A “ friend” who will stab you in the back is much more dangerous than an enemy.

Personally, I would leave it up to you Leon. You are the only person currently who can vette people individually to determine their intentions.
A perfect example is a person on the autograph side. I will not call him out, but he has been a huge asset, Imo, helping many many with opinions on certain auto, with level of expertise that is exceptional. I have never seen him offer anything for sale, but I have not seen any behavior that would make me think it would be an issue if he did.
I think the idea that banning people offers any sort of protection is utopian, Imo. We need to be adults and use our common sense to protect ourselves and each other. If it seems to good to be true, it, with rare exception, probably is. The problem in the hobby, and most collectible based hobbies to be fair, that allows for fraud to be so rampant is that "STUFF TRUMPS ALL. " Always has and always will. Maybe some would have the self control to not deal with a specific person, but if a seller has a super rare item, be it a card, auto, book, trophy, jersey, painting, train, and on and on, there will be people lined up who will be willing to buy it and keep them in business. It's how every hobby I am familiar with works.
Imo, if Leon vettes them and feels their presence here is a net positive then giving them a chance is worthwhile, like a One strike and your out rule. If he does not, then don't let them in. If Leon passes them, maybe a probation period where they are not allowed to post things to sell. It could be something attached to their ID that could identify this status. You already have the "Moderator" status, how about "Probation "


Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk