Should we maintain a list of suspicious buyers and sellers?
 

I stumbled across a blog last night called "For the Love of Cards", and under the links section, one of the destinations was listed as "t206museum.com is a fraud". I found this surprising, as the few times I had visited the site, it appeared on the surface to be quite helpful. Naturally my curiosity was piqued, so I Googled the site name to see what discussions might have occurred on our forum. Without going into great detail, as longtime members of Net54 already know this, the owner of the site was exposed trying to sell previously undiscovered variations of T206 Old Mill backs that he himself completely fabricated. The sordid details can be found in a discussion I bumped last night, if anybody is interested.

I am not creating this discussion and poll to rehash the past, however. This is merely an example of a site that has been associated with criminal behavior. What I am proposing here is that we as a group become more proactive in documenting the names, user ids and websites of those unscrupulous persons who infect our hobby. I believe that knowledge is power, and collectively, we already make a difference by exposing unethical people within the hobby. A list simply makes these names more easily accessible.

One area I would like to address is Ebay, as I have seen several discussions lamenting the insufficiency of their feedback system. Since it is impossible to leave negative feedback on a buyer, honest sellers are precariously placed in harm's way. Unless a seller delves deeply into the comments left for previous transactions, they cannot know if the person they are shipping to is trustworthy. A searchable list of problematic buyers, with a link to any discussion providing supporting documentation, would represent a big step forward. The user ids of buyers with excessive retractions, and a history of shill bidding, should be included as well. As for sellers, negative feedback, though indicative of a possible problem, is simply not always accurate. A buyer can leave negative feedback without even contacting a seller, whether it is warranted or not. It would be wise for us to keep a list of sellers that do not meet the level of honesty the hobby deserves.

In the "Joseph M. Pankiewicz" discussion, Pete Ullman made a comment that has stuck with me for much of the last week:

http://net54baseball.com/showthread....174608&page=30

The responses to his post were positive, yet I have not seen this idea acted upon yet. So I am going to build upon his idea, expanding it to Ebay users, auction houses, and suspicious websites. This would serve as a caveat emptor of sorts. The ultimate decision of who would appear on the list would be made by Leon or one of the other forum admins/moderators.

So, I ask you, my fellow friends and hobby enthusiasts, if you feel this list would be beneficial?

hmmm
 

I would expect more drama than information as the anger and libel flow along.

I could see that being a problem, Mark, but the list would basically be comprised of names that have already appeared in discussions. Just a quick reference of sorts.

Yes, but...
 

I think that's an excellent idea although who would have the final say as to which people make the list? Many people come on here to bitch about stuff and we only find out later the original poster is the problem. It would be rather difficult to police such things as there are always 2 sides to a story (and sometimes more it seems).
Rather interested to see the outcome of the poll.
Always enjoy your posts 'stache. Well thought out and well written.
Best,
Tony

Exactly.

I could see there being a baseball card version Yelp which reviews the different dealers and auction houses/other businesses. But for anyone who is not a business, it is treading on thin ice. People don't like to have their names out on the internet and it would be possible to make false allegations against anyone. Plus, if it were a list, who would have the authority to maintain such a list and decide who's on it? That would be a pretty powerful person... too much power, if you ask me.

So I think it's a bad idea... but a review website for the dealers/auction houses might be a good one for anyone who wants to take it up. Just leave collectors out of it... I think it has to be a registered business.

List
 

+ 3

Great discussion and very well thought out opening post. The other mods and I always want to listen to new ideas to help the board and the hobby, where the board is concerned. That being said.....
I can't imagine me ever being convinced this would be a good thing for this site due to the liability issues, the management of the sections and the drama. Those are my initial concerns.

Leon,
Good post I to think some kind of list would help out as so many new members come on daily. But as we know where the fish swim the sharks are soon to follow. I think for now you sum it up well with what is written at the top of the B/S/T :eek: CAVEAT EMPTOR:eek:

The drama seems to be garnering the most attention as of late. And you're right that libel will follow suit. The simple solution , to me, is if you do not like how someone does business don't deal with them. That does not mean others have had the same experience.

This type of forum could work with some rules such as:

1: Check with a STAFF member before posting any new threads about who might be a suspicious buyer/seller.

2: Make sure you can provide some type of PROOF.

3: If you don't follow rule #1, your account will be suspended for 30 days.

In theory I think a list would be a great idea. In practice, maybe not so much. From what I've seen, Leon bans anyone problematic from the BST part of the forum, which prevents any need for a list there. And, on eBay, you can change your account name or open new accounts. So, identifying someone by name or email handle would not be a permanent means of alerting people to the problem.

Lou, I understand your thoughts, as well as those expressed by Leon and other members. And I respect your position. But I don't think it would create any additional liability, or rancor. Remember, the list would be comprised of people that are already being discussed on the forum. If a forum member starts a topic on an Ebay buyer named John Q. Public because they backed out of a buy it now commitment, the specifics of what happened should be presented within the thread. Say Mr. Public bought a 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth, and the next day our forum member a message that he has changed his mind, and doesn't want the card. The forum member would document this here, and open an unpaid item case. A message would then be sent to Leon, or another forum admin or moderator with the link to the discussion. If approved for inclusion on the list, Mr. Public's name and Ebay user ID would be added to the list. Since everything has been presented factually, there can be no libel accusation. No further comment would be made as the the Ebay buyer on the list. Just the facts. They would simply be listed for reference as a non payer on one auction. With their name and user id now in the searchable database, anybody on Net54 could check and see this user has at least this one time been problematic. If they choose to block the buyer, all future problems with said buyer have been averted.

Of course it is not a perfect solution, but the list would serve as a preemptive strike of sorts.

Old cardboard
 

I think it makes more sense to point out some dealers that someone new to the hobby can be comfortable buying from, like the list on http://www.oldcardboard.com/ref/ebay...ay-sellers.asp

Even a positive list like that could make some folks upset that they are not on it.

After a while, collectors can make up their own minds about what to buy and where.

That is a different, and viable approach. But you're right, RC, invariably, somebody is going to be left off, and feel slighted.

I don't know, guys and gals. I'm looking for something that we can do to make the hobby a little safer for everybody here. Maybe this isn't the best answer. Or, perhaps some variation of this idea will work if we focus on the positive instead of the negative. There's certainly no legal ramifications if a seller is left off a positive list.

I am reminded of Doug Goodman's response to my point about the apathy of the major players in the hobby (the tpgs, card manufacturers, Ebay, auction houses, etc)

There's just got to be more that we can do. And I believe we can affect changes. Ultimately we are the ones that wield the power. It is our discretionary income that makes it possible for these large players to rest on their laurels.

Due diligence is the answer. Read a seller's feedback. Put a good eye on the scan. Ask questions here on the board. PM people you trust and respect for their opinions. Read the threads where people express their public opinions. This hobby is best enjoyed with a modicum of caution but everyone's experiences differ. Tolerances for card condition and acceptable shipping times vary. To list sellers, good or bad, is a short cut with glaring consequences. Who to include or omit would be a fulltime headache that the moderators here do not need. We are all adults. Transactions, positive and negative are bits of data to be learned from, first-hand. There is no instant, painless alternative to years or, hell, decades of time in this hobby. Newbies need to, "Step lightly but keep a steppin'. ".

I shall now step down from the soap box. :D

Silence is the scammer's best friend; knowledge is the scammer's worst enemy.

I said yes to the list, but you do want to be really careful that you've got your facts straight before you post somebody's name.

I also said yes...with caution of course.

When I'm on call(I work for a group dental practice encompassing 25 someodd dental practices)...we keep a potential "drug seekers" list so we can be prepared for callers seeking narcotic Rx drugs. This has proven very effective in the past.

While I agree with this, a lot of times these "scammer" buyers and sellers strike quickly. I'm dealing with several "scammer" buyers right now and would like to share that information with other sellers, but there's really no place for me to do that...

No place to do it? How about starting a thread? Warn all you want to.

Pete,

But that is "your" drug seekers list used for "your" purposes. You don't post that list for public consumption and condemnation. In the hobby, we all have lists of sellers and/or buyers that we will or won't deal with based on past experiences, some of which the whole hobby might need to know about. How do you decide who's to be "scarlet lettered"? How do you repair the reputation of a person included erroneously? How do you answer a person who says, " I sent him the money because he WASN'T on the Net 54 SH*T LIST and got burned."?

good point, Mike!

Leon (and others),

I see what the OP is proposing as a viable option. I don't think he is talking about a place for discussion of scammers, etc, but a place to list those already discussed. What I see as viable is a list of possible people to deal with caution, with a slight summary and a reference back to the vetting thread.

Using the Panky thread as an example. This were was a long discussion on this, but the "list" would contain a reference back to the original thread with (possibly) a brief summary. With the thread reference in place, should Panky change his ebay ID (for example), that can be detailed in the original thread and would be easy to locate and update, if the reference was handy in the list. I don't see the list containing any real discussion at all.

Not sure if this is exactly what the OP was intending, but I could see this working without an increased risk of liability. We could even provide the ability for the entity to respond, either in their own thread (which would be added as a referenced thread on the list), or their response could be inline with the original referenced thread.

Oh, ok...I didn't realize there was a section on this board where I could do that. I've looked around before but couldn't find it. I'll look again. Thanks...

It is this front page. Don't look too far. See BBG thread if you are unaware of where?

The list would be a nice reference, but Id rather have a list of good sellers as previously mentioned...if someone gets left out then no biggie b/c eventually they'll make the list. It would serve as nice reminder of the good people in the hobby.

Leon monitors the hell outta the BST, he also provides reference checks extremely quickly and promotes further checks. If those weren't all in place then the list idea would be better, but I just don't think we need it here. I just bought a card from a member and feel comfortable enough to ask him to hold it for 3 week while we are on vacation...crap happens, but reference checks on Leons BST seems to eliminate that.

Outstanding! Thank you!

Uh...seriously? I have been an eBay seller for about 14 years now. People back out of transactions, never pay and send rude and even threatening messages. A couple of times people have claimed to have never received cards when I knew for a fact they had. Ask anyone who runs even a small operation - it's all part of the cost of doing business. You open your unpaid item case, block bidder, recoup your fees, relist and move on.

Is it frustrating and annoying? Absolutely. Is it worth making a federal case out of it and creating a public thread to malign someone over $50? No. The truth is you don't know what the other person's situation is or what is going on in their life. I think the Adrian threads were a pretty good example of this, even though some of his dealings were definitely questionable.

Plus I am sure Leon and other mods have better things to do than babysit hundreds of he-said/she-said discussions all day long over minor spoiled ebay transactions.

Now if it's a big scam, at an institutional level (i.e. auction house/grading companies) or affecting hundreds of buyers, by all means out the scam. That's where this board really rocks.

I agree with Rob 100%

\

Me too.

I think we need fewer witch-hunts and more focus on collecting. I know it is kind of a slow period of time where not many cards are up for auction, plus the playoffs haven't started yet. So there isn't much focus on cards or on baseball right now, it seems. Most of the popular threads have been on potential scammers and people who have already been thrown off the message board for bad behavior. Some of the recent accusations don't have much substance to them and seem to be a considerable amount of conjecture. But even if proven true, eventually, it gets tiresome. There's no reason to be involved in a hobby if your main focus is simply the greed and dishonesty displayed by some. But 95% of the folks out there are straight dealers. They deserve as much of our attention, if not moreso. Not to say that the big scams like Mastro don't deserve attention, or if people are getting ripped off really badly. But otherwise, let's try to stay positive and not obsess about it. Just my perspective.

I voted "yes" in the poll but only because I wouldn't be the one having to deal with any issues that arise out of it. Of which, there would probably be plenty.

As I'm sure others do, I have a "saved sellers" list on ebay and add any names that come up from discussions here. It's up to 19 questionable sellers right now.

Stuff trumps all. The tiny percentage of people who will take a stand and not buy from people whose fraud has been outed won't make a difference, in my humble opinion. The problem can only be solved -- if at all -- by law enforcement. If the most sophisticated financial crimes can be successfully prosecuted one would think a bunch of clowns trimming and sanding baseball cards wouldn't be that hard. Here's hoping that is true anyhow.

These "witch-hunts" have been warranted and justified. They're not being done out of boredom from what I have seen. I believe the cheaters...liars...crooks...and thieves need to be kept on the run...whether anything gets done to solve the problem or not...they just can't keep getting away with this!

Yeah but we can't just forever be police officers... we need to enjoy the hobby as well, or what is the point? The last few threads I have seen... we had the thread on Adrian, who has already been banned from the boards. The thread on Joseph P. may have been warranted, but other than buying cards and cracking them out and having them regraded, what else was there... I didn't see any evidence of doctoring and all that they really had on him were some low bids on his own card. That's not a good thing, really, but other than that, there was the thread on Bubble Bath Girl that seemed unwarranted as everyone rushed to his defense. Just saying that lately we've had a lot of threads with people reaming each other out with little evidence of wrongdoing. Not saying that it is bad to expose liars and cheaters, just making the point that it can get tiresome and they will always be there. You can think you've gotten everybody but then the next ebay scam will just appear with some re-sealed wax pack or something. Yawn.

I come on here to see cards and learn about the hobby and baseball but somehow lack the discipline to avoid these threads. "Caveat Emptor" is all that is needed for me. I think the forum gets bogged down by posts not directly related to the cards. Sometimes they are warranted but many times they are unnecessary and why I have stepped away some and even left the hobby in the past. I would have to say " no" to the witch hunt.

Serisously? Did you miss the whole part of him shilling many, many of his own auctions?

This is a joke, right? The cards that were shown in that thread were perfect examples of cards which had been doctored. Are we looking at the same pictures?

Those are just minor details :D

Similar to "collect what you enjoy". Read what you want. It's obvious from most thread titles what the thread will be about. To grouse about reading too many of these types of threads leads to the obvious question.

I also find it curious that some of same people that seem to imply there is nothing that can be done (since the scammers will always be there or find another way to scam) are the same ones who say we should do nothing. I guess it make's an easy justification for doing just that.

I am on the fence on this topic, and the voting is somewhat close too. There have been several postings on the issue that was worthy to reveal, such as the legendary Pank. And others that were a joke such as the link below. The OP almost had a mental breakdown calling the dealer every name in the book over a 3.00 card that had a 14 day return policy???

http://tinyurl.com/kqhh3u7

Absolutely.
I don't need a seperate list of suspect buyers and sellers; I can figure out who I don't want to do business with just by reading this thread...

Honestly, I didn't look at it too closely, just skimmed it a bit. So if I mischaracterized it then I apologize. I only said it might have been warranted as opposed to fully warranted because I don't want to indict the guy myself. Don't want to get involved. But it is not your thread I am objecting to, just a larger tone of the mb since then where some threads have involved hashing up old garbage or other mudslinging.

Creating a " Black List " is not the answer. I'll go back to my original post and say do business with who you are comfortable with, and don't deal with those whose business practice you do not like. This is very simple and not complicated. ( read ebay feedback for example )There is enough information for all of us to form our own opinions w/o the use of a list, be it comprised of " good " sellers and buyers or " bad " sellers and buyers. These lists always turn into question marks as there will be ones who wrongly end up on said list. Scammers will always scam and we know this. If we do our research we, and others, can buy and sell with confidence.

A feedback system on the BST would be nice.
JimB

I don't dislike the idea,
 

but I voted No because if we asked for this to be implemented, we'd be asking the mods to wade through all of the drama posts, and make a ruling about a person, while sticking their neck out legally. Not something I think we should ask them to do.

Best idea so far.

Suspicious to who?

If it just took flipping a few buttons it would be done. I would like to have that kind of system too but I think it will require an upgrade of s/w.....to a newer version..Which is something I haven't wanted to tackle. I have yet to ever have anyone email me for a reference and at the end of the whole thing they didn't do a deal because of not being able to vette out the seller. Again, I would like a feedback system too. Maybe one will be in the future...

Seymour...I hope your investigative work :Dwill be more thorough on your novel!!!!

Suspicious to whom?

Sorry... just sayin'.

What if the author had included an introduction? All he wrote was that a guy was a disgrace to the hobby and included three links. That's four threads to read because you've got the original thread plus the three other threads... well, sorry if I wasn't interested. Maybe I was busy writing the next great American novel! (Or some other P.O.S. that couldn't come close)

Pete, I think you've got a Dick Francis novel in you somewhere...

Ha ha Jamie...It's definitely in there...just needs to be extracted and written down!!!!

Check your anal sphincter for the extraction... it's got to be down there somewhere.:eek:

only thing that came out of my but was lyle overbay to take the lead?!

Taylor, perfectly summarized.

The list would be just that. A collection of names, with no discussion whatsoever. It would be a quick reference for Net54 members to refer to before doing business with a person for the first time.

An example of what the list could look like:

"Exercise caution when doing business with the following Ebay buyers:

Public, John Q: purchased two cards buy it now, and reneged on the purchases. Net54 member ______ had to enter two unpaid item cases with Ebay. Link to the discussion on Net54: "______".

Public, Michael Q: won an auction for a Ty Cobb T206 red back being sold by Net54 member ______. Dispute resolution was started after non-payment despite several attempts to contact the buyer by e-mail. Unpaid case item created.

-----

There would not be anything that could expose the forum to legal troubles, as the only thing the list would contain would be indisputable facts of the issue(s) at hand: the user ID and name of the buyer/seller, the name of the website or auction house, a brief summary, and a link to whatever discussion (if any) has already taken place on Net 54. And before anybody's name would appear on the list, proof would need to be provided documenting the facts: a copy of an unpaid item case, for example.

I would never suggest or do anything that would put Leon or Net54 in harm's way whatsoever.

You are absolutely right, Jamie. But how can you enjoy the hobby as a seller on Ebay if you are spending a substantial portion of your evening reading the feedback left for people bidding on your items? It seems to me that this list would make you less of a police officer, as it would help to eliminate many of the people that could cause you problems.



“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”--Edmind Burke

I appreciate your thoughts and we can keep debating this but..... It's not going to happen because of -

1. liability (regardless of what anyone thinks, I already get enough threats)
2. management of the section
3. added drama

I don't think there is anyway to overcome those obstacles. **And as everyone knows, I don't think change is good unless it's an overwhelming majority that wants it. Not only is it not that, it's not even a majority in this case.

The mods wouldn't have to wade through any posts.

If I buy a card on Ebay, and the seller tells me that "he lost the card", and then I see him sell it for more money the next day, I would start a thread here. But then I would begin the appeal process on Ebay. Then I would contact a mod or admin with the facts of the dispute. They wouldn't have to wade through the discussion at all, as what I'd present to them would be pretty cut and dry. They would make their decision having never taken a look at what the members here were saying.

Well, I think that ebay affairs are really for ebay to manage. They have their system and way of doing things. You may or may not agree with their methods, but their profits are greater than anybody's. They've chosen to create a system where, apparently, it is almost impossible for a seller to leave negative feedback for a buyer. That was their choice. But it's hard to create a sort of vigilante blacklist on the side because there would be no way to get off it. I think you have to go with the ebay system and address whatever complaints to them. That doesn't mean it isn't flawed, or that you or I might not do things differently, but ultimately I believe that when you sign up for ebay there must be some sort of contract that you agree to follow their rules. Otherwise you can sell somewhere else...

Ebay does have it's way of doing things, and it sucks. And yes, their profits are incredible. But I'm not interested in their profit margin. I'm interested in my safety, and the safety of my fellow Net54 members, when dealing with new members. We can say "well, it's easy to avoid trouble, just read the feedback left for buyers." I'm sorry, I don't want to waste 15 minutes reading feedback every time I want to sell an item when I could bring up a spreadsheet, hit ctrl-f, and enter the user ID and enter, and accomplish the same thing in 10 seconds. And it's not a vigilante blacklist; calling it such somehow insinuates that I am out to get people that have demonstrated poor behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth. I could care less about the people that would appear on the list. Their names would exist just to save me the trouble of having to go through a prolonged appeal process.

There are people out there like Zone91 who have perfect feedback as a buyer even though we know he has not paid for several items in the past (confirmed by members of this forum). And there's really not even any bad comments that have been left for him. People like this would appear on the list.

I guess it's a moot point, as it's not going to happen. And it's too bad, because I think some of the people voting "no" are making a lot of assumptions about how the list would be managed instead of asking questions first. Hell, if it were a concern of liability, put the list on my website. I would be the only person in harm's way. I would be responsible for maintaining the list, and if somebody wanted to shoot off a pissy email, they could send it to me. I have no problem with making my email public.

Remember that most ebay bids are snipes, at least the winning bids are often snipes. So unless you are going to block the person from bidding ahead of time, there is no reason to be checking out feedback. You just hope they pay and go with it. If they don't pay, you run the auction again.

As far as Zone91 goes, I think that he mostly paid but then wound up returning a lot of the cards. That's not going to win any awards, but it's different than being a non-payer.

As far as your maintaining the list, it's more than someone shooting off a pissy email. You'd have to make judgment calls about who is and isn't a good ebayer. That is going off the grid, man, that really is being a vigilante and creating your own set of rules. If you think checking bidder feedback is hassle, try setting up a blacklist and see what a hassle that is!

Yep, he paid for most of his transactions...what a piece of trash!

Post # 1

I don't think it's right to go on ripping the guy. He's not even here any more to defend himself. Bad ebayer, no doubt, but there's far worse. I don't think he stole from anyone, although he was an incredible nuisance. There's been far worse, but he did wind up being incredibly annoying and a pathological liar.

But if you're an ebay seller and you haven't blocked him, then you are getting what you ask for because his ebay ID has been mentioned several times. The protocol is decent enough as it is... make your own decisions about who you are going to block/not block.

We shouldn't say too much about folks that are banned from the board. It's not fair as they can't defend themselves.

Leon,

Please accept my apologies on this. Adrian flat-out lied to me on this board...early on during his tenure here. Forgiving him is something I have struggled with mightily.

Best Regards,

Eric

To answer the question posed by the OP...for those deemed suspicious, no. Such a list would be detrimental to quite a few honest sellers.

As it pertains to those who are confirmed fraudsters, please feel free to start a thread, Bill. Just be careful to get your ducks in a row before doing so.

Best Regards,

Eric

People tell lies all the time. Everyone on this board has probably told a thousand lies without even realizing it. Maybe ten thousand or more. It can't be that hard to handle being lied to, and that was like six months ago.

What is it with this guy that people are still airing out dirty laundry with him six months after his being banned? Let it go, folks, it's over. Sometimes you just have to let things go.

Cy,

I agree that "ripping" Adrian further is in poor taste. Out of curiosity, though, I wonder why you were compelled to defend a "pathological liar" in the first place.

Please let me know what led you to do this. I am understandably curious.

Best Regards,

Eric

No, Adrian simply did not pay for these items. It was not a matter of him returning the cards and getting refunds. He made a commitment to buy the items, then reneged. He said he did not have the money to pay for them, and he did it more than once. In one instance, he bought a $500 card, and backed out on the transaction. Then he bought $200 worth of cards the next day.

I don't want to go into the whole Zone thing again, as it's been beaten to death, but before you comment on what he did and did not do, you really should know what really went down:

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=169148

And I'm hardly some vigilante. A vigilante is somebody that doles out retribution to somebody they feel has slipped through the legal system. I'm simply trying to provide a list of people that voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract, and are backing out of their commitment. I am trying to protect you, myself, and the good and honest members of this forum that are tired of the crooked behavior that is running rampant throughout our hobby. And as I've said at least two or three times now, nobody would be put on to the list unless there was clear, incontrovertible facts to establish their culpability.

No, they don't...at least, not everyone. Find different people to socialize with.

Sincerely,

Eric

Even that's a lie... you're saying that they don't is lie, and then you're speculating that I socialize with the wrong people, which is another lie. That you're saying you're sincere, and frankly I'd doubt that as well, which is a third lie.

I am not defending him. I am just against the idea of a blacklist.

Sports Card Forum.com, which I am an active member of, has a "bad trader" list at the very top of their home page. This is precisely what I was proposing for here, only extending it to websites like t206forum.com where the FBI has been involved investigating the criminal activity of the site's owner.

Here's the URL:

http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/badtrader/page

I know that SCF pools information with other sites like Blowout Cards. When there is a theft by a member on one of the forums, they are entered on a shared resource, and prohibited from entering into monetary transactions on the other site(s).

Cy,

I'm not speculating at all. I know for certain that my sincerity is not in doubt.

Regarding the people you socialize with, that's your business. As for your assertion that, "people tell lies all the time," you are absolutely incorrect.

There are truly honest people in this world. I am very sorry to hear that you have yet to encounter them.

Best Regards,

Eric

This sounds like you're just arguing semantics. In your example, you're sending an un-solicited PM to a mod, which they have to:
a. Read
b. Form an opinion
c. Post that opinion on the internet (which opens them up to liability)

The mods may not have to wade through "ANY" posts, but they are still spending a decent amount of time on something because you asked them to. Not to mention sticking out their necks in a legal sense.

Dude, you said that all people lie, thousands or tens of thousands of times, and don't even know it. I'm sorry, that's just bogus. And calling Eric insincere in his statement is an ad hominem statement that you cannot back up.

You seem to be at ease with pathological liars. I'm sorry that I'm not. I think it's a very clear character flaw. And with Zone91, it wasn't a simple white lie like "no, that dress doesn't make you look fat, honey". He was taking money out of people's pockets. He was creating a criminal act by entering into a legally binding contract, and then backing out.

People ask how you are and you say "fine", even when you are having a bad day. But that is actually a form of social intelligence. It would be moronic to pour your guts out to every passing casual question. Lying is sometimes what gets us through the day. We don't live in Disneyland - life is not a fairy tale.

No offense, but if you are still angry about a lie someone told you six months ago, and it wasn't a lie that damaged you financially or physically in any sort of way, that is an over-sensitivity. Philosophically, you might want to examine whether you are being honest with yourself about all facets of your life.

And that is my bit of wisdom for the night!

How am I arguing semantics? There's no interpretation necessary when a criminal act has been committed.

And again, if it's so dangerous for the moderators, admins or forum owner, how is it that Sports Card Forum has the exact thing I am proposing openly displayed at the top of the site's home page?

http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/badtrader/page

There are at least six pages with 50 + names per page. User names, real names, the member's address, and a summary of what they did.

Know why the mods aren't liable for posting names to that list? Because there are facts which support their decision to include the wrongdoer on the list. And you cannot be accused of defamation when there are facts to substantiate your claim.