[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron

Bill wrote: "However, we have had a mild invasion of trolls recently, people who like to provoke reactions without revealing their identities."

Hmn, interesting characterization of "Vikes", I assume?

That "troll" simply make repeated factual information that was publicly and independently available.

Essentially he detailed:

1. SCDA and its individual authenticators commonly practice conflict of interest by authenticating and selling the same items they own. This is not in dispute and has been publicly admitted to by SCDA.

2. SCDA and its individual authenticators commonly conceal conflict of interest when authenticating items they consign to auction houses. This is also not in dispute and has been publicly admitted to by SCDA. In fact, this admission precipitated a new "reform" policy by SCDA as posted by SCDA on this site on January 29, specifically to address undisclosed conflict of interest

3. Dave Bushing included on his bio as listed on several major auction sites that he had "a Master's degree." Bushing admitted that he does not, in fact, have a Master's degree and the mention has since been deleted from MastroNet, among others.
4. SCDA violated their new "reform" policy by including an SCDA LOA in the current Vintage Authentics auction for an item owned by the Director of SCDA.

As to the "elementary mistakes" on the part of SCDA that Vikes mentioned, that information was published in the New York Daily News, and is also, obviously, publicly available.

In fact, other than correctly uncovering Bushing's discrepancy on his resume, you could certainly accuse Vikes of unoriginality as he was simply repeating information that was revealed, reported on, and admitted to elsewhere. (A fact which leon even conceded in initially resisting Lee and Jay's relentless lobbying.)

As to "provoking a reaction", I suppose that is an accurate description.

Vikes precipitated a negative reaction on the part of Jay and Lee Behrens because he made them look foolish for being so easily manipulated by SCDA's "wining and dining". Because they were unable to refute any of Vikes staments (which even Lee--while accusing ME of lying--admitted Vikes had merely "spinned" the truth), Jay and Lee took a different tact and tried to question his motives because he was posting under a generic user name and publicly and privately campaigned to silence him--which they were finally successful at (all of "Vikes" posts have been deleted and he will not be allowed to post until he reveals his identity).

While this might seem like a legitimate complaint, one must be reminded that Robert Planich was recently sued because of his criticisms of SCDA, so whoever "Vikes" is, was understandably concerned that he might become a target of SCDA legal action in a similar attempt to silence him.

In terms of positive reaction, Robert Lifson, one of the most respected members of our collecting community and head of one of the highest regarded auction houses in our collecting community obviously saw enough sense in his staments, to amend his own auction rules in order to stop the practice of undisclosed conflict of interest.

Not bad for a "troll."

It's hard to argue in fact, that Vikes' impact, while threatening to Lee and Jay and their support of SCDA and its interests, was anything but positive. He uncovered a lie on Dave Bushing's resume and helped change a deceptive auction practice by SCDA at at least one major auction house.

For that, he was censored and banned.

David, yes, this is a hobby. Yes, it is extremely important to remember to keep our hobby in perspective (I have often been known to chalk up collecting disputes to "life's too short"), but there is unfortunately a matter of major concern among certain collectors of game used memorabilia because of questions of integrity, credibility and honesty at its "leading" source of authentication.

While most were content to either discuss the subject or simply ignore it, Jay and Lee turned the discussion into a rancorous debate based on their own personal biases that resulted from their "fact finding" mission. Taking that one step further, they silenced a fellow board member because they did not like his opinions.

Is that being nice and respectful to a fellow board member, especially one who had contributed so much in such a short time?