Pwcc Csg partnership

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I'm not sure there's a whole lot of mystery as to CSG's reasoning. They did the math and decided that partnering with PWCC would generate enough revenue and market share gain to offset any hit their rep might take by laying down with filth like PWCC. What other reasoning could there be?

But, of course a topic like the CSG/PWCC partnership is going to generate a lot of negative comments toward both parties. "But CSG hasn't done anything wrong - yet!" isn't a defense here. The "anything wrong" is partnering with PWCC in the first place. If you partner up with an enterprise that is a known criminal enterprise, you're no longer an innocent party who has done nothing wrong. People pointing this out - even sarcastically- are not misdirecting the conversation. They're taking it to a logical destination. How can you possibly discuss a PWCC/CSG partnership in any meaningful way and NOT bring up PWCC's criminal activities? You can't, IMHO.

Has it been publicly announced anywhere by any of the other big three TPGs (PSA, SGC, & Beckett) and emphatically stated that they will no longer accept ANY card submissions from or through PWCC? If not, and any of them now accepts (or previously accepted) a grading submission from or through PWCC, you should all be saying they too are just as guilty as PWCC because they chose to do business with them, correct?

And by extension then, the bank they use is invariably aiding in their criminal activity, and should be considered an accessory to their crimes. And that goes for the landlord who leases them space, the cleaning company they may hire to vacuum and dust their offices, the store that sells them office supplies, heck, even the US postal service is guilty for continuing to deliver them mail that aids and abets their criminal operations. And of course, every single employee on PWCC's payroll is also equally as guilty of their crimes and should also end up behind bars. And you can go on and on to name every single person and enterprise that does anything that helps to keep PWCC's business operating, as an accessory to their crimes then. At least that is according to the logic being put forth for people on Net54 apparently.

"If you partner up with an enterprise that is a known criminal enterprise, you're no longer an innocent party who has done nothing wrong."

So based on what you seem to be implying for yourself and many other people here on Net54 with those words, is that when the FBI finally completes their investigation of PWCC and goes forward with criminal prosecution, we should expect an enormous number of people to end up going to jail, including all the people working with other businesses that supported and helped to maintain PWCC's criminal operations by offering and providing them their goods and services.

""But (enter name of any person or business doing anything with or for PWCC) hasn't done anything wrong - yet!" isn't a defense here. The "anything wrong" is partnering with PWCC in the first place.".

Those are your words, incorporating a quote from me, not mine. Maybe you can explain that to the single Mom with two little kids at home as she gets hauled off to jail because she needed the job and money from being a receptionist and just answering the phones at PWCC. Of course, I'm making up the single Mom being their receptionist part (even though it actually could be the case) to make a point and add a little dramatic effect. As you alluded to, she has no defense and should be considered guilty, just like CSG, right? So, I guess such a hypothetical figure as this single Mom could/would/should also be an eligible target for sarcastic comments from Net54's peanut gallery then as well. And therefore, I would be remiss and completely in the wrong for calling out any of those parties hurling sarcastic comments at the obviously guilty single Mom as being juvenile a-holes for doing so!

Chris, you're a good guy, and we usually see eye to eye on things. I trust you can see my logic and reasoning behind what I'm saying. And though you put forth the most obvious reasons for CSG doing this (money and market share), I was hoping to get into a little deeper discussion of specific points that may have swayed CSG to make the decision to go forward. Along with the possibility that there may actually be some good coming from this arrangement, such as a flat rate grading fee finally being seen in the hobby. Forgive my foolishness for actually thinking that such an adult conversation could take place on this forum in regards to such a testy and controversial subject, without it also releasing the juvenile trolls that just love to bark and bite at one's ankles.