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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

My point wasn't to make what Mastro did sound less serious than it was. My point was to state that I think being the $50 buyer of the million dollar card places one on par with the likes of Mastro. I think it's every bit as criminal. Perhaps even worse.

Comparing buying a card at a bargain price to what Mastro did, indeed declaring taking advantage of a bargain is worse, is absolutely making what Mastro did “sound less serious than it was”. This is not what Mastro did, not even close. I find it difficult to believe a single member here has never paid below market for a card and taken advantage of a seller pricing something low.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Comparing buying a card at a bargain price to what Mastro did, indeed declaring taking advantage of a bargain is worse, is absolutely making what Mastro did “sound less serious than it was”. This is not what Mastro did, not even close. I find it difficult to believe a single member here has never paid below market for a card and taken advantage of a seller pricing something low.

But now you're attacking a straw man, Travis didn't say it's criminal/immoral to buy a card at a bargain price, his observation on its face was limited to the extreme example of paying someone $50 for a million dollar card which could only take place under circumstances where the seller had absolutely no clue what they had and was probably infirm in some way, not just made a mistake.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But now you're attacking a straw man, Travis didn't say it's criminal/immoral to buy a card at a bargain price, his observation on its face was limited to the extreme example of paying someone $50 for a million dollar card which could only take place under circumstances where the seller had absolutely no clue what they had and was probably infirm in some way, not just made a mistake.

Buying a card for $50 when a seller offers it to you for that, when it is worth a million, is, very literally and exactly "buy[ing] a card at a bargain price". It's an extreme example, but that is precisely what it is. Thus, it is not a straw man at all. Nice try.

I see you've added an 'infirmity' into the mix, after the fact now. This does not seem at all relevant to what was said before you added this element in. EDIT: The original post very clearly states in the example that it is an uninformed seller, not a mentally addled one.

I am happy to be informed what crime this is. I have never seen a law that if somebody offers me something worth X% more than their asking price that it is criminal for me to buy it. I would love to be shown such a law in the US.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's wrong and dangerous to drive 120 in a 55 MPH zone.

But everybody speeds.

That's your logic. You can't just expand the extreme example to its logical limit and then attack the general principle just because it's an example of it.

Again, I don't see where Travis said it's wrong to buy a card at a bargain price, just because the extreme example he objects to may be an example of buying a card for a bargain.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's wrong and dangerous to drive 120 in a 55 MPH zone.

But everybody speeds.

That's your logic. You can't just expand the extreme example to its logical limit and then attack the general principle just because it's an example of it.

Again, I don't see where Travis said it's wrong to buy a card at a bargain price, just because the extreme example he objects to may be an example of buying a card for a bargain.

My logic is that the law is 55mph, therefore 56 is speeding and so is 120 and so is 120,000. There may be different degrees of bad or guilt, but none are accepted. Once you cross the line, you are in bad or criminal territory, the degree of bad varies by the circumstances and the gap between right or legal and what was done, but over the line is still over that line. If I tell a judge someone else was going 80 when I was going 75, guess who is still getting a ticket?

So where are we drawing the line? Can I buy a card for half it's value if the seller offers that? 10X?. Last year I bought a card item for less than 1% of what I was offered for it shortly later. Am I morally wrong for getting the piece at a large bargain? Have I committed a wrongful sin? What crime did I commit when doing so? Or is 1% still okay?

I'd really like to see this alleged crime. I'm not aware of it, and am worried that much of the board and myself are now criminals if there are limits in the law on the bargains we are allowed to get in auctions or negotiations.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think he meant criminal in a moral or colloquial sense, no of course it is not a crime.

And as to line drawing, slippery slope logic. The fact that it may be hard to draw a line on the slope doesn't make an observation about something at the top of the slope wrong.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think he meant criminal in a moral sense, no of course it is not a crime.

We'll drop that part of the charge then. Have I committed a *moral crime* when I have bought a card for half it's value? 1/10th? Was I a moral criminal to secure the card for less than 1% of what I was offered within a few weeks of acquisition? Does a seller, who is uninformed but easily could be with a 30 second search engine input, have no obligation to educate themselves and that moral obligation is on the buyer? What is the biggest bargain you've gotten? Do you consider that bargain a moral crime?

If so, how is this worse than Mastro's open fraud, shill bidding, and more?