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

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Pat R

No not if they committed fraud in the hobby, we've seen more than one person on here say that they were sorry for what they did after they got caught and turn around and do it again.

So, if they've paid their debt, there is no acceptance? What, then, is the purpose of paying one's debt?

I say yes, if they were caught, convicted and incarcerated or otherwise served out whatever punishment as a result of judge or jury.

If we engage in speculation that someone is guilty of this or that, based on our own circumstantial evidence, that is different, and the owner/moderator should make the final decision.

If they are incorrigible, repeat offenders, then the answer should clearly be no.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by jingram058

So, if they've paid their debt, there is no acceptance? What, then, is the purpose of paying one's debt?

To fulfill their obligation in the eyes of the law.

Some people will obviously still be wary of recidivism. That can't be blamed.

I remember a recorded jailhouse phone call with one fellow most of us are familiar with. Once his time was served, he stated that he would come back bigger and stronger than ever. While that may be doubtful, would anyone wish to give such a person that opportunity within the confines of this forum? I know how I feel about it.

[SAllen2556]

I don't think you have to worry. Anyone in this hobby who's actually dumb enough to have been convicted probably can't read anyway.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

I don't think you have to worry. Anyone in this hobby who's actually dumb enough to have been convicted probably can't read anyway.

You haven't been around the hobby very long then. I think smart, good people can make mistakes and atone for them. As far as them being on the forum, I want to see what others think. All comments and votes are welcomed.

and a card....of a black sox
Buck was never reintstated.....
.

[Casey2296]

One of the things I enjoy most about this forum is the trust that is built between members here, I find the vast majority of folks here tend to have a strong moral character and integrity, characteristics that are built over time and can't be switched on and off like a lightbulb.

A large part of that is due to your vigilant moderation Leon, thank you for that.

There's a lot to be said for 2nd chances, we've probably all needed one at some point in our life, and I do believe as long as you're honest and remorseful there is a way to build back trust.
The answer is certainly not black and white but I trust your judgement. I just wouldn't want the hard earned trust we have with each other to be eroded.

I would ask this;

What if a current member here was a victim of the convicted fraudster? Would part of his inclusion be predicated on some form of restitution for that member?

[brunswickreeves]

It depends on the scope of the incident by the bad actor, so suggest is taken up on a case by case basis. Maybe via a small governance or review committee. But generally say no, yet hold: 'Once is an outlier, twice is a trend.'

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jingram058

So, if they've paid their debt, there is no acceptance? What, then, is the purpose of paying one's debt?

I say yes, if they were caught, convicted and incarcerated or otherwise served out whatever punishment as a result of judge or jury.

If we engage in speculation that someone is guilty of this or that, based on our own circumstantial evidence, that is different, and the owner/moderator should make the final decision.

If they are incorrigible, repeat offenders, then the answer should clearly be no.

Well Leon asked about someone that was convicted of fraud in the hobby and there are different types of second chances if you had an employee steal money from you would you give them a second chance to work for you or if someone screwed you in a card sale would you buy from them or sell to them again?

[jingram058]

This comes up all the time, not just net54. All the holiers than thou have opinions on this. What constitutes paying one's debt that squares things in their eyes? Can it even be done? Should a convicted felon who has by all accounts paid his debt to society be allowed to vote?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

This comes up all the time, not just net54. All the holiers than thou have opinions on this. What constitutes paying one's debt that squares things in their eyes? Can it even be done? Should a convicted felon who has by all accounts paid his debt to society be allowed to vote?

It’s not a court of law. We can choose to associate or not with people who scam us. It seems clear to me. I don’t deal with scammers and fraudsters, convicted or unconvicted(the vast majority). It seems a common sense policy to avoid headaches and getting robbed.

I get a free speech argument that even the most detestable should be allowed to speak. I don’t disagree with it, if there was a rule that speech of any kind is allowed and anyone may speak. Letting more scammers into the BST seems to be an unnecessary disaster to create though.

[mq711]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s not a court of law. We can choose to associate or not with people who scam us. It seems clear to me. I don’t deal with scammers and fraudsters, convicted or unconvicted(the vast majority). It seems a common sense policy to avoid headaches and getting robbed.

I get a free speech argument that even the most detestable should be allowed to speak. I don’t disagree with it, if there was a rule that speech of any kind is allowed and anyone may speak. Letting more scammers into the BST seems to be an unnecessary disaster to create though.

This response summarizes my opinion also.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Well Leon asked about someone that was convicted of fraud in the hobby and there are different types of second chances if you had an employee steal money from you would you give them a second chance to work for you or if someone screwed you in a card sale would you buy from them or sell to them again?

When you look at all the stuff Blowout has brought to light, and how little has been done in terms of actual arrests, it seems to me it would have to be a very big, very obvious and deliberate offense, to actually be charged and then convicted.

So, we're not talking about a guy who just trimmed a card or two, or swatted a few baseballs to add "game use" to a GU bat. We're talking about very egregious behavior - reported, investigated, arrested, tried, convicted.

[bnorth]

My vote is to let them or anybody else that wants to join, join. If they do something wrong then ban them or maybe not depending on who they are.

I did notice easily 100s of new members this morning that might need to be banned. It was like new accounts popping up every few seconds.

[Leon]

There are a hundred or more fake registrations trying to get in, per day. They get snagged and eventually deleted. Of course a few scammers have gotten in but we have beaten that horse.

Originally Posted by bnorth

My vote is to let them or anybody else that wants to join, join. If they do something wrong then ban them or maybe not depending on who they are.

I did notice easily 100s of new members this morning that might need to be banned. It was like new accounts popping up every few seconds.

[Tomi]

Might as well be a case by case basis. Some crimes are huge and some are minor. Some are forgivable and some not.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When you look at all the stuff Blowout has brought to light, and how little has been done in terms of actual arrests, it seems to me it would have to be a very big, very obvious and deliberate offense, to actually be charged and then convicted.

So, we're not talking about a guy who just trimmed a card or two, or swatted a few baseballs to add "game use" to a GU bat. We're talking about very egregious behavior - reported, investigated, arrested, tried, convicted.

My answer is still no in regards to these people too if there is strong enough evidence. I only pointed out the convicted part in my reply to James because that's what Leon stated.

[ejharrington]

No. I doubt any of them paid all the restitution for all of their crimes. Probably just the one where they got caught.

[raulus]

Hi Leon:

Thanks for raising this question, as I think it's worthy of some introspection and calm deliberation as we evaluate the best approach to take here. And while I am still a bit of a n00b around these parts, hopefully my opinion counts as something north of nothing, although others can debate just how big the spread should be there.

When I was a younger man, I would have encouraged you to go full old testament on them. Full lifetime ban, and erase them from existence. Now that I'm a little bit more of a seasoned chap, I'm inclined to be a bit less old testament, as I've learned that I need grace as much as the next fellow, and I'm grateful that death is no longer the punishment for even the most minor infractions.

At the same time, I am a big believer that all things should be done in wisdom and in order. Doing nothing seems like it could be a recipe for disaster, as acts of recidivism have the potential to harm those around us again, particularly if they are not familiar with the past indiscretions, high crimes, and misdemeanors against the hobby.

As an accountant, I’ve always found that a bit of disclosure is a helpful approach, as it is often short of more draconian censures, and yet still a lot more than nothing. I wonder if there might be some ability to disclose to the reader that the poster in question has been guilty in the past of misconduct in the industry. At the risk of going full Nathanial Hawthorne, maybe a big “F” for fraudster somewhere in their handle and/or in the footers to their posts? While still incredibly embarrassing and ignominious, this would at least allow the perpetrator an opportunity to move amongst us and participate in discussions, while still allowing the unsuspecting and trusting of us to be on notice about who we are dealing with.

Just an idea! And perhaps something that the technology might render difficult to address. But perhaps an option that walks the line between all or nothing.

[Yoda]

Would you buy a card listed on B/S/T section of our beloved Net 54 from Bill Mastro? Bill has paid his legal dues but many hobbyists have long memories.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Would you buy a card listed on B/S/T section of our beloved Net 54 from Bill Mastro? Bill has paid his legal dues but many hobbyists have long memories.

If priced correctly there would be a line around the block to buy from Mr Mastro or any other seller.

One of my favorite conversations I have had many times over the years goes something like this.

Do you know who this eBay seller is?

Me: yes that is ----.

OH, I didn't know that was his account. He has a card I want.

Me: Is it one of the obviously altered cards he has listed?

No, I think I will buy it and hope I don't see any problems with the card when I get it.

Me: Good luck you know he throws a hissy fit when someone tries to return one of his altered cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

If priced correctly there would be a line around the block to buy from Mr Mastro or any other seller.

One of my favorite conversations I have had many times over the years goes something like this.

Do you know who this eBay seller is?

Me: yes that is ----.

OH, I didn't know that was his account. He has a card I want.

Me: Is it one of the obviously altered cards he has listed?

No, I think I will buy it and hope I don't see any problems with the card when I get it.

Me: Good luck you know he throws a hissy fit when someone tries to return one of his altered cards.

Stuff
trumps
all

In a hobby where elite card doctors and their enablers are in positions of power and influence, and we see endless threads praising them, the purported concern about associating with fraudsters seems a bit inconsistent.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Would you buy a card listed on B/S/T section of our beloved Net 54 from Bill Mastro? Bill has paid his legal dues but many hobbyists have long memories.

Absolutely, and I wish Bill and his family nothing but the best!

[robw1959]

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.

Originally Posted by Yoda

Would you buy a card listed on B/S/T section of our beloved Net 54 from Bill Mastro? Bill has paid his legal dues but many hobbyists have long memories.

[Johnny630]

In God I trust in all others NCIC.