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

[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.

[butchie_t]

Leon,

It all comes down to you in the end. I am new here and do not know a lot of the background of who has cheated the collector and their membership here.

My personal opinion is no. Once a cheater always a cheater. Pretty harsh, I am sure but you did ask.

Regards,

Butch

[BearBailey]

No

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Stuff
trumps
all
.

Only
If
You
Let
It

[BobC]

This is likely to get a lot of divided, and possibly interesting (ie: extreme), answers. There was a thread back right after it came out about how CSG had agreed to partner with PWCC in providing PWCC customers with preferred/preferential grading services. And even though as has already been mentioned in this thread, PWCC has not ever been formally convicted or found guilty of any actual hobby theft or fraud, let alone ever even actually being formally charged with any crime, yet there were people posting in that earlier thread that were more or less accusing, judging, and sentencing CSG as being just as guilty as they felt PWCC was. And as a result, stated they would not do business with CSG, and more or less seemed to be urging others to do the same and avoid using them as well. All to basically punish CSG for daring to do business with PWCC.

I'm surprised you haven't gotten an even more resounding and emphatic NO vote in the poll based on that type of logic and thinking among members on here. Also found it somewhat amusing that those same people who were so quick to condemn CSG through nothing more than guilt by association haven't dared (apparently) to utter a single word about how CSG is now a prominent advertiser here on Net54. They were so against CSG and refusing to use them as a result, I'm a bit surprised they haven't likewise quit being on Net54 since it is now advertising for them. Guilt by association, right? Funny how some people can turn their dislike and prejudice off or on, when they like and in whichever way best suites them at the time.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

This is likely to get a lot of divided, and possibly interesting (ie: extreme), answers. There was a thread back right after it came out about how CSG had agreed to partner with PWCC in providing PWCC customers with preferred/preferential grading services. And even though as has already been mentioned in this thread, PWCC has not ever been formally convicted or found guilty of any actual hobby theft or fraud, let alone ever even actually being formally charged with any crime, yet there were people posting in that earlier thread that were more or less accusing, judging, and sentencing CSG as being just as guilty as they felt PWCC was. And as a result, stated they would not do business with CSG, and more or less seemed to be urging others to do the same and avoid using them as well. All to basically punish CSG for daring to do business with PWCC.

I'm surprised you haven't gotten an even more resounding and emphatic NO vote in the poll based on that type of logic and thinking among members on here. Also found it somewhat amusing that those same people who were so quick to condemn CSG through nothing more than guilt by association haven't dared (apparently) to utter a single word about how CSG is now a prominent advertiser here on Net54. They were so against CSG and refusing to use them as a result, I'm a bit surprised they haven't likewise quit being on Net54 since it is now advertising for them. Funny how people can turn their dislike and prejudice off or on, when they like and in whichever way best suites them at the time.

To the part I made bold. LOL, you have to take those type of claims with a grain of salt. Most are completely full it BS and still deal with Brent and all the others they call out as scammers anytime they can get a good deal.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To the part I made bold. LOL, you have to take those type of claims with a grain of salt. Most are completely full it BS and still deal with Brent and all the others they call out as scammers anytime they can get a good deal.

I know Ben, but it most definitely speaks to who they are and how they feel and think about such things. I fully expected this poll to be a resounding NO in the end, which is exactly where it is headed. Quite honestly, I didn't even respond to the poll as none of the choices are what I consider completely the right answer. Leon does a great job of running the forum, so would be okay with leaving it to his discretion and decision.

Which also gets me wondering why Leon would even be bringing up such a potentially loaded question in a poll format to begin with. It certainly isn't a carefree question you would expect someone to innocently just have pop into one's head and immediately make them say to themself, "Hey, that's a great idea for a fun and interesting poll!" Instead, such a poll gives the impression of trying to determine the nature and thinking of the forum membership, possibly in advance of some decision or action made or performed that involves the basic issue being addressed/questioned in that poll. Which is exactly why I made reference to the other thread about CSG bashing. The people doing that bashing didn't automatically extend it to the forum, and Leon, when he picked up CSG as an advertiser, which demonstrates he has some goodwill/cache' with most everyone on this forum. (Or that they forgot about what they said before, or never even took the time to notice.) My mentioning it was just a way to remind Leon he has some leeway with his decisions when it comes to forum/member opinions. In other words, no one is likely to give him $hit for his decisions and opinions like they happily do for you or me. Now granted, accepting advertising from a PWCC partner versus having a known and convicted hobby criminal walking among us as a member are not exactly on the same level of distaste to most people. But in the end, I think it would/should be Leon's decision alone to make, if there even is any such decision to be made.

[rjackson44]

Leon runs a tight ship ,,12 yrs here never a problem,,

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Bob C.

Your second paragraph makes it sound like that would be a bad thing. I would think taking the pulse of the room is a very good step to take if this were more than a mere hypothetical.

It also may have come up and Leon already decided, but then though, "wonder what the gang would think" or any one of a number of other scenarios.

Weird to jump to making it sound like something somehow nefarious is going on.

[jethrod3]

People that are arrested for issues that have to do with violation of ethics can pay their debt to society and be released back into society, but this doesn't mean that they are any more ethical than the day they started to pay their debt to society. Of course, some do grow in the process. It's just hard to know who has grown and who hasn't. There are also outside factors that may have compelled the person to do what they have done. In the end, I think assessments need to be made on a case-by-case basis. One idea might be to create a small review panel consisting of folks that are among the most trusted members on this site and whose opinions would be viewed as representative of all board members since they would be able to contribute different perspectives as needed.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Bob C.

Your second paragraph makes it sound like that would be a bad thing. I would think taking the pulse of the room is a very good step to take if this were more than a mere hypothetical.

It also may have come up and Leon already decided, but then though, "wonder what the gang would think" or any one of a number of other scenarios.

Weird to jump to making it sound like something somehow nefarious is going on.

Scott, I'm not saying it is a bad idea to take the pulse of the room at all. Just that Leon should lean more toward what he thinks is the right thing to do, and not necessarily worry about what some others think. The people that come to this forum aren't likely to find one like it elsewhere, and so would likely stay and just not say something to upset Leon, even if they didn't agree with him.

And what exactly was I implying was nefarious? The definition of nefarious typically applies to describing an action or activity as wicked or criminal. Thinking about letting someone convicted of a hobby related crime on here as a member is in and of itself wicked or criminal how? And if you're instead referring to the CSG issue and how I mentioned that no one gave Leon any grief I know of for letting them advertise on here, that was in reference to others who posted their extreme dislike for CSG and were literally accusing them of being engaged in nefarious activities because of their agreement to work with PWCC. I never said or implied CSG did anything nefarious, I merely pointed out that other members had. And I never said or implied that Net54 accepting CSG as an advertiser was in any way nefarious either. What I was saying/implying was that I was a bit surprised that none of the people accusing CSG of nefarious activity by agreeing to work with PWCC didn't then automatically extend that same accusation of nefarious activity to Net54 when Leon decided to let them advertise and be promoted on here. At least not publicly give Leon/Net54 grief about it. Which demonstrates, to me at least, that Leon will likely not be subjected to the same public ridicule and negativity from others that pretty much anyone else not Leon is going to get. So to the poll question, I trust that however it does ultimately turn out, that Leon will not let the poll results dissuade him from doing what he thinks is right if this poll is more than just a hypothetical one.

[Oscar_Stanage]

my 2 cents...
I bought a card from someone and was told that the only issue was the paper loss back of the card (implying that the front was solid). The card had noticeable creases when in my hand. This is not 'fraud' but I would never deal with this person ever again.

the bar here should be higher. we should strive for people who we can pay with F&F and not have any issues ever. if someone once deceived someone for money, I forgive them but not sure they need to be floating around here doing deals. Fraud requires intent to deceive - it is basically stealing.

No “I trust everyone. I just don’t trust the devil inside them.”
Quote by Troy Kennedy Martin

[BuzzD]

No. There are plenty of other venues for those folks to participate in the hobby. Doesn't have to be here

[Exhibitman]

Hobby-related cheats, frauds, etc., resounding NO!!! Like betting on baseball and being DQ'd for life. I give zero cred to the opinions or perspectives of shillers, card doctors, internet fraudsters, etc. As my grandmother would have said "f*** them and the horses they rode in on." Salty broad, the old lady.

A little perspective also, guys. We aren't talking life or liberty here, we are talking about participating on a sports collectibles chat board. It is a voluntary association of hobbyists. There are plenty of other chats where no one will bother to screen out the Doug Allens of the world. We can do better. Not having engaged in blatant fraud against your fellow hobbyists is not a high bar to meet.

[jamest206]

Can there be a disclaimer on their profile? In the world we live in, I have not been in the hobby very long (2 years), so I don’t know the history like a lot of guys on here do. I will say, in my life history, my wife is a Marine AND Army veteran (Bosnia) and was a contractor in the Middle East after both of those. She is a disabled veteran as well, and was a correction officer at one point. I also know from work, that certain types are not rehabilitable material. She knows that as well. They know the “tricks” to the trade. To me, I need to know who I am buying from on here. I know who to trust, and have learned a lot from a lot on here. Maybe someone who knows keeps up a registry, or the guys that Leon lets on, they must add themselves to a thread for all of us to view?

[Lorewalker]

Just because someone has done prison time and "paid their dues" does not mean they are reformed, which to me are two different things. Some people need prisons to make them correct their ways, while others can do it without such an extreme measure.

I would simply state that if there are members here who are playing well with others and have done time for hobby crimes, or even other crimes, then let them stay. From what I am gathering Leon has tossed more people off the board who were not prior felons.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As is probably true for many chat forums, there is a long and colorful list of folks who have been banned, sometimes reinstated, sometimes not. Each one is its own story, but from memory not many here were directly for fraudulent activities. That may be the case for applicants turned down though, although we wouldn't have visibility into that.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Hobby-related cheats, frauds, etc., resounding NO!!! Like betting on baseball and being DQ'd for life. I give zero cred to the opinions or perspectives of shillers, card doctors, internet fraudsters, etc. As my grandmother would have said "f*** them and the horses they rode in on." Salty broad, the old lady.

A little perspective also, guys. We aren't talking life or liberty here, we are talking about participating on a sports collectibles chat board. It is a voluntary association of hobbyists. There are plenty of other chats where no one will bother to screen out the Doug Allens of the world. We can do better. Not having engaged in blatant fraud against your fellow hobbyists is not a high bar to meet.

+1

[Tabe]

The poll question and the question Leon asks in his OP are different. Committing fraud isn't the same thing as being convicted of committing fraud.

I don't think it would be a stretch to say there's already people here who have committed fraud.

As for me, my vote is no for either phrasing.

[EddieP]

“ Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril”, from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. It advocates for gaining an intimate understanding of your enemy so that you know how to defeat them.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I don't think it would be a stretch to say there's already people here who have committed fraud.

A “ friend” who will stab you in the back is much more dangerous than an enemy.

[marzoumanian]

Right now 72 percent say NO. I'm with them. Thank you.

[michael3322]

Agreeing with others that we should give people a second chance if they have paid their dues, however the B/S/T area is already under constant threat from dishonest people, so for "hobby criminals" who have been rehabilitated, yes for the forum, but no for the B/S/T. And if that isn't feasible, then I guess no overall.

[chalupacollects]

I'm ok with second chances if we are privy to who these people are by some notation, then maybe, otherwise no. Also 1 strike and you're out...

[UKCardGuy]

I vote no. Paying their dues doesn't mean they're rehabilitated.

I remember a lecture at college many years ago when we were told that only 2% of the population truly change something about themselves. Whether it's how we eat, how we exercise, our relationships, etc... most people revert to their default behaviors. Only 2% of people make a meaningful change that remains permanently. Experience has shown that the 2% figure is pretty much accurate.

Criminal behaviour is a mark on someone's character. There are some who are truly remorseful and really change, but 98% won't.

[jiw98]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

I'm ok with second chances if we are privy to who these people are by some notation, then maybe, otherwise no. Also 1 strike and you're out...

this.

[lowpopper]

what is a hobby criminal?

like being a criminal is your hobby?

or being so good at a hobby...it's criminal

[brianp-beme]

I thought the second card in this thread should be another D310 Pacific Coast Biscuit Buck Weaver. The next one shown will be the third strike, and then future D310 Pacific Coast Buck Weaver cards should rightfully be banned from this thread.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

A little perspective also, guys. We aren't talking life or liberty here, we are talking about participating on a sports collectibles chat board. It is a voluntary association of hobbyists.

This was basically my reasoning when I voted no.

Brian

[Bobbycee]

NO flippin 'way!

[HobokenJon]

This isn't particularly related to anything. I just love this old clip from "Stripes." It felt on point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGfzWwT-35M

[abothebear]

If you take the “should” out of it, and make an issue of what one wants, I wonder if that would clarify the discussion. It doesn’t need to be a matter of “should”. This isn’t the only place on the internet for hobbyists, and even if it was, it isn’t an institution of laws, or a convention of philosophers. Making it an issue of “should” elevates the matter higher than it belongs. This is a hobby site run by private individuals. What do the people here want to be the case in this matter? Maybe you like second chances, maybe you want the people that served the consequences for their actions to have earned a clean slate, maybe you just don’t want to mess with it, maybe you want these guys to go suck an egg. They’re all the same as far as “should” goes.

Like jingram058 said, “there is no right or wrong in this, it just is.”

What I want is to not mess with it. No hobby ex-fraudsters. If Leon wants to make individual exceptions, then there you go.

[Misunderestimated]

The word "hobbyist" seems a tad kind to me in this context. I think the more accurate (and generally less positive) term is dealer or seller. we are not generally talking about collectors when we talk about people who have been found guilty of business fraud and paid their societal dues for it. That doesn't mean that they don't know more about the hobby than many of us (self included) and can't contribute knowledge it's just a point that should be made...

After getting that off my chest --> I'm willing to give these "hobbyists" one strike (as Jay and then others wrote above) before banning them for good...
I don't think this is an option so I didn't answer the poll question.

Also can someone please post an appropriate card of someone who was suspended form baseball and came back after serving their suspension - maybe AROD ???

[pokerplyr80]

The card collecting community is a relatively small one. And this site is probably a relatively small percentage of the collecting community. It just seems to me if you committed a serious enough offense against others in the hobby to be convicted of fraud, you do not belong on this site. Or in the hobby at all for that matter.

I'm in favor of second chances in general. But why would we as a community want someone who committed fraud again others in the hobby on this site with a chance to do the same thing again to us? I just don't see much of a benefit, and I do see the potential for it to end very badly.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

Also can someone please post an appropriate card of someone who was suspended form baseball and came back after serving their suspension - maybe AROD ???

The Boss was suspended, for what? Tampering with Dave Winfield was it? He came back, sure enough. This card is apparently from this year's Topps Heritage set (not mine, but it is an actual card).

[Vintagedeputy]

I spent 12 years in law enforcement locking criminals up.

I'll just leave that right there.

[Snowman]

The best answer isn't listed as an option in the poll. The answer *should be* "it depends". Not all crimes are equal, and not all former criminals are equal either. Also, who gets to decide what a "hobby criminal" even is to begin with? None of this is black & white.

Also, as far as banning someone from the B/S/T section but not the rest of the forum goes, that is pretty easy to do with Xenforo forum software, I don't know about this forum's software though? I ran a forum a few years ago where I had some members who were only allowed to post in the B/S/T threads and others who were only allowed to post anywhere BUT the the B/S/T threads.

Perhaps it is also worth pointing out that there is no shortage of people in this hobby who would like to see other collectors canceled for the "sin" of soaking a card in water or flattening down a lifted corner with their fingernail.

There are even people who actually think that cracking a card out of a graded slab and resubmitting it with a different grading company is dishonest behavior that must be punished.

This hobby is absolutely bonkers sometimes. If we are talking about Bill Mastro (who else could it possibly be?), then I would be ecstatic to have him in the chat. There are few people in this hobby that have as much knowledge worth sharing as he has.

[jethrod3]

For the record, I also voted "I don't care" because I trust your judgement, Leon.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Net54 is a privately run and moderated forum of a very small percentage of the hobby players and it is a privilege to post here or use the BST. I don't see anything wrong with not allowing a convicted criminal the privilege of participating here. There are plenty of other forums an places where they can participate in the hobby again after they get out of prison. I don't care what knowledge they have to share. Hobby knowledge is not worth that much to me and you all supply enough of it already for me. We have extremely knowledgeable members here in many many different areas that already contribute plenty. And if a criminal joined a different forum and started spilling the beans about something, I'm pretty sure one of you would post a link to that thread right here on this forum so we could all read it for ourselves anyway. So why do they have to post it here? I don't think I'm being unfair or mean or anything like that. I'm thinking of my fellow board members that I share this forum with and the BST with. I don't want convicted criminals having any chance of screwing any of you over. Maybe they wouldn't do it again. Maybe. But why take the chance? Sorry if my opinions bother any of you, but it's a great discussion where we can all share our thoughts freely and not feel like we will be attacked. At least that's what I feel.



.

[EddieP]

Beware of the Dunning Kruger Effect.

[darwinbulldog]

As with any survey, you can change the responses pretty dramatically by changing the wording of the question. You should get plenty of "No" to "Should Hobby Criminals Be on Here?" (which reads like "How do you feel about crime?") but plenty of "Yes" if you ask whether people who were convicted at one point should be allowed to reintegrate in the community provided that they have served their sentences (which is more like asking people whether justice/forgiveness is ever possible).

Personally, I'm okay just leaving the choice of who deserves a ban and for how long up to Leon and letting him just decide it case by case, but I'm not in theory opposed to having lifetime bans for certain infractions. Nor do I think all people who have been convicted in a court of law necessarily need a stricter sentence here than all people who haven't. There are some people here that I would have booted long ago but that probably have no criminal record, but I'm fine with being part of a community where someone else is making those calls.

[Leon]

I think that was the question.

Here is the question-

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

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

As with any survey, you can change the responses pretty dramatically by changing the wording of the question. You should get plenty of "No" to "Should Hobby Criminals Be on Here?" (which reads like "How do you feel about crime?") but plenty of "Yes" if you ask whether people who were convicted at one point should be allowed to reintegrate in the community provided that they have served their sentences (which is more like asking people whether justice/forgiveness is ever possible).

Personally, I'm okay just leaving the choice of who deserves a ban and for how long up to Leon and letting him just decide it case by case, but I'm not in theory opposed to having lifetime bans for certain infractions. Nor do I think all people who have been convicted in a court of law necessarily need a stricter sentence here than all people who haven't. There are some people here that I would have booted long ago but that probably have no criminal record, but I'm fine with being part of a community where someone else is making those calls.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think that was the question.

Here is the question-

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

That was a question. The title of the thread is the other question.

[frankbmd]

I'm okay with it as long as they must wear a shirt with a large scarlet

A

on the front at all times.

[parkplace33]

Impossible to set parameters on this.

However, I firmly believe most collectors would buy from the Devil himself if he was selling a card under comps.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Impossible to set parameters on this.

However, I firmly believe most collectors would buy from the Devil himself if he was selling a card under comps.

+1 and I think it pertains to everything, not just cards.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Impossible to set parameters on this.

However, I firmly believe most collectors would buy from the Devil himself if he was selling a card under comps.

Reminds me of this.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by raulus

Reminds me of this.

Hilarious cartoon, I think I have met several of those 2 buck people over my lifetime.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Let's forget about all this hemming and hawing. The one thing that everybody can agree upon: none of us wish to get scammed. A person who has already been busted and served time for scamming collectors is far more prone to do so again than others. The answer is so damned simple: Keep them away from here. Thus far, by a vote of nearly 3 to 1, the consensus agrees. The end.