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

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

I don't disagree with you as I have walked away many time from deals. The problem is that even if we walk away, there always seems to be someone in line behind us willing to do the deal. Again, the STUFF is what matters to the majority. Lots of rich guys out there want a Jeter signed jersey on their office wall. They have no idea what a Jeter sig looks like. Magically a piece of paper appears with a hologram and fancy printing that says it's real and up on the wall it goes.


Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

But there is some sense of schadenfreude when that person gets burned. I seem to recall one village idiot on the 52 bowman musial from pwcc. who subsequently went back and bought pwcc cards which were also trimmed.

Myself, I found a "good deal" from Frank Prisco auctions. He absconded with about 50k from various collectors and never shipped the items. Last time it happened, 10 years prior, he just filed BK and nobody could collect. I'm hoping there is a special place where he will sort 88 donruss commons in his hell loop

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

But there is some sense of schadenfreude when that person gets burned. I seem to recall one village idiot on the 52 bowman musial from pwcc. who subsequently went back and bought pwcc cards which were also trimmed.

Myself, I found a "good deal" from Frank Prisco auctions. He absconded with about 50k from various collectors and never shipped the items. Last time it happened, 10 years prior, he just filed BK and nobody could collect. I'm hoping there is a special place where he will sort 88 donruss commons in his hell loop

Indeed, I recall that buyer celebrating his purchase here with a rather smug air, and telling us how smart he was to review his purchases beforehand with Brent. He did seem somewhat chastened after the card was exposed, but not long afterwards was right back at it.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

But there is some sense of schadenfreude when that person gets burned. I seem to recall one village idiot on the 52 bowman musial from pwcc. who subsequently went back and bought pwcc cards which were also trimmed.

Myself, I found a "good deal" from Frank Prisco auctions. He absconded with about 50k from various collectors and never shipped the items. Last time it happened, 10 years prior, he just filed BK and nobody could collect. I'm hoping there is a special place where he will sort 88 donruss commons in his hell loop

Hey. I never said we were smart. LOL.
Some people just ignore that bad people exist when temptation reaches a certain point. The thrill of the hunt for collectibles is addictive. We have all felt that rush of adrenaline at one point of another. Perhaps it made us buy something a little risky because "what if it's good?" Or perhaps it's made us bid higher than we know we should in an auction because we got caught up in the emotions of the auction. Bad people take advantage of people's vulnerabilities. I am sure most of us have fallen pray to this at one point or another. It happens.

I thought the focus of prison/incarceration, of any type, was punishment and rehabilitation. So, serving their time, means they finished their punishment. Do they deserve indefinite punishment? Is there a chance for rehabilitation or not? . If we believe that someone has served their time, should they not be given a chance to show they are rehabilitated?
Now I am not some pie in the sky romantic that is saying this just to virtue signal. I think that some former bad actors should be given a chance. Again, perhaps probationary after Leon has determined that he believes they would be a net positive for the board. Sometimes, we can learn from those who broke the rules about how they did it and how perhaps we can safeguard ourselves from the next bad guy. Look at a guy like Kevin Mitnick. Was one of the very first computer hackers. He went to jail for 5 years and now is a world renown Cyber Security expert that consults with major corporations and gives lectures. (If you ever want to be really scared watch one of his lectures on youtube and see how easy it is to steal your info)
Ultimately, its a decision for the owner of any group like this to determine their level of comfort.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Hey. I never said we were smart. LOL.
Some people just ignore that bad people exist when temptation reaches a certain point. The thrill of the hunt for collectibles is addictive. We have all felt that rush of adrenaline at one point of another. Perhaps it made us buy something a little risky because "what if it's good?" Or perhaps it's made us bid higher than we know we should in an auction because we got caught up in the emotions of the auction. Bad people take advantage of people's vulnerabilities. I am sure most of us have fallen pray to this at one point or another. It happens.

I thought the focus of prison/incarceration, of any type, was punishment and rehabilitation. So, serving their time, means they finished their punishment. Do they deserve indefinite punishment? Is there a chance for rehabilitation or not? . If we believe that someone has served their time, should they not be given a chance to show they are rehabilitated?
Now I am not some pie in the sky romantic that is saying this just to virtue signal. I think that some former bad actors should be given a chance. Again, perhaps probationary after Leon has determined that he believes they would be a net positive for the board. Sometimes, we can learn from those who broke the rules about how they did it and how perhaps we can safeguard ourselves from the next bad guy. Look at a guy like Kevin Mitnick. Was one of the very first computer hackers. He went to jail for 5 years and now is a world renown Cyber Security expert that consults with major corporations and gives lectures. (If you ever want to be really scared watch one of his lectures on youtube and see how easy it is to steal your info)
Ultimately, its a decision for the owner of any group like this to determine their level of comfort.

I asked the same questions earlier on. The consensus: no, there is no forgiveness, or rehabilitation, nothing that will satisfy the investors and collectors in the net54 world. If you transgress with baseball cards, you carry that forever. No right or wrong with this, it just is what it is

[Peter_Spaeth]

For me, case by case basis and I would probably give a fair number of people a second chance as long as the community understood the prior offense.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For me, case by case basis and I would probably give a fair number of people a second chance as long as the community understood the prior offense.

This is kind of what I am thinking as well.

[JollyElm]

Here's a compromise. How about having a scarlet 'F' for "Fraudster" covering their avatar?

And their screen name shall be Hester Unprynnecipled.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Sometimes, we can learn from those who broke the rules about how they did it and how perhaps we can safeguard ourselves from the next bad guy. Look at a guy like Kevin Mitnick. Was one of the very first computer hackers. He went to jail for 5 years and now is a world renown Cyber Security expert that consults with major corporations and gives lectures. (If you ever want to be really scared watch one of his lectures on youtube and see how easy it is to steal your info).

+1

[G1911]

I don't think forgiveness is a synonym for treating someone as if X didn't happen entirely.

I forgive the guy who tried to invade my home. But if I see him coming up the walkway, I won't greet him with a warm beverage and a handshake. Maybe he's had a change of his heart and has been rehabilitated in a heartwarming final act of the story in a Oscar bait feature film presentation, but we all know the odds.

I'd forgive a guy who defrauded me, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to do a deal with them again. Maybe he's a good old honest fellow who has accepted the light into his once Grinchey heart, but we all know the odds.

If there's no separation between speech and the BST, which has already been stipulated, it seems quaint to me to state that we must forgive by allowing them to do deals with people who surely will not all know their record and what they are probably getting into. It's just setting up an environment to take an area lately littered with scammers into a place where the knowledgeable stay away from and folks who don't know everyone's history get scammed, while adding 0 benefit. If it was stated as a possible allowance of a particular, single person that could be debated, it might be different, but as a blanket policy for hobby scammers and fraudsters, why would anyone think opening the floodgates could possibly lead to a somehow more positive outcome than a policy of not allowing universally acknowledged scammers and fraudsters?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't think forgiveness is a synonym for treating someone as if X didn't happen entirely.

I forgive the guy who tried to invade my home. But if I see him coming up the walkway, I won't greet him with a warm beverage and a handshake. Maybe he's had a change of his heart and has been rehabilitated in a heartwarming final act of the story in a Oscar bait feature film presentation, but we all know the odds.

I'd forgive a guy who defrauded me, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to do a deal with them again. Maybe he's a good old honest fellow who has accepted the light into his once Grinchey heart, but we all know the odds.

If there's no separation between speech and the BST, which has already been stipulated, it seems quaint to me to state that we must forgive by allowing them to do deals with people who surely will not all know their record and what they are probably getting into. It's just setting up an environment to take an area lately littered with scammers into a place where the knowledgeable stay away from and folks who don't know everyone's history get scammed, while adding 0 benefit. If it was stated as a possible allowance of a particular, single person that could be debated, it might be different, but as a blanket policy for hobby scammers and fraudsters, why would anyone think opening the floodgates could possibly lead to a somehow more positive outcome than a policy of not allowing universally acknowledged scammers and fraudsters?

I think many of us are saying the same thing in opposite directions. Having Leon select those that might be worth the risk is what I suggested from the start. I am not saying it should be a free for all.

[Republicaninmass]

I'm of the ilk of someone defrauds me, I will never buy rondell them another card. I explain they can ask a 3rd party if they want to conduct a transaction