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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mozzie22

Wow! Btw, thanks for that Bill Mastro hypothetical! I think everyone needs a good laugh from time to time. UNBELIEVABLE...and sad.

Gary posted here in the past. The forum survived.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Gary posted here in the past. The forum survived.

There have been a few con artists on here over the years. One of my favorites was the guy resealing all the cello packs with star players showing. He was also showing how to spot resealed cello packs. LOL

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

There have been a few con artists on here over the years. One of my favorites was the guy resealing all the cello packs with star players showing. He was also showing how to spot resealed cello packs. LOL

Doug Allen. John Rogers.

[G1911]

It would survive some more scammers and fraudsters, but I still fail to see any reasonable argument that letting fraudsters who have said sorry in could possibly produce any positive benefit. Maybe some more clicks from the drama?

Hobby fraud seems more relevant to the context of a hobby forum than unrelated criminal actions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It would survive some more scammers and fraudsters, but I still fail to see any reasonable argument that letting fraudsters who have said sorry in could possibly produce any positive benefit. Maybe some more clicks from the drama?

Hobby fraud seems more relevant to the context of a hobby forum than unrelated criminal actions.

Many bad guys also have a wealth of knowledge, so sure they could make positive contributions.

And don't underestimate entertainment value, the threads about which way the market is headed and favorite T206s can get old.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Dodger fans...

you shut your dirty mouth

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Many bad guys also have a wealth of knowledge, so sure they could make positive contributions.

And don't underestimate entertainment value, the threads about which way the market is headed and favorite T206s can get old.

I am all in favor of short term exceptions when a comically stupid one appears and there's a classic thread potential.

I've been meaning to ask you, what is your favorite color on T206's? Do you think I can make money on baseball cards?

[Peter_Spaeth]

red and yellow and green and brown and
Scarlet and black and ochre and peach
And ruby and olive and violet and fawn
And lilac and gold and chocolate and mauve
And cream and crimson and silver and rose
And azure and lemon and russet and grey
And purple and white and pink and orange
And blue

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by raulus

I'll just leave this here, because it makes me chuckle every time...

Love it

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Mozzie22

Wow! Btw, thanks for that Bill Mastro hypothetical! I think everyone needs a good laugh from time to time. UNBELIEVABLE...and sad.

I didn't say I was a fan of Moser or Mastro. But I value learning opportunities, and if you think these two guys don't have more hobby knowledge than half the members on this board combined, you're nuts. Imagine if we could catch a drunken Gary Moser and he just started spilling the beans about all the different cards out there that are trimmed. Or which sets have 90% of the cards trimmed from, or who certain PSA insiders were at certain times that were grading his cards, or who knows what else. The point is, I'd be interested to hear what either of those guys has to say regardless of whether or not I like them.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I didn't say I was a fan of Moser or Mastro. But I value learning opportunities, and if you think these two guys don't have more hobby knowledge than half the members on this board combined, you're nuts. Imagine if we could catch a drunken Gary Moser and he just started spilling the beans about all the different cards out there that are trimmed. Or which sets have 90% of the cards trimmed from, or who certain PSA insiders were at certain times that were grading his cards, or who knows what else. The point is, I'd be interested to hear what either of those guys has to say regardless of whether or not I like them.

Agree 100%.

[EddieP]

Not sure if this is related by there’s a post of a member/Board Member who just got banned. I’m not sure what the criteria are to be a Board Member but I assume it means he is very knowledgeable. Regardless, if this recent post is related then I agree with the ban.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I didn't say I was a fan of Moser or Mastro. But I value learning opportunities, and if you think these two guys don't have more hobby knowledge than half the members on this board combined, you're nuts. Imagine if we could catch a drunken Gary Moser and he just started spilling the beans about all the different cards out there that are trimmed. Or which sets have 90% of the cards trimmed from, or who certain PSA insiders were at certain times that were grading his cards, or who knows what else. The point is, I'd be interested to hear what either of those guys has to say regardless of whether or not I like them.

How great would it be to hear Bill talk about the Wagner.

[steve B]

I'm with the "it depends" group.

How big of a hobby crime, and what?
And oddly I agree with Snowman, who decides what a hobby crime is?
I'm against cutting up the surviving strip card strips. and think of it as a sort of hobby crime. Others only see the money and say "cut away!" I wouldn't want someone banned if their crime was a fairly minor one.

Someone like Mastro had to have a decent amount of knowledge and connections to do what he did. And yes, that would be a tough call whether the knowledge outweighed the crimes.

I also really doubt that if we go the route of absolutes anyone would still be here.

[parkplace33]

Was Mastro ever a part of Net54?

[clamendo]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Was Mastro ever a part of Net54?

Leon- Do a “mashup” using their eBay ID and display their Feedback rating in parenthesis next to their userid on this forum. I’ll bet 90%+ are on eBay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Leon]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Was Mastro ever a part of Net54?

I don't think so, though I know he has read, or reads, it.

And to Steve right above, I think if you went to jail for something you did in the hobby, that is my definition of a hobby crime. If you are well known, with evidence, as someone who commits fraud in the hobby, that would probably be the same. Think Moser, Desmond etc...
On top of that, if anyone knows any member that has completely reneged in an auction, I would appreciate a PM (kept anonymous) to follow up on.

I appreciate a lot of members saying leave it up to me, but that was what I was hoping not to do . It's been a good discussion so far and I am not surprised by the results. It's not a black and white subject.

.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by clamendo

Leon- Do a “mashup” using their eBay ID and display their Feedback rating in parenthesis next to their userid on this forum. I’ll bet 90%+ are on eBay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would I care if someone is on ebay?
.

[clamendo]

Originally Posted by Leon

Why would I care if someone is on ebay?
.

Positive or Negative feedback rating could give you a current indication of their trustworthiness at least in the BST section.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by clamendo

Positive or Negative feedback rating could give you a current indication of their trustworthiness at least in the BST section.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

eBay feedback ratings are a joke. You can't leave feedback for buyers and if you leave a negative feedback for a seller, eBay just removes it 90% of the time anyhow.

[G1911]

It’s at least an available tool that has feedback for scamming sellers. I’d think people would want that if the BST is to be opened up to even well-known fraudsters. I still cannot imagine why anyone besides a scammer would want to allow scammers and fraudsters into the BST in the first place. Looks like we’re at about 19% that are okay with it or approve.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s at least an available tool that has feedback for scamming sellers. I’d think people would want that if the BST is to be opened up to even well-known fraudsters. I still cannot imagine why anyone besides a scammer would want to allow scammers and fraudsters into the BST in the first place. Looks like we’re at about 19% that are okay with it or approve.

Actually, around 30% are ok with it, accounting for the "I don't care" votes . But that is still 70% not ok.
.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

red and yellow and green and brown and
Scarlet and black and ochre and peach
And ruby and olive and violet and fawn
And lilac and gold and chocolate and mauve
And cream and crimson and silver and rose
And azure and lemon and russet and grey
And purple and white and pink and orange
And blue

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat is a great musical, Peter.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Leon

Actually, around 30% are ok with it, accounting for the "I don't care" votes . But that is still 70% not ok.
.

Perhaps I am an optimist these days, but I suspect the abstention votes are not thinking in terms of the BST.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Leon

Actually, around 30% are ok with it, accounting for the "I don't care" votes . But that is still 70% not ok.
.

Well I voted I Don't Care because I trust your judgment, but if you would like my opinion, I doubt that somebody whose whole life has been based on bullshit would somehow start telling the truth so I wouldn't expect any great positive value to this site. If he really does want to confess his sins he should write a book.

It doesn't bother me if he is on BST because I can't imagine buying a card from him. There are many people on this site that I know and trust and it's enough for me to buy and trade with them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat is a great musical, Peter.

It's brilliant. Was it Lloyd Webber's first hit, I don't recall.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Was Mastro ever a part of Net54?

Doug Allen sure was.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Doug Allen sure was.

Anyone at the Net54 dinner, in 2019, knows that. He might have been better off not being here.
.

[benge610]

Originally Posted by Leon

Anyone at the Net54 dinner, in 2019, knows that. He might have been better off not being here.
.

I valued the help and info from him, while picking his useful hobby brain on here; most grateful.

Ben

"I love baseball history backstory; especially when it involves cards."

[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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't think so, though I know he has read, or reads, it.

And to Steve right above, I think if you went to jail for something you did in the hobby, that is my definition of a hobby crime. If you are well known, with evidence, as someone who commits fraud in the hobby, that would probably be the same. Think Moser, Desmond etc...
On top of that, if anyone knows any member that has completely reneged in an auction, I would appreciate a PM (kept anonymous) to follow up on.

I appreciate a lot of members saying leave it up to me, but that was what I was hoping not to do . It's been a good discussion so far and I am not surprised by the results. It's not a black and white subject.

.

I'm probably ok with it depending on how they act currently.
To get jail time for a hobby fraud I think you probably have to be at a pretty high level. And to get there you need a decent amount of knowledge.
Getting extra scrutiny would go right along with that, as well as not being touchy about the massive amount of static they'll get here.

If someone wants to come share that knowledge I'm ok with that.

Sort of an "Info trumps all" thing as opposed to a "Stuff trumps all".

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Reminds me of the Groucho quoto "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member"

[lumberjack]

Years ago, long before there was such a thing as doctored cards and big money had entered the picture, a dealer wrote a piece in SCD about being approached by an old guy, a walk in, at a regional card show. Seems as if the man had a cigar box filled with Crackerjacks. The author of the piece, who had a table at the show, offered him a buck each for the cards,
which the man, who was totally unaware of what he owned, accepted.

This was in the mid-seventies, but even then Crackerjacks were probably going for $15 a pop.

The author bragged about his big score. Maybe later on he blacktopped the man's 60 foot driveway for ten thousand dollars as a favor.

There was a lot of that in ancient times. Guys would advertise in the sport section of newspapers that they would be at the Holiday Inn on Route 35 all weekend paying cash for gum cards stashed away in a closet....And they would pay pennies on the dollar.

It was all legal. Of course it was morally bankrupt, too.

There is just all kinds of crime.
lumberjack

[BobC]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

Years ago, long before there was such a thing as doctored cards and big money had entered the picture, a dealer wrote a piece in SCD about being approached by an old guy, a walk in, at a regional card show. Seems as if the man had a cigar box filled with Crackerjacks. The author of the piece, who had a table at the show, offered him a buck each for the cards,
which the man, who was totally unaware of what he owned, accepted.

This was in the mid-seventies, but even then Crackerjacks were probably going for $15 a pop.

The author bragged about his big score. Maybe later on he blacktopped the man's 60 foot driveway for ten thousand dollars as a favor.

There was a lot of that in ancient times. Guys would advertise in the sport section of newspapers that they would be at the Holiday Inn on Route 35 all weekend paying cash for gum cards stashed away in a closet....And they would pay pennies on the dollar.

It was all legal. Of course it was morally bankrupt, too.

There is just all kinds of crime.
lumberjack

So, if you were at a show or flea market and saw someone selling a card you wanted for half of what you believed it was worth, and you bought it, you'd automatically pay him/her double the asking price???

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

So, if you were at a show or flea market and saw someone selling a card you wanted for half of what you believed it was worth, and you bought it, you'd automatically pay him/her double the asking price???

I would think it varies greatly by each situation and money is made buying cards not selling when a dealer. At least in my experiance.

On the other side I bought a card from a member that he had listed for months on here, I turned around and sold it for close to 10 times what I paid. I sent the guy I bought it from a nice cash gift.

On another occasion I bought a complete 1959 Fleer Ted Williams set from a member. When it arrived it was in way better condition than what I was looking for. He said he sold it cheap because he really needed the money. Shortly after his computer died so I bought him a new one.

So it can go both ways.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by BobC

So, if you were at a show or flea market and saw someone selling a card you wanted for half of what you believed it was worth, and you bought it, you'd automatically pay him/her double the asking price???

Making a living by taking advantage of ignorant people is not an honorable career.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would think it varies greatly by each situation and money is made buying cards not selling when a dealer. At least in my experiance.

On the other side I bought a card from a member that he had listed for months on here, I turned around and sold it for close to 10 times what I paid. I sent the guy I bought it from a nice cash gift.

On another occasion I bought a complete 1959 Fleer Ted Williams set from a member. When it arrived it was in way better condition than what I was looking for. He said he sold it cheap because he really needed the money. Shortly after his computer died so I bought him a new one.

So it can go both ways.

What difference does it make if a person is a buyer or a seller, a dealer or collector? The implication was that paying someone less than what something may actually be worth is tantamount to being a crime, and the person getting the deal is therefore somehow a criminal. Otherwise, why resort to using a line like, "There is just all kinds of crime.", or reference the person buying the cards as being "morally bankrupt"?

In the poster's story the party with the cards approached the dealer looking to sell them, not the other way around. So, when the dealer makes him an initial offer to buy, and the seller accepts without making a counter-office, or maybe going around to others at the show first to see if someone else may offer more, why is it the dealer's fault the guy sold so low, and he's now possibly perceived as a morally bankrupt criminal as a result?

Remember, dealers are in business to make money so none of them are ever going to offer full market value to buy for what to them is simply inventory they need to make a profit on. So what, are all dealers now automatically morally bankrupt criminals of some sort for merely trying to turn a profit? And if you're going to argue that based on that story he paid too little, how do you know what that dealer's costs and expenses are, and therefore what profit margin he needs to make? In which case now you're subjectively, not objectively, making someone out to be some type of criminal.

Now, if the dealer went out of his way to lie to the guy and told him things like maybe the cards were fake, or that they were worth next to nothing due to condition or some other made up reason(s), now THAT is a different story. But based on all the person posting said about this, we don't know what the dealer may have said to this guy. So now it looks like this poster could be accusing this dealer of things based merely on assumptions which may be wrong. I don't know.

But my question to him was a legitimate question as to if that is how he felt about the dealer in his story, how would he act were he suddenly to be in a somewhat similar position to that dealer himself?

Ben, you're a good guy, and I get and applaud that you go out of your way to be fair in dealing with others. But you also did not imply someone may be morally bankrupt, or possibly some type of criminal, based on a story/event where all the pertinent and relevant facts may not be known.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So Bob, if someone who truly had no idea what they had offered you a nice 311 Mantle for $50, would you just pull out your wallet?

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Bob, if someone who truly had no idea what they had offered you a nice 311 Mantle for $50, would you just pull out your wallet?

I would.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Bob, if someone who truly had no idea what they had offered you a nice 311 Mantle for $50, would you just pull out your wallet?

I would feel ashamed as I whipped out my wallet and offered him $40.

[JollyElm]

I would say, "Even though I've got $60 into this Gregg Jefferies rookie card, I'll offer it up in a one-for-one trade."

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I would say, "Even though I've got $60 into this Gregg Jefferies rookie card, I'll offer it up in a one-for-one trade."

Give me the Donruss AND the Score Jeffries, and I'll do it!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Bob, if someone who truly had no idea what they had offered you a nice 311 Mantle for $50, would you just pull out your wallet?

How often have we heard people on here talk about some of the great deals they've come across, or finding that rare variation that no one knows about and getting it for a song? Isn't that why many of us still go to flea markets and garage sales, hoping to come across that rare item no one knows about that we can purchase for a song. Heck, I remember threads here on the forum where it was discussed how you don't even try asking some advanced collectors about the rare cards or variants in certain sets, they wanted to keep that to themselves so as to keep down demand and competition, and if they did come across such rare and valuable cards, get them for as cheap as they could.

Over time, I've asked a lot of people questions on here they don't want to respond to and answer for whatever reasons, and that includes you. So instead of letting you blindside me and maybe try to put me down or belittle me in some manner by answering your question, lets first wait to see what the person I originally asked my question of has to say in response first. I wasn't the one implying anyone was morally bankrupt or possibly some kind of criminal for taking advantage of a deal that was offered to them, especially in a situation that we don't really know all the facts about either. Wouldn't things possibly be better served by you directing your question to that person making such implications, rather than deflecting and trying to change the narrative somehow. Or is that poster another friend of yours you somehow think you have to defend?

Here's a related question back at you then while we wait to hear back from this other person so I can then answer your question. You're a lawyer, so how about explaining to everyone about how contingent fees work. You, or some other attorney(s), agree to do work for someone not for your typical hourly rate or set fee, but for a specified percentage of whatever the client ends up getting. And let's say you have a client involved in a horrific accident that they will have life-long medical bills and issues from, and will need every cent they can get. An attorney, like yourself, takes the case for, what's a typical contingent fee rate attorneys charge these days, 30%, 35%, 40%? Let's say they take it for 35%, and low and behold, not too long after filing suit the other party caves and settles for $1MM, meaning you (or whatever attorney took the case) just made $350K. But here's the thing, you knew the defendant had no real assets to speak of, but did have a liability policy for $1MM. So you knew pretty quick from the start that you wouldn't really be able to get the client any more than that $1MM settlement, and also knew the defendant and their insurance company would likely settle quickly to minimize additional legal costs and expenses. But the thing is, they ended up agreeing and settling so quickly, even at your highest hourly rate you've ever charged, your bill would have only come to $35K, not the $350K contingent fee you're going to collect. And yet you know the client is going to need every penny they can get to help with their injuries for the rest of their life. So what do you, or most other attorneys that belong to your profession, do in such a case so you/they don't get accused of being morally bankrupt, or possibly even some kind of criminal?

And I'll give you an option for not waiting till after I hear back from the other poster first before I answer your question. Go and get an actual '52 Topps Mantle and actually offer it to for me $50, and I'll answer by how we go forward with the deal or not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

How often have we heard people on here talk about some of the great deals they've come across, or finding that rare variation that no one knows about and getting it for a song? Isn't that why many of us still go to flea markets and garage sales, hoping to come across that rare item no one knows about that we can purchase for a song. Heck, I remember threads here on the forum where it was discussed how you don't even try asking some advanced collectors about the rare cards or variants in certain sets, they wanted to keep that to themselves so as to keep down demand and competition, and if they did come across such rare and valuable cards, get them for as cheap as they could.

Over time, I've asked a lot of people questions on here they don't want to respond to and answer for whatever reasons, and that includes you. So instead of letting you blindside me and maybe try to put me down or belittle me in some manner by answering your question, lets first wait to see what the person I originally asked my question of has to say in response first. I wasn't the one implying anyone was morally bankrupt or possibly some kind of criminal for taking advantage of a deal that was offered to them, especially in a situation that we don't really know all the facts about either. Wouldn't things possibly be better served by you directing your question to that person making such implications, rather than deflecting and trying to change the narrative somehow. Or is that poster another friend of yours you somehow think you have to defend?

Here's a related question back at you then while we wait to hear back from this other person so I can then answer your question. You're a lawyer, so how about explaining to everyone about how contingent fees work. You, or some other attorney(s), agree to do work for someone not for your typical hourly rate or set fee, but for a specified percentage of whatever the client ends up getting. And let's say you have a client involved in a horrific accident that they will have life-long medical bills and issues from, and will need every cent they can get. An attorney, like yourself, takes the case for, what's a typical contingent fee rate attorneys charge these days, 30%, 35%, 40%? Let's say they take it for 35%, and low and behold, not too long after filing suit the other party caves and settles for $1MM, meaning you (or whatever attorney took the case) just made $350K. But here's the thing, you knew the defendant had no real assets to speak of, but did have a liability policy for $1MM. So you knew pretty quick from the start that you wouldn't really be able to get the client any more than that $1MM settlement, and also knew the defendant and their insurance company would likely settle quickly to minimize additional legal costs and expenses. But the thing is, they ended up agreeing and settling so quickly, even at your highest hourly rate you've ever charged, your bill would have only come to $35K, not the $350K contingent fee you're going to collect. And yet you know the client is going to need every penny they can get to help with their injuries for the rest of their life. So what do you, or most other attorneys that belong to your profession, do in such a case so you/they don't get accused of being morally bankrupt, or possibly even some kind of criminal?

And I'll give you an option for not waiting till after I hear back from the other poster first before I answer your question. Go and get an actual '52 Topps Mantle and actually offer it to for me $50, and I'll answer by how we go forward with the deal or not.

I move to strike that answer as completely non responsive. Motion allowed. What on earth do contingent fee arrangements have to do with my question? SMH.

[G1911]

It’s a gift to use so many words to say absolutely nothing

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Bob, if someone who truly had no idea what they had offered you a nice 311 Mantle for $50, would you just pull out your wallet?

Leon's poll and question was should a person convicted of a hobby fraud be allowed on here as a member and so far in the thread it has escalated to comparing that to a second chance in society in general to people that have committed crimes outside the hobby being accepted here and back in society. Now we're involving the moral issue which can get very broad.

Peter, if you purchased an old book at an antique store and when you got home you found a T206 Wagner in it would you take it back to the antique store?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s a gift to use so many words to say absolutely nothing

The many many many words is the best part.

Plus the biggest and by far most important question has not been addressed yet. Who is the criminal friends with? Really that seems to be by far the most important thing.

[HexsHeroes]

.
.
Andy (CobbSpikedMe) shared my opinion and points too.

Many of us have heard the saying “Screw me once, shame on you; Screw me twice, shame on me”. Key is not putting yourself in position or environment inwhich second occurrence may take place. That includes who you associate or socialize with. I do not pretend to live in a bubble but I do have limited ability to choose some of what happens around me or am exposed to.

Caveat Emptor is reminded occasionally when dealing in B/S/T area. Do we need to raise that level of concern in forum space by knowingly adding individual(s) with checkered past to Old Cardboard membership ?