Happy Festivus! Airing of Grievances 2024 Edition

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's very different for a business that has consignors it will potentially need to reimburse, an ongoing auction with hundreds of bidders, and an insurer (or more than one) it potentially will need to deal with and agree with (or not) on values of stolen cards. It's not at all the same thing as one guy selling one card on the BST. Just because you can construct some overly simplistic analogy does not make the analogy meaningful. Again, who was, or could have been, hurt in this massive outrageous fraud?

Note these differences are claims about convenience. We all know that something is not okay just because honesty might be less convenient. That convenience is magnified the more items there are, surely. But you would also surely not accept ethics by convenience for other issues.

We all know they did not have an insurance claim that required hosting a fraudulent auction, as so many people claimed. I am still to this day, after like 1,110 posts and dozens of emails with people over it, still awaiting a single solitary example of any insurance policy from all of human history that requires hosting fake auctions to value items . We all know perfectly well they could be valued another way.

If you want to have a standard where it is okay to do because the winners did not get their money stolen, frankly, that would be understandable and I would simply disagree. But that was not and is not the line - because you all know 100% perfectly well why it would be wrong for me to do the exact same thing. If this was your sincere view, you all wouldn't have understood why it would be wrong for me to do it. The thread could have been like 200 posts if you guys had been consistent, instead of insisting on inconsistent standards to justify it only for certain people.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Note these differences are claims about convenience. We all know that something is not okay just because honesty might be less convenient. That convenience is magnified the more items there are, surely. But you would also surely not accept ethics by convenience for other issues.

We all know they did not have an insurance claim that required hosting a fraudulent auction, as so many people claimed. I am still to this day, after like 1,110 posts and dozens of emails with people over it, still awaiting a single solitary example of any insurance policy from all of human history that requires hosting fake auctions to value items . We all know perfectly well they could be valued another way.

If you want to have a standard where it is okay to do because the winners did not get their money stolen, frankly, that would be understandable and I would simply disagree. But that was not and is not the line - because you all know 100% perfectly well why it would be wrong for me to do the exact same thing. If this was your sincere view, you all wouldn't have understood why it would be wrong for me to do it. The thread could have been like 200 posts if you guys had been consistent, instead of insisting on inconsistent standards to justify it only for certain people.

Straw man. The issue is not did the policy require it. The issue is, was it a pragmatic thing to do under the circumstances to establish values for a worst case scenario.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Straw man. The issue is not did the policy require it. The issue is, was it a pragmatic thing to do under the circumstances to establish values for a worst case scenario.

You will find that in a situation, most fraudulent responses to it are easier to do than honest ones. That does not justify it, and you all would not think that for other things. Nor does it render you incapable of "get[ting] the "grievance" or whatever you want to call it", when you actually understand it perfectly well because you knew why it would be wrong for other people to do it. Not a single person ever argued that it would be easier to be honest. Your argument was not, until possibly right now months later, that the bullshit was merely more convenient. Your argument up to just a few minutes ago was explicitly that you did not even get what the grievance is - even though you get it 100% perfectly fine when it's not Memory Lane doing it. If you want to reduce your position to this much lesser one, I would still posit the apparent violations of state law it seems they committed in doing it would render it not pragmatic or advisable, but that's another issue.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

You will find that in a situation, most fraudulent responses to it are easier to do than honest ones. That does not justify it, and you all would not think that for other things. Nor does it render you incapable of "get[ting] the "grievance" or whatever you want to call it", when you actually understand it perfectly well because you knew why it would be wrong for other people to do it. Not a single person ever argued that it would be easier to be honest. Your argument was not, until possibly right now months later, that the bullshit was merely more convenient. Your argument up to just a few minutes ago was explicitly that you did not even get what the grievance is - even though you get it 100% perfectly fine when it's not Memory Lane doing it. If you want to reduce your position to this much lesser one, I would still posit the apparent violations of state law it seems they committed in doing it would render it not pragmatic or advisable, but that's another issue.

I get what you and others think is technically wrong with it. But if the intent was not to hurt anyone and no one in fact would have been defrauded no matter what the outcome, I'm not understanding the magnitude of the grievance. I mean the OP is calling it the worst thing that happened in the hobby all year (worse than all the actual thefts? really?)and maybe you agree. Again, IMO, it's a complex problem with various interested parties and without a great solution, but applying simple moral platitudes is not necessarily the best way to look at it I don't think. You can repeat the "they sold what they didn't have" mantra 1000 times but in these unique circumstances it doesn't really tell the whole story.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I get what you and others think is technically wrong with it. But if the intent was not to hurt anyone and no one in fact would have been defrauded no matter what the outcome, I'm not understanding the magnitude of the grievance. I mean the OP is calling it the worst thing that happened in the hobby all year and maybe you agree. Again, IMO, it's a complex problem with various interested parties and without a great solution, but applying simple moral platitudes is not necessarily the best way to look at it I don't think.

"Grinds your gears"; it might be this one even though it is nowhere near the top of the pile of things that are 'wrong'. For example, the robberies. But robberies don't 'grind my gears', because I take that as an unfortunate part of humanity that is not going to change. There will always be theft in civilization, and there will always be a small number of people operating outside of the law or decency for a quick take. It's materially worse, but it's not like I expect better from those people. A few shitbags are always going to commit theft, utopia doesn't exist.


The ML incident was so frustrating/funny because of how people who knew perfectly well exactly how and why it was wrong for others to do (again - you all, 100%, know exactly why and how it is wrong for me to do - and thus you know perfectly well why it is wrong for someone else as well), rushed to carry water for Memory Lane with blatantly and openly double standard opinions. Usually when an auction house does something wrong, somebody goes 'my bad', and it ends with a mixed 'well they shouldn't have done it, but we mostly recognize that' to end it, usually with great reluctance to criticize very much, but not endorsing the act. This one was just so transparent an example of the broad hobby impulse to justify anything corporations or 'authorities' in the hobby do, even if it required blatant inconsistency and absolute bullshit (like the obviously fictional insurance policy that could have forced them to run a fraudulent auction so many in that thread clung too - no such policy has ever existed anywhere in human history). That's the gear grinding element - the transparency of the wagon circling of utter bullshit by the vast majority of this board and the double standards while pretending they couldn't figure out why anyone would even object. The act itself doesn't get anywhere near the list, but the response was pretty bad. This response would have been entirely different if it wasn't an organization that it was desirable to defend. If some person or group undesirable did it, it would have been unanimous or near-unanimous against, and it wouldn't even be mentioned in this thread, much less immediately become the central focus. To this day you all are still pretending it's perfectly acceptable and fine - but only for the right people, of course. That will always grind gears, and always has. It's not the original thing that was done, but the circle of bullshit trying to justify what was obviously and transparently wrong.


We even had blatant screeching and religious discrimination (seriously!) and shitting on the doors (or I guess anyone poorer than the poster) in an obvious effort to get it locked to shut down conversation (credit to the board for not censoring it) from corporate suck-ups. I received more angry emails for being against this farce, for the blatantly obvious reason that it is dishonest and a lie, than for the covid thread, the thread where I advocated reading bills and read the Florida bill, and any other time I've had an unpopular opinion. Still amazes me that that was the one that made the most people endorse deception, fraud and lies - even as 100% of them know exactly why it was wrong. That's the gear grinding - the transparency of the extreme dishonesty from people who did not need to be dishonest or endorse this cynical display of dishonesty.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Straw man. The issue is not did the policy require it. The issue is, was it a pragmatic thing to do under the circumstances to establish values for a worst case scenario.

Not just the part i made bold but an owner of some of those stolen cards posted in the original thread that he was told by the AH both the PoPo and the insurance company told them to run the auction. The naysayers completely ignored that post even when I pointed it out more than once. But hay what do the professionals know?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Not just the part i made bold but an owner of some of those stolen cards posted in the original thread that he was told by the AH both the PoPo and the insurance company told them to run the auction. The naysayers completely ignored that post even when I pointed it out more than once. But hay what do the professionals know?

Right. And if that happened, the fact that it might not have been an express requirement of the policy (Greg's favorite straw man) again is not the issue. Under these circumstances, an insured is likely to do what its insurer requests. And you can see why the insurer would have requested it, to simplify the potential upcoming claims process. Best case, the cards are found and no claims are made; worst case you get valuations.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Not just the part i made bold but an owner of some of those stolen cards posted in the original thread that he was told by the AH both the PoPo and the insurance company told them to run the auction. The naysayers completely ignored that post even when I pointed it out more than once. But hay what do the professionals know?

Hmm, lots of responses from said naysayers since this post, but not a single one acknowledged it. I wonder why?

I also find it very strange that the entire premise of the complaint seems to be that an individual selling their own cards couldn't do it, so why should a consignor be able to, as if there aren't extremely major legal differences in those two roles.

There is a reason both the police and the insurance company said to run the auction. There are a lot of legal rights at play here from many different parties. Running the auction and sorting out the fallout in court later was the only valid play from a legal standpoint.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Hmm, lots of responses from said naysayers since this post, but not a single one acknowledged it. I wonder why?

I also find it very strange that the entire premise of the complaint seems to be that an individual selling their own cards couldn't do it, so why should a consignor be able to, as if there aren't extremely major legal differences in those two roles.

There is a reason both the police and the insurance company said to run the auction. There are a lot of legal rights at play here from many different parties. Running the auction and sorting out the fallout in court later was the only valid play from a legal standpoint.

I would love love to get confirmation on this statement. The insurance company maybe, but I am pretty sure the police did not weigh in on this.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I would love love to get confirmation on this statement. The insurance company maybe, but I am pretty sure the police did not weigh in on this.

That will never happen . As I recall, these hypotheticals were raised so much in the thread that a speculative statement became read by the ML fanboys desperate to defend them for any reason as an actual fact. I still find it extremely dubious that they would be ordered, via the world's most unique insurance policies, or insurance company decisions that surely violate the actual contract that absolutely does not require this method of valuation, or the police, to host a fraudulent auction that is illegal under state law and then also would never point to that to justify their course in their announcements. We all know, very obviously, that this was not the only valid play from a legal standpoint. Running fake fraudulent auctions illegal under state law was not the only thing they could have done.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by G1911

That will never happen . As I recall, these hypotheticals were raised so much in the thread that a speculative statement became read by the ML fanboys desperate to defend them for any reason as an actual fact. I still find it extremely dubious that they would be ordered, via the world's most unique insurance policies, or insurance company decisions that surely violate the actual contract that absolutely does not require this method of valuation, or the police, to host a fraudulent auction that is illegal under state law and then also would never point to that to justify their course in their announcements. We all know, very obviously, that this was not the only valid play from a legal standpoint. Running fake fraudulent auctions illegal under state law was not the only thing they could have done.

I know you aren't intersted in truth. You are only interested in confirming your own pre-determined beliefs. So I won't bother. I've gone down that road with you before, and I'm not going to do it again. But just know that I'm a prosecutor. I not only know the law, but I advise police. And your assertions are incorrect on both counts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

That will never happen . As I recall, these hypotheticals were raised so much in the thread that a speculative statement became read by the ML fanboys desperate to defend them for any reason as an actual fact. I still find it extremely dubious that they would be ordered, via the world's most unique insurance policies, or insurance company decisions that surely violate the actual contract that absolutely does not require this method of valuation, or the police, to host a fraudulent auction that is illegal under state law and then also would never point to that to justify their course in their announcements. We all know, very obviously, that this was not the only valid play from a legal standpoint. Running fake fraudulent auctions illegal under state law was not the only thing they could have done.

I'm not saying they were "ordered" to run the auction by the insurance company or that the contract required it. What I am saying is that I can well envision a scenario where ML discussed its predicament with its insurer, and the insurer advised that as a practical matter, it would be much easier and cleaner for all concerned if it let the auction continue to establish valuation benchmarks. And perhaps ML agreed and followed that recommendation. IMO that does not make them dishonest, nor does having that opinion make ME dishonest or a ML fanboy (I most definitely am not). I am fine if you disagree, I am not fine with you denigrating everyone who disagrees with you as dishonest, and you really don't need to go there to make your points. This is a complex situation as to which people can reasonably differ.

As for the police, I just don't know, not my area, but my opinion does not depend one way or another on that aspect.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I would love love to get confirmation on this statement. The insurance company maybe, but I am pretty sure the police did not weigh in on this.

C'mon. Who are you to doubt the honesty of a company selling product they don't have?

[JollyElm]

Two grievances...

WAR and Peace

1. Never in my life has anyone tried to convince me of something or tried to prove they were right by trotting out the theoretical stat of WAR.
I have played baseball and softball my entire life with people who love the game. The number of conversations we've had based on the theoretical stat of WAR?
ZERO!!!!!
Yet, every single thread here immediately (and endlessly) turns into "My theoretical stat of WAR beats your theoretical stat of WAR!!!" by people who seemingly have never dug into the batter's box even once in their lives.
I'll take the 'dirt' guys' opinions about players (especially the ones whose careers we witnessed first hand) over the computer screen 'data' guys any day of the week, because the knowledge of the f*cking game is in their very souls, and not just something read off of their phones.

Stop suckling on the teet of the almighty WAR mother, and come up with something else once in awhile!!!!!!!


2. Lately, it seems that there are more and more new-ish members who constantly flood the board (Collectorism: "Board Swarmers") daily with arguments and BS aplenty.
It's constant!!!!
Seeing their avatar, your only thought is, "Okay, who is this a-hole quoting and snarkily going after now???!!!"

(As you're reading this, I'm sure member names and avatars immediately raced to the forefront of your brain, amirite??)

It'd be nice if those folks would just STFU and help return the site to a more peaceful (with normal bitching/complaining/arguing levels) environment.


And using HAR (holidays above replacement), it's probably best (due undoubtedly to the vast majority of members celebrating this particular holiday) that I wish everyone a Merry Christmas!!!
But, to not f*cking rely solely on HAR, I will also say Happy (my preferred spelling) Chanukah!!


And to all, a good end of grievances...

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I would love love to get confirmation on this statement. The insurance company maybe, but I am pretty sure the police did not weigh in on this.

According to the SCD article you posted to the Memory Lane thread, ML states that the Strongville police asked ML not to publicly confirm the theft while their investigation was ongoing. There is some nuance to that statement, but it seems to me that the police were encouraging ML to keep the auction going, or at least preferred that it continue.

This information was communicated by ML, sure, but assuming it is true, it does show that ML was working with their insurers and the police while the auction was ongoing. I really don't see how their actions can be fraudulent if they are working with the police.



Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

According to the SCD article you posted to the Memory Lane thread, ML states that the Strongville police asked ML not to publicly confirm the theft while their investigation was ongoing. There is some nuance to that statement, but it seems to me that the police were encouraging ML to keep the auction going, or at least preferred that it continue.

This information was communicated by ML, sure, but assuming it is true, it does show that ML was working with their insurers and the police while the auction was ongoing. I really don't see how their actions can be fraudulent if they are working with the police.

Why would anyone take the owner of Memory Lane at his word for anything? The guy literally spent years in prison for being a con artist. LOL

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

There is a reason both the police and the insurance company said to run the auction. There are a lot of legal rights at play here from many different parties. Running the auction and sorting out the fallout in court later was the only valid play from a legal standpoint.

I find the idea that a guy from Ohio with the word "lawyer" in his screen name would believe a story about how an insurance company and "the police" both served as legal counsel to an auction house with an important legal decision to make to be quite funny.