** BST Warning - Brandon Brown **

[Browncow75]

Hey Guys,
Just wanted to post again and say, that indeed I have no hard feelings or harbor ill will toward anyone on the board, be it moderators or other members. I completely understand the reason for the moderators decision and respect the job they do, and have done. As Leon and Brian have stated, I have hope that once I am able to get myself in a better position personally, I will be allowed to be a part of the BST section again at some point. I will occasionally check with them to let them know of my progress in improving my abilty to be a reliable and productive member of the site in the BST forum. Not to get into detail, but it does have alot to do with my financial situation, and my "overwillingness" to spread myself to thin at times. I understand that I may not be able to be up there with the "big timers" when it comes to my collection, but I still seem to over do it at times. I guess it is a and "addiction" of sorts that I need to work on. Im not making excuses, just hopefully discovering a little about my personality that I need to work on! I dont drink or do drugs, so maybe this is my "vice". Well I will leave it at that, and contrary to the way it came out, I do find information on the site helpful, I just meant that my current collecting interests are very specific, and I dont really see much relevant subject matter come up that often. I didnt mean it the way it sounded. Thanks again to those who spoke up in support of me, and also to those who I have let down, thanks for your personal and professional courtesy to not site specific details on the main board regarding our deals. Lastly, as I stated, I have no ill weill toward any of the moderators, but everyone else seemed to weigh in with their position on whether to post or "out" someone who has been banned, on the main page. I dont really think its necessary, because if individuals contact the mods about a particular issue with another member, it should stay between them (the compalintant) and the mods. If the person is to be banned, only the people who are involved should be notified. Posting a thread in this manner may only stand to "villify" the banned person to people who otherwise wouldnt have had any idea there was an issue, especially considering that the banned person wouldnt be there to do anymore damage. Just my 2 cents on the issue. Thanks all!

Brandon B

[cyseymour]

Brandon,

Don't worry, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about some guy named after a whale who's got a bunch of old cardboard shoved so far up his behind that he's got nothing better to do than call out some broke guy to a board of 2,000 people for failing to make a few transactions. Well, brutha, I would sell to you but not the whale and if you change your mind and decide not to buy the card, that is fine, too. Take it easy, brutha...

Cy

[cyseymour]

......................

[Reginald Marsh]

Let's get ready to Rrrrruuuuummmmbbblllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...... ..

[barrysloate]

Jamie- Shammus is Brian McQueen. He's not hiding behind a moniker. And he's a good friend. Could we have a little more constructive dialogue here? Thank you.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

By the way Shamu,

Considering you don't use your full name and hide behind a moniker, not even revealing your first name, what if Brandon's employers or prospective employers see your sleazy post and it causes him even more damage? Over a baseball card? That he didn't even steal? I just think it is spineless considering that you, yourself hide completely - it is pretty audacious then to use other people's full names on the board and then call them out for their misgivings. Where is the responsibility in that? I mean, your profile has nothing - no pictures, no cards, no name - NOTHING, man, NOTHING. But here you are calling out other people - it's pretty disgraceful to me.

Cy

Jamie,

Brian is also one of the board's moderators. If the moderators determine (and this wasn't Brian by himself) that someone should not be participating in the BST, I'm OK with that.

[jmk59]

Hi Jamie,

I think you stuck your foot in it a little bit in this case because Brian is a moderator, and you do owe him an apology. However, I think most of your points are very valid in the too-many cases here in which individuals call out other individuals over single transactions and even perceived slights.

So board ... I know it will be easy to outright dismiss Jamie's thinking on this because he mistakenly applied it to a moderator, but he makes some very good points on board call-outs in general. Some people are way too fast and loose with wanting to call the local hangman for reasons that are sometimes way too thin.

These are people's reputations that are in play here. It should take something certain and clearly grievous before someone gets to start tossing someone else's name out there and accusing him of dishonest dealings.

J

[cyseymour]

It was late last night and I probably could have done a better job expressing my point, but there are 2,000 people on this board, and I doubt that the majority of them know who Brian McQueen is, have ever met him, or understand that it is him posting under the name "Shammus". Certainly, Brandon Brown's potential employers wouldn't if they were to do a Google check on him.

Just because someone changed their mind on a baseball card deal, doesn't mean they should be called out to, if you think about it, not only the board here, but really anyone on the planet who does a search on their name. The punishment does not fit the crime. I can understand the point of outting someone who was stealing cards; that is breaking the law. But to "out" someone who agreed to a few deals that were not legally binding, just because they ran out of funds, to me is a lot more unethical than the original misdoings.

I'm really just trying to bring light to that point. Personally, I think this whole thread should be deleted. As for suspending him from the B/S/T, I have no problem with that. Frankly, I believe that "suspension" is a much more appropriate word than "ban", especially if you plan on re-instating him in six months or a year. "Ban" really has a much more violent connotation.

To summarize, if you post defamatory information about someone online, using their full name, then it is only ethical to disclose yours, as opposed to hiding behind the moniker "shammus". But to do that, especially considering that the person's misdoing was not even illegal, they just ran out of funds, meaning that their refusal to buy the cards was borne out of fiscal responsibility, is like the modern-day equivalent of a tar-and-feathering. Brandon Brown's last post says as much, and as I said before, I do not want to complain on here without offering a solution; that the whole thread should be deleted.

[cyseymour]

I'd also like to propose that if anyone chooses to out someone in the future, for any reason, the person doing the outing should provide, at the least, their full name and contact information (at the very least, an email address). I think that would be very good policy for the board.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

It was late last night and I probably could have done a better job expressing my point, but there are 2,000 people on this board, and I doubt that the majority of them know who Brian McQueen is, have ever met him, or understand that it is him posting under the name "Shammus". Certainly, Brandon Brown's potential employers wouldn't if they were to do a Google check on him.

Just because someone changed their mind on a baseball card deal, doesn't mean they should be called out to, if you think about it, not only the board here, but really anyone on the planet who does a search on their name. The punishment does not fit the crime. I can understand the point of outting someone who was stealing cards; that is breaking the law. But to "out" someone who agreed to a few deals that were not legally binding, just because they ran out of funds, to me is a lot more unethical than the original misdoings.

I'm really just trying to bring light to that point. Personally, I think this whole thread should be deleted. As for suspending him from the B/S/T, I have no problem with that. Frankly, I believe that "suspension" is a much more appropriate word than "ban", especially if you plan on re-instating him in six months or a year. "Ban" really has a much more violent connotation.

To summarize, if you post defamatory information about someone online, using their full name, then it is only ethical to disclose yours, as opposed to hiding behind the moniker "shammus". But to do that, especially considering that the person's misdoing was not even illegal, they just ran out of funds, meaning that their refusal to buy the cards was borne out of fiscal responsibility, is like the modern-day equivalent of a tar-and-feathering. Brandon Brown's last post says as much, and as I said before, I do not want to complain on here without offering a solution; that the whole thread should be deleted.

Hi Cy
We (the moderators and I (I am Leon Luckey) appreciate your constructive criticism and will take it that way. I have to be on the road in a few minutes and might only get on the computer a few times over the next few days. I just don't want you to think I am making a post and running away. Check out the number of posts I have made compared to everyone elses, except the "archive" ones, and you will see I post a fair amount and don't post and run. I will start at the top and try to help my good friend Brian out. These are just my opinions and unfortunately I can't be back on a computer until at best, late tonight. So here goes. I will answer your concerns in the order you gave them.......

1. Actually I bet it is pretty close to 51% or more that know who Brian is. I am sure if we do a poll it will say so. He is well known and well liked, and has been for many years on this board. As long as Brian didn't tell an untruth I really have no issue with he (anyone) talking about what happens on the BST pages. My guess is most others won't either. I could be wrong.

2. You are right. Just because someone changes their mind on a deal they shouldn't be called out for it. If someone changes their mind, or is really really slow on many deals, in our opinion, they should be called out for it, as a courtesy to other participants. More often than not, historically speaking, when this happens and we have gotten to that point to make it known, several other members come forward with similar stories but weren't saying anything. Again, if they had known about the many other members this happened to, then they might have come out and said something beforehand. If the only punishment is having their dealings be known, it seems rather fair, if not lenient, to us. Again, maybe I/we are wrong.
Deals that are made on the BST are legallly binding. Trust me on this. I am no lawyer (and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong) but if you make an oral contract with someone, and have the legal right to make that contract, then you can be held to it. It's extremely rare, I would guess, on chatboards like this, but I have a pretty good idea it could happen. I know positively that you are legally liable for what you say on the internet. And for the record, us moderators aren't legally liable for what anyone else says. So if we out someone that makes many deals, and has big issues with following them through, then we are worse for exposing them? I am not positive I can agree with that.

3. We don't delete threads except in extraordinary cases. In my opinion this isn't close to that. There have probably been 3 or less threads deleted in the last 3-4 yrs, other than for operational purposes. We just don't usually do it. Again, these are legally binding deals if someone cares to prove it. I am pretty darn sure it can be taken to court and you can be held liable, someway. Again, maybe I am wrong? And we are wrong for exposing their mistakes?

4. As mentioned above I believe more people than not know Brian and he is well liked by everyone I have ever spoken with, which is quite a few folks. You keep getting on the illegal thing....but I have a funny feeling the law might see it differently. Maybe a lawyer will chime in? I understand there might not be much punishment but I do think some form of law is being broken...just not one that is acted on very often. You say that someone made a deal, ran out of money, and is responsible? I fail to see the logic in that. Of course they didn't do the last deal but it wasn't because of responsibility, it was because of irresponsibibility. A modern day tar and feathering? I beg to differ...by the responses above I think the situation was summarized fairly. I could be wrong. As long as there is nothing extraoridinary in this thread, and it's not even close imo so far, then it won't be deleted. It's sort of a policy not to, except in one of those extraordinary circumstances.

Thanks again for your feedback. It is greatly appreciated. All opinions are good ones. The one thing I got out of college is that many times I am in the minority in my way of thinking, even when I could have swore I was in the majority. I hope this gives you a few of my, and our, feelings (though the other mods can disagree if they choose to) concerns.
best regards
leon luckey