** BST Warning - Brandon Brown **

[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.

[barrysloate]

Because Brian has been a moderator for so many years, he probably assumed that everyone knew who he was. Hopefully he'll come on this thread later and comment.

[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

[docpatlv]

A suggestion...

If you are going to "call someone out" on this board, then you could just type their name with no space between......BrandonBrown. That way anyone doing a search will probably not pull up info from this site, but members who may need to be informed on this board will still know who you're talking about.

[cyseymour]

Leon,

Thanks for your reply, and I understand you are going on vacation, but my response is that what you define as an oral contract, whether true or untrue, is unenforcable by law. If I agreed to buy a card from you, and I reneged on the deal, and you took me to court, you would have an incredibly hard time winning. You would have to prove fiscal damage created by my reneging on the deal, which would be incredibly hard to do considering that you still own the card. Reneging on an oral contract almost never holds up in civil court, if it makes it that far, and it is far different than a criminal offense such as stealing someone's property or internet scamming someone.

I also think that I can make an argument that all these threads nitpicking about annoying buyers actually adds too many names into the mix and distracts folks from focusing on the people who really HAVE stolen money or cards - those who are the real threat on the boards.

If you are going to use Net54 as a buying/selling arena, complete with a disciplinary process, then that process should be clearly stated so that participants understand the potential consequences of their actions ahead of time.

Also, where you get the 51% number who know Brian, I would really doubt that. There are 2000 members of this board, meaning that you are assuming that over 1000 people know who "Shammus" is when he posts. That would be pretty extraordinary. I am guessing that the number is closer to ten or fifteen percent. A poll would not be an accurate test because all his friends who read this thread would come rushing to his defense, and also because the people who populate the boards most frequently are most likely to know him.

Questions remain:

Did Brandon Brown know that he would be outed if he once again reneged on card deals?

Why are there not policies stating what happens in the case of stealing cards or money - or regarding how annoying behavior like reneging is dealt with?

You are dealing with some major privacy issues when outing someone like that, for minor offenses, as irritable as they may be. I hardly think that I am alone in my belief that people should be suspended or banned, but not outed, for repeated minor offenses. It should be reserved for people who are scamming or stealing. Otherwise, any disagreement could become a witch-hunt where the two parties race for the boards to get their thread in slandering the opposing party.

For the record, I have never bought nor sold anything on the B/S/T, nor plan to... eBay is looking more and more appealing every moment...