** BST Warning - Brandon Brown **

[cyseymour]

Anthony,

That is true about my diatribe, but also this entire thread is an instigator, as I do not really want people involved in my professional world knowing my business and hobbies, especially something as obscure and, in some minds, odd as collecting old (and expensive) baseball cards.

It may be the Brandon has a generic name, but the argument is in principle. I may go back and delete my rantings at a further date, but I think that for the sake of anyone participating in the thread, they should be able to see them.

At any rate, I am now trying to make constructive criticism, and I believe that my suggestion of creating a policy to deal with scamming, reneging, or other undesirable behavior is a very good idea. You can make the policy as strict or unstrict as you want, but people have a right to know what they are getting into. Just a sticky with a set of rules and consequences would probably go a long way towards not only ending controversies such as this one, but it would also generally reduce negative behavior on the B/S/T board.

Granted, because I attacked one of the moderators, that probably reduces the likelihood of that suggestion ever being implemented, but what the hell, the true motive of my posting here is to stick up for a guy who was wrongly outed. Something needed to be said.

Cy

[barrysloate]

Jamie- even if it is very hard to prove a breach of an oral contract in court, wouldn't you assume that reneging on a deal is a bad thing under any circumstances? Would it really have to be put in writing that it is wrong to renege on a deal?

[iggyman]

Okay, this thread is not worth reading anymore. Just to add some levity. How about we substitute numbers instead of letters for a persons name. Thus, instead of using the name Brandon Brown we would say:


Unfortunately, we have had some issues with "2 18 1 14 4 15 14" "2 18 15 23 14".......

CHART

A..B..C..D..E..F..G..H..I...J...K...L..M..N..O...P ..Q...R..S..T..U...V..W..X..Y...Z
1..2..3..4..5..6...7..8..9..10.11.12.13.14.15.16.1 7.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26

Lovely Day...

[chaddurbin]

i propose posters with less than 2000 posts shouldn't be allowed to sell...and as the board gets older that number should go up...

[Jim VB]

Jamie,

I assume the midnight to 3 AM tirades were fueled by alcohol or insomnia or both.

The daytime posts make you look foolish, or worse.

[cyseymour]

Shamu,

I'm not really scared by your threats, if you want to ban me now, too, then whatever, I am getting less and less impressed by you by the moment. Just the fact that you are so defensive about it, I think in itself is almost an admission of wrongdoing. I don't really care about your eBay record or who you've met at the National. It's a moot point. I really doubt that more than ten or fifteen percent, at most, knew who "shammus" is when you posted - nothing you have said disputes that. If you met a lot of nice friends at the National to come scurrying to your rescue, then congratulations to you. I just find it hilarious that all the sexist/misogynistic/homophobic attacks that Marshall Barkman made on people were so calmly tolerated, but if a moderator gets called a whale at 3 A.M., then all of a sudden the person is close to being kicked off the boards.

Net54 sure has it share of lunacy. First, there were the "PSA is going out of business" fanatical accountants. Now we have moderators making posts to an entire community because some broke guy backed out of a few baseball card dealings, probably for, like, $40 cards, instead of quietly suspending him. It's a bit cruel. And if you and and your friends think it is so just, then you and your friends can shove it. And that's all I got to say about that.

Cy

[Anthony S.]

I was kind of surprised you didn't delete them this morning. As a west coaster I read your posts as they came down the pike last night and I was stunned. Brian is a good guy known and respected by a hell of a lot people in this hobby.

Brandon was "outed" before. By Leon. Late last year. Same situation. Same diplomatic language used, ie regretted that they had to take this step and that it was nothing against Brandon personally.

The reason why you out someone instead of merely suspending them is because that individual can still email members of the board in order to make deals. I know that I often sell cards to finance other purchases (sometimes other cards that I have already committed to buy), and I know that a heck of alot of other members of the board do as well. That being the case, I WANT to know that an individual, no matter how good a guy he may be, has on numerous occasions committed to buying cards without following through. Also, as a courtesy, I often mail the cards to buyers before receiving their checks. The same courtesy is frequently extended to me. That's part of what makes the BST such a great place. It's a community. Nobody bears Brandon any ill will, and most of us understand his enthusiasm for cards he ultimately cannot afford at this time in his life. I have the same enthusiasm for certain cards I can't afford. But I don't broker deals for those cards and then not follow through. And if someone is, I want to know about it.

[nolemmings]

Barry, you're right--reneging is a bad thing. BTW, oral contracts are certainly enforceable, so long as they do not run afoul of the statute of frauds (concerning certain specific types of contracts). Jamie is similarly incorrect to assert that claims for breach of oral contract almost never prevail; in fact, they are often successful, you just need to prove your elements.

Here we not only have an enforceable contract, we have an admission of its breach. The material terms are also available to see in "writing"--emails in this case. As for damages, they could be measured in a few ways, oftentimes by the difference in what you had to pay to receive the cards elsewhere minus the contract price here. If scarce or unique enough, you could even get an order of specific performance--requiring seller to provide the cards he agreed to sell. In sum, there is an enforceable contract, and it was breached. The only issue of whether it is actionable is whether and what damages were sustained.

[shammus]

"...if you want to ban me now, too, then whatever..."

Well, ok then.

[calvindog]

Ok, that was funny.

[V117collector]

Originally Posted by shammus

"...if you want to ban me now, too, then whatever..."

Well, ok then.

Two members being banned for basically nothing, wow what's next? <-- now that's childish.

[iggyman]

Originally Posted by V117collector

Two members being banned for basically nothing, wow what's next? <-- now that's childish.

Careful, Brad. Please try not to upset the wise ones. You might be next!

Lovely Day...

[Rich Klein]

Brian's only mistake in this was that he did not sign his last name (and perhaps in the future all moderators must make sure their full name is listed for them -- or something close)

Brandon admitted his plight; realized he was wrong; accepted his punishment like a man. BTW -- this only affects his BST privledges, if he wishes from what I saw, he can still post on these boards.

Would you rather this board become like the PSA boards where threads go poof, many times for no reason at all?

Here's a case where complaints were made about how someone did business; he owns up to his mistakes; takes his medicine and moves on. How much easier does a thread have to be. What did I miss?

Rich

[Jim VB]

Brian,

I'm now so mad about this that if you want to ban Lichtman, go right ahead!

[Browncow75]

Come on guys!
Lets be civil here! At this juncture, I am the only one affected by my ban...suspension...booting....outing....whatever you want to call it. I know the reason for it, and it wasnt my first rodeo...It happened before for basically the same reason. Im a big boy, and I can live with the consequences of my actrions. Even though I may not agree completely in the manner it was made public, it was the way that [U]all 4[U] moderators decided should be handled, and I have to respect that. I, like all of us here, am bound to a certain code of conduct, be it written or inferred. I neglected my responsibilty with my actions and will accept their decision as I would with anyone who is in a position of authority. Afterall, if it werent for Leon and Brian's (and Im sure alot of other people) hard work to create and maintain this site, there wouldnt be anything here for us to be arguing about! So I say, as far as Im concerned, its done and overwith. Should Leon and the other mods decide to reinstate me at some point, I will ask that a thread be started, to gauge reaction to my being reinstated. That way I will know whether or not it will even be necessary, since after all this, alot of the sellers on the BST may not want to sell to me anymore even if Im allowed back, so it may end up a moot point. So please...lets get on with our lives. I appreciate everyones' input on the situation, but so long as all of you continue to handle yourseves in a calm and professional manner, everything and everyone will be....cooool.

[Reginald Marsh]

I'm in shock that this thread is still going.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would reinstate Brandon, subject to one more strike, based on the calm and mature way he has handled this.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would reinstate Brandon, subject to one more strike, based on the calm and mature way he has handled this.

Hmmm. How do we know Peter Spaeth is your real name?

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Hmmm. How do we know Peter Spaeth is your real name?

I'll vouch for Peter. He's a great guy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Hmmm. How do we know Peter Spaeth is your real name?

You are right, it's Pete S.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

I'll vouch for Peter. He's a great guy.

Hey now wait a second, them's fighting words on this board!!

[Potomac Yank]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

I'll vouch for Peter. He's a great guy.

*

Jim, you beat me to it.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Barry, you're right--reneging is a bad thing. BTW, oral contracts are certainly enforceable, so long as they do not run afoul of the statute of frauds (concerning certain specific types of contracts). Jamie is similarly incorrect to assert that claims for breach of oral contract almost never prevail; in fact, they are often successful, you just need to prove your elements.

Here we not only have an enforceable contract, we have an admission of its breach. The material terms are also available to see in "writing"--emails in this case. As for damages, they could be measured in a few ways, oftentimes by the difference in what you had to pay to receive the cards elsewhere minus the contract price here. If scarce or unique enough, you could even get an order of specific performance--requiring seller to provide the cards he agreed to sell. In sum, there is an enforceable contract, and it was breached. The only issue of whether it is actionable is whether and what damages were sustained.

Thank God - someone who speaks out of the front hole and not the back hole...nice summary, Todd!

Thought I'd add that I did a BST transaction with our mod, shammus (Brian), and it went...swimmingly! He is a gentleman, stand-up guy, and exactly what you hope for when you send money to someone in a BST transaction.

I thank all the mods for policing the BST - I've done a bunch of smooth purchases there, and I want that to continue.

Cheers,
Blair