Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

But, but, but, there's a double standard. If an AH we like does it, that's fine, there's nothing to see here, and those who have a problem with it are sanctimonious.

If you or I did such a thing in the BST section of this website, we'd be heavily scolded if not banned.

I am 99% sure I would be banned for it and not a single person here would defend me. Nor should they. This hits the nail on the head, it's just wagons circling around people they like without any consistency to the claims.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am 99% sure I would be banned for it and not a single person here would defend me. Nor should they. This hits the nail on the head, it's just wagons circling around people they like without any consistency to the claims.

You're presuming in my case. Falsely.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're presuming in my case. Falsely.

Of course I am; because while I have the wrong ideas I'm not quite bad enough to host fraudulent auctions to test the hypothesis. If I put up a nice card and Leon pinned it for the occasional board auction, that card was stolen and I declined to say anything, let the auction run with everyone making the obvious inference that I was in a position to deliver the card, then after it was done came on the board and thanked everyone for their bids but now said it was stolen and I just needed the auction to set the value for me for my insurance, you would say I did the best and right thing and defend it? Really?

Are we not against failing to disclose altered cards and lying in auctions? Why is it okay to lie about having the card at all? This makes no logical sense without a circus argument that lying is actually just fine and contradicting so many other hobby debates here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Of course I am; because while I have the wrong ideas I'm not quite bad enough to host fraudulent auctions to test the hypothesis. If I put up a nice card and Leon pinned it for the occasional board auction, that card was stolen and I declined to say anything, let the auction run with everyone making the obvious inference that I was in a position to deliver the card, then after it was done came on the board and thanked everyone for their bids but now said it was stolen and I just needed the auction to set the value for me for my insurance, you would say I did the best and right thing and defend it? Really?

Are we not against failing to disclose altered cards and lying in auctions? Why is it okay to lie about having the card at all? This makes no logical sense without a circus argument that lying is actually just fine and contradicting so many other hobby debates here.

You're engaging in reductionist thinking: all untruths are the same. To me, they aren't. In the particular facts of this case, and with no harm, and with many concerns and factors at play, it may have been the lesser evil. That doesn't make me any less of a hater of altered cards and nondisclosure of material facts that hurt people. Context, nuance, can matter. It's a very weird, possibly unique situation.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're engaging in reductionist thinking: all untruths are the same. To me, they aren't. In the particular facts of this case, and with no harm, and with many concerns and factors at play, it may have been the lesser evil. That doesn't make me any less of a hater of altered cards and nondisclosure of material facts that hurt people.

Oh they are not the same. Untruths (technically, not relevant here - the issue is not that somebody said something that turned out to be incorrect; it is a very blatantly intentional lie. Untruth is quite a softening) are bad.

The truth = good
Lies = bad

Not all lies are the same degree of bad. It's not really right of me to tell my aunt her cooking is just the bees knees when I want to spit it out. It's more not right to lie by ommission and not disclose material facts about a card. It's even more not right to completely lie about having the card at all and hosting a completely fake auction for it.

Dishonesty is a bad thing. It is bad whether I do it, you do it, a company does it, somebody I like does it, or somebody I don't like does it. I'm not seeing how thinking companies should not completely lie to customers is sanctimonious; it's a very low minimum bar of behavior being stated here. Really, this bar is basically laying on the ground, it's not hard a high standard to not host illegal fake auctions.

[Carter08]

Not crazy to think a buyer would sell stock or move assets around to pay for their big win. Then they get an email — sorry we actually don’t have this stuff. That seems wrong.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Not crazy to think a buyer would sell stock or move assets around to pay for their big win. Then they get an email — sorry we actually don’t have this stuff. That seems wrong.

Bingo!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Not crazy to think a buyer would sell stock or move assets around to pay for their big win. Then they get an email — sorry we actually don’t have this stuff. That seems wrong.

So they can spend the cash on the next big card. Cry me a river.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Not crazy to think a buyer would sell stock or move assets around to pay for their big win. Then they get an email — sorry we actually don’t have this stuff. That seems wrong.

Let's hope they did not go as far as to liquidate a retirement account too as several have suggested is a great idea to free up money for cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Oh they are not the same. Untruths (technically, not relevant here - the issue is not that somebody said something that turned out to be incorrect; it is a very blatantly intentional lie. Untruth is quite a softening) are bad.

The truth = good
Lies = bad

Not all lies are the same degree of bad. It's not really right of me to tell my aunt her cooking is just the bees knees when I want to spit it out. It's more not right to lie by ommission and not disclose material facts about a card. It's even more not right to completely lie about having the card at all and hosting a completely fake auction for it.

Dishonesty is a bad thing. It is bad whether I do it, you do it, a company does it, somebody I like does it, or somebody I don't like does it. I'm not seeing how thinking companies should not completely lie to customers is sanctimonious; it's a very low minimum bar of behavior being stated here. Really, this bar is basically laying on the ground, it's not hard a high standard to not host illegal fake auctions.

But you might tell your aunt that because there are other factors at play, no?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But you might tell your aunt that because there are other factors at play, no?

Yes, for she is surprisingly strong and that wooden spoon she has is surprisingly heavy.

A little white social lie, it's not right, but it's worth muttering the expected pleasantry rather than taking the question seriously. Does that make it the right thing to do? No, it's just a minor sin, being more convenient does not make it right. In fact, being most convenient is very rarely right. Covering up a theft to host a fake auction is far past that.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're engaging in reductionist thinking: all untruths are the same. To me, they aren't. In the particular facts of this case, and with no harm, and with many concerns and factors at play, it may have been the lesser evil. That doesn't make me any less of a hater of altered cards and nondisclosure of material facts that hurt people. Context, nuance, can matter. It's a very weird, possibly unique situation.

To be fair, his argument may be reductionist, but you're begging the question. You're starting from the premise that there's "no harm" to bidders and underbidders, because you're assigning zero value to their time and opportunity cost. Others might reasonably disagree with your premise that financial harm and property loss are the only things that matter.

If you want to argue that Memory Lane, acting as a fiduciary, made a difficult but rational choice to use bidders as pawns for the benefit of consignors and hypothetical insurance requirements, then that's fine. But to suggest that the bidders have no cause for complaint because Memory Lane did what was best for Memory Lane is a hot take.

[SyrNy1960]

Fact: If ML ended the auction immediately upon knowing the cards were stolen, and notified all involved, this thread would be all about the theft of the cards.