Happy Festivus! Airing of Grievances 2024 Edition

G1911 · #1 12-22-2024, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm no fan of ML, but as previously stated I don't get the "grievance" or whatever you want to call it. Who was hurt? Even if the cards had not been recovered, who would have been hurt? This was done out of pragmatic considerations and because it was better than the alternatives, not to defraud anyone. Or maybe ML even knew the cards had been recovered before they could say so publicly, for all we know. Hardly an annual highlight IMO. Not in a hobby where countless altered cards are being bought and sold for huge sums every single day, and new ones being made I should add.

You must get it, because you and every single person in that thread knew, and knew why, it would be wrong for me to do the exact same thing for the exact same reason. Not a single poster thought it would be okay for me to do the same thing. You all just wanted a different standard for the auction house run by a convicted fraudster that was not applicable to everyone else. If you know and know why it is wrong for me to do it, then you must know why it is wrong. Is it the worst behavior in card land in 2024? No, but you all surely get why some people objected and held a consistent standard with carve outs for certain corporations and persons.

butchie_t · #2 12-22-2024, 07:07 PM

Scotch Tape on......welll, damned near anything card related.

B.T.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 12-22-2024, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You must get it, because you and every single person in that thread knew, and knew why, it would be wrong for me to do the exact same thing for the exact same reason. Not a single poster thought it would be okay for me to do the same thing. You all just wanted a different standard for the auction house run by a convicted fraudster that was not applicable to everyone else. If you know and know why it is wrong for me to do it, then you must know why it is wrong. Is it the worst behavior in card land in 2024? No, but you all surely get why some people objected and held a consistent standard with carve outs for certain corporations and persons.

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?

G1911 · #4 12-22-2024, 07:22 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 12-22-2024, 07:42 PM

Quote:

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 · #6 12-22-2024, 07:55 PM

Quote:

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 · #7 12-22-2024, 08:01 PM

Quote:

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 · #8 12-22-2024, 08:18 PM

Quote:

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 · #9 12-22-2024, 07:58 PM

Quote:

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 · #10 12-22-2024, 08:07 PM

Quote:

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 · #11 12-23-2024, 09:45 AM

Quote:

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 · #12 12-23-2024, 10:33 AM

Quote:

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.

Snowman · #13 12-24-2024, 12:13 AM

Quote:

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.

rats60 · #14 12-22-2024, 07:30 PM

Quote:

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?

What about collectors bidding on cards that ML didn't have? What if collectors had bid on those cards and not bid on other cards in the auction? If the cards had not been found, collectors would have passed on other cards they wanted to think they bought a card that they would never get. Consigners cards may have sold for less due to people bidding on these stolen cards.

Mark17 · #15 12-22-2024, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

What about collectors bidding on cards that ML didn't have? What if collectors had bid on those cards and not bid on other cards in the auction? If the cards had not been found, collectors would have passed on other cards they wanted to think they bought a card that they would never get. Consigners cards may have sold for less due to people bidding on these stolen cards.

+1

I think, at least, we would all call continuing the auctions without cards in hand "deceptive."

Some will go on to rationalize it.

Peter_Spaeth · #16 12-22-2024, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

What about collectors bidding on cards that ML didn't have? What if collectors had bid on those cards and not bid on other cards in the auction? If the cards had not been found, collectors would have passed on other cards they wanted to think they bought a card that they would never get. Consigners cards may have sold for less due to people bidding on these stolen cards.

And if they shut the auction down, or took every stolen card off the table, both collectors and consignors are deprived of potential purchases/sales if the cards are found, and if they aren't, ML owes 100 card owners money and the valuation process starts at ground zero and it well could have worked to the disadvantage of consignors. It's a no win.

rats60 · #17 12-22-2024, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And if they shut the auction down, or took every stolen card off the table, both collectors and consignors are deprived of potential purchases/sales if the cards are found, and if they aren't, ML owes 100 card owners money and the valuation process starts at ground zero and it well could have worked to the disadvantage of consignors. It's a no win.

They could have run them in another auction when the cards were recovered. If not, the card owners are reimbursed by ML and their insurance company.

Peter_Spaeth · #18 12-22-2024, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

They could have run them in another auction when the cards were recovered. If not, the card owners are reimbursed by ML and their insurance company.

Agreed, but not before a whole valuation process on cards many of which did not exactly have a lot of comps. I'm not saying it was not a bad look -- it was -- just that at that point no alternative was great and they probably had reasons including insurance company input for doing what they did.

GoCubsGo32 · #19 12-22-2024, 11:14 PM

Happy Festivus!

Ooh man, I'm sorry but.. I got problems and your gonna hear about it!

1) Placement of TPA Stickers

TPA stickers on the front of photos...it looks horrible. It takes away from the actual photo and autograph. Place it on the back, if you don't have a letter. I promise it'll still work the same.

2) I can't stand online card breakers. *slow reveal....slow reveal.....*
LEEETTTTSSSSSSSS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
*cringe*

3) How many parallels does a card really need?

4) Charging $6.25 for shipping and then ship my order with a PWE and .73 stamp...not cool.

5) High prices on new modern product. Makes it tough for kids and new people coming into the hobby.

whew...okay, I think I'm good now...thank you!

Happy Holidays & New Years! Cheers!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Happy Festivus! Airing of Grievances 2023 Edition	parkplace33	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	96	01-03-2024 09:39 AM
Happy Festivus! Airing of Grievances	parkplace33	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	59	01-01-2023 06:47 AM
Festivus - Airing of Grievances	parkplace33	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	91	01-02-2022 10:15 AM
Happy Festivus!	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	29	12-24-2008 05:02 PM
Happy Festivus	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	6	12-24-2006 04:08 PM