** BST Warning - Brandon Brown **

[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.

[Rich Klein]

Brian's email took me about three minutes to find on this site. I don't think he is hiding from anyone. redmaccie@hotmail.com is his email.

Brandon has come on the board and supported the ban on himself and realizes he means well but makes mistakes (as we all do)

At this point; this should be a non-issue for all concerned

Regards
Rich

[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.

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by 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.

I just googled Brandon's name. There's 203,000 listings. I think he'll be okay. Were his name Snord Terwilliger Klackenheimer, maybe not. Coincidentally I also noticed that someone who used to have his entire first and last name under his moniker, removed his last name and replaced it with simply his last initial before engaging in his extended and unwarranted 3 a.m. diatribe against Brian. I wonder if that has anything to do with "google searches."

[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?

[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...

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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

[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...

[shammus]

I find it humorous that someone who comes on the board all worked up about the use of “defamatory information”, does so in a manner which is, uh, well defamatory. That little hypocrisy removed any credibility that Jamie’s argument might have had in my opinion. In fact, I sort of found it childish. “Shamu, the whale”…really? That is the best you can do? I suppose I can live with being referred to as a “d**k” although referring to me as a fat, old guy is, while mildly humorous, a little inaccurate to say the least. Jeez…do some research next time, please.

I will say though that personal attacks are not allowed on the board and this is in the rules. The same can be said for profanity. You might want to take a gander at those before posting any further. Also, do consider this the one and only warning I will give you. Any more personal attacks out of you and you will have your own suspension/banishment to deal with so you won’t have to worry about Brandon’s so much.

As far as who I am…wow, this was another childish argument and one I won’t spend too much time covering. I’ve been a moderator for years, like Leon mentioned. I’ve met many in person at the National, been involved in numerous hobby-related projects outside the board, built websites for several board members and had hundreds upon hundreds of successful transactions on both Ebay and the board using my moniker of Shammus. In addition, I can also legitimately say that I designed the board as it is now and I along with a couple others built it. So, in other words, the pages that you visit and enjoy on this board were put together by yours truly. In this argument, your posts were especially ignorant and immature. The fact that a number of my friends have come to my defense already should tell you something. The next time you feel that you have a point to make, I would suggest you actually put in some research to back your point up so that you don’t come off so foolish looking.

As far as Brandon is concerned, I’ve already made note several times that I’m sorry to see him go. We don’t like having to reprimand people. Like Leon and I have previously stated, this wasn’t a one-time thing and has happened many times with us intervening many times. At this point, with all the complaints we had received, we had no choice but to take the next level. Why post about it on a public forum? Simple. This is not Ebay. We don’t have a feedback system and we don’t have a “blacklist” where we can list all the people that don’t follow through on transactions. Communicating through threads on the board is how we let all the other members know that all is not right. It is a courtesy that we provide to keep everybody informed. Sorry you don’t like it, but this is our policy and will continue to be so for the benefit of the community at large.

So, this has been a lengthy post to say the least and I’ll cut it off here. At this point, I’m just rehashing the same old stuff over and over anyway. Jamie, I’m sure you’ll feel like replying to this post and you’re free to post with your opinions, however I highly advise you do so in a more constructive manner this time around if you would like to still be a member of this community by day’s end.