Persistent Ebayer wants to deal privately

[DavidTheDavid]

Regarding the question of whether Vger7 is the same person as Sagat....

 

No, they're different people. A little Internet sleuthing shows this.

 

Unfortunately, Vger7 has been less than helpful in sorting this out. He fails to acknowledge the optics of the situation to an outsider. The fact that Vger7 and Sagat were using the same email address is at least suspicious. The least Vger7 could do is offer a plausible explanation, and then further explain his relationship with Sagat and how it led to all this confusion.

 

Here's the rundown of Internet-findable facts:

 

Vger7 is confirmed to be Charlie Kim. I only mention this because others have already used the name. Charlie Kim's name is confirmed in the website domain's publically available info of the page he used to post and remove images, www.eltoro505.com. Charlie Kim has an extensive series of blog posts on ComicBookDaily.com.

 

You can click here to read one such blog post . Scroll down and you'll see a picture of a man the caption refers to as Frank Chang. I believe this is Sagat.

 

When Sagat was on these boards, he ended up on the Prohibition List for a deal with "Twisty" or whatever the name is. In that deal, Sagat sold what he claimed was an unrestored comic for $1,200 or $1,300 (the exact number is forgotten but it was in that range). Twisty, who was relatively new to detecting restoration, nonetheless soon figured out the comic was restored and had extensive color touch on the cover. When Twisty tried to get a refund from Sagat, Sagat avoided Twisty for something like three years, refusing to return emails or phone calls. Eventually, Twisty encountered Sagat in a gym (since they apparently both live somewhere in/near Toronto) and confronted him about the deal. Sagat agreed that he had sold Twisty a restored comic, and paid him $400 as restitution. Apparently, Twisty reported on this topic in the CGC forums, and Sagat denied that he had scammed Twisty intentionally. But another user, named October, showed up and said he had personally witnessed Sagat purchasing the restored comic in question, at a convention I guess, and that he clearly remembered the comic being sold as restored. He also recalled hearing Sagat joke that he intended to sell it as unrestored for a profit. So Sagat lied when he claimed he didn't know the comic was restored, it seems. Twisty was able to sell the comic as "restored" on eBay for $480, and having recovered $400 from Sagat, that means Twisty got $880 back for a comic he spent $1,200 to $1,300 on. The cumulative details of this matter led to a board decision to put Sagat on the Prohibition List, but Sagat tried to remove his name from that list, and I am not sure what happened after that -- but he ended up leaving the boards.

 

Then, another user showed up, named carebear or carebears. This user had the same ISP address as Sagat. When questioned by CGC admin, carebear claimed he was Sagat's roommate. This dubious defense led to carebear being ousted from the CGC boards as well.

 

While carebear was using the CGC forums, he made several purchases with people, and during those interactions he signed his name as being "Frank."

 

Fast forward to Vger7's time on the CGC forums. Vger7's email address has been listed in a mesage as rave505@aim.com. Previously, in one message, Sagat had mentioned the rave505@aim.com email address as the contact for the sale or purchase of a single comic. At no other time did Sagat use that email address, however, and in all other cases Sagat consistently used another email address, miffyinhk@yahoo.com, which is consistent with Sagat's ebay account of miffybunny. This is consistent with Vger7's claim that Sagat was doing Vger7 a favor by listing the buy/sale of that comic on Vger7's behalf. This actually holds up because Vger7 wasn't a boardie at the time and Sagat may have been helping him by posting on a forum Vger7 wasn't yet familiar with. This claim is also bolstered by Vger7's post of an old email exchange between himself and Sagat, a screen capture that Vger7 quickly removed but others here saved.

 

So Vger7 is Charlie Kim, Sagat/carebear apparently both are possibly Frank Chang from the photo in Charlie Kim's blog article. (The name "Frank Chang" showed up in one of the other images Vger7 posted-and-deleted to prove his case.)

 

Interestingly enough, the name of Symbiotic, an ousted user (from a couple years ago) caught shilling repeatedly, is Drew Kim. He's probably not related to Charlie Kim, but it's a noteworthy coincidence.

 

As for Vger7 and his posts here about ethics, I think he pretty completely lost in when he made a comparison between adherence to eBay policy and forcing black people to drink out of separate water fountains.

 

wow --- excellent recap

 

now I sort of understand the amount of posts flying around in this thread.

 

+1 glad to see doohickamabob bringing this bad boy back on-topic. Now what's to be done about this?

 

How is that on topic? Is this turning to a witch hunt now?

[MustEatBrains]

Preventative maintenance?

 

 

[CAHokie]

Regarding the question of whether Vger7 is the same person as Sagat....

 

No, they're different people. A little Internet sleuthing shows this.

 

Unfortunately, Vger7 has been less than helpful in sorting this out. He fails to acknowledge the optics of the situation to an outsider. The fact that Vger7 and Sagat were using the same email address is at least suspicious. The least Vger7 could do is offer a plausible explanation, and then further explain his relationship with Sagat and how it led to all this confusion.

 

Here's the rundown of Internet-findable facts:

 

Vger7 is confirmed to be Charlie Kim. I only mention this because others have already used the name. Charlie Kim's name is confirmed in the website domain's publically available info of the page he used to post and remove images, www.eltoro505.com. Charlie Kim has an extensive series of blog posts on ComicBookDaily.com.

 

You can click here to read one such blog post . Scroll down and you'll see a picture of a man the caption refers to as Frank Chang. I believe this is Sagat.

 

When Sagat was on these boards, he ended up on the Prohibition List for a deal with "Twisty" or whatever the name is. In that deal, Sagat sold what he claimed was an unrestored comic for $1,200 or $1,300 (the exact number is forgotten but it was in that range). Twisty, who was relatively new to detecting restoration, nonetheless soon figured out the comic was restored and had extensive color touch on the cover. When Twisty tried to get a refund from Sagat, Sagat avoided Twisty for something like three years, refusing to return emails or phone calls. Eventually, Twisty encountered Sagat in a gym (since they apparently both live somewhere in/near Toronto) and confronted him about the deal. Sagat agreed that he had sold Twisty a restored comic, and paid him $400 as restitution. Apparently, Twisty reported on this topic in the CGC forums, and Sagat denied that he had scammed Twisty intentionally. But another user, named October, showed up and said he had personally witnessed Sagat purchasing the restored comic in question, at a convention I guess, and that he clearly remembered the comic being sold as restored. He also recalled hearing Sagat joke that he intended to sell it as unrestored for a profit. So Sagat lied when he claimed he didn't know the comic was restored, it seems. Twisty was able to sell the comic as "restored" on eBay for $480, and having recovered $400 from Sagat, that means Twisty got $880 back for a comic he spent $1,200 to $1,300 on. The cumulative details of this matter led to a board decision to put Sagat on the Prohibition List, but Sagat tried to remove his name from that list, and I am not sure what happened after that -- but he ended up leaving the boards.

 

Then, another user showed up, named carebear or carebears. This user had the same ISP address as Sagat. When questioned by CGC admin, carebear claimed he was Sagat's roommate. This dubious defense led to carebear being ousted from the CGC boards as well.

 

While carebear was using the CGC forums, he made several purchases with people, and during those interactions he signed his name as being "Frank."

 

Fast forward to Vger7's time on the CGC forums. Vger7's email address has been listed in a mesage as rave505@aim.com. Previously, in one message, Sagat had mentioned the rave505@aim.com email address as the contact for the sale or purchase of a single comic. At no other time did Sagat use that email address, however, and in all other cases Sagat consistently used another email address, miffyinhk@yahoo.com, which is consistent with Sagat's ebay account of miffybunny. This is consistent with Vger7's claim that Sagat was doing Vger7 a favor by listing the buy/sale of that comic on Vger7's behalf. This actually holds up because Vger7 wasn't a boardie at the time and Sagat may have been helping him by posting on a forum Vger7 wasn't yet familiar with. This claim is also bolstered by Vger7's post of an old email exchange between himself and Sagat, a screen capture that Vger7 quickly removed but others here saved.

 

So Vger7 is Charlie Kim, Sagat/carebear apparently both are possibly Frank Chang from the photo in Charlie Kim's blog article. (The name "Frank Chang" showed up in one of the other images Vger7 posted-and-deleted to prove his case.)

 

Interestingly enough, the name of Symbiotic, an ousted user (from a couple years ago) caught shilling repeatedly, is Drew Kim. He's probably not related to Charlie Kim, but it's a noteworthy coincidence.

 

As for Vger7 and his posts here about ethics, I think he pretty completely lost in when he made a comparison between adherence to eBay policy and forcing black people to drink out of separate water fountains.

 

wow --- excellent recap

 

now I sort of understand the amount of posts flying around in this thread.

 

+1 glad to see doohickamabob bringing this bad boy back on-topic. Now what's to be done about this?

 

Excellent breakdown. Assuming all of the above is the case (and I dont see a reason not to think it is), than Vger is not a shill or breaking board policy. Now his behavior and actions may be enough that people will decide that they personally don't want to deal with him, but nothing that would warrant any action other than personal lists.

[MustEatBrains]

Regarding the question of whether Vger7 is the same person as Sagat....

 

No, they're different people. A little Internet sleuthing shows this.

 

Unfortunately, Vger7 has been less than helpful in sorting this out. He fails to acknowledge the optics of the situation to an outsider. The fact that Vger7 and Sagat were using the same email address is at least suspicious. The least Vger7 could do is offer a plausible explanation, and then further explain his relationship with Sagat and how it led to all this confusion.

 

Here's the rundown of Internet-findable facts:

 

Vger7 is confirmed to be Charlie Kim. I only mention this because others have already used the name. Charlie Kim's name is confirmed in the website domain's publically available info of the page he used to post and remove images, www.eltoro505.com. Charlie Kim has an extensive series of blog posts on ComicBookDaily.com.

 

You can click here to read one such blog post . Scroll down and you'll see a picture of a man the caption refers to as Frank Chang. I believe this is Sagat.

 

When Sagat was on these boards, he ended up on the Prohibition List for a deal with "Twisty" or whatever the name is. In that deal, Sagat sold what he claimed was an unrestored comic for $1,200 or $1,300 (the exact number is forgotten but it was in that range). Twisty, who was relatively new to detecting restoration, nonetheless soon figured out the comic was restored and had extensive color touch on the cover. When Twisty tried to get a refund from Sagat, Sagat avoided Twisty for something like three years, refusing to return emails or phone calls. Eventually, Twisty encountered Sagat in a gym (since they apparently both live somewhere in/near Toronto) and confronted him about the deal. Sagat agreed that he had sold Twisty a restored comic, and paid him $400 as restitution. Apparently, Twisty reported on this topic in the CGC forums, and Sagat denied that he had scammed Twisty intentionally. But another user, named October, showed up and said he had personally witnessed Sagat purchasing the restored comic in question, at a convention I guess, and that he clearly remembered the comic being sold as restored. He also recalled hearing Sagat joke that he intended to sell it as unrestored for a profit. So Sagat lied when he claimed he didn't know the comic was restored, it seems. Twisty was able to sell the comic as "restored" on eBay for $480, and having recovered $400 from Sagat, that means Twisty got $880 back for a comic he spent $1,200 to $1,300 on. The cumulative details of this matter led to a board decision to put Sagat on the Prohibition List, but Sagat tried to remove his name from that list, and I am not sure what happened after that -- but he ended up leaving the boards.

 

Then, another user showed up, named carebear or carebears. This user had the same ISP address as Sagat. When questioned by CGC admin, carebear claimed he was Sagat's roommate. This dubious defense led to carebear being ousted from the CGC boards as well.

 

While carebear was using the CGC forums, he made several purchases with people, and during those interactions he signed his name as being "Frank."

 

Fast forward to Vger7's time on the CGC forums. Vger7's email address has been listed in a mesage as rave505@aim.com. Previously, in one message, Sagat had mentioned the rave505@aim.com email address as the contact for the sale or purchase of a single comic. At no other time did Sagat use that email address, however, and in all other cases Sagat consistently used another email address, miffyinhk@yahoo.com, which is consistent with Sagat's ebay account of miffybunny. This is consistent with Vger7's claim that Sagat was doing Vger7 a favor by listing the buy/sale of that comic on Vger7's behalf. This actually holds up because Vger7 wasn't a boardie at the time and Sagat may have been helping him by posting on a forum Vger7 wasn't yet familiar with. This claim is also bolstered by Vger7's post of an old email exchange between himself and Sagat, a screen capture that Vger7 quickly removed but others here saved.

 

So Vger7 is Charlie Kim, Sagat/carebear apparently both are possibly Frank Chang from the photo in Charlie Kim's blog article. (The name "Frank Chang" showed up in one of the other images Vger7 posted-and-deleted to prove his case.)

 

Interestingly enough, the name of Symbiotic, an ousted user (from a couple years ago) caught shilling repeatedly, is Drew Kim. He's probably not related to Charlie Kim, but it's a noteworthy coincidence.

 

As for Vger7 and his posts here about ethics, I think he pretty completely lost in when he made a comparison between adherence to eBay policy and forcing black people to drink out of separate water fountains.

 

wow --- excellent recap

 

now I sort of understand the amount of posts flying around in this thread.

 

+1 glad to see doohickamabob bringing this bad boy back on-topic. Now what's to be done about this?

 

How is that on topic? Is this turning to a witch hunt now?

 

[MR SigS]

I'm posting repeatedly instead of just walking away because I'm TRYING to see your point of view and I'm trying to convey mine. I like to think of myself as an honest person and don't like being characterized as something else.

 

I'm giving all sorts of scenarios that I think are being tossed aside as not relevant, but I think they are the exact same thing that is being claimed to be violations of eBay policies. And these actions are morally wrong and a breach of some sort of duty to eBay.

 

What are a potential BUYER's obligations to eBay???

 

If I know a book is listed for $200 on eBay and know it's listed for $180 on MyComicShop.com, why SHOULD I purchase the book on eBay? How is it being argued that it is a breach if I DO buy the book on MCS??

 

 

If it's listed somewhere other than eBay for less, buy it there no problem. If eBay is the only place it's for sale and you message the seller hoping to bypass fees, it's wrong.

[Doohickamabob]

Excellent breakdown. Assuming all of the above is the case (and I dont see a reason not to think it is), than Vger is not a shill or breaking board policy. Now his behavior and actions may be enough that people will decide that they personally don't want to deal with him, but nothing that would warrant any action other than personal lists.

Thanks, and I agree. Vger7 does not appear to have broken board policy.

[HarveySwick]

I'm posting repeatedly instead of just walking away because I'm TRYING to see your point of view and I'm trying to convey mine. I like to think of myself as an honest person and don't like being characterized as something else.

 

I'm giving all sorts of scenarios that I think are being tossed aside as not relevant, but I think they are the exact same thing that is being claimed to be violations of eBay policies. And these actions are morally wrong and a breach of some sort of duty to eBay.

 

What are a potential BUYER's obligations to eBay???

 

If I know a book is listed for $200 on eBay and know it's listed for $180 on MyComicShop.com, why SHOULD I purchase the book on eBay? How is it being argued that it is a breach if I DO buy the book on MCS??

 

 

If it's listed somewhere other than eBay for less, buy it there no problem. If eBay is the only place it's for sale and you message the seller hoping to bypass fees, it's wrong.

 

*sigh*

 

Again, let's say a friend on the Boards lists his book on eBay. He doesn't list it anywhere else because he can't be bothered to for whatever reason. If you KNOW that person on the Boards, why is it "wrong" to message them here and say "Hey, friend, I see you have a copy of x 9.8 on eBay for sale. You have it listed at $200. Want to let it go for $180 with a direct PayPal pmt?"

 

Is it JUST messaging someone through eBay to get an email address that is the problem or if you already know they're on the Boards, that is ok?

[HarveySwick]

Forget it. I'll stop belaboring my point.

[slym2none]

You don't know me

 

I know that you are short on logic.

I know that you that you like to judge people without evidence.

I know that you don't like to talk about racist policies from history.

I know that you are afraid.

 

It's all displayed in this thread. And for what? Just so you can buy and sell comic books.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[slym2none]

That's the problem... you guys really don't know what bad behavior is. All you have is policy and nothing else. No sense of right and wrong. This was my point all along and you all just proved me right.

 

Lets not play games. I wasn't called out. I was targeted. This farce of a trial was never about my identity. It was because I had an opposing view and I refused to be bullied by a group of small mind, sanctimonious, self proclaim superiors who can't swallow being wrong.

 

You guys are nothing more than an internet cliche.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I'm posting repeatedly instead of just walking away because I'm TRYING to see your point of view and I'm trying to convey mine. I like to think of myself as an honest person and don't like being characterized as something else.

 

I'm giving all sorts of scenarios that I think are being tossed aside as not relevant, but I think they are the exact same thing that is being claimed to be violations of eBay policies. And these actions are morally wrong and a breach of some sort of duty to eBay.

 

What are a potential BUYER's obligations to eBay???

 

If I know a book is listed for $200 on eBay and know it's listed for $180 on MyComicShop.com, why SHOULD I purchase the book on eBay? How is it being argued that it is a breach if I DO buy the book on MCS??

 

 

If it's listed somewhere other than eBay for less, buy it there no problem. If eBay is the only place it's for sale and you message the seller hoping to bypass fees, it's wrong.

 

*sigh*

 

Again, let's say a friend on the Boards lists his book on eBay. He doesn't list it anywhere else because he can't be bothered to for whatever reason. If you KNOW that person on the Boards, why is it "wrong" to message them here and say "Hey, friend, I see you have a copy of x 9.8 on eBay for sale. You have it listed at $200. Want to let it go for $180 with a direct PayPal pmt?"

 

Is it JUST messaging someone through eBay to get an email address that is the problem or if you already know they're on the Boards, that is ok?

 

it is fine to contact your friend through another venue

 

Alternatively it is not fine to contact an ebay seller you are not familiar with and ask: their email address, if they are on the cgc forums or otherwise attempt to ascertain their contact info for ebay fee avoidance purposes.

[calcnerd]

[slym2none]

 

 

 

-slym

[ttfitz]

Ebay policies: Offers to buy or sell outside of eBay

 

My thoughts:

 

- There's no problem with items being listed in multiple venues. Ebay does not require exclusivity in order to list an item on eBay (fixed price; auction format obviously must be exclusive). They expect that if you list something for sale, it should be in stock, so if you do list in multiple venues you need to be good about keeping your inventory listings up to date. That's the same whether you have a store account or a regular individual account.

 

- There's no problem with a buyer making his purchase from his venue of choice, when he knows that an item is available from multiple places. Nothing about using eBay obligates the buyer to make the purchase through eBay if he also knows the same item is available elsewhere, whether that other venue is Amazon, the seller's own site, in person at a retail comic store, etc.

 

- If the item is not available through other venues, and the buyer and seller do not already know each other, then a request by the buyer to transact offline is clearly against eBay's policies since it involves exchanging contact information that the buyer would have no access to without using eBay. By transacting offline, the buyer and seller are receiving a service from eBay (bringing together buyer and seller) without paying the agreed upon price of the service.

 

[darkstar]

 

looks like a boardie managed to post himself into getting put on various boardies do no deal with list in a thread in which no transactions were made/attempted and in which he was not a concerned party mentioned in the thread title or first post. Good stuff.

[@Captain_Sawyer]

is it Friday yet?

[greggy]

Agreed

[greggy]

[greggy]

Wow...pretty incredible

[greggy]

So awesome.