Nominating GEEzusWalks 3 3

[Murphman13]

[FineCollector]

On 7/2/2019 at 7:44 PM, ChiSoxFan said:

The removal of the pictures (and the possible paper trail of a serial number if the book were to sell somewhere else).  The "bargain" price.  The immediate refund and the seeming initial indifference to finding the book (if I had been the seller, I would have been tearing my house apart to find the book to avoid having to do a refund, never mind the customer service implications).

That's where I'm at with this as well.  I strongly believe the offending party is using the prisoner's dilemma as his defense.  Deny everything, and accept lesser blame.  Does he think if he admits fault, that he's liable for finding a copy at full price to replace the lost one?  Is that all this is?  Either way, not someone I want to deal with, and I believe the buyer is now entitled to compensation before removal from the list is possible.

[skypinkblu]

15 hours ago, buttock said:

There are three tells to me that this is a scam by the seller.

 

1) he uses the term "we" when referring to himself.  is it just me, or does every scumbag on these boards refer to themselves in this manner.

2) his name involves Jesus.  Seems that anyone who names themselves in a religious manner is usually trying to do so to do people into thinking that they are a decent person.  I know I know, it's probably more a reference to Kanye, but the principle still stands.

3) he refunded the money immediately without spending much time to look for the book. This being the only real serious point of my post, it's very telling. If I were in his shoes I would tear my house apart for days before I sent the money back. I would let the seller know that I was doing so. And ultimately if I was unable to find the book after an intensive search I would then, and only then, refund the money.  on the other hand, if I was trying to Welch out of a sale, I would just refund the money and say I can't find the book.

Actually,  Columbia Comics was the first person I've ever had use the term "we". I thought it was some kind of   reference to his wife?

As for the rest, I have thought all along, that there might be a language problem, but I'm not sure. So I finally asked him.  That was the first time I have not gotten a response.

The answers are not perfect for sure, so I'm not voting for now.

[newshane]

Just remember, a vote to remove him from the list is a vote that says "It's okay to 'lose' a book if you need to back out a deal." 

Think about the precedent you are setting with you vote. 

[Buzzetta]

On 7/2/2019 at 5:56 PM, mrwoogieman said:

Follow up to the follow up - he pled guilty to attempted first degree murder and was sentenced to 15-19 years in prison.

https://www.wbtv.com/story/25745264/union-county-d-a-defends-plea-deal-that-has-domestic-violence-stabbing-victim-upset/

 

 

Follow up to the follow up to the follow up... 

Mr Neeley is currently held in the custody of the Harnett Correctional Institution of North Carolina.

He has had quite a few infractions while in prison as can be viewed HERE thanks to the North Carolina Department of Corrections and judging by his record he is a career criminal. 

However... if anyone wants to let him know how special he is and that the boards still remember him... you can send comic books to him HERE at the Harnett Correctional Institution of North Carolina: 

 

• Thomas W Neeley: Offender Number 0569738
• c/o: Harnett Correctional Institution
• Box 1569, 1210 E. McNeill Street, Lillington, NC 27546
• Phone: 910-893-2751

 

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Buzzetta

[Logan510]

1 hour ago, newshane said:

Just remember, a vote to remove him from the list is a vote that says "It's okay to 'lose' a book if you need to back out a deal." 

Think about the precedent you are setting with you vote. 

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but what would you suggest for him to be taken off the probation list? He already paid him back in full and I don't think it's right to force him to buy a book to replace the alleged lost one, that would also be setting a precedent.

[newshane]

28 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Follow up to the follow up to the follow up... 

Mr Neeley is currently held in the custody of the Harnett Correctional Institution of North Carolina.

He has had quite a few infractions while in prison as can be viewed HERE thanks to the North Carolina Department of Corrections and judging by his record he is a career criminal. 

However... if anyone wants to let him know how special he is and that the boards still remember him... you can send comic books to him HERE at the Harnett Correctional Institution of North Carolina: 

 

• Thomas W Neeley: Offender Number 0569738
• c/o: Harnett Correctional Institution
• Box 1569, 1210 E. McNeill Street, Lillington, NC 27546
• Phone: 910-893-2751

 

 

Better to forget about him as he wastes away in a cell, where he belongs. 

[newshane]

Just now, Logan510 said:

....but what would you suggest for him to be taken off the probation list?

We've been over this ad nauseam. 

He's been given several opportunities already, all of them simple solutions. People are free to go back and dissect the discussions. 

 

[Logan510]

2 minutes ago, newshane said:

We've been over this ad nauseam. 

He's been given several opportunities already, all of them simple solutions. People are free to go back and dissect the discussions. 

 

OK, but how is he supposed to prove he deleted his scans? There's no way possible.

[newshane]

1 minute ago, Logan510 said:

OK, but how is he supposed to prove he deleted his scans? There's no way possible.

Tough  then. 

 

[Buzzetta]

9 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but what would you suggest for him to be taken off the probation list? He already paid him back in full and I don't think it's right to force him to buy a book to replace the alleged lost one, that would also be setting a precedent.

Here is one thing that may have been overlooked... 

He says that he deleted the pics. 

Let's assume that he did a cash transaction for the book so there is no record of sale. 

However, I would like the CGC Sku number for the book.  Ok ok ok... some of you are saying that since the book is gone how can he get that? 

Well, since he recently received it back it would be in his CGC invoices.  If it is not in the CGC invoices because the book was slabbed earlier than that it can still be determined by remembering what batch of books it came back with.  Give me a sku number and I will enter them into the site with consecutive numbers until I locate the book. 

If the guy cannot get any of that information... then maybe he deserves to stay on the Probation List.  There are MANY MANY ways that this whole matter can be rectified but the seller keeps avoiding the opportunities to do so or comes up with a self validated reason for not being able to do so. 

[Logan510]

6 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Here is one thing that may have been overlooked... 

He says that he deleted the pics. 

Let's assume that he did a cash transaction for the book so there is no record of sale. 

However, I would like the CGC Sku number for the book.  Ok ok ok... some of you are saying that since the book is gone how can he get that? 

Well, since he recently received it back it would be in his CGC invoices.  If it is not in the CGC invoices because the book was slabbed earlier than that it can still be determined by remembering what batch of books it came back with.  Give me a sku number and I will enter them into the site with consecutive numbers until I locate the book. 

If the guy cannot get any of that information... then maybe he deserves to stay on the Probation List.  There are MANY MANY ways that this whole matter can be rectified but the seller keeps avoiding the opportunities to do so or comes up with a self validated reason for not being able to do so. 

I wish people had been this dogged when I nominated a long time boardie / dealer for the probation list. I had a lot of pressure exerted on me to OK his removal from the list and did so begrudgingly. I guess if you're a BSD the rules are different. 

[Buzzetta]

1 minute ago, Logan510 said:

I wish people had been this dogged when I nominated a long time boardie / dealer for the probation list. I had a lot of pressure exerted on me to OK his removal from the list and did so begrudgingly. I guess if you're a BSD the rules are different. 

Me too actually... There was a dealer here who took a preorder for a book and then sold it on eBay as the book went nuts in value. 

I was basically told, you can do what you want, as I was only a couple of years in on the boards, and people will ignore you because of 'cool books'.  He was kind of right.  But, I never did business with them again, I made sure that my friend at least got his book, I received a refund and paid a little bit of more money to get that book, which I still have. 

[newshane]

15 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Me too actually... There was a dealer here....

My favorite is when someone charges you for fast track grading and sits on the book for two or three months as he compiles invoices for one big sub....

then loses his temper when you call him out about it. 

Probation worthy? Maybe not. But certainly bad enough to warrant going elsewhere. 

It's been mentioned before - membership on the PL does not bar people from doing business here. But everyone should remember that everyone has their own personal lists...and that every cent you lose matters in the end. 

Problem is that most people are afraid to speak up or call someone out because they are afraid of losing out on a deal or a particular book or some sort of perceived favoritism. 

 

[crassus]

2 hours ago, newshane said:

Just remember, a vote to remove him from the list is a vote that says "It's okay to 'lose' a book if you need to back out a deal." 

Think about the precedent you are setting with you vote. 

I would like to add to this a few things about precedents.

First, while personally I am happy to hear CC is willing to be guided by the poll results, it needs to be remembered that the poll results, either way, would only be valid because he has agreed to accept them as a resolution. As the rules currently stand, CC is within his rights to keep the seller on the list.

It is an open question what precedent would be set either way by this resort to a poll, but imo it would not be setting any dangerous precedent against the existing rules. Assuming CC's assent to the poll, whatever the result of the vote, it would represent only another form of mediation, which the rules allow and encourage. 

Second, (and I mean this as an elaboration, not necessarily a criticism, of Newshane's point) the seller is not on the PL simply because he claimed to have lost a book. He is on the PL because of how he has followed up on that claim vis a vis the buyer. 

What also raises concern vis a vis precedent is the idea that a full and prompt refund does not necessarily end a transaction (or void obligations) with finality.

Does a full and prompt refund necessarily void all other circumstances?

[comicdonna]

No, it doesn't.  

[Buzzetta]

I find it almost annoying that we care more about whether or not this guy is on a probation list than he does. 

Yes I know some of are in debate to determine how a situation like this should be handled. 

But some are debating as to whether or not the individual himself is the entirety of the debate. 

This guy obviously does not care... so... with that said, when people are advocating for one position or another, perhaps it is best to remove the individual from the scenario and merely debate how situations such as this should be treated moving forward.   When I think of it in terms like this, I begin to drift away from permanent probation list.

 

Maybe the concept of the probation list in of itself should be changed where probation list members have a certain time period to rectify the situation or they graduate to the hall of shame or move off the list after a certain amount of time otherwise the probation list in of itself is a hall of shame.  

At the end of the day, the lists are only as strong as the users that uphold the sentiment behind them.  There was a member of the Hall of Shame trying to do business on the boards through PM last year. While some outed him, I am sure there was probably someone that went through with transactions and took his money.  So... some food for thought. 

[Mystafo]

My mind: "OH YES! *nom nom nom* PRECIOUS FOOD!!!  I'VE BEEN STARVED IN THIS DARK, BARREN PRISON!! *nom nom nom* THANK YOU!!!" 

[Logan510]

5 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

I find it almost annoying that we care more about whether or not this guy is on a probation list than he does. 

Yes I know some of are in debate to determine how a situation like this should be handled. 

But some are debating as to whether or not the individual himself is the entirety of the debate. 

This guy obviously does not care... so... with that said, when people are advocating for one position or another, perhaps it is best to remove the individual from the scenario and merely debate how situations such as this should be treated moving forward.   When I think of it in terms like this, I begin to drift away from permanent probation list.

 

Maybe the concept of the probation list in of itself should be changed where probation list members have a certain time period to rectify the situation or they graduate to the hall of shame or move off the list after a certain amount of time otherwise the probation list in of itself is a hall of shame.  

At the end of the day, the lists are only as strong as the users that uphold the sentiment behind them.  There was a member of the Hall of Shame trying to do business on the boards through PM last year. While some outed him, I am sure there was probably someone that went through with transactions and took his money.  So... some food for thought. 

I personally know of at least two people who do / have done business with HoS'ers.

We can all probably gue$$ why.

[DeadOne]

24 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Maybe the concept of the probation list in of itself should be changed where probation list members have a certain time period to rectify the situation or they graduate to the hall of shame or move off the list after a certain amount of time otherwise the probation list in of itself is a hall of shame.  

I was thinking of something very similar at the same time you posted.

Perhaps, regarding circumstances similar to the @GEEzusWalks addition to the PL, there should be time frame for their sentencing to the PL. For example, a 1-year minimum where, after a full year has gone by, the member could ask that they be removed from the PL w/o the consent of the offended person.

The member would have to ask for their removal themselves (no un-involved party on their behalf).

Of course this would only apply to circumstances similar to the Columbia Comics/GEEzusWalks where there is no actual $$$ loss, but circumstances and communication surrounding the failed transaction seem questionable.