Dylanthekid Nomination for the Hall of Shame - Poll Included 12 12

[Funnybooks]

Just now, ttfitz said:

I have to say, I'm impressed. I've read many a wall-of-text messages in my day, but never one so long that said so little.

For those who didn't bother, the tl;dr - "It isn't fair for me to be blocked from posting while this is going on. I had more to say on my original complaint, but was blocked for it."

Whip cream on s h 1 t

[Domo Arigato]

5 hours ago, kav said:

This is very well written and argued Dylan.  I'm open to changing my mind here.  Especially the part about past incidents having no bearing on this matter.

The only thing that should be taken into consideration when casting a vote is the evidence laid out in the first post (edit: and any actual additional evidence relating to this incident posted in this thread).  Nothing else.  And you will never be able to control what everybody else is going to post beyond that in regards to a persons past behavior.  That's not how the world works.  And perhaps that person should have considered what kind of opinions other people were going to form about him based on that behavior before it was conducted.

All conversations were posted in their entirety in the first post in this thread.  You are seeing everything that Polansky said....and you are seeing everything that Dylan said. 

I.....along with several other members.....as well as at least one moderator......saw the nomination that Dylan created to nominate Polonsky to the Probation list.  A moderator should also be able to still see that hidden thread and verify that Dylan himself admitted that while Polonsky hadn't actually violated any forum rules.....he still felt that what he did was unethical.  That's not how the Probation System works.  It was obvious that he was just lashing out because Polonsky had cut off communication with him after seeing Dylan's rage posts......which is completely acceptable.

 

Edited March 22, 2021 by Domo Arigato
For clarity about what evidence should be considered.

[Funnybooks]

Just now, Buzzetta said:

@kav  I called this and I know where this is going as I told you this afternoon. 

Lipstick on a pig

[ttfitz]

11 minutes ago, kav said:

Every episode ol Mason did what as far as i know has never happened in a courtroom-guilty person shouts I DID IT!!!!
Just an amazingly skilled attorney.

Actually watched an episode the other night - he had a guy on the stand who denied being involved in anything, then another guy who he got some stuff from who also claimed to not be the murderer, and Mason said, "No, you didn't kill him, it was First Guy! [turns towards the gallery] Isn't that right, First Guy?"

"YES, YES, I KILLED HIM! IT WAS ME!"

Fabulous.

[thehumantorch]

3 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

@kav  I called this and I know where this is going as I told you this afternoon. 

Yup, this is gonna be fun.

[Domo Arigato]

Dylan posted this in his response:

If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt my claim was proper against Polonsky then are the charges against me dismissed?

If he has such ironclad proof.....then he needs to post it. 

Everything else is just another Charlie Brown teacher trying to speak German.

[kav]

4 minutes ago, ttfitz said:

Actually watched an episode the other night - he had a guy on the stand who denied being involved in anything, then another guy who he got some stuff from who also claimed to not be the murderer, and Mason said, "No, you didn't kill him, it was First Guy! [turns towards the gallery] Isn't that right, First Guy?"

"YES, YES, I KILLED HIM! IT WAS ME!"

Fabulous.

Very accurate depiction of how things generally go in court.

[kav]

No one else thought his reply was well done?  I didnt see any ranting or raving there.

[mattn792]

23 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

Dylan has sent the following response:

Thank you for reaching out

I hope Architect and or other mods can chime in and help answer these questions explicitly to prevent misinformation.

I’d like to take this opportunity to ask some judicial process questions, this is not my defense whatsoever, purely attempting to understand how these rules work and what they even are. I will kindly communicate my defense to you after these rule questions are answered via email-so that it’s clear. I am assuming that you are acting as a representative of the boards as a whole. 

Am I allowed to mount an offense as to further my HOS/PL thread against Polonsky in addition to my public statement in regards to this thread against me?  If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt my claim was proper against Polonsky then are the charges against me dismissed? Is a new thread opened against him? How would the timer on a poll work on a new HOS thread against Polonsky work because having a clock that expires on his hypothetical thread AFTER my thread isn’t logical. I believe I should have nominated Polonsky for PL not HOS and for that I apologize. You believe Polonsky did nothing wrong because I was not able to post my arguments before I was banned. Granted, I should have been less hasty and organized first but that should not minimize my argument although it clearly does because the forum was taken down and I'm currently banned for a few days. My punishment for posting a hasty thread against Polonsky was being banned. I shouldn't have then get a thread against me UNTIL I have the legitimate opportunity to post one unhastily because it sweeps my claim against Polonsky under the rug.

Now, isn’t this entire preceding prejudicial because people need to decide whether they like Dylan or Polonsky more vs who’s wrong in this scenario? If you say no that’s ridiculous, why were multiple comments made in the thread against me pertaining to other issues such as past grading, CGC destroying my AF15s, the character label thing, me being super blunt and not caring how I come across, etc etc? Those are highly prejudicial comments and have nothing to do with the specific accusations against me. Those other topics could easily be started in a separate thread. Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios that the thread is purely reserved for comments directly related to the claims against them, not hearsay from anywhere else. If you would like to discuss anything else, start another thread. I could further argue that making comments not directly relating to the specific accusations against me on an HOS thread. against MY BUSINESS are directly interfering with MY business; Therefore, many people would be HOS’d according to those rules set by the boards

 Being that I have not been voted into HOS yet, I find it against the best interest of truth, justice, and me that Polonsky could post but I could not. Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios that the complainant has a set amount of time to mount a case against the accused NOT they get banned, everyone votes while they are banned, and they can’t post anything until the vast majority of votes are in. I thank you for reaching out now, but I still think it's unfair. Someone should have reached out immediately-it's not your personal responsibility but it is someone's-Maybe a mod for the future?

How can we create a fair and impartial system for judging whether the alleged offense was committed if I’m banned from posting for a week BECAUSE of the HOS thread I posted against Polonsky? Many boardies have already casted their vote, so I almost believe there is no point in responding because minds are already made up and the process is highly Un American. 

Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios the accused can post but only in the thread where they are accused IF they are banned. It’s moronic for them not to be able to do so. However it’s wonderful if you want to find more people guilty regardless of whether they deserve it or not

Is this current system good that an HOS that is deemed improper can then go after the person who accused them? Granted, if I somehow win this vote, does that mean I can nominate Polonsky and Domo for interfering with my biz by posting a then improper thread against me? When would the chaos end?

There’s a lot to swallow there. Let me know if you need anything at all. I cannot post my defense (or rather communicate to you) until I understand the CGC boards judicial processes and quite frankly I don’t even think most of the boardies do either! How can you make a fair decision on a process you don’t 100% understand? Again it becomes do we like or dislike Dylan poll, not is he guilty or not; I hope that one day changes and there is a much fairer system

You might want to start a different thread in comics general about these rules instead of clogging the one against me but

would you please make sure it is clear, maybe at the top of Domo's post to "see this thread..." also with a link as well as at the

bottom for the almost 150 people who have voted without seeing all the facts yet. "I've seen enough" is not a valid response. It's a valid we hate Dylan response, but it's not a valid Dylan is actually guilty response.

Candidly,

Dylan

Just in case anyone forgot, Dylan does have a law degree...

 

[Domo Arigato]

Just now, kav said:

No one else thought his reply was well done?  I didnt see any ranting or raving there.

Just an FYI......according to the website......he AND his dad are involved in their comic business.

Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Buzzetta]

Just now, kav said:

No one else thought his reply was well done?  I didnt see any ranting or raving there.

Just remember what I said this afternoon.  This is the precursor to where this is headed.

[Terry JSA]

12 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

I think entitled is the key, not sure about the book part

The way he was going about it made it sound like he was. He wanted the book but the seller declined his offers and he took it to the extreme. 

[thehumantorch]

4 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

Dylan posted this in his response:

If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt my claim was proper against Polonsky then are the charges against me dismissed?

If he has such ironclad proof.....then he needs to post it. 

Everything else is just another Charlie Brown teacher trying to speak German.

 

"My punishment for posting a hasty thread against Polonsky was being banned"

No sir, threads are not pulled and members are not banned for being hasty.  Threads and bans are related to violating CGC board rules like making personal attacks and have nothing to do with sales disputes.  As my momma youse to say  "If you ain't classy, you're assy"

[Domo Arigato]

Let it be clear that I am not going to deal with any of his nonsense regarding this.  The evidence was presented in the first post of this thread.  If Dylan has any evidence to contradict that information and show that he should not be added to the Hall of Shame, then he needs to send it.  The following email has just been sent to him.

Dylan,

 

Any actions you wish to take against Polonsky are not going to be addressed here.  If you have actual evidence that Polonsky broke forum rules and that your Probation List nomination for him was valid.....then you need to email that information to me immediately so it can be posted.  This isn't a legal process and you are not going to bog it down with semantics.

 

If you have evidence to post....then send it to me.  That's it.

 

Thanks

 

Edited March 22, 2021 by Domo Arigato

[Hollywood1892]

24 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

The only thing that should be taken into consideration when casting a vote is the evidence laid out in the first post.  Nothing else.  And you will never be able to control what everybody else is going to post beyond that in regards to a persons past behavior.  That's not how the world works.  And perhaps that person should have considered what kind of opinions other people were going to form about him based on that behavior before it was conducted.

All conversations were posted in their entirety in the first post in this thread.  You are seeing everything that Polansky said....and you are seeing everything that Dylan said. 

I.....along with several other members.....as well as at least one moderator......saw the nomination that Dylan created to nominate Polonsky to the Probation list.  A moderator should also be able to still see that hidden thread and verify that Dylan himself admitted that while Polonsky hadn't actually violated any forum rules.....he still felt that what he did was unethical.  That's not how the Probation System works.  It was obvious that he was just lashing out because Polonsky had cut off communication with him after seeing Dylan's rage posts......which is completely acceptable.

 

I agree, maybe Dylan needs to switch up his negotiation tactics....I'm going to edit as soon as I go back to your initial thread to remind me why we are here in the first place

Technically it's not really interfering with someone's business, Dylan did not prevent Polansky from selling the item, which would be interfering with someone's business. In Technical terms he was being obnoxious, had he attempted to circumvent a transaction between Polansky and someone else then that would be running interference.

It's obvious Dylan isn't well liked, and his own business tactics should be brought in question, but if anyone would read his spiteful thread against Polansky it wouldn't make people decide against doing business with Polansky. My interpretation of interference is not this

Edited March 22, 2021 by Hollywood1892

[wombat]

His response make no difference to me. It sounds like his entire argument still comes down to the fact that because someone decided not to do business with him prior to reaching a deal he is entitled to go nuclear.

As far as the whole issue of being banned while the vote takes place I can see merit in that argument. However the loophole would have to be addressed by just getting yourself time outs on purpose. Pretty easy to do. 

[thehumantorch]

14 minutes ago, kav said:

No one else thought his reply was well done?  I didnt see any ranting or raving there.

No.  It's an attempt to appear calm and logical and argue based on reason without any facts or reason.  There's nothing of substance in that entire post.

[Buzzetta]

Just now, Domo Arigato said:

Just an FYI......according to the website......he AND his dad are involved in their comic business.

Take that for what it's worth.

 

So here is a summation of what I said this afternoon to @kav  I am going to post my postulations and not his response as it was a private message.  I don't think he will take mind with this as it is of my personal belief as to how this ends up. 

For those that do not know, Dylan ######## of Great Neck is backed by his father in his comics venture.  This is most likely a response drafted by his father or their lawyer.   So where is this going?   Dylan's team composed of Dylan, his father, and whoever, will probably make a claim that CGC is, "out to get him."

These are SOME of the claims that Dylan's team will make: (I'm not going to offer more thoughts as I don't work for them.)

• They will continue the claim that CGC damaged his AF15's and that his complaints have created a bad relationship between Dylan and CGC
• They will make the claim that CGC is retaliating against him by allowing this poll to exist without allowing him to defend himself while votes are cast
• They will make the claim that CGC is retaliating against him by allowing this poll to exist in the purpose of harming his reputation and hampering his ability to conduct business outside of the CGC marketplace.  
• I made mention of two other things that I will not state publicly.  Again, he sees this, and I do not work for them. 

So what is going to happen.  Dylan will ultimately lose and for a few reasons.  None of which should be shared publicly because we should not present CGC's defense for free and allow Dylan's team to devise a course of action to attack it.   We don't work for Dylan. 

 

CGC?  Again, this place could continue to become more trouble than it is worth and the PL and HOS and sales in general in the marketplace are shut down.  There is a reason that other companies do not facilitate the buying and selling of their own product from customer to customer on their websites. 

[kav]

1 minute ago, thehumantorch said:

No.  It's an attempt to appear calm and logical and argue based on reason without any facts or reason.  There's nothing of substance in that entire post.

I mean people that fly off the handle do not have the ability to appear calm and logical tho.   Am I wrong?

[Domo Arigato]

2 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

So here is a summation of what I said this afternoon to @kav  I am going to post my postulations and not his response as it was a private message.  I don't think he will take mind with this as it is of my personal belief as to how this ends up. 

For those that do not know, Dylan ######## of Great Neck is backed by his father in his comics venture.  This is most likely a response drafted by his father or their lawyer.   So where is this going?   Dylan's team composed of Dylan, his father, and whoever, will probably make a claim that CGC is, "out to get him."

Just one more reason why Dylan's account needs to be banned by the administrators.

This is a private message board.  Nobody has a right to be here and CGC is free to legally alter the membership as they please.

He has done nothing but cause issues here for CGC itself, its forum members, its administrators, and its moderators.