Dealing with the cheaters

billywls

Wondercoin--

Now that life is almost back to normal could we re-examine the initial cause of all the excitement. If you or other board members have accurate, first hand knowledge of people "cheating" on their registry sets(which several comments in these threads seem to indicate), it would seem simple enough to contact them directly, disclosure your knowledge, give them the opportunity to respond either with an explanation or correcting the error of their ways by adjusting their sets. If no satisfactory response is given , simply go public with the info. If their motive was self imbellishment with coins they don't own, their motive is immediately defeated by the knowledge becoming public.

The catch, of course, is that the knowledge must be first hand. It can't be second hand from even your best, most trusted pal. Or worse, from some slightly unreliable source.

I must be missing something. It seems too simple. What's your view?

wondercoin

Bill: I had an opportunity to briefly discuss the issue of registering unowned coins with PCGS today. It was brief due to schedules. Over the next couple days, I will discuss with PCGS the issue in much more detail and listen to what they suggest. Should that have been done in the firstplace over the method I originally chose? YES.

Is the issue widespread? NO. But, I know you will agree, it is better to be proactive than reactive on the matter. I wouldn't be suprised to also see additonal rule changes later this year to ensure the intent of the Registry is followed.

Wondercoin. P.S. My "unreliable source" comment was what I tried to be the "tip off" to everyone that my thread was a parody or whatever. Yep, messed up there too!

PEACEKEEPER

I THINK YOU ARE CLOSE TO BEING AS RIGHT AS ANYONE CAN. IF THE REGISTRY BELONGS TO CU [WHICH IT APPARENTLY DOES SINCE IT IS TRADEMARKED] AND IT HAS BEEN PUT OUT THERE FOR WE COLLECTORS TO PROUDLY DISPLAY OUR ACHIEVEMENTS, THEN IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO POLICE IT AND KEEP IT AS PURE AS POSSIBLE. SO WE SHOULD FEEL FREE TO CHALLENGE ANYONE WHO WE KNOW IS PADDING THEIR SETS WITH COINSS THAT THEY DO NOT OWN....
I AM SURE THAT AS THIS EVOLVES CU WILL PUT INTO PLACE A WAY TO RID THE REGISTRY OF THE EVIL DOERS.

Spooly

I agree Bill! But there has been NO proof on this! What I am doing has nothing to do with the WC thread. For weeks members have been upset with changes in the Reg Sets. NOT one person at PCGS has responed to us. Top members are deleting sets... and PCGS doesn't care. Weighting is one thing, adding coin with NO notice is completely different! Do the Reg Set owner have NO say in what is done?? Is that right? Does PCGS even care?

billywls

Spooly--

The council is a great idea and is not related directly to the cheating issue. I hope CU is open to the idea. There is a long list of issues collectors would like to have an input on.

WC--

There is dishonesty and disception everywhere in life. There are almost universally laws or rules against it. Why is it still here? Lack of adequate enforcement. The current rules PCGS has are probably adequate. Almost everyone in these threads recognized what was in the spirit of proper competition and what was not. The question is whether the issue is important or not. If it is not wide spread, is it important? Is it important to PCGS? Probably not. Is it important to the participants? Probably so. --To the extent of having witch hunts? To the extent of publically confronting the violators? I'm not sure.

I work hard putting my sets together. I spend ALOT of money putting my sets together. I am competitive in putting my sets together. I hate the idea of someone being in a top slot who doesn't deserve it. I see top ranking current sets on the registry that dealers tell me were sold and dismembered over a year ago. It's irritating but I don't know first hand.

Personally, it doesn't change my approach to collecting because I collect ultimately for my own enjoyment and satisfaction.

The point is I think we probably have enough rules but if people want more or want them claified, Why Not? But, do more rules eliminate the problem? Probably not. Until people are willing to step up and personnally discouage the cheaters they know about, nothing will be solved. I cannot see the day when PCGS will hire registry police to engage in covert surveillance.

We need a method of discouaging cheaters without serious disruption to the enjoyment, fun and competition of the registry.

RegistryCoin

.

Dog97

Whoever makes the accusation needs to prove it then after it is proved PCGS deletes the offending coin and an HTML tag that says "I got caught cheating" inserted into the offending sets introduction, thus causing the owner to be embarressed and delete the set himself.

wondercoin

Bill: I just had an opportunity to complete my conversation with PCGS concerning Set Registry "Cheating". The following idea came of the conversation:

1. Create a Bill of Rights" and Contract, which the registry participant must sign before registering the set. These documents will contain explicit rules and regulations on ownership of coins, etc.

2. Create a liason at the Registry to handle charges of Registry Set violations (sort of like ebay and it is confidential)

3. Upon investigating any charge, if the Registry determines their is merit to investigate further, they will require exlicit proof by the registry participant of the ownership of all coins in the questioned set. If this proof can not be provided, the set is banned from the registry and depending upon the circumstances, the Registry participant could be banned as well.

Thoughts? Wondercoin.

dbldie55

Bill, I think it is a bigger non-issue than it will ever be an issue. A lot of politics come from the same sort of things, and they make new laws every year instead of enforcing the existing ones. They do not need any new rules about how to list your coins, although they did make some clarifications. As it is, it is against the rules to just list an insert number. You can still do it, adding more rules doesn't make it less likely to be done.

RC, there you go again saying it is "our" fault for not KNOWING that WC was leading everyone one on a goose chase. Pretty liberal thinking if you ask me. I have yet to see anything positive from it other than WC saying he was wrong for his presentation in another thread, guess he was still right in your mind though.

Also, Bill, that is some fantastic astro photography you have on your site. Love to visit sometime and check your setup out. I used to have a neighbor when I was growing up who had a similar setup.

billywls

Wondercoin--

Personally, I like it. I like that the participant must overtly agree.

I like the private handling of it by the owner(PCGS) of the registry and the avoidance public anxiety and conflict.

I like the actual enforcement technique.

I was confident that your boundless energy, your gift for gab, and your leadership drive would be productive. Good start.

dbldie55

Wondercoin, just one thought. Who would pay for it? What you are saying is all well and good, but the investigation parts will cost money, and why would PCGS spend it. They do not charge to create a set, so having these rules in place would then cost them money. Perhaps if it was shown that the problem was so bad that people may start to avoid these sets, and thus sending coins in to be graded for them, they would consider it money well spent. Or if the problem was so non-existant that the money would never need to be spent in the first place, in which case, why add new rules in the first place.

I am not saying the thoughts are not good, they are, I just don't see this happening for financial reasons. Is this flawed thinking?

davefperry

The 'Bill of Rights Contract' seems like a good idea. It wouldn't need much enforcement. Just the fear of getting caught should scare serious collectors from suffering a lapse in judgement.

RegistryCoin

.

Cocoinut

Regarding the apprehension of cheaters:



<< <i>The catch, of course, is that the knowledge must be first hand. It can't be second hand from even your best, most trusted pal. >>



Bill, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, but it will be very difficult to prove any such wrongdoing without it seeming like a witchhunt. Unless a cheater is foolish enough to brag about it to someone else that knows or cares about the registry, how could he be exposed? One deterrent that would have limited effectiveness for just low population coins would be for PCGS to publish the serial number for each registry coin.

It's probably easier to identify the good sets than the bad. It might be a shrewd PR move for PCGS to have a knowledgeable traveling representative that would roam the country and meet with registry set owners to verify their sets and answer questions. The verified sets could be described as such on the registry, giving them some added prestige. This might also be accomplished at a regional level by the members of Spooly's proposed Collector's Council. I'd also like to see registry sets displayed among the exhibits at major coin shows, where they could also be verified. If security was tight, I think a lot of us would be proud to show off our collections, and many others would enjoy viewing the sets. As the number of "verified" sets increased, any top set that was NOT verified might be viewed with some suspicion. There certainly will be some collectors who prefer to remain anonymous, and that is their right, but many of the most competitive collectors might rather have a lower ranked verified set than a higher ranked set that no one has ever seen.

Jim

Dog97

Stop and think about it Cocoinut. We that dabble in these highest graded low pop coins know the coins as well as the owners. We know how many are graded. We know who submits them. We know who sells them. We know who buys them. We know who's sets they turn up in.