Originally posted by: MULLINS5 It's like that person who clocks into work late according to the time clock on the wall but says to the boss they're actually on time because their watch says an earlier time. When I worked at Goodwill all the employees knew to go by the time clock - and they set their watches and/or phones accordingly.
Very popular boxes that sold out at the 9PM mark. Not allowing any of those guys to get a box would be just wrong.
I was thinking when this break was materializing just how well it is being run. Kudos to 70Topps for putting it together professionally and putting his foot down on the time stamp issue.
My only complaint is that there is no Hockey
Best of luck to all who are participating and to those ripping please post some scans.
My apologies for that oversight. I am speaking to Steve later today and I will see if we can add anything in the other major sports. In future I will also try to be on the lookout for more than just baseball (my passion).
Originally posted by: MULLINS5 It's like that person who clocks into work late according to the time clock on the wall but says to the boss they're actually on time because their watch says an earlier time. When I worked at Goodwill all the employees knew to go by the time clock - and they set their watches and/or phones accordingly.
Very popular boxes that sold out at the 9PM mark. Not allowing any of those guys to get a box would be just wrong.
I was thinking when this break was materializing just how well it is being run. Kudos to 70Topps for putting it together professionally and putting his foot down on the time stamp issue.
My only complaint is that there is no Hockey
Best of luck to all who are participating and to those ripping please post some scans.
My apologies for that oversight. I am speaking to Steve later today and I will see if we can add anything in the other major sports. In future I will also try to be on the lookout for more than just baseball (my passion).
Thanks for a valuable insight.
Checked with Steve. He had hoped to have some other sport items of this nature come in during the show to offer to us, but unfortunately nothing was offered. Therefore we won't be able to add anything at this time.
However, I will explicitly ask about all 4 sports and look for all 4 sports in all future attempts.
Originally posted by: doubledentTo avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Maybe I'm just not understanding you right, so please correct me if I'm wrong. You think Dave should organize everything, keep track of all PMs (receive and answer), posts, payments, mailings... for nothing?
Originally posted by: baz518 Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
I posted in the other thread but I'll touch on it here, as others have said, this could have been done better. The easiest way would have been to simply start a signup thread at 9 PM. To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Baz, I think you need to try and see things from other people's perspectives. Lots of people only have a chance for boxes like these because of breaks like these. To see that opportunity get away because of incomplete instructions, whether you agree with their perspective or not, is frustrating.
I also agree with Cindy that we need to just move forward. Stop badgering MM and let things be.
Just when I thought posts could not get more ridiculous from MM we get to read this nonsense. The organizer should not be able to go after items in the break? That is ludicrous. IMO he should be first in line to get whatever he wants. He was nice enough to organize this so others could get some great product, and a few folks are acting like a screaming kid leaving Disney World at 9pm. Simple rules were posted and established, but because someone cannot tell time and did not test their time stamp ahead of the break we now have one person asking for a mulligan and to start the break over and a buddy saying Dave should not participate in the break. Maybe you should read your posts again to see how ridiculous this looks.
Dave is an upstanding collector who helps out and shares his knowledge and in this case is helping other collectors. Maybe a pat on the back is in order instead of a kick in the butt. Big thx to Dave for doing this.
I gotta know. . . Any 1977 wax purchasers plan on ripping?!
+1. Would also love to see pics/scans of any of the racks!! Just want to live vicariously through you all... getting ready for a trip to Chicago, which consumed my card budget for the month, so I had to sit this one out.
Originally posted by: baz518 Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
I posted in the other thread but I'll touch on it here, as others have said, this could have been done better. The easiest way would have been to simply start a signup thread at 9 PM. To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Baz, I think you need to try and see things from other people's perspectives. Lots of people only have a chance for boxes like these because of breaks like these. To see that opportunity get away because of incomplete instructions, whether you agree with their perspective or not, is frustrating.
I also agree with Cindy that we need to just move forward. Stop badgering MM and let things be.
Just when I thought posts could not get more ridiculous from MM we get to read this nonsense. The organizer should not be able to go after items in the break? That is ludicrous. IMO he should be first in line to get whatever he wants. He was nice enough to organize this so others could get some great product, and a few folks are acting like a screaming kid leaving Disney World at 9pm. Simple rules were posted and established, but because someone cannot tell time and did not test their time stamp ahead of the break we now have one person asking for a mulligan and to start the break over and a buddy saying Dave should not participate in the break. Maybe you should read your posts again to see how ridiculous this looks.
Dave is an upstanding collector who helps out and shares his knowledge and in this case is helping other collectors. Maybe a pat on the back is in order instead of a kick in the butt. Big thx to Dave for doing this.
KC
I agree with KC, I honestly think it's the one or two that complain that has killed the group breaks. We used to do these quite a bit years ago but who would want to put up with all the BS.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
To quote the wise donkey from Shrek The Halls: "My mama used to always say, 'Christmas ain't Christmas till somebody cries!'"
"You know we just don't recognize the most significant moments of our lives while they're happening. Back then I thought, well, there'll be other days. I didn't realize that that was the only day."
Originally posted by: baz518 Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
Along those lines I think the last Group sub was run by EagleEyeKid and someone gave him such a hard time he left the forum. There was more to the story but the bottom line I think was he was fed up with the ordeal it all became because of unhappy people. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Can you really blame Eagle Eye? It was a shame, Eagle Eye and the others that used to put these together had to spend many hours of time and resources only to get bombarded with a million questions and complaints. We finally have a member that's willing to take the time and effort to try this again and now we have a select few that are jeopardizing it.
This isn't some fake PC world, this is the REAL world and sometimes it's not always going to be fair. In the coin world when a new release hits the US Mint sometimes you can complete your purchase and other times you can't. Some members use multiple devices and multiple browsers to ensure there aren't any problems but guess what, we never cry foul.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Folks, I am appreciative of the comments being made but I beg of you to try and address the subject constructively. Not everyone has been around doing these breaks for years. It's human nature to be suspicious, and its taken us quite a while to get the major kinks out and establish a reasonable system that can be trusted...ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THE PRICES HAVE GOTTEN SO MUCH BIGGER.
Just to be clear, we have always allowed the organizer to participate. It has never been much of an issue (except when pre-allocation to those organizing dramatically reduced the supply for all others to have a chance at getting something). However, there is a small potential advantage for an organizer if we use an approach where the request thread gets posted and is immediately "live". That advantage is that the organizer knows exactly "when" he will post the thread. That makes it easy to get in earlier than others who need to see the thread actually appear first. While the advantage I speak of is small (as we saw in Mark's 76 cello experience), it cannot be denied that it is there.
By putting the thread up hours earlier than the start time it put me in the same boat as everyone else. Advantage eliminated.
A conflict of interest is something that occurs where a person puts his/her own interests ahead of others to whom he/she has some sort of obligation to provide impartiality and fairness to. While I can easily see where DD might quickly move to that kind of judgment, I think the combination of past actions (which he might not be aware of), reputation and current conduct should easily put those kinds of fears to bed.
What we have here is never going to be perfect, but in today's world I think that the community we have created here has far more going on that is RIGHT than we have that is wrong. We are a bunch of (mostly) strangers who share, collaborate, commiserate, support each other and generally try to do right by each other. I'd say that everyone here deserves a lot of kudos for swimming against the grain of current American society that has so much preoccupation with self-interest and instant gratification.
Anyway, my .02 is spent on this subject. Hopefully in sharing it it's worth a bit more than its face value
SOMETHING IMPORTANT WAS JUST BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION AND IN AN EFFORT TO BE TRANSPARENT AND PREVENT UNNECESSARY DRAMA I AM POSTING IT PUBLICLY FOR ALL TO SEE.
A member of this community, begsu1013 (Bob), contacted me via text message. He has not been seen posting here recently because he was banned by CU and has not been reinstated.
When Bob contacted he said he saw that we were a little short on the 1977 wax box case break and he offered to take enough boxes to get us over the minimum threshold that we are required to meet. I appreciated his gesture and responded that I would post a request for him in the thread now (1 box per product in the first 48 hours) and then do another post for him after 9PM tonight if we still needed requests so that we could get over the threshold. I did not check for a reply before I made the first post.
Soon after I learned that another person had already requested a 1977 wax box on his behalf but was not explicit in making request. I did not realize this or I would have waited in posting my initial request for him.
The reason for disclosing this is to make sure than nobody misinterprets a genuine nice gesture on Bob's behalf (to help us get over the threshold) as an attempt to circumvent the limit rules. I know Bob and I knew he would make good for my post on his behalf so I did not wait for him to give me an ok. And since I did not have a request for this item it could not be considered an effort by me to get around the rules either.
To make sure that we are sticking to the published rules I am removing my request on Bob's behalf. I will post another request for Bob after 9PM tonight in an effort to get us over the threshold if we have not made it by then (or if Bob wants another box).
In the past we have had few straw purchase requests like this occur, but with the recent issue that we dealt with I think it necessary to put a clarification into the current rules to prevent another unnecessary blow-up. Unless someone has really strong feelings against this, I am going to add a new rule that from this point forward anyone making a request on behalf of somebody else must disclose it by identifying the person, and that the totals of their own requests + their requests on behalf of others cannot exceed the individual limits (if any). While there is no way that this can 100% be policed and enforced, I have enough faith in our community members that they will adhere to this new rule.
If there are any thoughts or concerns please post them here constructively
I have what I hope is viewed as "constructive" feedback . . .
After watching the reservations play out, it appears that the end result is you either get 2 packs or an entire box, and (perhaps a bigger issue), a fairly high percentage of those wanting an individual pack or two are going to get shut out.
A suggestion for next time (when packs AND boxes are involved), it may be more beneficial (allow more to participate on a limited budget?) to have at least one more time window allocated to packs, either with another "2 per person" limit, or perhaps a higher limit (4-6?). Whatever is remaining after this second window will then be allocated to full boxes.
This would allow people who can't afford an entire box to still get in at a higher level (maybe 4-8 packs total). It would also fill more boxes via the "packs", thus allowing a higher percentage of those who just want packs to actually get them. Finally, it would help those who are "falling off" the full box list as the pack list fills up to get in on the packs once they know they are no longer needing to budget for a box (and also reduces the odds of them getting shut out altogether of both boxes and packs).
Hopefully I explained this well, hard to get my thoughts out concisely.
Edited to add: This hurts the full box buyers, as there will be less available.
Originally posted by: Nathaniel1960 Am I going to get slammed if I inquire about empty boxes and wrappers post break? They would go to a good home, scouts honor
Info on this has already been added to the request thread.
You have an equal shot at any such material. Just read how in that thread.
Originally posted by: Nathaniel1960 Am I going to get slammed if I inquire about empty boxes and wrappers post break? They would go to a good home, scouts honor
Since you are not Bubblebath girl, who is actually a guy, you are welcome to have my two wrappers.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Originally posted by: detroitfan2 I have what I hope is viewed as "constructive" feedback . . .
After watching the reservations play out, it appears that the end result is you either get 2 packs or an entire box, and (perhaps a bigger issue), a fairly high percentage of those wanting an individual pack or two are going to get shut out.
A suggestion for next time (when packs AND boxes are involved), it may be more beneficial (allow more to participate on a limited budget?) to have at least one more time window allocated to packs, either with another "2 per person" limit, or perhaps a higher limit (4-6?). Whatever is remaining after this second window will then be allocated to full boxes.
This would allow people who can't afford an entire box to still get in at a higher level (maybe 4-8 packs total). It would also fill more boxes via the "packs", thus allowing a higher percentage of those who just want packs to actually get them. Finally, it would help those who are "falling off" the full box list as the pack list fills up to get in on the packs once they know they are no longer needing to budget for a box (and also reduces the odds of them getting shut out altogether of both boxes and packs).
Hopefully I explained this well, hard to get my thoughts out concisely.
Edited to add: This hurts the full box buyers, as there will be less available.
Very good feedback. We have usually used a 2 pack limit in the past and it has served us pretty well. But each break is different, and I think we need to adjust that based on the material available.
Going into this there was great concern that the rack product especially could be quickly gobbled up even with a limit of 2 per person (only needed 72 people to make individual requests at 2 per person). I actually shot a PM over to Tim and asked his opinion on how to set the limits. Using the best of his insights and my past experience I set the pack/rack limit at 2 in hopes of getting about a 50:50 split. We're a bit light on the racks (maybe 2 boxes of each go as individual and 4 go as full boxes instead of the target I had in mind of 3 and 3).
Looking at where we stand on a product-by-product basis, it seems like setting specific limits for each product would be a better way to go than generally setting one limit governing all products was done here. I think it will always be somewhat of a guess on what the "right" limits are that keeps the balance between packs and boxes, as its just hard to say how many people might show up to participate.
But definitely something which can be incorporated into the next iteration.
Originally posted by: Nathaniel1960 Am I going to get slammed if I inquire about empty boxes and wrappers post break? They would go to a good home, scouts honor
Info on this has already been added to the request thread.
You have an equal shot at any such material. Just read how in that thread.
Enjoy
Thanks! I was more inquiring to individual board members about their boxes/wrappers post-distribution, but I am also happy to go for anything you have left over as a result of your distribution. Didn't mean to cause you extra admin burden by the way. You've got your hands full.
Kiss me once, shame on you. Kiss me twice.....let's party.
Dave, I think if you just posted a sign-up page at 9 PM and didn't claim any packs of boxes yourself that would solve all of the timing and potential conflict of interest issues. You could then always have a proxy claim items for you (who isn't in communication with you at the moment the break goes live).
This would make things a lot simpler for participants I think.
Dave, I think if you just posted a sign-up page at 9 PM and didn't claim any packs of boxes yourself that would solve all of the timing and potential conflict of interest issues. You could then always have a proxy claim items for you (who isn't in communication with you at the moment the break goes live).
This would make things a lot simpler for participants I think.
The person organizing the break has as much or more rights to packs and boxes as anyone else does. I think he should be able to claim one lot of packs and one box of everything if he wants to. If you have issues with this feel free to sit out any future breaks.
Dave, I think if you just posted a sign-up page at 9 PM and didn't claim any packs of boxes yourself that would solve all of the timing and potential conflict of interest issues. You could then always have a proxy claim items for you (who isn't in communication with you at the moment the break goes live).
This would make things a lot simpler for participants I think.
Or maybe everybody could skype a round robin of Rock Paper Scissors.
Originally posted by: doubledent Dave, I think if you just posted a sign-up page at 9 PM and didn't claim any packs of boxes yourself that would solve all of the timing and potential conflict of interest issues. You could then always have a proxy claim items for you (who isn't in communication with you at the moment the break goes live).
This would make things a lot simpler for participants I think.
The person organizing the break has as much or more rights to packs and boxes as anyone else does. I think he should be able to claim one lot of packs and one box of everything if he wants to. If you have issues with this feel free to sit out any future breaks. James
I agree 100%. 6 page thread over something from 2 days ago? Really.
IMO the person organizing ANY break should be able to purchase one of everything before the offerings are opened up to everyone else.
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Dave, very nice of you to organize the rip. Great seeing you at National.
Unbelievable there are a few still whining about this. It seems no good deed goes unpunished around here. Fortunately, most recognize and appreciate that a) Dave didn't have to do this; b) this is about as fair as it gets and c) if you don't read directions in this forum or in life, sometimes you are SOL.
To those didn't like the rules, feel free to organize the break next time.
Just updated the official thread. Technically we were sold out on everything except 1977 wax. However, we had some reasonably filled individual requests for both the 1978 and 1979 rack boxes, and we came just one cello pack short in the partially filled box of cellos.
I had reserved, and had confirmed, a full 1978 rack box. I have released that box (less 4 racks that I will keep allocated to myself) to cover the people who have requests that are currently not able to be fulfilled in the partially filled 1978 rack box. I will also make an additional 10 racks available (limit of 1 per person) for the first 10 additional requests.
No one is under any obligation, but if anyone who had a 1978 cello box or a 1979 rack box confirmed wishes to do the same for the people who are in those respective partially filled boxes, your fellow board members will be most appreciative.
So what happens to those who don't pay for what they reserved?
Looks like doubledent and MantlesMantra are the only 2 left. If they have paid, great, they need to post in the thread and let everyone (or at least just Dave) know.
If they end up NOT paying...Im assuming that there will be some kind of suspension or ban from participating in future breaks? Possibly even a "vacation" from the board?
Originally posted by: Grimster So what happens to those who don't pay for what they reserved?
Looks like doubledent and MantlesMantra are the only 2 left. If they have paid, great, they need to post in the thread and let everyone (or at least just Dave) know.
If they end up NOT paying...Im assuming that there will be some kind of suspension or ban from participating in future breaks? Possibly even a "vacation" from the board?
I have reached out to both of them twice via PM but they have not replied. My preference would have been to avoid making this a public issue, but since they still have not responded and someone has asked I will comment.
The rules are that they have 7 days to pay for what they requested. If they do not then they forfeit what they asked for. If anyone is interested in anything that they were supposed to pay for please PM me and I will coordinate with Steve to get items released.
As for the two non-payers, unless there is a very good explanation as to why they did not follow through then I will no longer acknowledge their postings in future breaks that I organize. As for others who might organize a break, I have no control over that but I would strongly encourage anyone else organizing a break to avoid people who do not have the proper manners to honor their commitments (or at least to respond and explain why they are unable to do so).
As for banning them from the board, that is not something that any of us control. I would advise others to refrain from sending complaints about these people not paying to the moderator. I think the benefit and enjoyment of these breaks that our community enjoys is worth more than the risk of having the moderator decide that we should not do these kinds of things again because they really don't want to have the headache of banning people for issues stemming from these kinds of events. We don't need to create more work for the moderator.
If anyone feels they must say something its probably better to communicate directly with the non-payers directly. That way our hosts do not perceive our activities to be an additional burden.
Comments
It's like that person who clocks into work late according to the time clock on the wall but says to the boss they're actually on time because their watch says an earlier time. When I worked at Goodwill all the employees knew to go by the time clock - and they set their watches and/or phones accordingly.
Very popular boxes that sold out at the 9PM mark. Not allowing any of those guys to get a box would be just wrong.
I was thinking when this break was materializing just how well it is being run. Kudos to 70Topps for putting it together professionally and putting his foot down on the time stamp issue.
My only complaint is that there is no Hockey
Best of luck to all who are participating and to those ripping please post some scans.
My apologies for that oversight. I am speaking to Steve later today and I will see if we can add anything in the other major sports. In future I will also try to be on the lookout for more than just baseball (my passion).
Thanks for a valuable insight.
Dave
It's like that person who clocks into work late according to the time clock on the wall but says to the boss they're actually on time because their watch says an earlier time. When I worked at Goodwill all the employees knew to go by the time clock - and they set their watches and/or phones accordingly.
Very popular boxes that sold out at the 9PM mark. Not allowing any of those guys to get a box would be just wrong.
I was thinking when this break was materializing just how well it is being run. Kudos to 70Topps for putting it together professionally and putting his foot down on the time stamp issue.
My only complaint is that there is no Hockey
Best of luck to all who are participating and to those ripping please post some scans.
My apologies for that oversight. I am speaking to Steve later today and I will see if we can add anything in the other major sports. In future I will also try to be on the lookout for more than just baseball (my passion).
Thanks for a valuable insight.
Checked with Steve. He had hoped to have some other sport items of this nature come in during the show to offer to us, but unfortunately nothing was offered. Therefore we won't be able to add anything at this time.
However, I will explicitly ask about all 4 sports and look for all 4 sports in all future attempts.
Dave
Dave
Maybe I'm just not understanding you right, so please correct me if I'm wrong. You think Dave should organize everything, keep track of all PMs (receive and answer), posts, payments, mailings... for nothing?
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
I posted in the other thread but I'll touch on it here, as others have said, this could have been done better. The easiest way would have been to simply start a signup thread at 9 PM. To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Baz, I think you need to try and see things from other people's perspectives. Lots of people only have a chance for boxes like these because of breaks like these. To see that opportunity get away because of incomplete instructions, whether you agree with their perspective or not, is frustrating.
I also agree with Cindy that we need to just move forward. Stop badgering MM and let things be.
Just when I thought posts could not get more ridiculous from MM we get to read this nonsense. The organizer should not be able to go after items in the break? That is ludicrous. IMO he should be first in line to get whatever he wants. He was nice enough to organize this so others could get some great product, and a few folks are acting like a screaming kid leaving Disney World at 9pm. Simple rules were posted and established, but because someone cannot tell time and did not test their time stamp ahead of the break we now have one person asking for a mulligan and to start the break over and a buddy saying Dave should not participate in the break. Maybe you should read your posts again to see how ridiculous this looks.
Dave is an upstanding collector who helps out and shares his knowledge and in this case is helping other collectors. Maybe a pat on the back is in order instead of a kick in the butt. Big thx to Dave for doing this.
KC
I gotta know. . . Any 1977 wax purchasers plan on ripping?!
+1. Would also love to see pics/scans of any of the racks!! Just want to live vicariously through you all... getting ready for a trip to Chicago, which consumed my card budget for the month, so I had to sit this one out.
Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
I posted in the other thread but I'll touch on it here, as others have said, this could have been done better. The easiest way would have been to simply start a signup thread at 9 PM. To avoid conflict of interest the organizer should never be allowed to go after product in the break. My guess is Dave did it this way so he could go after product he wanted.
Baz, I think you need to try and see things from other people's perspectives. Lots of people only have a chance for boxes like these because of breaks like these. To see that opportunity get away because of incomplete instructions, whether you agree with their perspective or not, is frustrating.
I also agree with Cindy that we need to just move forward. Stop badgering MM and let things be.
Just when I thought posts could not get more ridiculous from MM we get to read this nonsense. The organizer should not be able to go after items in the break? That is ludicrous. IMO he should be first in line to get whatever he wants. He was nice enough to organize this so others could get some great product, and a few folks are acting like a screaming kid leaving Disney World at 9pm. Simple rules were posted and established, but because someone cannot tell time and did not test their time stamp ahead of the break we now have one person asking for a mulligan and to start the break over and a buddy saying Dave should not participate in the break. Maybe you should read your posts again to see how ridiculous this looks.
Dave is an upstanding collector who helps out and shares his knowledge and in this case is helping other collectors. Maybe a pat on the back is in order instead of a kick in the butt. Big thx to Dave for doing this.
KC
I agree with KC, I honestly think it's the one or two that complain that has killed the group breaks. We used to do these quite a bit years ago but who would want to put up with all the BS.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Again, the point is you either didn't read or didn't understand the rules... simple as that. If you had, you would have never been looking at another site for the time. So clearly, the organizer was not wrong to reject your initial request. Now the problem is raising such a stink about it, despite it being your fault, that it discourages the organizer from running another break.
Along those lines I think the last Group sub was run by EagleEyeKid and someone gave him such a hard time he left the forum. There was more to the story but the bottom line I think was he was fed up with the ordeal it all became because of unhappy people. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Can you really blame Eagle Eye? It was a shame, Eagle Eye and the others that used to put these together had to spend many hours of time and resources only to get bombarded with a million questions and complaints. We finally have a member that's willing to take the time and effort to try this again and now we have a select few that are jeopardizing it.
This isn't some fake PC world, this is the REAL world and sometimes it's not always going to be fair. In the coin world when a new release hits the US Mint sometimes you can complete your purchase and other times you can't. Some members use multiple devices and multiple browsers to ensure there aren't any problems but guess what, we never cry foul.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Just to be clear, we have always allowed the organizer to participate. It has never been much of an issue (except when pre-allocation to those organizing dramatically reduced the supply for all others to have a chance at getting something). However, there is a small potential advantage for an organizer if we use an approach where the request thread gets posted and is immediately "live". That advantage is that the organizer knows exactly "when" he will post the thread. That makes it easy to get in earlier than others who need to see the thread actually appear first. While the advantage I speak of is small (as we saw in Mark's 76 cello experience), it cannot be denied that it is there.
By putting the thread up hours earlier than the start time it put me in the same boat as everyone else. Advantage eliminated.
A conflict of interest is something that occurs where a person puts his/her own interests ahead of others to whom he/she has some sort of obligation to provide impartiality and fairness to. While I can easily see where DD might quickly move to that kind of judgment, I think the combination of past actions (which he might not be aware of), reputation and current conduct should easily put those kinds of fears to bed.
What we have here is never going to be perfect, but in today's world I think that the community we have created here has far more going on that is RIGHT than we have that is wrong. We are a bunch of (mostly) strangers who share, collaborate, commiserate, support each other and generally try to do right by each other. I'd say that everyone here deserves a lot of kudos for swimming against the grain of current American society that has so much preoccupation with self-interest and instant gratification.
Anyway, my .02 is spent on this subject. Hopefully in sharing it it's worth a bit more than its face value
Dave
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
A member of this community, begsu1013 (Bob), contacted me via text message. He has not been seen posting here recently because he was banned by CU and has not been reinstated.
When Bob contacted he said he saw that we were a little short on the 1977 wax box case break and he offered to take enough boxes to get us over the minimum threshold that we are required to meet. I appreciated his gesture and responded that I would post a request for him in the thread now (1 box per product in the first 48 hours) and then do another post for him after 9PM tonight if we still needed requests so that we could get over the threshold. I did not check for a reply before I made the first post.
Soon after I learned that another person had already requested a 1977 wax box on his behalf but was not explicit in making request. I did not realize this or I would have waited in posting my initial request for him.
The reason for disclosing this is to make sure than nobody misinterprets a genuine nice gesture on Bob's behalf (to help us get over the threshold) as an attempt to circumvent the limit
rules. I know Bob and I knew he would make good for my post on his behalf so I did not wait for him to give me an ok. And since I did not have a request for this item it could not be considered an effort by me to get around the rules either.
To make sure that we are sticking to the published rules I am removing my request on Bob's behalf. I will post another request for Bob after 9PM tonight in an effort to get us over the threshold if we have not made it by then (or if Bob wants another box).
In the past we have had few straw purchase requests like this occur, but with the recent issue that we dealt with I think it necessary to put a clarification into the current rules to prevent another unnecessary blow-up. Unless someone has really strong feelings against this, I am going to add a new rule that from this point forward anyone making a request on behalf of somebody else must disclose it by identifying the person, and that the totals of their own requests + their requests on behalf of others cannot exceed the individual limits (if any). While there is no way that this can 100% be policed and enforced, I have enough faith in our community members that they will adhere to this new rule.
If there are any thoughts or concerns please post them here constructively
Thanks
Dave
After watching the reservations play out, it appears that the end result is you either get 2 packs or an entire box, and (perhaps a bigger issue), a fairly high percentage of those wanting an individual pack or two are going to get shut out.
A suggestion for next time (when packs AND boxes are involved), it may be more beneficial (allow more to participate on a limited budget?) to have at least one more time window allocated to packs, either with another "2 per person" limit, or perhaps a higher limit (4-6?). Whatever is remaining after this second window will then be allocated to full boxes.
This would allow people who can't afford an entire box to still get in at a higher level (maybe 4-8 packs total). It would also fill more boxes via the "packs", thus allowing a higher percentage of those who just want packs to actually get them. Finally, it would help those who are "falling off" the full box list as the pack list fills up to get in on the packs once they know they are no longer needing to budget for a box (and also reduces the odds of them getting shut out altogether of both boxes and packs).
Hopefully I explained this well, hard to get my thoughts out concisely.
Edited to add: This hurts the full box buyers, as there will be less available.
Am I going to get slammed if I inquire about empty boxes and wrappers post break? They would go to a good home, scouts honor
Info on this has already been added to the request thread.
You have an equal shot at any such material. Just read how in that thread.
Enjoy
Dave
Am I going to get slammed if I inquire about empty boxes and wrappers post break? They would go to a good home, scouts honor
Since you are not Bubblebath girl, who is actually a guy, you are welcome to have my two wrappers.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I have what I hope is viewed as "constructive" feedback . . .
After watching the reservations play out, it appears that the end result is you either get 2 packs or an entire box, and (perhaps a bigger issue), a fairly high percentage of those wanting an individual pack or two are going to get shut out.
A suggestion for next time (when packs AND boxes are involved), it may be more beneficial (allow more to participate on a limited budget?) to have at least one more time window allocated to packs, either with another "2 per person" limit, or perhaps a higher limit (4-6?). Whatever is remaining after this second window will then be allocated to full boxes.
This would allow people who can't afford an entire box to still get in at a higher level (maybe 4-8 packs total). It would also fill more boxes via the "packs", thus allowing a higher percentage of those who just want packs to actually get them. Finally, it would help those who are "falling off" the full box list as the pack list fills up to get in on the packs once they know they are no longer needing to budget for a box (and also reduces the odds of them getting shut out altogether of both boxes and packs).
Hopefully I explained this well, hard to get my thoughts out concisely.
Edited to add: This hurts the full box buyers, as there will be less available.
Very good feedback. We have usually used a 2 pack limit in the past and it has served us pretty well. But each break is different, and I think we need to adjust that based on the material available.
Going into this there was great concern that the rack product especially could be quickly gobbled up even with a limit of 2 per person (only needed 72 people to make individual requests at 2 per person). I actually shot a PM over to Tim and asked his opinion on how to set the limits. Using the best of his insights and my past experience I set the pack/rack limit at 2 in hopes of getting about a 50:50 split. We're a bit light on the racks (maybe 2 boxes of each go as individual and 4 go as full boxes instead of the target I had in mind of 3 and 3).
Looking at where we stand on a product-by-product basis, it seems like setting specific limits for each product would be a better way to go than generally setting one limit governing all products was done here. I think it will always be somewhat of a guess on what the "right" limits are that keeps the balance between packs and boxes, as its just hard to say how many people might show up to participate.
But definitely something which can be incorporated into the next iteration.
Thanks for valuable and helpful input
Dave
Am I going to get slammed if I inquire about empty boxes and wrappers post break? They would go to a good home, scouts honor
Info on this has already been added to the request thread.
You have an equal shot at any such material. Just read how in that thread.
Enjoy
Thanks! I was more inquiring to individual board members about their boxes/wrappers post-distribution, but I am also happy to go for anything you have left over as a result of your distribution. Didn't mean to cause you extra admin burden by the way. You've got your hands full.
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
This would make things a lot simpler for participants I think.
Dave, I think if you just posted a sign-up page at 9 PM and didn't claim any packs of boxes yourself that would solve all of the timing and potential conflict of interest issues. You could then always have a proxy claim items for you (who isn't in communication with you at the moment the break goes live).
This would make things a lot simpler for participants I think.
The person organizing the break has as much or more rights to packs and boxes as anyone else does. I think he should be able to claim one lot of packs and one box of everything if he wants to. If you have issues with this feel free to sit out any future breaks.
James
Dave, I think if you just posted a sign-up page at 9 PM and didn't claim any packs of boxes yourself that would solve all of the timing and potential conflict of interest issues. You could then always have a proxy claim items for you (who isn't in communication with you at the moment the break goes live).
This would make things a lot simpler for participants I think.
Or maybe everybody could skype a round robin of Rock Paper Scissors.
Dave, I think if you just posted a sign-up page at 9 PM and didn't claim any packs of boxes yourself that would solve all of the timing and potential conflict of interest issues. You could then always have a proxy claim items for you (who isn't in communication with you at the moment the break goes live).
This would make things a lot simpler for participants I think.
The person organizing the break has as much or more rights to packs and boxes as anyone else does. I think he should be able to claim one lot of packs and one box of everything if he wants to. If you have issues with this feel free to sit out any future breaks.
James
I agree 100%. 6 page thread over something from 2 days ago? Really.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Unbelievable there are a few still whining about this. It seems no good deed goes unpunished around here. Fortunately, most recognize and appreciate that a) Dave didn't have to do this; b) this is about as fair as it gets and c) if you don't read directions in this forum or in life, sometimes you are SOL.
To those didn't like the rules, feel free to organize the break next time.
I had reserved, and had confirmed, a full 1978 rack box. I have released that box (less 4 racks that I will keep allocated to myself) to cover the people who have requests that are currently not able to be fulfilled in the partially filled 1978 rack box. I will also make an additional 10 racks available (limit of 1 per person) for the first 10 additional requests.
No one is under any obligation, but if anyone who had a 1978 cello box or a 1979 rack box confirmed wishes to do the same for the people who are in those respective partially filled boxes, your fellow board members will be most appreciative.
Dave
Looks like doubledent and MantlesMantra are the only 2 left. If they have paid, great, they need to post in the thread and let everyone (or at least just Dave) know.
If they end up NOT paying...Im assuming that there will be some kind of suspension or ban from participating in future breaks? Possibly even a "vacation" from the board?
So what happens to those who don't pay for what they reserved?
Looks like doubledent and MantlesMantra are the only 2 left. If they have paid, great, they need to post in the thread and let everyone (or at least just Dave) know.
If they end up NOT paying...Im assuming that there will be some kind of suspension or ban from participating in future breaks? Possibly even a "vacation" from the board?
I have reached out to both of them twice via PM but they have not replied. My preference would have been to avoid making this a public issue, but since they still have not responded and someone has asked I will comment.
The rules are that they have 7 days to pay for what they requested. If they do not then they forfeit what they asked for. If anyone is interested in anything that they were supposed to pay for please PM me and I will coordinate with Steve to get items released.
As for the two non-payers, unless there is a very good explanation as to why they did not follow through then I will no longer acknowledge their postings in future breaks that I organize. As for others who might organize a break, I have no control over that but I would strongly encourage anyone else organizing a break to avoid people who do not have the proper manners to honor their commitments (or at least to respond and explain why they are unable to do so).
As for banning them from the board, that is not something that any of us control. I would advise others to refrain from sending complaints about these people not paying to the moderator. I think the benefit and enjoyment of these breaks that our community enjoys is worth more than the risk of having the moderator decide that we should not do these kinds of things again because they really don't want to have the headache of banning people for issues stemming from these kinds of events. We don't need to create more work for the moderator.
If anyone feels they must say something its probably better to communicate directly with the non-payers directly. That way our hosts do not perceive our activities to be an additional burden.
Dave
And another guy spending Monopoly money. Dave you didn't deserve such poor treatment. Hope this stuff gets moved.