Coin Dealer Ethics - Discussion Forums
Wednesday July 2, 2008
One of the most popular activities among coin collectors who share their hobby online is to participate in coin-related discussion forums. There are numismatic forums targeted to an array of collecting interests, ranging from the narrow specialists such as Lincoln Cent die variety collectors, to the generalists, such as the popular and friendly Coin Community where all coin collectors are warmly welcomed. One of the most high-profile coin collecting forums is the Collectors Universe (CU) forums sponsored by PCGS's parent company. This discussion site is interchangeably called "the PCGS boards" and "the CU forums" by its participants.
One of the sad facts of life for anybody who sponsors a discussion forum, numismatic or otherwise, is that the board must be policed for spam, flaming, libel, and other problem posts. For those unfamiliar with forum lingo, "flaming," or "to flame," means to post provocative comments meant to stir up an argument or upset someone's feelings. A "flame war" often results, with users arguing back and forth, and calling each other names. Persons who like to create flame wars are called "trolls," a misnomer from the early days of computer bulletin boards when such folks were said to "trawl for trouble" akin to a fisherman trawling for fish. Virtually all discussion boards have a troll contingent, but how far should forum moderators go in censoring them?
Case in point: the PCGS forums are known to have very heavy-handed moderators. Most of the day-to-day message vetting is apparently done by a CU employee named Carol Bennett, who goes by the handle "carolj" on the forum. She is said to be very quick to delete any posts that question the way PCGS does business, or that second-guess its executives and their decisions. If a user posts a photo of a mis-graded PCGS coin, the thread is deleted and the user is frequently warned. Several users have told me they know of people who have been banned from the CU forums for little more than pointing out a mistake the company made.
A recent brouhaha on the PCGS boards involved a user who posted a photo of Bennett. The photo was deleted and the user was kicked off the boards. The PCGS stance was that she should be off-limits and that posting her photo was a form of harassment. The users understandably resent the heavy-handed censorship, but Bennett is just doing her job. By posting her photo, according to my source, the user was "flaming" her, since she had previously requested that people not discuss her nor post her image. The CU view in all this is that they pay for the forum service, and they shouldn't have to put up with people denigrating them at their own expense.
The PCGS boards are definitely not alone when it comes to exercising censorship. Many coin dealers run numismatic discussion boards as a service to the hobby and to promote their businesses. Although they're happy to have collectors discussing their recent purchases, these dealers draw the line at letting people post the names of the other dealers they bought their coins from. These dealers feel that since it is their computer and bandwidth, that they should be able to say what goes and what doesn't.
The vast majority of visitors to these forums are from the United States. They grew up in an atmosphere of Free Speech and learning that censorship is wrong and unfair. Many of them are outraged that the owners of these forums would say, on the one hand, "Come here and have a discussion," but on the other hand say, "I don't like you talking about that." These users feel that short of flaming, libel, and spamming, the conversations should be uncensored. (They tolerate the censorship of flaming, etc., because it is clearly anti-social, the online equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists.) The freedom-of-speechers don't buy the argument that "it's my server, I can censor what I want." They feel that anybody who puts up a discussion forum has an obligation to honor the standard of free speech.
So, who is right? Is it right for PCGS to delete discussions that relate to an image of a mis-graded PCGS coin, or ban people who post photos of the company-employed forum moderator? Are coin dealers within their right trying to stifle discussion of the competition? Or are these people going too far with such censorship? Share your views in the "Comments" section below, and next week we'll examine some of the most interesting.
Special thanks to my reader "dbtuner" for suggesting this topic.
One of the sad facts of life for anybody who sponsors a discussion forum, numismatic or otherwise, is that the board must be policed for spam, flaming, libel, and other problem posts. For those unfamiliar with forum lingo, "flaming," or "to flame," means to post provocative comments meant to stir up an argument or upset someone's feelings. A "flame war" often results, with users arguing back and forth, and calling each other names. Persons who like to create flame wars are called "trolls," a misnomer from the early days of computer bulletin boards when such folks were said to "trawl for trouble" akin to a fisherman trawling for fish. Virtually all discussion boards have a troll contingent, but how far should forum moderators go in censoring them?
Case in point: the PCGS forums are known to have very heavy-handed moderators. Most of the day-to-day message vetting is apparently done by a CU employee named Carol Bennett, who goes by the handle "carolj" on the forum. She is said to be very quick to delete any posts that question the way PCGS does business, or that second-guess its executives and their decisions. If a user posts a photo of a mis-graded PCGS coin, the thread is deleted and the user is frequently warned. Several users have told me they know of people who have been banned from the CU forums for little more than pointing out a mistake the company made.
A recent brouhaha on the PCGS boards involved a user who posted a photo of Bennett. The photo was deleted and the user was kicked off the boards. The PCGS stance was that she should be off-limits and that posting her photo was a form of harassment. The users understandably resent the heavy-handed censorship, but Bennett is just doing her job. By posting her photo, according to my source, the user was "flaming" her, since she had previously requested that people not discuss her nor post her image. The CU view in all this is that they pay for the forum service, and they shouldn't have to put up with people denigrating them at their own expense.
The PCGS boards are definitely not alone when it comes to exercising censorship. Many coin dealers run numismatic discussion boards as a service to the hobby and to promote their businesses. Although they're happy to have collectors discussing their recent purchases, these dealers draw the line at letting people post the names of the other dealers they bought their coins from. These dealers feel that since it is their computer and bandwidth, that they should be able to say what goes and what doesn't.
The vast majority of visitors to these forums are from the United States. They grew up in an atmosphere of Free Speech and learning that censorship is wrong and unfair. Many of them are outraged that the owners of these forums would say, on the one hand, "Come here and have a discussion," but on the other hand say, "I don't like you talking about that." These users feel that short of flaming, libel, and spamming, the conversations should be uncensored. (They tolerate the censorship of flaming, etc., because it is clearly anti-social, the online equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists.) The freedom-of-speechers don't buy the argument that "it's my server, I can censor what I want." They feel that anybody who puts up a discussion forum has an obligation to honor the standard of free speech.
So, who is right? Is it right for PCGS to delete discussions that relate to an image of a mis-graded PCGS coin, or ban people who post photos of the company-employed forum moderator? Are coin dealers within their right trying to stifle discussion of the competition? Or are these people going too far with such censorship? Share your views in the "Comments" section below, and next week we'll examine some of the most interesting.
Special thanks to my reader "dbtuner" for suggesting this topic.
Comments
I hate to see the “free speech” argument come up in discussions about private companies and individuals. Free speech protects people from censorship by the government. This forum is not government-run, so they can censor whom they please.
If I invite you into my living room, and you start talking about dogs, and I hate dogs, I can insist that you leave. It would be weird, and it would probably prevent you from wanting to return, but it would be my right as an individual.
If PCGS wants to delete people for using the word “the” in their posts, they have a right to do so. And anyone who doesn’t like it is free to start their own forum where the word “the” is celebrated — or to join into the very nice Coins Forum that Susan runs (where I’m sure “the” is as welcome as any other polite coin-related opinions.)
I run two message boards. If someone wants to criticize my conclusions, that’s fine. In fact, I encourage dissent and debate. Choking off dissenting opinions is not only heavy-handed, but it inhibits the expansion of knowledge. Regarding PCGS’ policy, they should certainly leave up any post that points to an obvious howler concerning grading or proper identification. People need to own up to their mistakes.
Should not the issue be about whether the forum is open to the public? If PCGS’s forum is a member only forum wherein only members can read and write the posts then I would assume that the free speech issue would not be relevant. On the other hand, if PCGS opens their forum up to the public domain then I would think that they must observe the tenets of free speech and any governing laws. Since, it would appear that PCGS is censoring comments, they more than likely in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The fact that they are the sponsor of the board does not put them above the law - that should be obvious. I would hope that all of us would fight to protect the rights of Freedom of Speech in the public domain.
Years ago I used to post a lot of messages on the PCGS board. Then they banned a number of people whom I respect, and I decided that I would not lend my expertise there on as regular a basis. Before those people were banned I posted over 10,000 messages mostly giving advice. I’m a part time dealer and I’ve been collecting U.S. coins, tokens and some medals extensively for over 45 years. Now I go over there only when things are slow on the NGC message site, and my postings are way down.
My view is the same as it is for TV programs. If you don’t like what’s on, change the channel. I don’t care for heavy handed attitude on the PCSG site, so they don’t see very of me. They are paying the bills so they have right to allow what they want. BUT I also have the option of not giving away my expertise for free. And because of that PCGS pays a price too.
Without having seen the specific examples deleted, it’s hard to say definitively; however, my initial impression is that flames (which would include posting photos or personal commentary on the moderator unrelated to the forum - i.e., you can say that you believe she is heavy-handed or biased, but not that she’s ugly or stupid) should not be allowed, but that commentary about PCGS (including mistakes that the poster believes to have been made) should be allowed (again, excluding flames - it’s one thing to say that they erred on a particular grade - and to show an example thereof - while it’s quite another to call them crooks or accuse them of having no standards unless you are prepared to provide sufficient evidence to back such a claim, in which case the company should respond rather than delete).
Basically, if it is true, respectful, and relevant to the forum at hand, it should be allowed to remain.
First of all posting of the moderator’s picture was probably inappropriate since many people write on these forums with a safe feeling of anonymity, even a moderator. However, if PCGS is purposely removing postings that having anything negative said about them, then they are pretending to the world that they are the greatest and can do no wrong. That means to me that I would never use their service nor purchase any coins that have been slabbed by them. This is because I believe they cannot be honest enough to take a negative remark and honestly answer that negative comment with a reply. I guess they just think they are above all that, as if they are the only game in town.
To clarify my comment above, there is a difference between what PCGS (or any sponsor of a forum) CAN do and what they SHOULD do. Amplifying Bill’s comment, they CAN act in a heavy-handed manner, but doing so devalues the usefulness of the forum. In the same way, PCGS CAN rate everything they receive as an MS-70 (although the value of a PCGS rating would, however, plummet if they did so), they SHOULD rate things fairly and consistantly (which, for the record, I believe they by and large do).
Censorship is not a violation of “Free Speech” laws with regards to individuals or corporations (eg. I censor what websites my kids visit and the language that they use; my employer does the same to me).
This is a self correcting problem, if you think about it.
These organizations create these forums to promote their business by driving traffic to their sites. They invest the money to bring up and run the forum, therefore they have control over what goes on it or what it removed from it (in addition to deleting “spam, flaming, libel, and other problem posts”).
When the business over-polices the site, people will feel that their ideas, opinions and views are not being disseminated (this is the purpose of a forum).
People will stop coming to the forum.
The forum does not promote the business like it should (visitor traffic will drop off).
The forum will shut down because it is not accomplishing its business objective.
The users will realize that the organization does not deserve their business and they will go elsewhere.
The business will close.
And the world will be a better place!
I deeply love free speech. However, it’s only applicable to an individual vis a vis the government. Any private enterprise has the absolute right to censor content. Sandra is correct.
Having said that, PGCS tips its hand that its forum is purely a commercial extension of its business. The discussion forum does not exist for the benefit of individual collectors or dealers, for the coin collecting community generally, for preservation coin collecting, or out of love for coins. PGCS clearly has no honorable motives other than enhancing its own reputation and profit. Instead, the people who use the PGCS boards are lending PGCS commercially important credibility, because when they use the discussion forum, they in effect become an extension of PGCS itself. Bill saw this and prudently withdrew his expertise.
Perhaps the PGCS forum is best used in the same spirit it is offered: use it if it helps you, but don’t work for PGCS by giving free advice if PGCS isn’t paying you. Move to Susan’s Coins Forum, which exists for the love of coins.
Forum’s and Message Boards can be a fantastic way to share knowledge, research, and find people with similar interests.
In my opinion a forum should have seperate sections for research & general chit-chat. That is what I’ve created with my Message Boards.
CU did away with their Open Forum and the members were forced to post their chit-chat in the US Coin forum. Now it looks like they are trying to eliminate all talk that does not belong in the US Coins. Its is sad because the US Coin Forum on the CU Message boards used to be the best place to learn, now its just an Open Forum that has some US Coin chit-chat from time to time…..
Alan Stullenbarger
CoinZip.com
I think this entire thread is done to “trawl” for comments by Susan as it seems her feedback on her articles is way down.
I know Susan is in favor of censorship as she deleted my posts from an earlier thread where I merely pointed out her em, shall we say, colorful past (see wikipedia).
Some children post on the CU threads. Posts with sexual content are deleted. It’s not a porn site. Posts with foul language are deleted. Posters who post inappropriate content like porn or foul language are removed. Posters who private message with porn to minors are also promptly removed. Is anyone here FOR that stuff?
Susan, your buddy Zornes who you constantly reference also has a very colorful past. You should do a little “hacking” on his background before you get too cozy.
Personally, PCGS would be better off to just fire Carol, remove the forums entirely and save the money. The money they make from tha ads just isn’t worth the hassle.
I should also mention that most of the banned from PCGS have wound up on the coinzip boards.
unfortunately, many have also gone to the yahoo CLCT board.
Susan,
You do have a sense of humor. I’ll give you that. In all seriousness, I do like you.
dbtuner says:
here’s one. How about a topic on the coin forums. Do a lead on on how they have gotten out of hand according to some, guys get banned, and then take out web sites like your buddy Zornes.
I’ll bet that will get 100’s of replies, if that’s what your after.
While I do believe that PCGS can remove whomever and whatever they want whenever they want, in practice it could be unhealthy.
Dissent and criticism,a part of our national heritage, is a cornerstone of democracy. I guess my feeling is that shutting down a user for what they have to say is not very cool. Can anyone say Stalin?
Posting the photo, however, is not cool. Some folks want to remain anonymous, and I can’t think of a more revealing tactic, especially without my permission.
Heavy-handed is hardly the correct term. How about new members targeted in coordinated attacks by long time members that attack anyone who disagrees with them. Then they are ganged up on by the rest of the attack pack then banned. All with Carolj’s knowledge.
Even when evidence has been presented to PCGS, they refuse to change the way the board is run. The reason her photo showed up is because she is almost universally disliked except by her minions, and people wanted to put a face to the “butcher of CU”. Now I can’t sleep.
Re #15. Funny, I joined the CU forum almost 1 year ago and left maybe 10 posts. No one ever attacked me and they were very helpful. I still read it but just can’t be bothered to post. I just collect certified bullion so what’s the point.
No one is forcing you to post there or read there. You are free to join coizip with the other banned posters. I should also mention you are one of the naysayers on the yahoo forum and like to troll there. I can see why you were banned. You offer nothing, are never wrong, and are a very angry person in general.
[off-topic comment redacted]
[off-topic comment redacted]
[off-topic comment redacted]
PCGS has every right to delete any post at any time for any or no reason. How would any person on this post like a red faced dressing down on stage in front of 2000 family, freinds, neighbors and complete strangers?
Embarrassing to say the least! Yet all y’all think nothing of doing exactly that to PCGS on their dime (no pun intended). I would suggest an e-mail to theem in private would accomplish much more and in your favor.
And Susan no one should have to continously explain themselves for having done nothing wrong - especially a lady like you.
I agree with Alan when talking coins there is often OT chit-chat which is part of the equation, used to get to know whi you are dealing with. What kind of person or what their values are.
As far as www.coinzip.com goes it has some of the most eclectic members of the numismatic community posting valuable information (particularly Bust Coinage) on a daily basis.
There are well know authors and owners of famous collections who frequent this site and post just like everyone else without fear of censorship or extreme moderation.
The site may be small but it is a breath of fresh air. BTW, I post infrequently on the PCGS forum and am far from being banned.
Take Care
Ben
dbtuner, I don’t appreciate you lying about me in #16. I am not banned from anywhere and I was merely defending attacks that john.gillman17 who is now banned at CLCT, continuously launched on others. I understand you may be banned soon from the CLCT as you were participating in a lot of those same mean-spireited attacks as well. Too bad Susan didn’t check the CLCT because had she read a few of your attacks on people, I think she probably use you to cite the kind of mean spirited attacks that occur on the CU and the CLCT.
All policies should be equally and fairly enforced. The PCGS does not. They play to favorites and social prestige.
Carolj has a small group of advisors who are trouble makers. She listens to some of these cross posting members who organize attacks from the popforum.net
Finally PCGS is feeling some of the heat and so they just banned a few minor OFR members.
But the real trouble makers probably will never be banned unless PCGS decides to clean up it’s act. That is doubtful.
I would also like to add that I have seen many members of the PCGS forum banned for saying things that violate policy. Sometimes in just a very minor fashion.
However I could pick out quite a few by name that have said the very same things, that violate policy on a regular basis, and with far greater intensity and malice, but never get banned. These are the protected ones.
Now if you join as a member it is implied by the policy that everyone will be treated equally. That is not the case. One protected member called me up on the phone, over a article I published, and he claimed in the past he had called Carolj several times and pleaded not to be banned. And it worked. He is still very offensive and violates virtually all the policy rules and has been doing so for years.
If you are a chosen one you know why. If you are not, and get banned, it will probably take you a while to figure out how the good old boys club works, and the mechanics of the rat pack.
Just for clarification, I have always maintained that PCGS provides the best grading for US classic coins but on the other hand their forum is mismanaged and incites a lot of anomosity against PCGS. And rightfully so.
Pretty site, congratulations!
BB, your description of the attacks at the CU is 100% accurate. A while back someone alerted me to the popforum.net attack pack and when ever I see someone getting attacked on the CU I can pop over to popforum.net and I can see the attackers joking and insulting the person on the CU that they are attacking.
I know that several members of the CU have sent Carol detailed information about these attacks but she refuses to even consider it. One of the top PCGS collectors was banned even though he was an annoying PCGS bigot after repeated attacks on him by the pack.
The CU has gotten out of hand and while I continue to post on occasion, I avoid the “weekend wildness” that goes on. The hate-mongers come out and attack and then their threads disappear before Monday morning.
Didn’t your mom ever tell you that “sticks and stones” saying?
Who gives a flyin f what some guy on a board says about you? Is your self esteem that low? Why does everyone in this country always blame someone else for their problems?
I wonder if the last days of Rome felt like this.
Can we please get back to discussing if PCGS (or any other organization) has the right (or the business sense) to edit/censor what goes on the discussion boards that they maintain?
Susan’s past (or anybody else’s) has no bearing on this topic! Please let it go!
Jim:
Lets rephrase that to: Does the PCGS forum have the right to allow certain previleged members to defame and mock other members and not allow the victim of those attacks to defend themselves, and in many cases ban the victim if they do try to defend themself.
Jim, if PCGS does have that right then; should they not include that provision in their policy that you are required to sign before being becoming a member.
That is the rub. Believe me I would testify under oath that is a common practice on the PCGS/CU forum.
IMO, if you value your reputation you are playing Russian roulette by joining the PCGS/forum.
As someone who runs his own coin forums, I definitely don’t want to have to defend myself 24/7 on my own message boards.
There is a time and a place for dissent. I’m sure PCGS has a place somewhere on the site where members can report errors/problems/beefs.
I’m also an eBay PowerSeller. On those boards quite often there is a lot of anti-eBay sentiment that is left for the world to see. I’ve personally witnessed people being influenced by false information. I don’t know why PCGS would allow anything on their boards that would affect their bottom line. They are a business after all.
I hope future commenting ops are devoid of the bad vibes I’m getting from some of the contributors regarding PCGS. What a total turn-off.
#31, Ward, I hope too but hope and change sounds a lot like that idiot socialist Obama.
I am there on the PCGS CU everyday and I can assure you that there is a disturbing trend on the CU. The last week or so has been a situation that feels more like a subdued herd of sheep than reality.
Well Susan, ya wanted action. It seems as lots of folks get a bit ruffled when discussing any of the big TPG’s, for any reason, huh?
Let’s see… Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, The Right to Bear Arms. Let’s look at those for a minute. They’re all within our constitutional rights as American citizens, yes? Well let’s just see what happens if you lump all 3 together in a malicious manner.
Ex: Assemble a large mass of people, toting weapons & head for the White House yelling all sorts of malicious comments. Let’s just see how far you get before you’re knocked down a notch or two & tossed in jail. Hmmm?
I feel about the same way as the forums. Providing folks aren’t completely out of line, let them be. The forums’ members can usually police themselves. As far as the company or organization holding the forum, it’s their call as to what they allow, or not. Many companies have spy-ware on their computers, cameras in their offices, etc. The supreme court upheld that as long as the employee base is made aware of these practices before employment that the employee has no say in the matter. Simply put, if ya don’t like it, go get hired somewhere else.
A good friend of mine said it another way. “If you don’t like the music, put a quarter in the juke box & change the song.”
OK, that’s my input.
Thanks.
Looks like #34 wants to install a trogan virus into someone’s computer. How nice.
Thanks for the delete of what was #34.
I belong to the PCGS forums. I LOVE having a place to discuss coins! I UNDERSTAND there are rules to follow. I understand that I don’t own the site but those that do can delete whatever and whenever they want.
I have NEVER been banned because I FOLLOW the rules of the forum.
People need to learn how to FOLLOW rules and stop whining.
Hi folks! Hope you can see me, i can’t see none of you. Feels funny on this side. Like a ghost here, verrrry lonely. Ah, i’d say this is a one way conversation, i wont see your responses, if there any. Be kewel! Have fun.
The lonely
coiny
Coiny,
It sounds like you’re having a technical problem with my Web site or something. Are you not able to see everything okay? I don’t understand what you mean, could you please clarify? You can respond to me by email if you’d rather keep the details private, it’s up to you. Are you still using that antiquated WebTV thing?
Susan Headley
Coins Guide
Thanks Susan. You present some interesting perspectives.
I operate a coin blog, Coingrader Forum, and also happen to be a media ethicist with books by Oxford University Press on the topic. See my book sites:
http://www.livingethics.org
http://www.interpersonal-divide.org
Let me begin by stating that I started by blog, Coingrader Forum, for the very reason that you note as the occasion of your post: When a discussant questions the way PCGS does business, or misgrades a coin, that person is warned or banned from the site.
This is censorship.
I have two posts at Coingrader Forum on similar topics, “Issues with NGC” and “Who is Monitoring the Coin Business?”
Likewise the posting of the Web moderator’s picture may qualify as flaming, depending on what was said in the comment about her; but the posting of the picture alone doesn’t qualify as harassment or even privacy invasion (exposing facts that are embarrassing but true). Indeed, if the comment with the post cast the moderator in a false light or somehow threatened her, then harassment and invasion are issues, provided that the moderator can prove harm. But these issues are related to media law, not ethics.
There are other legal and ethical issues involved here. First, discussion boards come with terms of service. Do those terms strictly forbid criticism of the company? If not, we’re back to censorship again. Moreover, if the moderator is editing and scanning comments, then PCGS no longer is a distributor of information but a publisher thereof, which opens it up to all manner of lawsuits from invasion to libel to liability.
I do want to expand upon your observation about free speech, however. You write:
“The vast majority of visitors to these forums are from the United States. They grew up in an atmosphere of Free Speech and learning that censorship is wrong and unfair.”
Love of free speech is not a generational or an Internet phenomenon but an American one, and coin collectors by and large are patriotic. After all, they purchase from the U.S. Mint and patronize coins that document U.S. history, including modern commemoratives about free speech and state rights.
As such, I differ from you somewhat in recognizing the outcry from an audience that feels disenfranchised by the PSGC franchise.
As for who is monitoring coin business, other than those with a stake in the profit, you, Susan, are among those on my list and links.
Thank you for bringing this issue to light.
Dr Mike,
But what if the poster of the picture has a past whereby they threatened to kill a witness in WA and the public DA for their firing? And what if that some person had pictures of guns pointed at the heads of people who disagreed with them? And that same person discussed killing the same people on their chat board?
Is that free speech? Or terroristic? And do you sir, sanction such?
And why sir, were you quoted in USA Today as saying bloggers should be forced to use their real name, but you sir start a blog and rail against public companies under an alias all the while preaching ethics?
Your site has been taken off my reading list.
Your constant BS over BB is getting old. You are a nasty person and do nothing but spread your vile hate. Please take this site off your reading list as well because NO ONE likes you here.
I think it is their site and they can do what they want. That said, it certainly reflects poorly upon a large company like PCGS when they ban respected members of the industry. While allowing others to say things much worse. It always makes me think of the complaints about some getting better grades than others.
I think it’s a lot more difficult than people realize to decide how to moderate an active forum. I don’t even mean the spammers or the blatant trolls, either. When you’re dealing with people from all walks of life, all religions, different countries and cultures, it’s almost impossible to find a path that is going to make everyone happy. And, I think that is amplified for corporations like CU that have business interests to protect.