Quote: I pay $50 (which I think is fine) but so does Metropolis?
I know it's been mentioned about maybe having different tiers of membership and I think that might be a good idea to consider. It would be a bit more tasking on a "now and then" ebay seller to flip $50 for a membership as opposed to a large business like Metropolis.
Now, for the flipside of this...I don't know how this could be metered out though, as the NOD would have all the extra work to try and determine or validate how much business each member actually does. So, it may just not be feasible and I understand why the NOD would just keep the flat rate for all sellers.
One question I would have is...
Since the NOD is for dealers/sellers and collectors, should it also cost a collector (who doesn't sell) the same $50 to join? I would propose a smaller fee for non-sellers to join, then if they want to upgrade to seller NOD status (where they can display the logo w/link), they can pay and upgrade their tier.
I say this because a buyer will benefit from the NOD whether they pay anything or not, by it's very existence, so to foster more support from collectors who are just buyers, I think a smaller support fee may garner more participation from that segment.
John & David, thank you for these substantive points.
The creation of different membership levels to address exactly what you have noted is under consideration by the NOD. As new policies or changes are implemented, they will no doubt be reflected on the NOD website (www.networkofdisclosure.com) and posted on the boards.
In the interim, the $50 is a worthwhile contribution and, as I said, will hopefully be tax deductible!
richnerdrichnerd
I was posting here when you were in diapers.
Registered: 09/22/03
Posts: 3954
Loc: IN
The one problem I think a few might have is refunds on slabs. Whats stopping someone from buying your hulk 181 cracking it out and inserting a different one and saying they are not pleased with the book.
Now I know the slabs are fool proof and once cracked they cant be resealed (wink wink) but do you want to be the first seller to have this happen to. If it hasn't happened already.
I'm really interested and will be joining once things are smoothed out a bit more. One of the reasons we started http://bidoncomics.com was to make buying comics safer with a more controlled and focused auction house. So having someone like NOD with a list of peeps guaranting their sales with be great to see. Anything we as collectors can do to get rid of the eekbay fraud scammers is a positive step for Collectors.
lou_finelou_fine
I was posting here when you were in diapers.
Registered: 04/29/03
Posts: 3800
Quote: The one problem I think a few might have is refunds on slabs. Whats stopping someone from buying your hulk 181 cracking it out and inserting a different one and saying they are not pleased with the book.
I don't think this is a real concern here since the slabs make it a much more difficult process to pull a fast one on the seller here.
If this was a serious concern, I wonder how any comic book transaction could ever have been completed in the days prior to CGC.
#1282705 - 07/16/0602:31 PMRe: Network of Disclosure Press Release
[Re: Mr. Spider-Woman]
ronm3ronm3
I was posting here when you were in diapers.
Registered: 01/18/03
Posts: 3476
Loc: New Jersey
Quote: Is anyone else concerened that NOD is the evil organization from the Command & Conquer universe?
That is too funny! One of the best games ever made. I just want everyone to know that I am not against it I am just asking for something more definitive.
AlanFAlanF
The Post-man always rings twice. Uhm... ring ring?
Registered: 05/28/02
Posts: 1935
Loc: Western Burbs of Chicago
I concur with the sentiments of most that this is a positive step in the direction needed to correct the current imbalance that we've allowed to creep into our hobby. Hopefully the AACC meeting this week during the SD Con will perpetuate this movement and we will start to see some "taking back of the hobby" soon.
I do, however, have two critiques/comments on the NOD:
1) As already mentioned by a few, a graduated schedule of membership is needed to distinguish those more on the "dealer" side of the spectrum from those on the "collector" side. Having never sold a book in my 20+ years of collecting and with practically no desire nor intention of diving into the sales-side of the market any time soon, I see little upside to joining this organization. However, I do as Mark puts it, "have an interest in helping promote the principles and intentions pursued by NOD," but right now feel like I can get a bigger bang from my charity budget by making a $50 donation to the CBLDF.
2) While I wholeheartedly applaud the following policy: "The greater the value of the comic, the more due diligence should be exercised to find out the history of the book," I am disappointed that it doesn't contain any language about disclosing said history to prospective buyers. I am also saddened that this policy's only criteria for extra due diligence is related to the value of the book, as this theoretically eliminates many tens of thousands of low-priced pedigree copies from having their provenance lineages fully researched and ultimately disclosed. The collecting of pedigrees is still very much a part of the hobby today and the safest method for insuring that one gets what they paid for is a true and complete provenance history of the book in question.
With regard to point (2) above, I realize there are potential privacy issues with disclosing past ownership of books. However, this is where some value can be added for collectors that join the NOD (a deficit mentioned in (1) above); namely, that provenance of a pedigree (or other book) can only be shared amongst members. In this instance, NOD membership would also need to include some sort of privacy and anti-harrassment provisions enforceable with similar penalties to the ones outlined by Esquire in his follow-up post above.
Should the NOD choose to move forward with the above rudimentary suggestions and flesh out a more solid set of "pedigree guidelines," I make the public pledge now to devote as much time as necessary to the organization to assist in every way possible. Mark, Brent, et. al.: I am a great asset on this front and have many specific thoughts on this issue formulated over the many years I've been collecting pedigrees. Let me assist the NOD.
Alan
_________________________ The Dork Formerly Known as PedigreeMan
Quote: I concur with the sentiments of most that this is a positive step in the direction needed to correct the current imbalance that we've allowed to creep into our hobby. Hopefully the AACC meeting this week during the SD Con will perpetuate this movement and we will start to see some "taking back of the hobby" soon.
I do, however, have two critiques/comments on the NOD:
1) As already mentioned by a few, a graduated schedule of membership is needed to distinguish those more on the "dealer" side of the spectrum from those on the "collector" side. Having never sold a book in my 20+ years of collecting and with practically no desire nor intention of diving into the sales-side of the market any time soon, I see little upside to joining this organization. However, I do as Mark puts it, "have an interest in helping promote the principles and intentions pursued by NOD," but right now feel like I can get a bigger bang from my charity budget by making a $50 donation to the CBLDF.
2) While I wholeheartedly applaud the following policy: "The greater the value of the comic, the more due diligence should be exercised to find out the history of the book," I am disappointed that it doesn't contain any language about disclosing said history to prospective buyers. I am also saddened that this policy's only criteria for extra due diligence is related to the value of the book, as this theoretically eliminates many tens of thousands of low-priced pedigree copies from having their provenance lineages fully researched and ultimately disclosed. The collecting of pedigrees is still very much a part of the hobby today and the safest method for insuring that one gets what they paid for is a true and complete provenance history of the book in question.
With regard to point (2) above, I realize there are potential privacy issues with disclosing past ownership of books. However, this is where some value can be added for collectors that join the NOD (a deficit mentioned in (1) above); namely, that provenance of a pedigree (or other book) can only be shared amongst members. In this instance, NOD membership would also need to include some sort of privacy and anti-harrassment provisions enforceable with similar penalties to the ones outlined by Esquire in his follow-up post above.
Should the NOD choose to move forward with the above rudimentary suggestions and flesh out a more solid set of "pedigree guidelines," I make the public pledge now to devote as much time as necessary to the organization to assist in every way possible. Mark, Brent, et. al.: I am a great asset on this front and have many specific thoughts on this issue formulated over the many years I've been collecting pedigrees. Let me assist the NOD.
Alan
Alan, I can certainly say I absolutely appreciate your offer and thank you for your comments above. I guarantee you they will be considered thoroughly (although I can't, of course, guarantee they would be adopted) and we would love to have you move involved with the organization. It is substantive comments such as yours that will make the organization a better and stronger one for the community.
