How should the cigar community handle bad actors.

[El Presidente]

 

This is an open question as I can't see an obvious solution. 

 

There is a very small % of people in the cigar community who are "bad actors". Let's define these individuals who have been found to have  intentionally sold  fake cigars for financial gain and when approached, made no compensation.  There is also a vary small % of people in the cigar community who commit fraud against retailers....but let's leave that one for a different day and focus on the former. 

Where I know fraud has intentionally been perpetrated (proved), then is there a duty of care to advise the broader community? 

Legally there is no issue on this matter: 

"The defence of truth is commonly referred to as justification or the defence of justification. The defendant bears the onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities that the defamatory imputations arising from the publication complained of are either true, or substantially true."

I know there were sites in the past that listed bad retailers and individual sellers. The problem that I saw was the lack of scrutiny and process for those listed. I have said it before and I will say it again. There are plenty of cigar lovers in this world who wouldn't know a Partagas from their pecker.  We ran blind tasting competitions for over 10 years to find that while there were some exceptional performances in any one year, mostly a monkey (non smoking monkey) would be able to match the median score 

Back to the issue at hand. 

How should the cigar community handle known fraudsters. How would you define "known fraudsters". What processes could be implemented to protect against "witch hunts".

It is a distasteful topic brought about by an emerging situation that appears to show a Chicago private seller actively selling fake boxes to members here and elsewhere. There is another in the UK found to be doing the same. There are others. Few as a % of cigar lovers but plenty enough. 

Would love your thoughts/input 

 

[Chibearsv]

Buying from a private sale individual requires more responsibility from me as a buyer than I would expect from buying from a retail establishment or internet marketer. I expect a retailer to be legit and upstanding enough to back their sales with some kind of satisfaction guarantee. If the retailer knows they sold fakes without a refund, they should be outed.  

But Joe Blow, the individual? I expect him to be shady and should do my own diligence before handing him my cash. A refund would be a surprise to me in this case. CC sales are a strange ballgame in the US, like buying weed from a guy on the corner, sometimes you’ll get what you want and sometimes you’ll get screwed. I wouldn't point fingers since I was a willing participant in that shady transaction too.

My opinion

[El Presidente]

6 hours ago, Chibearsv said:

Buying from a private sale individual requires more responsibility from me as a buyer than I would expect from buying from a retail establishment or internet marketer. I expect a retailer to be legit and upstanding enough to back their sales with some kind of satisfaction guarantee. If the retailer knows they sold fakes without a refund, they should be outed.  

But Joe Blow, the individual? I expect him to be shady and should do my own diligence before handing him my cash. A refund would be a surprise to me in this case. CC sales are a strange ballgame in the US, like buying weed from a guy on the corner, sometimes you’ll get what you want and sometimes you’ll get screwed. I wouldn't point fingers since I was a willing participant in that shady transaction too.

My opinion

What if "Joe Blow" the individual has passed more than one box of fake cigars. What if "Joe Blow" was made aware that his stock is compromised.....and continues to do it? 

We understand the concept of "Caveat Emptor". However what about "Duty of Care". 

 

[BrightonCorgi]

What if you sold a box that you bought in person at a well known Habanos store?  Is nothing too fancy like a Cohiba Humidor and buyer says it's fake.  Do you take them back?  Do you say piss off because it's real?  Do you risk having your name tarnished because some loon wants to rant.  Even if you make amends.  They say you are committing fakery etc...

We've seen the hysteria on the some of the emails @El Presidente shares.

The larger you get, the more detractors emerge.   For a small timer the defamation can have a profound consequence.

[El Presidente]

8 minutes ago, BrightonCorgi said:

What if you sold a box that you bought in person at a well known Habanos store?  Is nothing too fancy like a Cohiba Humidor and buyer says it's fake.  Do you take them back?  Do you say piss off because it's real?  Do you risk having your name tarnished because some loon wants to rant.  Even if you make amends.  They say you are committing fakery etc...

We've seen the hysteria on the some of the emails @El Presidente shares.

The larger you get, the more detractors emerge.   For a small timer the defamation can have a profound consequence.

This is what makes it difficult. You have incorrect accusations, you have genuine sellers who were caught out and simply did not know, and you have professional repeat  thieves. How do you target the latter?

 

[B44]

38 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

What if "Joe Blow" the individual has passed more than one box of fake cigars. What if "Joe Blow" was made aware that his stock is compromised.....and continues to do it? 

We understand the concept of "Caveat Emptor". However what about "Duty of Care". 

 

This is the line in the sand. We’re a small community, bastardized by the rest of the world for being smokers. There’s a duty of care above traditional transactions that we all shoulder when selling / trading to one another. The fact that they were notified of their issue and continued in-spite of it is deeply concerning. 
 

@El Presidente where can we find more information on this developing story?
 

 

[El Presidente]

4 hours ago, B44 said:

@El Presidente where can we find more information on this developing story?

It is developing 

I raise this issue simply because I want input from members. Nothing more at this stage. 

I am in a flux in the direction to take as are many of you. 

[Lfhard]

Like stated above this community is a privilege to be apart. If someone does not have the duty of care in trading, or selling even after being brought to their attention that they are selling fakes. Then to protect the rest of us honest people that do have the duty of care and want to be apart of this community the name should be released to the rest of us. If they don't care about how they are scamming others, then they don’t care about their reputation or their name. There’s not much more you can do in the US do to the stance on Cuban cigars, other than making the community aware of this person so it doesn’t happen again to anyone else. Karma is a b!tch and this person will get it back at some point. This right here is what’s wrong with people these days. They only care about themselves and not about the people around them. Just my two cents. 

[Hammer Smokin']

What community is a privilege to be part of? 

FOH? yes. 

Cigars? no. 

The "cigar community" is one of the worst things about smoking cigars. Probably worse than plugged cigars, lol.

[Lfhard]

3 hours ago, Hammer Smokin' said:

What community is a privilege to be part of? 

FOH? yes. 

Cigars? no. 

The "cigar community" is one of the worst things about smoking cigars. Probably worse than plugged cigars, lol.

FOH community. There are no cigar lounges in my area that I’m a fan of so other than my brother-in-law and a couple friends this is the only community I’m apart of when it comes to cigars. 

[bmac]

Please release all info. Chances are we have been impacted.

[Chibearsv]

7 hours ago, El Presidente said:

This is what makes it difficult. You have incorrect accusations, you have genuine sellers who were caught out and simply did not know, and you have professional repeat  thieves. How do you target the latter?

 

If they are using your platform to perpetrate their activity, then wouldn't disconnecting them from the platform accomplish the goal of shutting them down, at least from your members?  If they aren't using your platform, I'll repeat that I think the responsibility of deciding to purchase from a private seller and the risks therein lie mostly with the purchaser.  To that end, I also believe the decision of "outing" is  up to the victims.  But using your public forum to assist with that is touchy. 

As a business, I never want to throw stones.  As an individual, that can be a different story and I understand if someone would want to post publicly.  But your beautifully crafted rules wouldn't allow for that, and I wouldn't suggest that you make such an amendment.  Again, my opinion.

[Chibearsv]

7 hours ago, Lfhard said:

There’s not much more you can do in the US do to the stance on Cuban cigars

Correct, this is exactly why "buyer beware" rules the day on this issue in the US.  As victims, we get no remedy in law, so morality is all we can hope for.  Our assumption of Duty of Care in dubious legal transactions is the very thing that attracts the grifters. 

[anacostiakat]

Only thoughts I have on this are that IMHO, you should not deal with anyone you don't know or are comfortable with.  Also, it is helpful to be able to see reviews (complaints?) about transactions with people or places.  Much like a battlezone type of site or area where these things can be hashed out.  If that is possible.  That is about all I got.

[BrightonCorgi]

Is it fair for a 3rd party like a forum to be judge and jury?  Typically siding on one side (the one who says they ripped off) or does this become formal online trial?  How does the wrongfully accused get their standing back in the community?  Can they ever recover if wrongfully accused? 

I think a 1-10 scale for buyers and sellers could be answer.  Someone has X trades and has X average score kind of thing could be answer.  For both the buyer and sellers.   Have it so both agree to be a part of the scoring before the transaction.

 

[LordAnubis]

I’d want to make sure all the evidence is lined up and presented along with accusations. I think calling out fraudsters can be done very well and can be done very poorly. To me “well” is when the evidence is presented, details of the issues are presented and sequence of events are presented. “Poorly” is little to no evidence, and very brief straight up accusations without much more detail.  I certainly think it’s fair to make public here as it impacts members here. 

[BrightonCorgi]

4 minutes ago, LordAnubis said:

I’d want to make sure all the evidence is lined up and presented along with accusations. I think calling out fraudsters can be done very well and can be done very poorly. To me “well” is when the evidence is presented, details of the issues are presented and sequence of events are presented. “Poorly” is little to no evidence, and very brief straight up accusations without much more detail.  I certainly think it’s fair to make public here as it impacts members here. 

Perhaps a grievance template could be drafted?  Completion & details will give or detract merit to their case?  Users can decide based on what was filled out (or not filled out).

[Salomones]

In Facebook is an group ,Cigar Scammers' with huge List of this People and www-pages already. It grows and is weekly updated. 

[dominattorney]

12 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

What if you sold a box that you bought in person at a well known Habanos store?  Is nothing too fancy like a Cohiba Humidor and buyer says it's fake.  Do you take them back?  Do you say piss off because it's real?  Do you risk having your name tarnished because some loon wants to rant.  Even if you make amends.  They say you are committing fakery etc...

We've seen the hysteria on the some of the emails @El Presidente shares.

The larger you get, the more detractors emerge.   For a small timer the defamation can have a profound consequence.

In this situation, dealing with a lunatic, taking the sticks back is essentially admitting wrongdoing in their eyes. I don't do this type of business precisely to avoid idiots. 

[jakebarnes]

As @Chibearsv stated, this is definitely one of those situations where I have different standards and expectations for who I am dealing with. I also want to upfront state that I am not the brute from Chicago perpetuating this. 😁

I always think that "know your source" is the paramount standard to use in the cigar world. I have certain expectations from a trusted cigar vendor. For private sales, I almost trust no one short a few people I personally know. Probably why I only really live in the Bond Roberts world for when I feel like a random box--there's at least an overarching governing review process and a standardized community review process. 

I am sort of curious about this though. Wonder if it's someone I've met before. A few guys at my lounge have  been a bit flashy lately and trying to show off their "cubans" lately and wonder if there is any relation. Either way, I have mine and I trust what I have--primarily because what I have is from a very limited circle of trusted sources. 

[Fugu]

Don't watch their movies!

 

No easy solution here. Like you addressed in the thread opening, there is the potential issue of false accusations and unjustified calling out somebody - as much as there is the problem of pertinacious denial of proven fake or fraud. First and foremost difficulty: There is no common instance, no authority in existence that would tell the world right from wrong, true from false - not even for the most obvious counterfeit.

Without knowing the background and detail of the addressed cases (whether FOH-related or not), my take:

For your own platform (BR) you are obviously free to set the rules upfront and may exclude users at the slightest shred of a doubt at your discretion as per stipulations to agree upon in advance (as is obviously being done as per Terms and Conditions). There is a precise contractual agreement set up between the acting parties. You may publicly disclose cases as a fair warning, but then it's not enough that you know it, as you put it, you should be able to prove it. If you're fine with that - I'd say go ahead! That may to a part also apply to transactions under the FOH umbrella (between members).

Outside of that, i.e. for the broader cigar "community", non-scrutinized, unsolicited third-party claims, likely put forward anonymously even, and such things like a general public pillory - .... difficult.

Thing is - we / you're not a FB-group, you may eventually be held accountable (might also call for some decent legal consultation).

[Cigar Surgeon]

I've always struggled with the same.  You see legitimate and false accusations playing out on social media and the whole thing is uncomfortable.  What I did like in /r/cubancigars was the "canary in a coal mine" list.  

A list of trusted sources that you could purchase cigars from.  If they became untrusted, they were simply removed from the list.  Burden of proof is on the retailer to get back on the list.

On a personal note I'd say there are 5 maybe 6 people worldwide that I personally trust for a private transaction.

[Rhinoww]

It’s a risk when buying from an individual. I’m a member of another closed group often used for selling/trading cigars and fine whiskey/bourbon. There is an opportunity for direct feedback on a transaction for others to see as there is a sub forum dedicated for feedback/bitching about sellers. Regardless in my view it is helpful to be able to have some independent basis to judge a seller. If there are questions as to the authenticity of what is being sold, I would like to know it.
These days knowing your seller is likely more important to me than price, but I’m pretty much out of the buying game for the time being unless my emails are fast enough here on something I really want. 

[MickVanWinkle]

If only there was a penal colony established on some vast island continent for such criminals…

In reality I find less urge to punish and more to protect the community.  Unfortunately the digital age has made it seemingly more difficult to effectively get rid of bad actors.  I’d encourage others looking to make private transactions to leverage tools (e.g. BR) that serve to establish higher confidence.  I’m far too untrusting to participate in private sales with people I don’t know.

And definitely not confusing my pecker with a Lusi anytime soon.

Eh… expose them.

[blank]

Australia is not big enough to take them all. Lol!