I'm in a bit of a quandry about something....

[Oldbaldguy]

Well.  Are we but modelers?  Yea.  And lawyers, too!

[MikeMaben]

22 hours ago, Kagemusha said:

 

You can flip that argument over and say the person now in possession of the donated kit has gained financially, that's the point.

That could be true depending on how many tickets they bought but I don't see that as relevant to what I've said.

 

21 hours ago, treker_ed said:

@MikeMaben ownership transferred to the club, not the individual storing the items on behalf of the club. Therefore the definition of theft still applies. The person taking the item DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION to swap the item for one of a lesser value, even if no actual money was involved, there is still a value.

OK then, what is that value ?  There would have to be a pre-established value for both the item raffled and the item swapped out in it's place.

How would that be determined ?

 

22 hours ago, treker_ed said:

@MikeMaben  If this became a police matter, this is what they would be looking at, the matter of permission, and he did not have it.

First, you're assuing that. For the police to get involved, 'the club' would have to press charges. What do you suppose are the odds of that

happening ?

 

18 hours ago, Mark_C said:

 

If you really think a kit has no value, try going into your local hobby shop and taking one without paying for it! 

 

Really ?  you're missing my point.

 

The item does not lose its value simply because it is donated; in fact, it's donated BECAUSE it has value, and the charity raffles it (where the punter exchanges money in for the chance to win the kit) or auctions it off (where the punter bids money on the kit.) 

 

In both cases the punters think the item has value, which is why they bid on it, one way or the other.

 

If a less-valuable kit is substituted, the charity loses the value difference; for example, a kit which could have fetched $75 is replaced with a kit which is only worth $40, and the charity loses that $35 because the punters KNOW the kit's value.  The person who stole the kit in the first place makes off with $35 that properly belongs to the charity, and the original donor has a right to be upset because he intended for the charity to have the value of the kit he paid for, and not put money in the pocket of a thief.

 

So, in short, the value losers are the charity and the original donor; the one who gained, gained by stealing the property.

 

It's a raffle , not a charity. Establishing the value of a kit being raffled exists only in the eye of the beholder. That's true inside

and outside a raffle. The value of any kit is the topic of endless discussion as you likely know. The 'value' of a kit is entirely

subjective and so impossible to pre-determine. You can't accuse someone of theft unless there is a determinable value established.

 

 

[Mark_C]

Mike, I don't think I'm missing your point,  I think there is a basic misunderstanding at work here.

 

It's a raffle , not a charity.

 

A raffle and a charity are not mutually exclusive.  A raffle is just a form of lottery, a chance for punters to get a prize with a small investment, knowing their chances of winning the prize increase with the number of tickets they buy.  A charity is an organization established to help a group, such as the needy, boy scouts, and so on.  It's not an either-or choice.

 

"Establishing the value of a kit being raffled exists only in the eye of the beholder. That's true inside

and outside a raffle."

 

This actually doesn't lead anywhere.  It has nothing to do with whether it's OK for someone to accept a kit on behalf of a modeling society, with the donor intending that kit to be raffled and proceeds to benefit the group, and substituting a kit with lesser value.

 

The 'value' of a kit is entirely subjective and so impossible to pre-determine.

 

If you want to argue that a kit that includes a tank is worth the same as a kit without said tank, I'm afraid you will have an uphill battle.  I did a quick bit of research, and found the Strabokan with panther kit sold (when available) for $90+, while the Strabokan without extra panther sold for approximately $60.  Those are the market numbers, Mike.  And as I'm sure you know, a kit being OOP usually boosts its value a great deal, WnW being a prime example.

 

 

You can't accuse someone of theft unless there is a determinable value established.

 

If someone picks my pocket and takes my phone, would you argue the same thing - that the value of my phone is entirely subjective and therefore its value cannot be determined, so no theft took place?

 

Anyway, I don't think this conversation is going to progress from here, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[pvanroy]

Trying to reason with someone who's unreasonable is an exercise in futility.

[Mark_C]

I don't think anyone is being unreasonable here, just there are fundamentally different, incompatible views.

[LSP_K2]

6 hours ago, Mark_C said:

I don't think anyone is being unreasonable here, just there are fundamentally different, incompatible views.

 

Agreed. If I donated a 1:32 Tamiya F4U to a raffle or auction, and they instead offer a 1:48 Tamiya F4U in it's place (box art is somewhat similar, and one could be mistaken for the other), there's obviously a real and financial disparity between the two, and I, for one, would be very annoyed by this. Since the possibility of an intentional switch is there, though not likely, this would certainly be cause for alarm. I rather suspect it was just a case of mistaken identity though, and I would pursue an answer accordingly.

 

The worth, as such, is really quite irrelevant in this case, but the underlying intent (if any) most certainly is.

[pvanroy]

1 hour ago, LSP_K2 said:

 

Agreed. If I donated a 1:32 Tamiya F4U to a raffle or auction, and they instead offer a 1:48 Tamiya F4U in it's place (box art is somewhat similar, and one could be mistaken for the other), there's obviously a real and financial disparity between the two, and I, for one, would be very annoyed by this. Since the possibility of an intentional switch is there, though not likely, this would certainly be cause for alarm. I rather suspect it was just a case of mistaken identity though, and I would pursue an answer accordingly.

 

The worth, as such, is really quite irrelevant in this case, but the underlying intent (if any) most certainly is.

 

I totally agree - as any reasonable person would. Someone arguing the opposite, using arguments that are demonstrably logically fallacious, is unreasonable.

Edited September 27, 2023 by pvanroy

[MikeMaben]

10 hours ago, Mark_C said:

Mike, I don't think I'm missing your point,  I think there is a basic misunderstanding at work here.

That's quite obvious Mark (no offense)

 

A raffle and a charity are not mutually exclusive.  A raffle is just a form of lottery, a chance for punters to get a prize with a small investment, knowing their chances of winning the prize increase with the number of tickets they buy.  A charity is an organization established to help a group, such as the needy, boy scouts, and so on.  It's not an either-or choice.

 

A raffle involves no competition. A charity auction does. The value of a kit cannot be driven up in a raffle, in an auction it does.

 

 

This actually doesn't lead anywhere.  It has nothing to do with whether it's OK for someone to accept a kit on behalf of a modeling society, with the donor intending that kit to be raffled and proceeds to benefit the group, and substituting a kit with lesser value.

 

So you're saying there 'is' a pre-determined value of a kit ?

 

If you want to argue that a kit that includes a tank is worth the same as a kit without said tank, I'm afraid you will have an uphill battle.  I did a quick bit of research, and found the Strabokan with panther kit sold (when available) for $90+, while the Strabokan without extra panther sold for approximately $60.  Those are the market numbers, Mike.  And as I'm sure you know, a kit being OOP usually boosts its value a great deal, WnW being a prime example.

 

Not arguing that at all. The tank wasn't removed it was replaced which means you have to determine the value of the replacement

which takes us back to a discussion about subjective kit valuation. No one can argue that a kits value is 'not' subjecive ?

 

If someone picks my pocket and takes my phone, would you argue the same thing - that the value of my phone is entirely subjective and therefore its value cannot be determined, so no theft took place?

 

If you donated your phone to a raffle what would it's value be ?

If you found a $20 bill on the sidewalk and kept it, would you be a thief ?

 

Anyway, I don't think this conversation is going to progress from here, so I'll leave it at that.

 

Agreed ... me out.

 

 

[Tony T]

Mike, I don't think I'm missing your point,  I think there is a basic misunderstanding at work here.

That's quite obvious Mark (no offense)

just different principles, one driven by logic, the other morality

 

A raffle and a charity are not mutually exclusive.  A raffle is just a form of lottery, a chance for punters to get a prize with a small investment, knowing their chances of winning the prize increase with the number of tickets they buy.  A charity is an organization established to help a group, such as the needy, boy scouts, and so on.  It's not an either-or choice.

 

A raffle involves no competition. A charity auction does. The value of a kit cannot be driven up in a raffle, in an auction it does.

an item of lesser value might be deemed as a lesser inducement to purchase tickets, hence potential loss

 

This actually doesn't lead anywhere.  It has nothing to do with whether it's OK for someone to accept a kit on behalf of a modeling society, with the donor intending that kit to be raffled and proceeds to benefit the group, and substituting a kit with lesser value.

 

So you're saying there 'is' a pre-determined value of a kit ?

i would argue that there's a bracket of value

 

If you want to argue that a kit that includes a tank is worth the same as a kit without said tank, I'm afraid you will have an uphill battle.  I did a quick bit of research, and found the Strabokan with panther kit sold (when available) for $90+, while the Strabokan without extra panther sold for approximately $60.  Those are the market numbers, Mike.  And as I'm sure you know, a kit being OOP usually boosts its value a great deal, WnW being a prime example.

 

Not arguing that at all. The tank wasn't removed it was replaced which means you have to determine the value of the replacement

which takes us back to a discussion about subjective kit valuation. No one can argue that a kits value is 'not' subjecive ?

brackets of value which would be accepted by most modelling or dealing in any given genre

 

If someone picks my pocket and takes my phone, would you argue the same thing - that the value of my phone is entirely subjective and therefore its value cannot be determined, so no theft took place?

 

If you donated your phone to a raffle what would it's value be ?

If you found a $20 bill on the sidewalk and kept it, would you be a thief ?

yes, if you intended to permanently deprive the owner of their property, it's theft. Value is immaterial to theft. A model tank has been misappropriated.

 

Tony

[KUROK]

You mentioned the guy had a large stash.  Perhaps he was looking at it and it got missed at the time of the raffle?  Who knows?

I also recommend asking him privately to have it back.  Make sure it's documented as in an email.

If he fails to give it back then you can forward your email to the club leaders (if you want to).

 

I've been through something similar.  We did an online "secret Santa".

Everyone got paired up and each was to send a gift of about $50 worth.  I did ...but the other guy didn't and I got crap.

So I'll never do that again.

I sent him a Wand Co. TOS Star Trek phaser.  At the time they sold for $50.  Now out of production, they are worth hundreds.

He sent me a painted solid resin Trek TNG cricket phaser that was and is worthless...

[MikeMaben]

It's all been settled Vince ... he's happy now.

[Juggernut]

8 hours ago, MikeMaben said:

It's all been settled Vince ... he's happy now.

 

Indeed it has...Thanks for pointing that out.  To wit, if the moderators would kindly lock this thread, I think that will prevent additional commentary.  Thanks.

[LSP_Ron]

Done at your request.