posted on November 27, 2000 03:50:32 PM new
Hello Toyranch,
"The standard of not engaging in any activity that might APPEAR to be illicit, whether it is or not, is not a reasonable standard."
I disagree. If you engage in something that appears suspicious then you should be prepared to respond when someone raises those suspicions. A response with the facts necessary to explain why some seemingly suspicious activity is actually the result of benign co-incidences.
eBay, through safeharbor and other avenues, in effect acts as your respondent should someone email about something they find questionable.
In this case, eBay has responded to the person raising the question that the activity is not suspicious. Unfortunately, eBay does not have the will or the wherewithal to respond with facts that explain why the suspicions are ungrounded.
That someone is reluctant to accept eBay's decision is another problem entirely and is in part the result of eBay refusing to explain how it reached its decision.
"It's really pretty normal for people in the same business to know each other, and to cooperate with each other."
Certainly. But not in an auction atmosphere where collusion is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from that co-operation.
If dealers want to give each other "dealer" discounts, trade information and experiences, exchange selling aids and materials, that is I think acceptable to all. But jacking the price up for the folks who are the ultimate users of items is nothing more than price fixing.
You said:
******************************
I disagree. If you engage in something that appears suspicious then you should be prepared to respond when someone raises those suspicions. A response with the facts necessary to explain why some seemingly suspicious activity is actually the result of benign co-incidences.
*******************************
Sure, that's true! They should be able to explain themselves to SafeHarbor. They probably shouldn't have to explain themselves to everyone who comes along. They shouldn't have to answer questions about their business relationships to you or me or anyone else. They may choose to do so... but they should not have to answer to every suspicious person who comes down the road. Answering to SafeHarbor should be sufficient.
You said:
********************************
Unfortunately, eBay does not have the will or the wherewithal to respond with facts that explain why the suspicions are ungrounded.
********************************
That's because it's none of your business! There are privacy laws about such things! They can be sued to the end of time for blabbing someone else's business to a bunch of nosey users! They can answer if they choose. It's not ebay's PLACE to tell anyone else! Notice above, I suggested ASKING the users!
You said:
*********************************
That someone is reluctant to accept eBay's decision is another problem entirely and is in part the result of eBay refusing to explain how it reached its decision.
**********************************
Yeah, and it's alson in part because people are nosey and think they are 'right' and are not willing to accept that they might be 'wrong'. The court says 'Not Guilty', but the lynch mob wants to string 'em up anyway (not referring to any specific lynch mob, just a general impression of the mentality of some of those whose SafeHarbor accusations are not found to be valid).
You said:
***********************************
But jacking the price up for the folks who are the ultimate users of items is nothing more than price fixing.
***********************************
Sure, but it's a heckuva lot easier to just all have the same starting bid for those items.
1. You don't endanger your ebay account.
2. Your customers are more willing to accept the price as 'the price'.
3. It's how all the big retailers got to be big retailers.
Then if someone else comes to the party, offering the same goods, just undercut them until they leave. It's a very basic strategy in business. Why go to all the trouble of bidding in each other's auctions and stuff! Takes too much time. Just figure out a price and stick to it. Much easier, much faster, much more efficient that way.
There may be yet another reason for the buying and selling between those accounts. I don't know, I don't care. It's not shilling, SafeHarbor says it's OK, why is that so hard to accept?
posted on November 27, 2000 09:03:42 PM new
Lets just say that it IS a shilling case, I have personal evidence of it, but I wanted to be able to prove it without having to drag a lot of history into it. I have emails from the people involved in this that support what I know. iswore is well aware of most of the facts in this and is helping me out. Sorry, but I am "right" and I do know what I am talking about, I wish that you could have seen everything that was involved in this. I am not a ebay "witchhunter" and have never turned anyone in before this, for anything. I wanted to see if other people could see a pattern with the interaction between the id's. Safeharbor will not do anything right now because one of the id's is registered in a different state and has different contact information. Safeharbor never did say it was okay, they are in the same boat as I am at the moment and have admitted it.
posted on November 27, 2000 10:10:08 PM new
If I were you, I would take a wait and see attitude. Because if there is collusion, it will make itself evident. People get cocky, sloppy, as time goes on and they gain confidence that they will go undetected.
And if there is no evident collusion, and you make these allegations that can only be backed up by your personal knowlege, all you run the risk of doing is making yourself the target of a user who goes through ids like some people go through packs of chewing gum.
I do not think you will come out a winner in that fight. Chose your battles wisely. I would rather fight with someone who believed in fighting fair.
"They should be able to explain themselves to SafeHarbor. They probably shouldn't have to explain themselves to everyone who comes along. They shouldn't have to answer questions about their business relationships to you or me or anyone else."
But your very first post to this topic was:
"Sure, I'll look at it."
Do you see a bit of incongruity there?
I haven't requested the information about this supposed case of shilling. But you have.
I suggested that the person who raised the question with safeharbor accept safeharbor's decision until and unless new evidence should appear. You have already posted that you believe there is no shilling going on.
It appears to me that you are as adamant in your contention that no shilling has occurred as others are that shilling has occurred. And neither side knows the facts in the matter as well as eBay since neither side has as much information as eBay potentially has.
Why don't you just disengage from this conversation instead of making comments that imply that the other viewpoint is paranoid or vindictive?
