posted on July 24, 2002 08:15:26 PM new
C'mon you guys, you're missing the point. There are plenty of sellers with GOOD feedback who are dirty, rotten scoundrels. Yeah, that's the ticket.
posted on July 29, 2002 04:33:34 PM new
twinsoft
posted on July 22, 2002 07:08:00 PM new
----------------------------------
Jamie, you're also posting here under the ID barncards1. I'm sure you know that's a violation of CGs. You were banned here once for spamming. You know very well that as a company rep (owner of Clutterpie), you shouldn't come here with "announcements" regarding your new chat site, unless you've received permission from Diana. Everything about you and this thread is rude and abusive. I'm sure you'll be telling everyone Meg was "afraid" to debate you. Take your spam elsewhere. Get a freaking life, loser.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HELLO WHOM EVER YOU ARE I AM BARNCARDS AND IF YOUHAVE SEEN SOMEONE ELSE USE MY ID PLEASE EMAIL ME THE POST DATE AN TIME.
posted on July 29, 2002 05:59:42 PM new
Jamie- I just heard from Meg. She said go to PEZPIE.com at 9:00 on August 8. She will have a big surprise for you!
posted on July 30, 2002 05:51:55 AM new
Alas, most of you have missed the point entirely ... like one of those hard-to-get jokes, it went right over most of your heads.
I understand what you are saying Jamie, and even though your may not get your debate, keep up the great attitude. If something like this ever did occur, I believe everyone on every venue would get some benefit from the results.
posted on July 30, 2002 10:27:19 AM new
RB- Although there is no sure way of knowing if any given poster is delusional, you should know by now that others will sarcastically "go along with it" for awhile before unleashing both barrels. The mention of the websites in the opening post, along with the unrealistic proposed debate with Ebay, made it rather obvious that Jamie was "spamming" for hits on his site. Ebay really does not have to debate anyone, as their success allows them to say f*ckoff to anyone not happy with their service or fees.
BTW- it is really time to stop this thread as he has gotten too much attention already.
[ edited by stusi on Jul 30, 2002 10:29 AM ]
posted on July 30, 2002 08:18:52 PM new... and even though your may not get your debate, keep up the great attitude. If something like this ever did occur, I believe everyone on every venue would get some benefit from the results.
Something like what? A wannabe auction site that ISN'T EVEN OPEN YET challenging Meg Whitman to debate on why eBay sucks? Do you really think this is anything but a very cheap publicity stunt?
Reality check. Meg is a Princeton/Harvard grad and multi-, multi-millionaire with better things to do than listen to ne'er-do-well idiots insult her achievements. Of all the public demonstrations AuctionPie could have contemplated (for example, a seller's workshop or creating a seller's union), AP is going on the attack, in effect attempting to tear down eBay for its own profit.
Not only does AuctionPie have zero backing, but it has fallen flat on its face. The promised go-live date of July 31st obviously won't be met; and ironically, after spamming the boards for months, AP is suddenly mum on the subject.
Perhaps a better topic of debate would be why AuctionPie is doomed to fail, evidence being their faulty technical skills at even getting the front door open. According to the founder, a new programming team has been brought in. Boy howdy. Can you give me one good reason why the CEO of eBay would even acknowlege such a blatant bunch of money-grubbing, wannabe bunglers?
Ebay replied within 24 hours. I recieved email from an Ebay VP.
If the only benefit of the challenge was simply to communicate some of the issues that have caused the challenge to occur then it has been a success.
And if you reread the challenge you can see that I never expected Meg to actually accept the challenge which is why it was worded to allow another Ebay rep or interested party to champion Meg's cause.
What's important is discussing these issues.
For those of you that actually are online Auction Users in this thread or read this I think the question is very valid.
Ebay has stated they will not defend itself. We are accepting applications until Monday August 5th so if you want to Champion Meg Whitman this is your chance.
posted on July 31, 2002 06:22:09 AM new
I understand what you folks are trying to say here, but once you get past the "Jamie is just looking for hits" idea, try to understand what he is really trying to say.
stusi ... that F***U attitude is exactly the kind of attitude that could bring Meg's Little Empire down. Money seems to be tight these days, especially (if you believe all the rhetoric) after 9/11. When money is tight and a company wants to survive, it seems to me that they should service their customers the absolute best way they can. If they don't, when the money starts flowing again, guess who will remember who screwed them over during the hard times? I wish I had a buck for every tits-up farm implement distributor who told their customers to take a hike during the bad crop years.
eBay, unfortunately, has become worse in it's service efforts. They no longer have email addresses that you can hope to get an answer form ... these have been replaced by their so-called webforms, which, in many cases, do not include the problem that you are experiencing. Then they went to Live Chat. Great idea, until you realize that the majority of responses you get from these folks include the phrase "I can't help you, you'll have to use the following webform ..."
twin ... you may recognize this as a "do loop".
I mean, what kind of service is that?
Fraud is running rampart on eBay, although their spin doctors will tell you different.
twinsoft ... This is the topic of the debate: "Why the Current Ebay Business Model is Doomed to Failure for Most Independent Sellers and Perhaps to the Company Itself?". I do not see any reference to Jamie's proposed venue in this topic.
Does a person need a wall full of degrees and a ton of money to debate? We're not talking about defending a law suit in a Court of Law here where you have to pay off the lawyers and in the end, the person with the most money wins.
The very fact that Meg would not stoop down to the level of her peon customers (who still make up the bulk of the money that her shareholders so desperately need) to talk to them about making her venue better pretty well sums up what my input to such a debate would revolve around.
IMHO, this really has nothing to do with David vs Goliath, but rather a wake-up call to everyone that eBay is getting a little out of control and has forgotten it's roots.
posted on July 31, 2002 06:24:29 AM new
Your supposed e-mail from Ebay was generic, right? "...to champion Meg's cause..."? What exactly do you think her cause is? To remain the top auction site? How does that need championing? If someone were to create a new ice cream, would anyone expect a debate between the new company and Haagen Dasz? The truth is that unless you are truly naive or delusional, you know that this "challenge" is just a publicity stunt to bring attention to your site. The bottom line is that Ebay is tremendously successful, but not perfect, and will continue to raise fees until the market will no longer bear it. Get over it!
posted on July 31, 2002 06:39:20 AM new
"Why the Current Ebay Business Model is Doomed to Failure for Most Independent Sellers and Perhaps to the Company Itself?"
posted on July 31, 2002 09:16:37 AM new
RD, by now you should be familiar with Canvid's modus operendi. He'll join an established group, then lead a mutiny by making vague promises. He did it with OASC, then at OAUA, then OTWA, now he's trying the same stunt here. He's contributed absolutely nothing positive to online auctions. He's done nothing but tear down the work of others.
Back when we were trying to organize a co-op, we created Internet Pioneers free auction and education site to be a co-op model. Not only didn't Jamie participate, but he ridiculed the idea. Jamie promised his own co-op, worked up a mailing list, got lots of free help building AuctionPie, then a week before the planned opening, announced that AuctionPie would not be a co-op, but would instead be run for his own profit. So much for cooperative principles.
Yes, there are problems with eBay. But there are positive approaches sellers can use to improve their lot. Million Auction March and Internet Pioneers were examples of attempts to make positive changes. A for-pay auction site run by Canvid is not going to make things better for anybody.
The "challenge" to Meg Whitman is nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt. Obviously Canvid is desperate. He's been spamming the boards for months, but still has no stated target date for his site. From what's been stated elsewhere, apparently his programmer quit.
If Canvid has some ideas to improve online auctions, he can post those ideas for everyone to read and discuss. But I don't think he has any ideas. It's time Canvid grew up and stopped trying to hustle auction sellers by making vague promises and attacking the work of others.
posted on July 31, 2002 09:34:13 AM new
twinsoft ... regardless of Jamie's motives or past history, I still think "someone" needs to put Meg et al on the HotSeat to debate the issue. IOW, let's take Jamie out of the discussion and talk about his idea only.
I, and many others (the list grows almost logarithmically daily) seem to belive that eBay is on a downhill trend wrt looking out for their "customers" and providing decent service. If this continues, there won't be any eBay.
Meg really needs a reality check ... she cannot see the forest (the folks who make eBay) for the trees (her yacht, mansions, etc.).
posted on July 31, 2002 09:41:59 AM new
RB, I agree with you there 100%. (Though I don't believe only eBay is to blame.) Perhaps a new thread about the topic? But I must run off to work now. BBL
First off the emails are not supposed but very much real. From Henry Gomez, VP Communications.
No form letters either. Several very much real first person communications between the two of us.
Secondly. If a new Ice Cream company wanted to debate Haagen Dasz there is no crime in challenging them to a debate.
We have posted our question. It is fairly clear and the subject will be politely debated.
There are many issues that are very much relevant to the users of All Online Selling sites.
Twinny, please, if you post lies and slander you will have to face legal action.
I don't care if you call me names. I don't care about your lampooning on Auction Antics.
Heck, I even find some of them funny. You should have us put up a banner for you.
I do care about lies. It's funny because I was just going through our early emails.
Do you really want me to print some of these here?
You tried to take command of my own and others efforts in the early co-op. Nobody nominated you leader? You took charge and we all ignored you.
I was never a member of OAUA so I could not take charge of said group.
As for your free site, the software was brought to me before you. I expressed that it open source code would not support a full service large volume site. Rich then showed it to you.
I never bad mouthed your effort. Nobody used it though did they? It was a complete and utter failure and I believe there aren't more than a half dozen listings on there now, no?
I didn't get free help building our co-op group. Many of us actually worked together. I worked for free too remember? And I also paid all of the expenses. Nobody ever was asked to pay a dime of their own money. Do you need Cathy, Rich, Sharon, or others to verify this?
And as per the rules of this site I will not post here why I feel my efforts are very much a benefit for sellers and bidders. I'm sure if some want to they can find out where our messageboard is. I can say that the business model we are using is very much similiar to our original co-op goals.
I don't mind criticism. I welcome it. I do wish though it was a bit more constructive and not as personal.
I think RB has summed up this thread and its topic best. And if any of you want a shot at taking me on in a real fair rules debate I suggest you apply by Monday August 5th.
posted on July 31, 2002 11:02:21 AM new
Why don't we all see if we can come up with some ideas on how the eBay model can be made better, and try to keep the personal shots to a minimum? I don't know how much value our opinions would be (I doubt if any eBay decision makers listen to these chats), but if anyone ever actually does get an opportunity to debate with Meg, I think the results would be much better if our collective thoughts were organized and presented in a respectful manner.
Let's face it, eBay is proof that an on-line organization can grow and make money for it's shareholders, and, it used to be a lot of fun and almost worryless. I don't think any of us want to see the demise or even the reduction of eBay regardless of how we may have been treated by them.
posted on July 31, 2002 06:41:49 PM new
Canvid, liar liar pants on fire! Neener neener! Your mom wears army boots. What more can I say?
Internet Pioneers was never supposed to be the final product. It was only a model, and its purpose was to stimulate discussion. However, in our first month, we registered two hundred users, had hundreds of auctions and a 10% sell through rate - better than any of the other sites except eBay and Yahoo. Those are facts. I eventually closed it though because people were more interested in IP as a free auction site, and only a few participated in the discussion. End of story.
As for leadership, I tried to avoid leading in any capacity, though the discussion took place on my board and I was the one who organized the auction site. I was an organizer, but for obvious reasons I also had to handle some minor moderation duties.
RB I agree that a discussion of how to effect positive change in OAI would be beneficial. Maybe we can arrange our own little personal debate in this forum. I am willing to take eBay's side, if you would like to present constructive criticisms. If you agree to that, and we can elevate the conversation above simple eBay-bashing, then we can start a separate thread. We can even use Jamie's topic if it suits you. LMK
posted on July 31, 2002 07:32:09 PM new
You gotta give Jaime an A for Effort.
Next time you're found with your chin on the ground
There's a lot to be learned so look around
Just what makes that little ol' ant
Think he'll move that rubber tree plant
Anyone knows an ant can't
Move a rubber tree plant
But he's got high hopes... he's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie in the sky hopes
So any time you're getting low
'Stead of letting go,
Just remember that ant.
Oops there goes another rubber tree plant.
Oops there goes another rubber tree plant.
Oops there goes another rubber tree plant.
posted on July 31, 2002 07:38:09 PM new
Why thank you bids. That's the sweetest thing anyone has said to me online since I started my efforts over a year and a half ago here on AW.
posted on August 1, 2002 06:30:47 AM new
twinsoft: Maybe we can arrange our own little personal debate in this forum.
Sounds good to me
I'll start with one of my Pet Peeves with eBay. You know that I have always had an issue with the proliferation of bootleg videos on eBay and their seeming lack of interest in doing something about this problem. Anticipating that my detractors will immediately start jumping all over me about the videotapes I tried to sell on eBay, I do not include the infamous "Emmy Consideration" tapes in this category - these are officially and legally produced and distributed to members of the voting academy, and according to US Copyright Law, there is no violation of that law if these are resold (although the eBay lawyers will tell you different). I am talking about illegal copies of television series’ (The Sopranos, Buffy, etc.) and, lately, the rise of VCD copies of movies that are still currently showing on the big screen (Spiderman, Star Wars, etc.). eBay will tell you that they are not in a position to make judgement on any of these.
They will also tell you that it is the responsibility of the Copyright Owner to request the end of a listing. This is such an obvious dodge that I don’t think it needs to be discussed (unless, of course, eBay wants to defend this policy - I will happily debate it with facts).
Thirdly, they will tell you that they cannot police their site. They claim "venue only" status which has been argued in court and will, no doubt, come up again and again until the lawyers get it right!
Lastly, they will tell you that they do investigate all reports.
Dealing with the VCD problem first. Many, many individual reports have been made to SafeHarbor about these as evidenced by reading the eBay Forums. While eBay may be able to argue that VCDs of current and copyrighted movies coming out of Asia are legal (many are not), I cannot understand why they would argue that a VCD of the current "Spiderman" movie might be OK (unless the eBay enforcers don’t get out or they have their heads stuck in the sand). Taking an even easier example, and one that literally floods the eBay market, is the so-called legal release on VCD of the "Star Wars Trilogy". George Lucas has been all over the news stating that he has not released this series in any format in any country, and that he does not intend to for some time. This has been reported in industry magazines, television, and virtually all movie-related web sites. And, information on this very issue is prominent on the MPAA site. MPAA is a VeRO member.
Question #1 to eBay: Why do you allow sellers to list and sell VCD copies of "Spiderman" and the "Star Wars Trilogy" on your venue? These are very obviously illegal copyright violations and it does not require any specialized knowledge or seeing the item to ascertain this.
Dealing with the bootleg copies of television series’, I can understand the problem with eBay making an incorrect decision on these ... some are legal and some aren’t. On many occasions, I and several other members of my trading circles have emailed SafeHarbor with facts about the illegal ones. In these emails, eBay has been asked to simply contact the Copyright Owner to verify the complaint is accurate. To make it easy for eBay, the name, address, telephone number, fax number, and email address of the Copyright Owner is included in the email.
Question #2 to eBay: Does your "investigation" of such a complaint include contacting the Copyright Owner to determine if the item is legal to sell?
posted on August 1, 2002 06:49:48 AM new
Don't blame eBay for the rules regarding Intellectual Property Rights, fraud, etc., on their site, blame the US Congress. Congress passed the laws that ISPs aren't responsible for what others post on their site and that only the owner or agent of the Intellectual Property may demand its removal. The lawyers and court "got it right" when eBay was found not liable as a venue when fraudulent items were sold on the site.
The law is clear on this issue. ISPs do not have to "police" their sites, and can't be liable for not policing their sites.
You couldn't have an auction site if the venue was responsible for every item posted on it. Just the product liability lawsuits would drive the venue out of business.
posted on August 1, 2002 06:59:25 AM new
REAMOND ... I fully understand what you are saying.
However, if an ISP is made aware that criminal activity is occuring on their venue, do they not have some responsibility to do something about it other than claiming "we're just a venue"? Seems to me that withholding knowledge of a crime is a ... crime.
posted on August 1, 2002 09:34:23 AM new
Hi, RB. That sounds good. I'm just running out the door but I will check back and respond this evening. Couple things,
First, we should agree on the topic of debate. I suggest the original topic,
Why the Current Ebay Business Model is Doomed to Failure for Most Independent Sellers and Perhaps to the Company Itself?
If you're going to raise specific issues, they should relate to that topic. As in, "the sale of bootleg videos is contributing to the failure of eBay, etc."
Second, I'd really like to see this have a thread of its own. This thread is a dead horse. Would you mind greatly? If not, that's okay.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
