posted on October 20, 2000 07:46:49 PM
Saw a post 'fraud in progress' what can I do.
KRS suggested that I start a new thread "netcop 101" presumably because of the possible response.
The scene is a seller defrauds a buyer by not sending the merchandise. Safeharbor is less than responsive and the seller continues to sell.
You've been defrauded, lets say of $200.
So what do you do.
I suggested I would be rather pi**ed and I might not care about the repercussions to me. Rather I want either my merch and I sure don't want the fraud to continue. So what can I do?
I can place a bid and then withdraw that bid on the seller's merch saying that I had not received the goods and that was the reason for the bid withdrawal.
I'm not suggesting people do this or not; just that it is a possible strategy that would prevent additional fraud and would effectively stop additional bidding on the auctions of the questionable seller.
I am curious how others feel about this strategy recognizing that:
1. I'd be pretty much nailed by negs and would face suspension for my acts. So what, I probably wouldn't care as I wouldn't be buying much more after being ripped off for that amount anyway.
2. I'd be getting some quick justice for my lost $200 (or even with safeharbor insurance reimbursing me the $175 -- $25 out of pocket.)
Is it worth it?
If I did that, should I be suspended?
Is this an appropriate use of the tools to get justice when ripped a new one?
You could but the seller could easily change his/her userID to a new alias and only the feedback would follow.
We also know that a lot of buyers never look beyond the number in the parenthesis.
The bid on their current auctions routine is there as a tool and your hounding them in this way effectively warns those who are considering buying from the alleged creep.
Posting of the email certainly would not at all be guaranteed to get to them.
The main drawback, of course, is that the irate buyer would be risking a charge of auction interference.
posted on October 20, 2000 08:17:48 PMneomax:"The scene is a seller defrauds a buyer by not sending the merchandise. Safeharbor is less than responsive and the seller continues to sell."
Here is something that I heard about someone doing, but I don't know if it is proper. A defrauded buyer went to everyone of the seller's auctions and collected the emails of the current high bidder, then sent each one an anonymous email regarding the unscrupulous practices of the seller from another ISP and email account.
The person that wrote this claimed that he caused quite a ferver among the bidders of this seller's auctions, and quite a few bid retractions. I don't know what the ultimate outcome was, or even if the buyer was traced, but it sounded like a heck of a payback.
While your motives for placing and retracting the bid are altruistic, if the seller decided to complain to ebaY, you would probably be suspended for auction interference long before he would get the boot for running a scam.
Now, this would have the opposite effect of what you wanted, no?
Plus, you would have the retraction on your "record".
Seems like a no win situation.
Only thing to do is, leave appropriate feedback, file a fraud report/insurance claim and move on.
Yes, people have done that and it does cause a furor.
There are two things I don't like about it.
First, it is anonymous.
The anonymous poster could be telling a true story -- he ripped me off -- or he could just be the next seller selling the same radio and wanting to increase the chances that these bidders would abandon this sellers auctions and bid on his products instead.
Second, this approach is far from effective. Its effectivenss is based on a current bidder withdrawing their bid. It is this act -- this warning with explanation -- that makes this a more effective warning.
What do you do if an auction doesn't get a bid until the last minute? Who would you post?
Remember that many auction may not get their first bid until the last minute.
This means it also fails to cover all the seller's auctions.
Finally, the bid and withdraw routine confronts the seller. It tells him he's going to have to deal with you somehow.
If he complains to safeharbor about your bid interference, there's a good chance he'll be NARU'd rather than you.
Fact is this approach has the potential to put safeharbor in the hot seat as well.
You're right that safeharbor might NARU for auction interference. But the moral delimma for me is how can I sit back and let ebaY do nothing while some jerk rips off a dozen or more other folks.
This is not about "rational" behavior ... but rather about what an individual can proactively do to stop the fraud.
Sure there would be consequences but if I'm out $200-300 I really don't care about being NARU'd... I'm mad enough to get the SOB.
And, isn't there a possibility that my public act might get the attention of SafeHarbor and they might look into the bigger issue?
Finally, I'll ask if it is auction interference even.
I might even use the statement in my bid retraction, "Bid withdrawn because this seller cheated me out of $300 on another deal and I decided to cut my losses by withdrawing this bid."
Isn't that among the best possible reasons to withdraw a bid?
I think I found your guy! He is in violation of eBay's pre-sale policy since he states that he will order your item when he receives your payment, and that delivery will take 4-7 weeks.
The policy states that you must have control of possession of the items at the time of listing or be able to deliver pre-sale items (clearly indicated as such) within 30 days.
I probably should have posted this on cheeses' post so s/he finds it...
[ edited by debbielennon on Oct 20, 2000 09:26 PM ]
I have no doubt that this "routine" could be abused and easily abused and that would definitely be wrong.
But, assuming that the seller is indeed a crook, isn't it wrong to sit back and let a dozen or so other folks be ripped too?
Because this approach is public and 'on the record,' isn't it better than emailing bidders behind the seller's back?
Because the person doing the 'warning' might suffer consequences -- NARU -- because of these actions, doesn't that help establish that the complainer in this case is a 'stand-up guy" willing to suffer consequences because of their act?
Personally, if I were in that situation and I saw no action from Safe Harbor, I don't know if waiting for them to act is right.
It is really a moral delimma ... and I guess that given the alternatives ... this might not be a "second wrong" ... only a less than attractive "right."
posted on October 20, 2000 09:43:27 PM
Hi Debbielennon
I was actually trying to remove this discussion from the exact particulars of that individual case but since you brought that into this, I think it serves as well.
Simply bidding once and then retracting the bid with the admonition, "I didn't know this was a pre-sale that required eight-weeks for delivery, Isn't this against the rules?" would highlight that for other buyers.
Let me clarify one more thing. I am in no way recommending that anyone use the bid retraction tool in this way.
I am simply suggesting that bid retraction can be used as a tool to put a notice in a questionable auction when a bidder has a real beef with a seller.
posted on October 20, 2000 09:48:16 PM
You could form a sort of 'neighborhood watch' and organize it's members into a 'posse' to patrol auctions for potentially fraudulent sellers.
Then you could have 'hit teams' who would move in, voluntarily of course, and use the tactics that you've described to see that justice is done.
It's an exciting idea, neo..what?, who's time has come.
Bidders CAN reform the practices that have kept them down for so long by eradicating any individual or grouping of individuals who the bidders believe are the reason for the failure of their dominance in the w...ebay marketplace.
posted on October 20, 2000 10:02:48 PM
Sorry Pat..your "kinda right" is really an animal of a different color..namely, it's still a wrong.
First off..you have no absolute proof that the seller will in fact rip off the current bidders...your assuming this scenario.
Second...the only "right" thing to do is follow the "legal" path. If the payment was sent to the seller by mail then it becomes a case of mail fraud...file the complaint with the post office. File a fraud report and put in a claim for the insurance through ebay.
But no matter how you cut it, committing a "wrong", even if for "the greater good" is still "wrong"...there is no way to sugar coat it!
I wouldn't suggest that at all. These groups ... I can remember when Uncle Griff was running a posse on eBay in the early, early days ... do nothing but create a mob mentality.
I'm not even recommending that anyone use this tool.
Fact is I've always been amazed that ebaY gives users the ability to automatically withdraw bids. When I worked for another now dead site, I used to point out that it required one of our support person to physically remove a bid.
It wasn't until I was thinking of this other persons delimma that I saw any use beside one of ebaY's ample arsenal of tools for shillers ... of course other than eliminating the need to staff up to handle bid retractions.
Bottom line, this tool is usable by an irate individual who has been ripped off to the tune of several hundred dollars who is just trying to get some form of satisfaction for his funds and doesn't care if they are NARU'd or not. I see it as a bonzai move that is at least honestly and openly and not anonymously.
Fact is, this lack of anonymity is why those who do the posse thing have probably overlooked this tool ... and will probably continue to do so.
Still it could be abused by a mad mob of over zealous outcasts out to punish any seller on the site. But there are other ways. For instance, a mad anonymous mod could just bid up the naughty persons merch with bogus ID's and just never pay.
My point is I am just as appalled by the abuse you envision as you are.
posted on October 20, 2000 10:07:15 PM
This bidding/retracting idea feels a bit too much like throwing a brick through somebody's window to me. The person who throws the brick is going to get in trouble with the police.
IOW, the retractions are going to show on their feedback page, making future sellers concerned about the reliability of the bidder - so much so that the bidder may be reported to eBay and NARU'd. Of course, one could use "throw-away" accounts, but there is always the potential that eBay will figure out a way to match up the accounts and then the "real" account will be up a creek as well. Besides, a warning from a 0-feedback bidder isn't going to carry as much "weight" as the same warning from a multi-feedback bidder.
This bidding/retraction for a warning is also very short-lived - it would have to be done over and over again with each new auction.
It also presumes that bidders look at the bidding history page, and I don't think most of them do.
But like the victim of a rape (or the father of a rape), following the law can be one of the hardest things ... particularly if the "perp" is flaunting their freedom in your face. There are fathers in jail for manslaughter and assualt.
Glenda
Your points are well taken. I'm not even recommending this; just pointing out that it is an option.
As far as the brick through the window ... well that does happen in some cases and that is kind of what this is -- a desparate move by a victim to gain some form of justice denied by a slow and cumbersome system.
I guess as much as anything, I'm suggesting the sytem needs fixing or else folks are going to resort to:
-- email posts to current bidders (auction interference)
-- posting of negative feedback (the only option that the victim can do within the rules ... proven generally ineffective.)
-- joining a posse and harrassing a seller anonymously (repugnant because of its anonymity)
-- sitting back and going through the hoops and waiting and waiting and being ignored and waiting and being ignored ... maybe for ever ... for Safe Harbor to do something.
I think all would agree the real answer is a better dispute resolution system... one that might NARU questionable sellers more quickly because ebaY devoted the resources needed to conduct its investigations more quickly.
posted on October 20, 2000 10:36:53 PM
Pat..the fathers of rape victims who took the law into their own hands are in prison because what they did was wrong. Understanding their pain and frustration does not make what they did right.
There are avenues one can take to right a wrong, but becoming a vigilante isn't one of them.
Part of the problem here is that you want safe harbor to "solve" your problem for you, instead of making a personal effort to persue the remedies open to you.
What do you do if safe harbor decides you weren't ripped off? Get angry because they were "blind" to the obvious (to you) correct judgement?
You really don't want safe harbor/ebay to act as a judge...what you really want is for safe harbor to act as your personal executioner. You don't want ebay to act as an impartial judge..you only want ebay to punish those you say are "bad". You want ebay to rely on your judgement of the situation.
The solution is not to "throw bricks" in retaliation but to get off one's duff and follow the legal remedies one has open to one...mail fraud complaints, ebay insurance claims, credit card charge back if a CC was used, filing a complaint with the seller's local police force or district attorney, bringing a small claims action, etc.
Let's see. A person is victimized. Someone defrauds them.
The act of defrauding that person was quite easy. Ten minutes to place an auction on eBay.
Now the system is such that to 'appropriately' get your money back, you have to spend an hour explaining the situation to safe harbor who won't do anything; spend another hour contacting the postal authorities who then give you a form to fill out ... more time; fill out an insurance claim ... at least another half-hour and at best, will return only a small portion of the money involved; call long distance to the police authorities in the community of the seller at my cost and then also contact the local DA; get laughed at by the federal authorities because they're only interested $1 million dollar computer fraud; etc. etc.
That is real cost in terms of time, out of pocket expense and effort yet there is a good chance, as you point out, that safeharbor might not see it as I do and the civil authorities ignore my complaint. Bottom line, the crook still has my money, I've spent days persuing 'legal' rememdies and the crook is still doing his deal on the auction.
Frankly, at that point I'm so irate that I'm losing sleep and the sucker-crook is just laughing at me.
Thinking of all the 'so-called' right things I would have to do get even a chance of satisfaction is why I thought of this in the first place.
Here I can spend less than an hour, ruin every active auction of the sucker-crook who cheated me and my cost? ... Loss of a user ID at the place where I was cheated. I wouldn't likely buy anything for quite a while (if ever) so I really could care less. As briar rabbit sez... throw me in that briar patch
Sure it is "wrong" but dammit, I'd be able to sleep that night feeling less, not more a victim.
Thankfully for all, I'm not a victim and know how generally avoid it, but given the pain and effort of 'doing it the right way' and doing it the wrong way ... I'll be honest ... I like sleeping at night.
The 'right way' just doesn't even afford me that. Sure it's 'wrong' but you can bet that in this case, since I can do the "time" I'd certainly consider doing the "crime."
posted on October 20, 2000 11:04:18 PMYou could form a sort of 'neighborhood watch' and organize it's members into a 'posse' to patrol auctions for potentially fraudulent sellers.
I did... krs was the one who invited the post I guess I'm a surrogate troll
My point in this is that no one is obliged to be a victim.
Still, as far as justice is concerned, if the system doesn't provide it, individuals will extract their own justice, whether as organized vigilantes or on their own.
posted on October 20, 2000 11:24:04 PM
Good Lord, are we so hard up around here that we have started to import trolls?
Pat (if I may): "no one is obliged to be a victim."
Problem is very few are empowered to dispence justice. Sounds like a raw deal until you realise that if the system (pick a system, judicial, ebay, yahoo, whatever) were not set up that way there would be those who give their own brand of justice. You may leave nasty retraction, but what about the next fellow who feels slighted? What if that person feels justice should involve physical harm?
What would be the just revenge for the sellers who auctions are now mared by the retractions?
Where should the line be drawn?
It sounds trite, but I believe it to be true, "Two wrongs do NOT make a right".
Vigilantism, even if the cause seems 'right' is still wrong.
Vigilante justice is maybe not the best term to use. The Internet has been compared to the wild west. The term used in those days was frontier justice.
Such frontier justice is natural in societies where sanctioned or official justice does not exist or is ineffective or corrupt.
Frontier justice is not perfect but it does satisfy the need of an unfettered society to police itself.
It is also evidence that the formal system of justice is broken.
The challenge is how to create improved systems for dispute resolution.
Yet, when that was first suggested, Amy suggested that any change in the existing justice system was a cop-out and that I wanted them to do "my job".
Bull, I just want them to do their job... and their job is to investigate complaints and yes, be open about the results of their investigations.
Of course that's not likely in a private marketplace that, so far, has escaped all but the most cursory public scruitiny.
See, because ebaY is private, the justice system is by definition "secret."
When justice is "secret" the presumption is that it is 'corrupt.' Think about that. Did you have "confidence" in the "secret" justice system of the old Soviet Union.
The reason for the formation of posse's and 'neighborhood watch' etc. is simply that the secret justice system at ebaY does not have the confidence of the community.
That, not the existance of people willing to exact frontier justice, is the real issue. Those folks will accept a system of justice that doesn't make them feel more of a victim than they were to begin. Those folks will accept a system of justice that works.
The challenge is to design that system within the context of a massive 12-million person marketplace without the first community paid cop or publicly elected judge.
Bottom line, the system of justice that exists here is not effective or "right" and without that, the discussion of "right and wrong" is simply meaningless.
posted on October 21, 2000 04:34:22 AMBut like the victim of a rape (or the father of a rape), following the law can be one of the hardest things ... particularly if the "perp" is flaunting their freedom in your face. There are fathers in jail for manslaughter and assualt.
This is outrageous. You're comparing getting stiffed for $200 with rape?
Puhleeze.
Nothing you do, save filing a fraud complaint, doing a CC chargeback or filing suit, is going to get your $200 back. How long would it take you to earn that $200? Spend THAT much time stewing about this (and using legitimate means to recover your $ rather than resorting to some sort of puerile act you mischaracterize as "vigilante justice" (waaaay too good a term for this), and move on.
posted on October 21, 2000 04:35:13 AM
Neomax, you are losing much credibility with me by your repeated statements that "I'm not even recommending this; just pointing out that it is an option." Obviously you ARE recommending it. Further, you are still hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet. Otherwise, there's no difference between what you suggest and throwing a brick through someone's window.
There are legal channels to pursue, including small claims court. And excuse me but this is hardly in the same class as being the father of a rape victim. On the other hand, if you are interfering with the seller's business, you would be leaving yourself open to civil action. In other words, the seller can take YOU to court and make you pay for his lost business. And I hope he would do just that. Comparing eBay support to the KGB is just a little too paranoid.
I am dealing with a looney customer right now. He claimed his package never arrived. I told him I would send an insurance claim form, but he demanded a refund via Paypal within 24 hours. Now he's hassling my customers. There are many nuts in the world, some masquerading as do-gooders.
I have deleted your post because it contained a link to an auction related discussion forum. Links to other message boards are not permitted under the Community Guidelines.
posted on October 21, 2000 07:01:59 AMYou're comparing getting stiffed for $200 with rape?
No, he's not. He's comparing the feelings of frustrations of a victim of a crime to HIS feelings of frustrations of being a victim of being defrauded.
It's an analogy & while it may be a bit over the top, you could atleast acknowledge his feeling of being victimize without jumping on him what he chose to use as the comparison point.
posted on October 21, 2000 07:45:46 AM
The problem that any buyer in this scenario faces is that the amount is considered by the authorities too piddly to pursue. Never mind that if you multiply it by ten, twenty, one hundred, you come up with a fair amount of change!
And combine that with an auction site's slowness to act/inability to recognize fraud/unwillingness to recognize fraud, plus remedies that are totally inadequate--well, people do get frustrated, and sooner or later you find someone who just isn't going to take it lying down.
I don't have any answers. I have a lot of sympathy, but no answers, at least not any that prove savory to everyone.
Neomax, the process I think you are looking for is something that is called "transparency". That the processes be clear and out in the open, and not shrouded in secrecy. I would like to see that too. I saw too much wink and nod stuff going on at one point. There were no safeguards.
posted on October 21, 2000 08:01:56 AM
With the inaction of Safeharbor and the arrogance of the seller, maybe victims need to do something more. My suggestion, in a situation like this, is when you send email to safeharbor, CC: it also to the seller AND the FBI or some other law enforcement agency on the web. This way the seller knows he has limited time left and safeharbor can not claim ignorance of the activity.
