Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
Feel free to respond to anything I say that you believe is not factual or an accurate statement. I have no interest in spreading non-truths and always welcome being corrected.
I don't know what your point is here. However, all three statements are true.
- "The crowd" does constantly point to the fact that PWCC & Probstein get higher prices for their cards as the basis for their claims about both shilling their own auctions.
- eBay was materially impacted by their banning PWCC
- The crowd does not have access to eBay bidder records but even without those there were countless times it was demonstrated shill bidding occurred.
That said, and for some reason I feel like a broken record with the constant need to point out the obvious here, but there is a massive difference between demonstrating that shill bidding occurred and demonstrating that the consignment company itself is the one doing the shill bidding. Similarly, and perhaps also worth repeating, there is a massive difference between saying "PWCC shilled their own auctions" and "individuals associated with PWCC shilled their auctions". |
"The crowd" does constantly point to the fact that PWCC & Probstein get higher prices for their cards as the basis for their claims about both shilling their own auctions. Which is it...constantly or always and whenever, as your initial post stated? Either way, so every time an accusation of shill bidding has been made by the crowd it always/constantly pointed to high prices as the reason? You need to read all the threads again. Neither constantly nor always are accurate on the frequency of the crowd using higher prices as the proof of shill bids.
eBay was materially impacted by their banning PWCC Define material because based on ebay's gross sales revenue of more than 10 billion, 7.5 million in fees paid by PWCC (which is significantly higher number than they paid) would not meet the definition of materiality.
That said, and for some reason I feel like a broken record with the constant need to point out the obvious here, but there is a massive difference between demonstrating that shill bidding occurred and demonstrating that the consignment company itself is the one doing the shill bidding. Similarly, and perhaps also worth repeating, there is a massive difference between saying "PWCC shilled their own auctions" and "individuals associated with PWCC shilled their auctions" I understand your distinguishing between the two but in my view if the company does not take steps to discourage shill bidding by consignors then they are almost as guilty as if the company engages in shill bidding itself. If PWCC knew several consignors were suspected of it, why keep taking their consignments? Further I am pretty confident the FBI and eBay can demonstrate shill bidding within the company. Not sure it would be that difficult to prove.