ebay finds that PWCC engaged in shill bidding?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Here's a thought -- PWCC now has more incentive than ever to show high auction prices.

Do you believe this incentive would outweigh the competing incentive to avoid shill bidding to whatever extent possible since they are/were under an FBI investigation with a sizeable portion of the community constantly breathing fire down their backs, waiting to catch them for any and every misstep?

To me it seems incomprehensible that PWCC themselves would be actively engaged in any shill bidding activity at any point since the FBI came knocking on their doors. Yes, of course random ebay users and their consignors engage in this activity all the time, but this isn't PWCC's problem to solve. It's ebay's responsibility. I just don't buy for one second that PWCC employees or its owners are actively shill bidding on their auctions. Same with Probstein and other consignment companies. Their consignors shill bid constantly, but that doesn't make them guilty of it too.

Perhaps worth discussing as well though is what defines "shill bidding" to begin with? Is it shill bidding if you have every intention of paying for the item and all the fees that go along with it should you win? PWCC doesn't consider that to be shill bidding, and neither do many/most? other auction houses.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I just don't buy for one second that PWCC employees or its owners are actively shill bidding on their auctions. Same with Probstein and other consignment companies. Their consignors shill bid constantly, but that doesn't make them guilty of it too.

See the screen shot in post 197. I encourage you to find and read the whole thread whence it came.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I just don't buy for one second that PWCC employees or its owners are actively shill bidding on their auctions. Same with Probstein and other consignment companies. Their consignors shill bid constantly, but that doesn't make them guilty of it too.

Originally Posted by conor912

See the screen shot in post 197. I encourage you to find and read the whole thread whence it came.

I've read it. Multiple times. It's not damning at all. This is another classic example of internet trolls passing around a nothing burger while painting it with a scarlet letter and proclaiming fraud. Then perpetuating this supposed "fraud" later as evidence of further claims.

The response given by PWCC in regards to this conversation is perfectly reasonable. The card in question didn't even belong to the person doing the bidding per PWCC. The conversation was had because PWCC had received complaints regarding Cortney DeLorme's "string bidding" activity. This is where someone places a string of minimum bids over and over, increasing the bid count with no intention of actually becoming the high bidder on an item. The card in question was worth many thousands of dollars, yet Cortney DeLorme was just string bidding it for who knows what reason. Brent communicated to DeLorme that he had received complaints about what looked like fishy behavior or shill bidding. This is also evident by Brent's comment in the screen shot where he says "Let's not play games here", implying that DeLorme knew exactly what he was doing. Brent was effectively telling him to just take the high bid rather than string bidding. Could he have worded it better? Could he have just banned DeLorme outright instead? Sure. But it wasn't DeLorme's card and it's quite clear from the screenshot itself that Brent was not happy about this bidder's behavior. Telling him to "take the high bid" on a card that was currently sitting at less than half of it's value has zero effect on the selling price.

This is clearly not a conversation where Brent is encouraging someone to shill bid on their own card. You simply cannot explain the "let's not play games here" line if it were. PWCC's response makes perfect sense here (https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?p=14599705). Yet everyone seems to want to ignore it and continues propogating this screenshot for years to come pretending as though it were something else. I don't play that game though, and neither should you.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I've read it. Multiple times. It's not damning at all. This is another classic example of internet trolls passing around a nothing burger while painting it with a scarlet letter and proclaiming fraud. Then perpetuating this supposed "fraud" later as evidence of further claims.

The response given by PWCC in regards to this conversation is perfectly reasonable. The card in question didn't even belong to the person doing the bidding per PWCC. The conversation was had because PWCC had received complaints regarding Cortney DeLorme's "string bidding" activity. This is where someone places a string of minimum bids over and over, increasing the bid count with no intention of actually becoming the high bidder on an item. The card in question was worth many thousands of dollars, yet Cortney DeLorme was just string bidding it for who knows what reason. Brent communicated to DeLorme that he had received complaints about what looked like fishy behavior or shill bidding. This is also evident by Brent's comment in the screen shot where he says "Let's not play games here", implying that DeLorme knew exactly what he was doing. Brent was effectively telling him to just take the high bid rather than string bidding. Could he have worded it better? Could he have just banned DeLorme outright instead? Sure. But it wasn't DeLorme's card and it's quite clear from the screenshot itself that Brent was not happy about this bidder's behavior. Telling him to "take the high bid" on a card that was currently sitting at less than half of it's value has zero effect on the selling price.

This is clearly not a conversation where Brent is encouraging someone to shill bid on their own card. You simply cannot explain the "let's not play games here" line if it were. PWCC's response makes perfect sense here (https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?p=14599705). Yet everyone seems to want to ignore it and continues propogating this screenshot for years to come pretending as though it were something else. I don't play that game though, and neither should you.

You don't by any chance own a pillow company, do you?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by conor912

You don't by any chance own a pillow company, do you?

No, definitely not. And since I don't think I can speak about pillow companies without having to put my name at the bottom of that post, I'll refrain from commenting further on that topic.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Do you believe this incentive would outweigh the competing incentive to avoid shill bidding to whatever extent possible since they are/were under an FBI investigation with a sizeable portion of the community constantly breathing fire down their backs, waiting to catch them for any and every misstep?

To me it seems incomprehensible that PWCC themselves would be actively engaged in any shill bidding activity at any point since the FBI came knocking on their doors. Yes, of course random ebay users and their consignors engage in this activity all the time, but this isn't PWCC's problem to solve. It's ebay's responsibility. I just don't buy for one second that PWCC employees or its owners are actively shill bidding on their auctions. Same with Probstein and other consignment companies. Their consignors shill bid constantly, but that doesn't make them guilty of it too.

Perhaps worth discussing as well though is what defines "shill bidding" to begin with? Is it shill bidding if you have every intention of paying for the item and all the fees that go along with it should you win? PWCC doesn't consider that to be shill bidding, and neither do many/most? other auction houses.

Got to have your name in your post brutha! Read rules at the top regarding opinions

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Got to have your name in your post brutha! Read rules at the top regarding opinions

I am not slandering or disparaging any person or company. We're simply discussing how to interpret a letter and recent events in the hobby. If I have claims to make against these companies, accusing them of criminal behavior, then I will put my name in the post. But I'm not posting my name publicly just to discuss generic recent public events that everyone else has the same access to and knowledge of.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I am not slandering or disparaging any person or company. We're simply discussing how to interpret a letter and recent events in the hobby. If I have claims to make against these companies, accusing them of criminal behavior, then I will put my name in the post. But I'm not posting my name publicly just to discuss generic recent public events that everyone else has the same access to and knowledge of.

Not my rules

If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Seven]

I've read through this thread, most of what I was going to say has been said by a few posters on the board, my general observations though are that:

If this is the true reason eBay is investigating PWCC for then I am all for it. It's been speculated a lot that PWCC along with Probstein have shill bid in their auctions to inflate the final dollar amount. Hopefully eBay has enough proof going forward to take down the rest of it.

I have no idea how this effects the card market. I've been saying eventually prices have to stabilize as they can't possible go up forever, but that could be more wishful thinking on my part than anything. While my purchases from eBay nowadays are few and far between at this point, for cards at least, It will be interesting to see how the next year shapes up for collecting, along with what the auction scene will look like, a year from now.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Not my rules

If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.



If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

Seem to know an awful lot, about an awful lot.

Different rules for different fools I guess. This is news to me

Just sayin'

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Seem to know an awful lot, about an awful lot.

I know a fair amount about a handful of topics. Beyond that, I think you'll find that I'm rather ignorant.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Different rules for different fools I guess. This is news to me

Just sayin'

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I don't have any reason to believe the rules are any different for me than they would be for anyone else. Perhaps Leon could clarify them if needed? But I've specifically spoken to him in private about this topic as I wanted to avoid pushing the envelope after having violated the rule in a thread I previously started regarding shill bidding. My understanding is that as long as we're not disparaging specific individuals or companies, or casting accusations at them, then we are free to discuss these topics without sharing our personal info.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

Interesting that you would rather not give your name than continue to contribute.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well, it's up to Leon, but in this day and age of social media and searches I can understand why some people wouldn't want their employer to know what they were doing in their out of work lives. That said, I think it's easily prevented by disguising your name with extra punctuation or using symbols to replace a letter or two etc.

I see less reason not to want the people here to know who you are.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by conor912

Interesting that you would rather not give your name than continue to contribute.

Leon knows who I am. He has my name and phone number. I have nothing to hide. But that is different from wanting to post content on a public forum with my personal info attached to it in the year 2021. A lot has changed over the past 10 years with respect to people posting online. Most employers in Silicon Valley these days do not want their employees to engage in public discussions under their own names, as any random comment taken out of context today can, and often does, get brought back to HR departments by people trying to "dox" someone or get them "canceled".

I have no intention of disparaging individuals or companies here, or of saying anything stupid that might get me "canceled" for something. I care more about my career than I do about launching accusations at others. I do enjoy discussing current events and developments in the hobby like this eBay/PWCC email today, but if you go back and read my comments on this topic, I don't think you'll see me accusing any of the parties involved of anything untoward. If anything, I'm pushing back against those who are.

[Leon]

You have easily crossed the line a bit. I told you that one post could stay. I didn't give you carte blanche to not follow the rules. To continue saying who you know and what you know and anything else, is going to require your name. Nothing personal.
I just went back and read the PM. I did say you could call out absolute fraud as you did in that one thread, without having your name...as it was such a good job. But in retrospect no exceptions should probably be made. I do like people who root out fraud in the hobby. Quite the conundrum.

Originally Posted by Snowman

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Leon

You have easily crossed the line a bit. I told you that one post could stay. I didn't give you carte blanche to not follow the rules. To continue saying who you know and what you know and anything else, is going to require your name. Nothing personal.
I just went back and read the PM. I did say you could call out absolute fraud as you did in that one thread, without having your name...as it was such a good job. But in retrospect no exceptions should probably be made. I do like people who root out fraud in the hobby. Quite the conundrum.



.

Thank you for the clarification. I must have misunderstood our prior conversation. I was under the impression that as long as I wasn't disparaging someone or some company that it was acceptable to engage in conversations like this. I will have to excuse myself from the discussion then. My apologies.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

"I don't buy for a second that this is eBay's attempt at cracking down on shill bidding. That's bullshit. If eBay wanted to crack down on this, they would have done so a long time ago, and they would have done it from the inside. They are the ones with all of the relevant bidding behavior and user data. Not the sellers. They can easily crack down on shill bidding, but they've chosen not to, likely because it's a project that would take money out of their pockets."

A quote from you. This is offering an opinion and/or disparaging them.

I could not care less whether you offer an opinion or not. However, when you do you must abide by the rules.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yeah, there is just no way iMO you're going to get heavily involved in scandal discussions without a name out there. If you want to be anonymous stick to discussing T206 backs or whatever. The most knowledgeable guys in the world on topics like that are here.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

Awfully peculiar In my opinion. Im not sure your threat of not contributing outweighs putting a name with your post, at least with the admins that be.