Rogue REA employee on eBay?

[Doug]

I've officially started my morning with a migraine trying to catch up on all the posts since I went to bed last night. I wonder if I can get a sick day...

[PolarBear]

Ok, I read through this. One point that has not been nailed down is that DJR claims that he contacted smgsmg1968 and Dean replied from this ebay account.

Dean denies this is his account. However, he doesn't deny using the account or replying to DJR from the account.

I think we need an answer from Dean on that question. If he denies it, then we can give DJR the opportunity to produce the emails he received.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

Ok, I read through this. One point that has not been nailed down is that DJR claims that he contacted smgsmg1968 and Dean replied from this ebay account.

Dean denies this is his account. However, he doesn't deny using the account or replying to DJR from the account.

I think we need an answer from Dean on that question. If he denies it, then we can give DJR the opportunity to produce the emails he received.

I vote for letting this one go. It pretty clearly doesn't tie back to Rob no matter what, and that seems the only reason it was of possible interest to begin with.

[yomass]

So as a result of "blowing the whistle" on this, 1) the set registry guy doesn't get the cards he needs and wants, 2) Dean doesn't make a profit selling the cards to the registry guy and 3) the seller doesn't get a higher price by selling to Dean. Everyone is worse off.

It is hard to argue that Dean has a moral obligation to let the registry guy know the cards are on eBay without compensation. The opportunity for profit gave him an incentive him to take action that would make everyone better off. I really don't see a problem here.

It is nice of Rob to apologize, but I don't see why.

[teetwoohsix]

Sounds like all of this could've been avoided had Dean offered to buy the cards back from his friend outside of eBay.

I don't feel Rob needs to appologize for anything,he had nothing to do with this,other than being a nice enough guy to employ Dean.

[tbob]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I could make the counter point that the employees you hire are a reflection upon yourself and apparently Dean has done this or similar transgessions in the past.

Now I'm NOT saying there is anything wrong with Rob or REA in any way; but, if your employees are acting badly when they are on their own, then what is to stop them from doing something while working for you. After all, you don't want to be monitoring their activities on a 24/7 basis. And you have to have trust in them. I don't know if I saw this, if I could in the future trust one of my employees that did that. My next thought would be, what if he does something like that to my business to mess up the works.

Regards
Rich

I have been following this convuluted tale and must say I agree with Rich. I have never had any problems whatsoever with Rob or REA but this is disturbing.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Sounds like all of this could've been avoided had Dean offered to buy the cards back from his friend outside of eBay.

I couldn't agree more and it's perplexing why Ebay would be in the middle of the transaction between Scott and Dean.

[FUBAR]

Maybe he likes paying fees.... we all do dont we?? what better way to decrease any profit you may be making!

I know if i sell a card to a buddy, ebay would be my first choice!

I dont know this Dean guy, but he does sound a little hokey to me.... sounds like same guy, two accounts, using a buddy to try to save face...JMO

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I vote for letting this one go. It pretty clearly doesn't tie back to Rob no matter what, and that seems the only reason it was of possible interest to begin with.

Wow, who would have thought the voice of reason would come all the way from Boston? Seriously, we have enough problems/criminals in this hobby. I applaud the starter of this thread but I think at this point, 100 posts later, we should probably focus instead on those individuals and auction houses who are actually ripping us off -- and there are no shortage of them.

[Rob D.]

Words posted more than once by one of Net54's more valued members:

Trust no one.

(Of course, I'm not sure all of the original words were spelled correctly, but you get the idea.)

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Words posted more than once by one of Net54's more valued members:

Trust no one.

(Of course, I'm not sure all of the original words were spelled correctly, but you get the idea.)

Wait, are you saying there is only "one" of them?

[Abravefan11]

Now it's official.

[botn]

The question I posed several times in this thread, as was done by others, is how did DJR, David, know for certain that smgsmg1968 was Dean. He has yet to address that question. FWIW, as of the end of Feb 2010 the registered user on smgsmg1968's account was not Dean. I find that to be highly irresponsible for David to casually toss the shill bidding allegation into the mix absent proof.

Many who do not sell cards for a living fail to understand the impact it can have on those who do when making statements about their business practices on a public chat board. Comments which are framed as factual when really are nothing more than conjecture or opinion need to be avoided. I see this happen even by some of the more respected members of the board. Remember this is someone's livelihood you place at risk.

Just because you have internet access does not mean you should be using it. Think before you post, people. Really now. This board serves as a great watchdog service but does sometimes cross the line and become unfair and abusive.

[DJR]

Any reasonable person would have reached the same conclusion and assumed shill bidding. Dean told me via email he was smgsmg1968 and then used his hobbyguynj account to bid on smgsmg1968's auctions. I am only posting the facts and not opinions about what transpired. If Dean is not smgsmg1968, he is a proven liar (is this really debatable) and this is simply not my problem. As REA customers, this should rub us all the wrong way. Hopefully Dean learns from being exposed as a liar.

If Dean is / was so quick and comfortable lying for his and/or his 'friends' personal gain for a measly $100 or so, placing his reputation and REA's in jeopardy, one must wonder what other tactics are utilized when $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000 are on the line. Is it too much to expect REA employees to tell the truth? This is likely why Mr. Lifson felt the need to address this issue and apologize. Hopefully Mr. Lifson has taken the necessary steps to prevent REA employees from repeating these actions.

[calvindog]

Greg, as we all know people can be sued for libel. Problem is, truth is a defense to any such action. If the sterling reputations of the scumbags who get trashed on this site are at risk, they can avail themselves of the legal system. I'm sure they won't mind if their bidding records are divulged during the discovery phase of the lawsuit, especially if they have nothing to hide. Problem is, they have plenty to hide as as we both know.

[oldjudge]

David--Rob runs a clean auction. What Dean did or didn't do is open to debate, but one thing is for certain; he did it for his own personal gain. Whether a lot sells for $1000 or $2000 in REA, Dean will not gain a penny. There would be no incentive to shill anything there (which he can't do anyway). The only concern you should have is if you don't trust Rob, who, as has been pointed out repeatedly, had nothing to do with this. I trust Rob and to me this is a non-issue.

[oriolesbb6]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

So let me pose this hypothetical, and it in no way has anything to do with Dean or REA:

We all agree it is unacceptable for an auction employee to bid with the company he works for, even if he only wants to buy something for his own collection. The reason is he has inside information concerning other bidders that would give him an unfair advantage.

So wouldn't an employee of a major auction house have access to the mailing list and contact information of all the auction house's key clients, something he wouldn't have if he were not an employee? And couldn't he contact these key clients with cards for sale? And suppose the deals didn't go so well- couldn't the clients call the auction owner and lodge a complaint about that employee?

So even if selling cards is not a direct conflict of interest, if I owned an auction house with employees I think I would tell them to focus on their day to day work, and not sell the same product the auction house sells.

Sorry read earlier post, before later clarification.

[barrysloate]

Oriolesbb66- it's fine that you disagree with me but I have no idea why. Should I assume you changed your mind and deleted your post? No big deal either way, just curious.

Also, this thread is not about Rob. It's about an employee of REA who used bad judgment on ebay. I spoke with Rob today at length and it goes without saying he preferred this never happened. But he has spoken to Dean and considers it over with. I doubt that will put an end to this discussion, but I wanted to share my conversation.

[autograf]

Tim......love the animated gif........VERY APPROPRIATE