eBay vrs42?

From: vrs <vrs_at_msn.com>
Date: Sat Feb 12 01:21:40 2005

From: "woodelf" <bfranchuk_at_jetnet.ab.ca>
> Jim Battle wrote:
> > Likewise, colluding with other prospective bidders to artificially
> > lower the selling price of an item is depriving the seller of rightful
> > revenue.
>
> Well I view it this way, as long as other people have a fair chance to
> bid I don't see this
> as unethical.

If the only other people involved were bidders, I'd agree. But the seller
and eBay are also stakeholders.

I think it is important to treat sellers of classic equipment well -- we
want there to be more of them, not less.

I also think that, while we probably all have disagreements with various
eBay policies, they provide an invaluable service by bringing buyers and
sellers of this equipment together. I'd be essentially unable to pursue the
hobby without them -- there just aren't enough collectors and equipment
known to me personally. Without connections, I'd still have just the one
bare-bones 8/i that I started with. (I still might not have been willing to
toss it, but I bet others who could never hope to fix it would have.)

> Personally I don't like the idea of bidding in the first place.

Fair enough. But I don't see how that bears on the collusion discussion.

We should be also fair to David; he hasn't proposed any collusion, either.
Just made a remark that could be taken in a provocative way.

    Vince
Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 01:21:40 GMT