On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, 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.
What? Are you kidding me? Don't tell me that Sokolov's rantings got to
you?
> You say that the seller's interests isn't what dictates ethics. Not in
> and of itself, certainly, but fairness to the seller is part of it. Do
> you claim that the seller's interests are paramount? I don't think so.
> The whole thing works only because of fairness to all parties involved.
As I said previously, the seller is not entitled to anything but what they
end up selling the item for. You're taking the argument to extremes that
are making my mind implode here.
> One could claim that shill bidding is entirely ethical in ebay's world.
> Bidders are encouraged to only bid up to the value they attribute to
> an item. A shill scheme will then never cause someone to buy something
> more than what the buyer values it. The seller also has to be careful
> in that he makes no money if he attempts to drive the price higher than
> the market values the item.
Am I depriving the seller revenue by using sniping aids?
> To me, it is the same reasoning the other way around. If buyers dodged
> the fair bidding process, the net result would be loss of buying
> opportunities as sellers give up and the remaining ones would start with
> higher starting prices and a lot more "buy now" auctions. Even though
> buyer collusion is tempting (and it is a lot harder to track than shill
> bidding), everybody loses incrementally as ebay becomes a worse market.
What about sniping?
> Besides, why would knowing someone has deeper pockets than you prevent
> you from bidding? Shouldn't you bid to your comfort level anyway just
> in case the other guy, for whatever reason he may have, decides to not
> bid or drop out?
Now you're talking strategy. The seller is not entitled to anyone's bid.
> I liked the first part of your argument, but the second half doesn't
> work. To me, it is a non-sequitur to use intimidation as an analogy to
> collusion.
I'm sorry, Jim, but I'm having trouble following 90% of your argument.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 03:13:24 GMT