My EBAY Nightmare

[Jaymole]

I'm wondering...

Anyone know how long that whole >$10k-15k verification is good for. I mean just because your credit was good in 2008 it don't mean mess in 2010

 

Could it be some of these supposed bidders had to re-verify

No, the purpose of the verification is just to verify you are a legitimate person. It's possible to create an account using all fake information.

 

The verify proccess (which can be a credit card, or their ID Verify, which I believe uses your SS number) is just to verify you are who you say you are. It does not assess your ability to pay for an auction, just that you are who you say you are in the event someone (seller, ebay, law enforcement) can find you if they need to.

 

If this is true and seeing how the rep he spoke with did not seem to be too knowledgable about ebays policies...there is a chance that nothing actually went wrong with the auction if these bidders credit cards were not up to date...to give one example. Being timed out is not the problem here (I missed out on 3 books because of being timed out for no particular reason at the last few seconds of an auction when bidding), or verifying who they were.... it is the fact that they had to verify their credit card for the $15,000 bid which is the key. If these bidders did have a valid/active credit card on file then ebay clearly is at fault.

[plasticide-migration]

Guys,

 

I didn't want to go round and round with RMA (there's just no point because it never ends and nobody ever wins) and so while it's very interesting mental masturbation, it's not particularly productive.

 

However, I'm starting to see a lot of, how do we know this is real etc. type stuff.

 

If you aren't familiar with the OP, I can tell you that John, is an extremely forthright, first rate guy. He isn't making this up or trying to lie. It's of course possible there's a miscommunication, but there's no way John set out to fabricate this story -- I have an enormous amount of respect for him

 

If the position is being rolled out in the context of a hypothetical with RMA, okay, but there's no reason at all to directly question John's integrity on whether this actually happened.

 

I think part of the problem may be that John is a known whiner and very anal about things, above and beyond what regular people would consider anal (packaging anyone?). I am not at all saying he's lying, but people may not feel sympathetic towards his plight for these reasons.

[Comicopolis]

Rocky - can you try and hate Ebay using less words next time

[hockey&comicsguy]

Anyone here who says that if they were in the position of the bidder they would give up the auction is a liar. We are not talking about a $14,000 book going for $200. We are talking about a $14-16,000 book going for the low end of the average. Perfectly reasonable to everyone except the seller.

 

 

Calling me a liar? Be careful.

 

The fact of the matter is you don't know me at all so I'd love to show you where you can stick your sweeping generalizations. Don't lump everyone in the same boat as yourself. Just b/c you're a jagoff doesn't mean the rest of us are. (thumbs u

 

Given what I've already stated I would like to see from the seller as far as proof, I would walk away from the book without a problem.

[RockMyAmadeus]

As has already been explained, the OP contends that bidders who were already verified through this process were nonetheless blocked, and the OP further contends that eBay confirmed this problem.

Is this the same representative that 'confirmed' that bidders bidding over $10,000 had to have a credit card on file?

 

No.

 

I called up ebay. I was informed that, when an auction goes over $10,000, ebay requires unregistered bidders to confirm their identity. I told the rep that all these bidders were confirmed and gave the rep their ebay IDs (feedback scores ranging from 300+ all the way to 4000+ and everyone with 100% positive). The ebay rep said they did not understand it, these bidders should not have been blocked like that.

 

That was from the first post. TF could be mistaken on this point and heard it wrong, or remembered it wrong, or, that particular rep could be wrong. We don't know. That doesn't negate the rest of his testimony.

 

Then....

 

Here's a little ebay chat to show what I was up against:

 

12:06:38 AM tempusfugitivus

I'm pretty sure someone with a feedback score over 4000 shouldn't have any of these problems putting down a bid.

12:06:53 AM Sherrie G.

Right....

 

Two representatives, one phoned, one chatted with online.

 

Because, you know, that representative was wrong. As is evidenced by the publicly viewable bidding page that states the magic number is $15,000.

 

Your whole argument through these 20+ pages is that "an ebay representative said", and we're supposed to take everything this ebay representative said as Gospel Truth, when it's pretty clear the ebay rep is just a a low-level Indian call center rep who doesn't know or care what he or she says.

 

Except, of course, that it's not one, or even two, representatives, it's several, and the smoking gun is right here:

 

One thing I was wandering you said people e-mailed you and said they were trying to bid on the book but it wouldn't let them. Did e-bay show anything to prove this in there system.

 

Ebay did confirm that one bidder (who would have actually been the high bidder) did get his bid in on time but it would not register. They also confirmed that other bidders were timed out by requests for information. They also confirmed that these bidders, by their own policies, should not have been required to verify anything. The requirement was for bidders without checking accounts, credit cards, addresses (etc.) on file.

 

Their basic response was: "Well, that's just too bad for you."

 

You see here that the seller states unequivocally that eBay admitted an error (or two.) I've already conceded the fact that we are taking the seller at his word, but I do (take him at his word), and have explained why.

 

What you have in this case are facts: The auction competed successfully,

 

False. The auction completed; whether it was successfully or not is what is under debate.

 

and there was a winner for $14,000.

 

False. The winning bid was $14,500 (if you're gonna be a stickler for facts, that sword cuts both ways.)

 

So now we're back to where we started.

 

Then you have speculation: Some bidders, absent of any actual PROOF, claim to have tried to bid higher than the winner. It is understood that these last-second snipers got hung up on an ebay rule of which they were unaware. Some claimed, absent of any actual PROOF, that they ran through ebay's gauntlet and were still denied.

 

Again, false. See above.

 

The truth is the seller saw dollar signs, and instead of taking the $14,000 on the table, believed that he could get more "if only". So he asked the legitimate winner of the auction to give up his win because the seller didn't make as much as he thought he should or could have, "if only".

 

That is your opinion, and it is incorrect based on the evidence presented thusfar.

 

Anyone here who says that if they were in the position of the bidder they would give up the auction is a liar.

 

This is also an opinion that is incorrect. If a seller approached me, personally, I would hear them out. I would trust, but verify, to quote someone Dover might like. And I'm a hardnosed jackanape. There are far, far nicer people than me around, who likely wouldn't have had a problem at all.

 

We are not talking about a $14,000 book going for $200. We are talking about a $14-16,000 book going for the low end of the average. Perfectly reasonable to everyone except the seller.

 

But, you see, you've already ignored a couple of things:

 

1. The seller already said he was ok with the result:

 

But the Spider-Man 1 was a dud. It just didn't jump up at the end at all and sold for a loss at $14,500. I figured: "Oh well, you can't win them all."

 

2. It's incredibly easy to tell someone else they're being unreasonable when you're not the one in that situation. You don't have that right. I don't have that right. In the US legals system, nobody has that right except perhaps a judge and a jury, and even THAT can be appealed.

 

The bottom line in that is, your personal opinion doesn't mean someone else should give up his/her rights. I think it's unreasonable that people smoke cigarettes. A lot of people agree with me. That doesn't mean smoking cigarettes is, or should be, illegal.

 

And I sympathize with the seller to an extent. I would have a hard time leaving a potential $3k on the table. But that's the risk you take when you list a no-reserve auction.

Except, of course, "that risk" is premised on a bunch of things which I've just shown to be untrue.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Rocky - can you try and hate Ebay using less words next time

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

RMA,

 

I do have you on ignore, but I think you misinterpreted my statement above. I'm not encouraging anybody to do anything.

 

"I didn't want to go round and round with RMA (there's just no point because it never ends and nobody ever wins) and so while it's very interesting mental masturbation, it's not particularly productive. "

 

What kind of message do you think that statement sends, even if not intentionally...?

 

There are plenty of times I find what you have to say interesting, but the manner in which you drag things to these just long nonsensical diatribes where you go on and on and on just seems pointless to me.

 

There, you've found the key words: "to me."

 

Other people don't agree, and actually think that discussing the issue intensely uncovers things and details they may not have thought about before.

 

Do you know how long the US Constitution was debated...? At least four months...then, for the next four years, they felt they STILL hadn't gotten it right, until they added the Bill of Rights...and then continued the discussion until this day.

 

I'm not pretending much of anything we talk about here rises to that level of importance, but if those issues can be debated for months and years, we can debate an issue for a couple of days before people start hand wringing and character assassinating, no?

 

If I'm not totally out to lunch, aren't you a lawyer? Isn't it your job, your profession, to dissect an issue from any and every possible angle in favor of your client(s)...?

 

 

There are then times when I think what you have to say very relevant.

 

My point wasn't to say people ought not to respond to you, but rather simply to say, I don't want to respond because I just get sucked into an endless loop that is a waste of time for me, because we don't really go anywhere.

 

Oh, really...? If that wasn't your point, why'd you even mention it...? If you don't want to "get sucked in an endless loop", the answer is so simple a 5 year old can understand it: don't reply. If you don't reply, I have nothing to reply to, either. Simple.

 

I think you're grossly over reacting -- but I really don't care other than the fact that it's inaccurate.

 

Overreacting? Maybe. I do get animated, at times.

 

Inaccurate? Nah, I think I nailed it square on the head.

 

There have been times where I do think people are better off not bothering to continue to respond to you.

 

Yeah, and...? You're not CGC. It's CGC who determines that, not you, me, or anybody else. You trying to shame and denigrate anyone into silence is not your place. That's why I don't do it.

 

Other people don't agree, and LIKE responding. That's their right, too.

 

You state that is if I'm standing here giving a speech or a sermon, rather than having a discussion. Do you just not understand that it takes at least two people to continue a discussion...? Or are you annoyed that I'm just not smart enough to condense the topic to one or two pithy sentences at a time?

 

:shrug:

 

But this wasn't one of them, it's simply to say, for me, responding to you on some of the technical points etc and debating them is a waste of time,

 

A debate is NEVER a waste of time when there are still details that remain to be fleshed out.

 

when the underlying posts should really be about John.

 

So to be clear, I'm not telling anyone to ignore you or not respond or not waste their time, etc. What's funny is that you're pointing out that we probably agree on some level on this issue as well, and then assume I'm trying to silence you, which isn't the case at all.

 

Do you really believe that? Pay very close attention to what I'm about to quote:

 

"I didn't want to go round and round with RMA (there's just no point because it never ends and nobody ever wins)"

 

Do you not understand how you denigrated me, there...? Do you not understand how you said "don't debate with RMA. It's a waste of time" there...?

 

As I said, i actually think you do add something valuable here,

 

 

Well, thank you! I'll take this little gem here.

 

but I don't want to scroll through everything you have to say, but would rather pick and choose what I am seeing or not seeing.

 

Listen...I know you don't like me, or the way I post, which is, of course, why you have me on ignore. I understand that, truly. There are a decent handful of people who have me on ignore. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

What DOES bother me is when someone who is NOT CGC comes along and tries to dictate how people should post, whether by command or by shame. It's not cool. Whether you did it intentionally or not, that's exactly what you did.

 

No need to respond, truly. I've just done what you dislike anyways, and we don't want to "get sucked in an endless loop", eh...?

 

(thumbs u

[Pmack-migration]

and there was a winner for $14,000.

 

False. The winning bid was $14,500 (if you're gonna be a stickler for facts, that sword cuts both ways.)

Well, there is arguing a point, and then there's being pedantic about a minor detail, that does not affect the larger point. Glad to know what side of the fence you fall on.

 

So I'll take leave of the thread, or at least replies to you directly, before you start pointing out spelling mistakes. Because it's pretty clear that's your next step.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think part of the problem may be that John is a known whiner and very anal about things, above and beyond what regular people would consider anal (packaging anyone?). I am not at all saying he's lying, but people may not feel sympathetic towards his plight for these reasons.

 

 

You know, it's funny how we view people in life. 1,000 different posters could say something, and I'll happily dismiss it all. You say something, and it gives me pause. Just goes to show the weight you carry in my book.

 

 

 

 

[seanfingh]

and there was a winner for $14,000.

 

False. The winning bid was $14,500 (if you're gonna be a stickler for facts, that sword cuts both ways.)

Well, there is arguing a point, and then there's being pedantic about a minor detail, that does not affect the larger point. Glad to know what side of the fence you fall on.

 

So I'll take leave of the thread, or at least replies to you directly, before you start pointing out spelling mistakes. Because it's pretty clear that's your next step.

 

I question whether that comma between "detail" and "that" was necessary.

[RockMyAmadeus]

and there was a winner for $14,000.

 

False. The winning bid was $14,500 (if you're gonna be a stickler for facts, that sword cuts both ways.)

Well, there is arguing a point, and then there's being pedantic about a minor detail, that does not affect the larger point. Glad to know what side of the fence you fall on.

 

So I'll take leave of the thread, or at least replies to you directly, before you start pointing out spelling mistakes. Because it's pretty clear that's your next step.

 

 

As I already explained, if you're going to complain about eBay representatives "getting details wrong", and use that as material evidence to support your argument against the seller, then you best get ALL the details right yourself, or you will be discredited.

 

ANY good attorney would have done the exact same thing.

 

"Spelling mistakes", unless they have a material involvement in the situation...and they don't...are not going to be at issue.

 

So let's can the drama queen nonsense, eh?

 

And I notice you picked out the ONE thing in my reply you could complain about, while ignoring everything else.

 

NICE!

 

(thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

and there was a winner for $14,000.

 

False. The winning bid was $14,500 (if you're gonna be a stickler for facts, that sword cuts both ways.)

Well, there is arguing a point, and then there's being pedantic about a minor detail, that does not affect the larger point. Glad to know what side of the fence you fall on.

 

So I'll take leave of the thread, or at least replies to you directly, before you start pointing out spelling mistakes. Because it's pretty clear that's your next step.

 

I question whether that comma between "detail" and "that" was necessary.

 

You question correctly.

 

[Prince Namor]

All the makings of another interesting CGC forum thread:

Old alliances,

Old adversaries,

And no clear cut solution to the thread!

 

 

[FoomMember]

I'm going to send these guys in if we all can't get along...and collectively thumb our noses at easybay...

 

 

 

[BaltimoreLauren]

"Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident."

[Bosco685]

All the makings of another interesting CGC forum thread:

Old alliances,

Old adversaries,

And no clear cut solution to the thread!

[Pmack-migration]

As I already explained, if you're going to complain about eBay representatives "getting details wrong", and use that as material evidence to support your argument against the seller, then you best get ALL the details right yourself, or you will be discredited.

Despite what I posted a few hours ago, I feel like I need to make this final clarification since you seem to fancy yourself a Junior Perry Mason.

 

Leaving out all the details, the "case" boils down to this:

 

Seller did not want to sell a book to buyer because it appeared there was an ebay glitch that prevented some bidders from bidding which would have raised the final price.

 

I provided an explanation for the apparent blocked bidders "glitch".

 

You want to argue that your point is made through bidder email hearsay and what an ebay rep supposedly said. These are the same representatives that didn't know the verify requirements are at $15k, and didn't understand the concept of sniping. I say reps that are that clueless on basic information should not be trusted when they say "oh, that bidder should not have been blocked", or "that bidder bid but was timed out". There's no real evidence they have any idea what they're talking about, and no evidence they weren't just agreeing with the seller for the sake of politeness. Have you ever actually talked or chatted with ebay support before? You'd get a better set of responses to questions put to your neighborhood pets. They. are. all. clowns.

 

In a court of law, you haven't provided reasonable doubt. In a court of law, the opposition would have shredded your "case", because it's all hat and no cattle.

 

I provided an explanation that satisfies Occam's Razor.

 

You can and moan about the minor details, and I could go back and forth and match you one for one, but what's the point? You haven't provided ANY evidence outside of 3rd-hand hearsay that this was a failure on ebay's part. You desperately want it to be ebay's fault because you've got a major hate-on for them. Which is cool, if that's your thing, but it's clouding your rational response to this issue.

 

You know what? It's entirely possible some bidders verified in time but were still unable to bid. Could have been server lag, could have been ISP lag, who knows? But the major reason they weren't able to bid is because they weren't verified and their snipe strategy didn't allow enough time for them to complete that additional requirement. It's really that simple.

 

 

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Although I am sure either the OP's position or Pmacks position could be correct, I have felt from the start that it is far more likely that Pmack is on the right side.

 

Call center reps are known to tell customers what they want to hear, whether it be so they can get to the next call, get to their break faster, etc.. This likelihood is increased when the CS rep has already been primed by the OP with "I had x number of bidders contact me and say they were blocked" Additionally, eBay changes their policies/thresholds so often I am surprised when the CS rep gets more than 1/2 their facts straight.

 

Customers are known to hear what that they want to hear, or interpret statements in the manner in which best suits them.

 

My opinion is that the possibility of miscommunication and downright sloppy CS response is far greater than the possibility of a technical malfunction of the auction process.

 

One other point for RMA. It is presumptuous to dissect another posters position with the liberal use of "False", when you are truly only stating your own opinion which may be just as False.

[hockey&comicsguy]

Although I am sure either the OP's position or Pmacks position could be correct, I have felt from the start that it is far more likely that Pmack is on the right side.

 

Call center reps are known to tell customers what they want to hear, whether it be so they can get to the next call, get to their break faster, etc.. This likelihood is increased when the CS rep has already been primed by the OP with "I had x number of bidders contact me and say they were blocked" Additionally, eBay changes their policies/thresholds so often I am surprised when the CS rep gets more than 1/2 their facts straight.

 

Customers are known to hear what that they want to hear, or interpret statements in the manner in which best suits them.

 

My opinion is that the possibility of miscommunication and downright sloppy CS response is far greater than the possibility of a technical malfunction of the auction process.

 

One other point for RMA. It is presumptuous to dissect another posters position with the liberal use of "False", when you are truly only stating your own opinion which may be just as False.

 

 

And that's what this thread is chock full of. Nuthin' but opinions. (thumbs u

[marvelcollector]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

While I'm very sympathetic to how Ebay wronged the seller here, I tend to look at things from the buyer's perspective.

 

He placed a bid and won. Period.

Everything else that happened has nothing to do with him. (No excuse for the expletives, of course.)

 

If it was me, I would be upset too. And probably would not want to have anything further to do with the seller.