My EBAY Nightmare

[VintageComics]

For the record, I think RMA is a terrific debater.

 

He may not be your cup of tea due to the amount of detail he puts in his posts, and sometimes his point gets lost in the voluminous posting style, but if you have the time to pull up a cup of tea and take the time to read them it makes interesting reading.

 

Some people get off on articulating a conversation and others just want the gist of a paragraph until they get to the next picture frame.

 

There's a reason the Greeks sat around and made a living philosophizing while the Arabs developed math and science and the Romans created infrastructure that tied continents together.

 

Well, each type of person did more than that. I realize I'm generalizing but I'm trying to make a point.

 

Different people make for different strokes and different strokes are for different folks. Everyone has a purpose.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

Do you think the OP is lying...?

 

If so...and you clearly think that's the case...why?

 

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".

 

This entire statement is premised on the idea that NO eBay reps know what they're doing, that NO eBay reps understand the eBay system, and that they "are (all) the same representatives."

 

That is most obviously not true. I agree, the reps who don't know the details of the job should not be trusted. But your attempt to include ALL reps because ONE or TWO didn't know ALL the details of their job is clearly preposterous.

 

So, your point fails there, counselor.

 

There's no real evidence they have any idea what they're talking about,

 

Yes, there is. They are employees of eBay. That fact *alone* gives their statements weight, and any court in the nation would grant that. Even if a handful of them are deficient in their knowledge in a few areas, it does not therefore follow that all the testimony of every eBay representative should therefore be dismissed as "untrustworthy."

 

So, your point fails there, counselor.

 

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.

 

While I'm certainly inclined PERSONALLY to agree with you, the fact of the matter is, that's simply not the case, and you would be objected to vigorously in court should you attempt to pursue such a line of thought.

 

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.

 

 

Let me educate you a bit:

 

This is a CIVIL case, not a CRIMINAL case. In CIVIL cases, the standard of proof is "Preponderance of the evidence" - preponderance of the evidence generally means that a party will win if she can show that it is more likely than not that her contention is true. Since the OP has provided evidence that his contention is more than likely true, he would win. Simple as that.

 

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.

 

We have evidence from the OP about what eBay said to them. So it's not "3rd-hand" at all. You can deflect and obfuscate about "minor details"....and I see you have no problem touting them when they support you, and no problem dismissing them when they don't...but the fact is, we have what eBay said to the OP, straight from the OP's virtual mouth.

 

If you want to challenge the OP's integrity, hey, feel free. You want to cry "Occam's razor" all you want, feel free. But Occam's razor ALSO suggests that there is no rational reason for the OP to have INVENTED any of this for his own personal gain, because that would expose him to a far worse situation than if he'd simply not said anything at all.

 

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.

 

Have you read everything in this thread...? Or are you just picking and choosing what to read...? Because I've already addressed this issue, and I am the very last person on this board you will encounter that will let ANYTHING "cloud my rational response" to ANY issue. I'm THAT anal.

 

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

 

In the very same paragraph, you say they WERE verified, then they were NOT verified...which is it?

 

and their snipe strategy didn't allow enough time for them to complete that additional requirement. It's really that simple.

 

Yes, except it's really not. You want to make these suppositions, but you cannot prove them. You think they weren't verified. Great. Now prove it.

 

Ah, but you cannot.

 

Therefore, since you cannot prove your "theory", and we have testimony from the OP that directly contradicts your "theory", of what value is it...?

 

None.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

You are absolutely correct.

 

That's why I don't do it.

 

So I'm not quite sure why this point was for me... :shrug:

 

I only use the word "false" when something is demonstrably proven, through evidence, to actually be false.

 

Or is it in fact TRUE that the winning bid was $14,000, and not $14,500...? Do you think it's just my OPINION that the auction ended for $14,500...?

 

Or is it in fact TRUE that the auction completed successfully, when that is the very thing we're debating...? If there's debate, it clearly did not end successfully, did it..? Or is it just my OPINION that it didn't end successfully...?

 

Or is it in fact TRUE that there is no PROOF that both bidders and eBay stated there were problems bidding, when the OP directly testified to those facts (testimony is a form of proof...a pretty powerful one)...? Or is it just my OPINION that the OP made that claim...?

 

Seriously. Do your research before presuming to correct someone next time.

 

(thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

One more time, and maybe someone can answer this question, after ignoring it for many, many posts:

 

Those of you who "think Pmack is on the right side", and believe the OP just "made all this up" just because he "wasn't happy with the auction result"...

 

Why?

 

Why do you think this?

 

Of what benefit is it to TF to post all this on the board if it was made up?

 

Please....answer this very simple question.

 

Thanks!

[RockMyAmadeus]

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

 

Man oh man....

 

For the first time, we actually come down on the same side of an issue, and you go and spoil it with a numbskull statement like that...

 

 

(You know I'm just playing with you, H&CG. At least you have the balls to give back as good as you get from me. I respect that. )

[RockMyAmadeus]

For the record, I think RMA is a terrific debater.

 

He may not be your cup of tea due to the amount of detail he puts in his posts, and sometimes his point gets lost in the voluminous posting style, but if you have the time to pull up a cup of tea and take the time to read them it makes interesting reading.

 

Some people get off on articulating a conversation and others just want the gist of a paragraph until they get to the next picture frame.

 

There's a reason the Greeks sat around and made a living philosophizing while the Arabs developed math and science and the Romans created infrastructure that tied continents together.

 

Well, each type of person did more than that. I realize I'm generalizing but I'm trying to make a point.

 

Different people make for different strokes and different strokes are for different folks. Everyone has a purpose.

 

Can I mail you the check, or will Paypal be fine...?

 

[trmoore54]

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.

 

One more time, and maybe someone can answer this question, after ignoring it for many, many posts:

 

Those of you who "think Pmack is on the right side", and believe the OP just "made all this up" just because he "wasn't happy with the auction result"...

 

Why?

 

Why do you think this?

 

Of what benefit is it to TF to post all this on the board if it was made up?

 

Please....answer this very simple question.

 

Thanks!

 

John is as a good a peeps as grace these boards! There is NO WAY IN HE'LL he is making this up. His reputation, stellar as it is, precedes him. 'Nuff said.

 

Having yet to post here, I realize the buyer might be upset, I would most likely be as well in his/her position, but given the explanation I'd be willing to accept it. I speak from experience, having bona fide and both lame excuses served up to me here on the boards just in this past year for Sellers telling me why they could not complete a transaction I had successfully "won".

 

Classic do-over. No harm, no foul.

 

Being me, I would offer the "buyer" first crack at the do-over, with a negotiated price somewhere in the middle. But that's me.

 

Later. And Good Night!

 

Peace. Love. Dove.

 

t

[Pmack-migration]

Do you think the OP is lying...?

 

If so...and you clearly think that's the case...why?

No, I don't think the OP is lying at all. If I've given that impression I owe him an apology.

 

Everything he's said I believe he believes is the truth. I think he really believes there was an ebay glitch that cheated him out of thousands of dollars.

 

He's wrong, and I've explained why.

 

This is essentially bad luck. He had a book whose bidding crossed a threshold that neither he or some of his bidders was aware of. This caused some of them not to be able to bid in time. This also happened in a no reserve auction. C'est la vie.

 

The whole reason I posted in the first place is because he wronged the legitimate winner, and he wants the bidder to have sympathy for him and just abandon the win. And his excuse for wronging this bidder is this imaginary 'ebay glitch'.

 

If you don't want to sell the book for a lower price to a bidder, just own the damned decision. Don't put the onus on the legitimate winner who did nothing wrong and won an auction for a reasonable price to feel bad for you and not want to buy the book so you can resell it for more money next time. Just say you don't want to sell it. Don't pretend the winner has a real chance of buying it at the winning price.

 

Let me educate you a bit:

Let me educate you a bit. This isn't a civil case, or a criminal case. It's two jacka sses who don't know each other and have nothing to do with the original post waving their dic.ks around on a messageboard. And one of them is going to have to bail on the discussion because neither of them has the ability to "win" an internet argument. That person is going to be me. Sorry for the spoilers.

 

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

In the very same paragraph, you say they WERE verified, then they were NOT verified...which is it?

This is more pedantic wildly_fanciful_statement. . At the time they tried to bid, they were not verified. Some were possibly able to complete the verification process before the auction end, and may have had other issues (such as server or ISP lag) not allowing them to bid. But again, the verification process was the hang-up.

 

If you remove the verification process from this entire scenario, this thread doesn't exist, this problem doesn't exist, maybe the seller gets more money for the book, who knows. But the problem is undeniably that bidders weren't prepared for the verification process, and it screwed them up because they were trying to snipe the auction. Is this really such a crazy, outside scenario that you can't just admit it makes the most sense?

[cheetah]

Why have so many noobs posted in this thread?

[trmoore54]

Why have so many noobs posted in this thread?

 

I have been thinking the same thing...

 

Why not sprinkle yourself around in the Grading Thread and Appreciation Threads and the Buy/Sell Threads and establish a toe-hold...why come out guns-ablazin' in some controversial issue...it doesn't have to be about intelligence or establishing your ability to impose your will on others right out of the gate before anyone gets to know even who you are...??

 

People seem to bring a level of vitriol, in this case, to an issue/transaction they're not even involved in...moreso, some would say, that even the people involved would bring...

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

Man oh man....

 

For the first time, we actually come down on the same side of an issue, and you go and spoil it with a numbskull statement like that...

 

 

(You know I'm just playing with you, H&CG. At least you have the balls to give back as good as you get from me. I respect that. )

 

 

I plucked out pmack's post to unleash that one b/c his opinions are just that. My opinions (and yours in this instance) are right.

 

 

 

 

[Shootydog]

Here is my opinion.

 

Bidder has a legit gripe.

Seller has a legit gripe.

 

Seller was a tool for not honoring the auction.

Bidder was a tool for their behavior.

 

 

Ebay screwed the pooch but......

 

Reserve on the auction would have made it all a non event.

 

Hindsight is 20/20

[hockey&comicsguy]

But the problem is undeniably that bidders weren't prepared for the verification process, and it screwed them up because they were trying to snipe the auction. Is this really such a crazy, outside scenario that you can't just admit it makes the most sense?

 

Your theory is as plausible as bidders getting verified in time and still something (glitch) occurred that prevented their bids from being accepted when they should have.

 

 

As for the last sentence. I move to have that comment stricken on account of it's utter krappiness. It makes the most sense to you. That about sums up the meaningfulness of that last sentence.

[Prince Namor]

Does it seem strange that there were a handful of unverified buyers throwing $10-15,000 bids out, right at the auction close?

If they'd made bids like that previously, they'd already have known they had to be verified. If they were new eBay users, it seems strange they'd know how to try and snipe an auction.

 

Don't take it the wrong way; I believe the seller's story. Enough long time forum members have given him a glowing recommendation, I'm convinced he must be A-ok.

 

Am I missing something here?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Do you think the OP is lying...?

 

If so...and you clearly think that's the case...why?

No, I don't think the OP is lying at all. If I've given that impression I owe him an apology.

 

Everything he's said I believe he believes is the truth. I think he really believes there was an ebay glitch that cheated him out of thousands of dollars.

 

This ain't the truth. You know how I know it's not? You know how I know that, in your heart of hearts, you don't really believe what you've just said? Because you follow it up with this statement, not more than a few sentences below:

 

The whole reason I posted in the first place is because he wronged the legitimate winner, and he wants the bidder to have sympathy for him and just abandon the win. And his excuse for wronging this bidder is this imaginary 'ebay glitch'. If you don't want to sell the book for a lower price to a bidder, just own the damned decision.

 

If YOU think the OP thinks this really happened, you wouldn't accuse him of making up an "imaginary eBay glitch" story as an "excuse" to not sell the book. You state he should "own the damned decision."

 

Either the OP believes there was a legitimate glitch, and therefore has nothing to "own", or he doesn't, and should "own the damned decision."

 

Which is it...?

 

He's wrong, and I've explained why.

 

No. You. Haven't.

 

You've offered endless opinions and suppositions as to why you believe he's wrong, but you've offered no proof of ANY kind. None.

 

This is essentially bad luck. He had a book whose bidding crossed a threshold that neither he or some of his bidders was aware of. This caused some of them not to be able to bid in time. This also happened in a no reserve auction. C'est la vie.

 

How many times does this need to be told to you? This is your opinion, and it is opinion that is not supported by the facts at hand.

 

Sorry, chum, but them's the breaks. It's ever so easy to "c'est la vie" with other people's money, innit...?

 

The whole reason I posted in the first place is because he wronged the legitimate winner, and he wants the bidder to have sympathy for him and just abandon the win. And his excuse for wronging this bidder is this imaginary 'ebay glitch'. If you don't want to sell the book for a lower price to a bidder, just own the damned decision.

 

The OP didn't have a problem with the winning bid until he discovered there was a problem with the bidding. First post in this thread. You sure do ignore a lot of things which don't fit your "theory", don't you?

 

Don't put the onus on the legitimate winner who did nothing wrong and won an auction for a reasonable price to feel bad for you and not want to buy the book so you can resell it for more money next time. Just say you don't want to sell it. Don't pretend the winner has a real chance of buying it at the winning price.

 

Let me educate you a bit:

Let me educate you a bit.

 

No, let me educate you a bit.

 

(Really? Seriously? The "I know you are, but what am I" routine...? We're going in that direction are we...?)

 

This isn't a civil case, or a criminal case. It's two jacka sses who don't know each other and have nothing to do with the original post waving their dic.ks around on a messageboard.

 

Correction: It's one jackarse making an unfounded accusation against the OP, and another jackarse vigorously defending him. If it WERE to go to court, it would, in fact, be a civil case, with those rules in force. There's nothing wrong with using those rules in the debate. *I* didn't bring up "proven beyond a reasonable doubt"...YOU did.

 

(You might wanna watch it with the masking...Arch doesn't take too kindly to that. Friendly warning.)

 

And one of them is going to have to bail on the discussion because neither of them has the ability to "win" an internet argument. That person is going to be me. Sorry for the spoilers.

 

Please, please, DO bail out on this argument. This isn't about "winning" an "internet argument." This is about discussing what happened in the situation, and refuting those who claim that the seller is at fault with the truth. The only "winner" I want to see in this thread is the OP.

 

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

In the very same paragraph, you say they WERE verified, then they were NOT verified...which is it?

This is more pedantic wildly_fanciful_statement. . At the time they tried to bid, they were not verified.

 

PROVE IT.

 

Just PROVE that assertion. That's all I've asked you to do, and you've ignored it for multple posts.

 

Some were possibly able to complete the verification process before the auction end, and may have had other issues (such as server or ISP lag) not allowing them to bid. But again, the verification process was the hang-up.

 

If you remove the verification process from this entire scenario, this thread doesn't exist, this problem doesn't exist, maybe the seller gets more money for the book, who knows. But the problem is undeniably that bidders weren't prepared for the verification process, and it screwed them up because they were trying to snipe the auction. Is this really such a crazy, outside scenario that you can't just admit it makes the most sense?

 

Because it doesn't? Does it get any simpler than that?

 

You have no proof that "the problem is undeniably that bidders weren't prepared for the verification process." None. You have testimony from the OP stating that this was, in fact, not the case.

 

Yet you still cling desperately to this "theory"...possible it may be, which I have already conceded, but certainly not likely.

 

Who are you?

 

What's YOUR agenda in this?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Why have so many noobs posted in this thread?

 

Cause no one else will debate with me...

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Man oh man....

 

For the first time, we actually come down on the same side of an issue, and you go and spoil it with a numbskull statement like that...

 

 

(You know I'm just playing with you, H&CG. At least you have the balls to give back as good as you get from me. I respect that. )

 

 

I plucked out pmack's post to unleash that one b/c his opinions are just that. My opinions (and yours in this instance) are right.

 

 

 

 

Supernerd.

 

[Dark Prime 0]

since people are saying with they might have done if they were the buyer might as well

 

me i would have cursed at the seller too BUT only after being nice and polite still lost me the book (parting shot type thing)

 

but you don't open talks by cursing at the person

 

from the bidders pov he won the book, wether the seller had problems with ebay is not his problem (sry to say but i would looked at it this way too)

[Flaming_Telepath]

Note to Mods.

 

Please can we have a new board.

 

RMA has worn this one out.

[Pmack-migration]

This ain't the truth. You know how I know it's not? You know how I know that, in your heart of hearts, you don't really believe what you've just said? Because you follow it up with this statement, not more than a few sentences below:

 

The whole reason I posted in the first place is because he wronged the legitimate winner, and he wants the bidder to have sympathy for him and just abandon the win. And his excuse for wronging this bidder is this imaginary 'ebay glitch'. If you don't want to sell the book for a lower price to a bidder, just own the damned decision.

Jesus, just stop it. This isn't very complicated unless you're trying to be willfully obtuse. Seller was OK with the auction results (well, not really, but he accepted them) until he heard from other bidders. This is the turning point. Once he had it in his head that there was an "ebay glitch", he couldn't see anything else, and in his mind, ebay screwed him out of money.

 

What I have been saying all along is that the ebay glitch is SOP, and is not a glitch. Go back and read the OP posts... he says that a person with several thousand feedbacks shouldn't need to verify (and I'm paraphrasing here, Mr Pedantic). It illustrates he doesn't understand what the verify process is designed to do or how it works. All he knows is that some bidders were unable to bid due to something with ebay. In short, his claims of an ebay glitch are almost entirely due to his ignorance of the process.

 

Once he's got the idea in his head that ebay screwed him, he approaches the bidder and essentially tells him the auction's invalid. The OP is not acting in bad faith, just ignorance.

 

Just PROVE that assertion. That's all I've asked you to do, and you've ignored it for multple posts.

It can't be "proven" and you know it, any more than what you're on about can be "proven". What we have is probable explanatory scenarios to which we can apply Occam's Razor. One of us has defined a scenario that can satisfy the irregularities, and the other is you.

 

Who are you?

What's YOUR agenda in this?

I'm nobody, and I have no agenda. I've been reading these boards for years and have never really been interested in entering conversations because never felt I could add to them. In this case I had knowledge about ebay's policies that were absent from the thread.

 

Notice I haven't asked YOUR agenda. You know why? Because I know your agenda hasn't got anything to to with this problem. Your agenda is simply to argue with people for as long as they are willing to go around with you. It's my own fault for returning to this thread over and over, but you have made me sorry I posted in the first place.