The Shiller Speaks

[Logan510]

I love these shilling threads because they reveal which forum members have a core honesty and which ones have a core dishonesty.

 

You can read between the lines and draw pretty reliable conclusions about the people who repeat the mantra "don't bid more than you're willing to pay" as a sort of roundabout defense of shilling. It slowly but surely becomes evident that the people making this argument reflexively are sympathetic to the practice of shilling and should not be trusted.

 

"Don't bid more than you're willing to pay" is true as a stand-alone statement, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the practice of shilling is wrong.

 

I don't get your math. I don't bid more than I'm willing to pay ( normally ) and I don't defend shilling.

When people have a discussion about the practice of shilling, and somebody chimes in with, "I don't see what the big deal is. As long as you never bid more than you're willing to pay, it isn't going to affect you much anyway," then you can be sure that the person saying this is ethically challenged.

 

It's sort of like if people were talking about whether it's wrong to steal a car when the owner accidentally left the car keys inside the car. If a person's response to this question isn't "Yes, it's wrong -- even if the owner of the car is a nitwit for leaving the keys in the car" but instead they keep saying, "I don't see the problem. As long as you never leave your car keys in your car, it won't affect you anyway," then there is something amiss with that person's ability to handle a basic ethics question. (Yes, I realize this isn't a perfect example, but it's close enough.)

 

A person who was 100% clear on the ethics of the matter wouldn't waste time backhandedly victim-blaming. The backhanded "blame the victim" response is a giveaway that the person is sympathetic to the unethical practice.

 

If you're bidding on an auction and there are no other legitimate bidders who bid higher than you do, then you absolutely deserve to win the item at the price of the highest legitimate bid.

 

If you bid on an auction and you're outbid by a shill (an illegitimate bidder who has no genuine interest in winning the item for his own), and then you turn around and outbid the shill, then sure, you bid as much as you were willing to pay. But you were robbed of the amount of money over the highest legitimate bid.

 

This is obvious to anybody who has a core morality and ethics. Anybody who says otherwise lacks a core morality and ethics and should not be trusted.

 

In summary:

 

You see a comic at auction, and you decide you want to win it. You bid $100. Nobody outbids you. Then a shill comes along and bids $199. So you bid $200 and you win the auction.

 

The seller just stole $100 from your pocket.

 

"Don't bid more than you're willing to pay" has nothing to do with it. This concept has absolutely no bearing -- none whatsoever -- on the fact that you were just ripped off for $100.

 

Without a shill you would have paid $100. With a shill you paid $200. Simple math: The practice of shilling ended with you paying more than you would have paid in a legitimate auction.

 

I'll say it one more time: Anybody who doesn't understand this, or who responds reflexively with "But you bid what you were willing to pay! What's the problem?" has no core ethics/morality and should not be trusted.

 

I getcha now, thank you.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'm not defending...I simply do not care.

 

bababooey got it right....don't bid more than you want to pay. Simple and effective.

 

If someone shills, so be it. It does not effect me in any way, nor does it impact my "level of emotion" or blood pressure.

 

Find another dead horse to kick...

 

It doesn't affect you directly if you stick to not paying more than you originally wanted to for the book.

 

It does however indirectly affect you by making the market appear stronger for said book, which drives up the price on other available copies. You either get priced out of the book and lose the ability to buy it (as it is no longer affordable) or you risk purchasing it at the inflated price and eating the loss when the book sees the appropriate correction.

 

 

 

Yup

Shilling does affect the collector market.

 

Could the same be said for sniping where it has reduced the price of collectibles by removing the emotional bidding wars and the back and forth of conventional auctions?

 

I like the blind reserve idea which kicks in at the end of the auction. The auctions are basically blind auctions anyhow so lets just have everyone submit bids and the highest bidder wins - maybe the seller of the book or someone else. The current procedure is obviously not working since the auctions are drying up and the ones left are almost all accused of being shilled up anyhow.

 

 

Orrrrrr....

 

The market is in a bubble, and things aren't really worth what everyone thinks they are.

 

We don't have significantly more collectors in the marketplace today than we did in 2000, yet prices for almost everything are multiples of the rate of inflation. Now, people run as fast as they can to the next hot thing, but here's the thing: the last few "hot things" don't seem to sink back down when they've lost their hotness.

 

Take out the silliness and hysteria of 2007-2008, and prices have taken a significant upturn, without a significant new influx of collectors.

 

How do I know this? A reliable indicator (which obviously doesn't tell the whole picture) is the sales of new books, which have been essentially static for 15+ years. Even in the darkest days of the 70's, the DC implosion and whatnot, 100,000 was still considered the cutoff point for cancellation.

 

Now, the best books on the market sell that...and this has essentially been true since 1999.

 

How do you maintain, much less raise, the market without new blood? And how do you GET new blood without the traditional "new books"?

 

This movie thing....it will not last forever. It can't. The public will grow weary of them, even as it grew a little weary of Potter...none of the films beat Sorcerer's Stone until Deathly Hallows II, and that's mostly because everyone wanted to see how it ended.

 

This is a strange, strange phase we've entered.

[Doohickamabob]

I getcha now, thank you.

You're welcome. Sorry if my tone got strident. (Or if my stone got trident.)

[kav]

The only way to get new blood in comics is to get comics back in supermarkets, drug stores etc. Kids need to stumble across comics just like all us old timers did.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Speaking of....there was a time, long, long ago, when a seller on eBay could place a single bid on their own items, so they didn't sell for "giveaway" prices.

 

Of course, with complete transparency back in those days, you knew who it was bidding against you.

 

True story.

[Comicopolis]

I love these shilling threads because they reveal which forum members have a core honesty and which ones have a core dishonesty.

 

You can read between the lines and draw pretty reliable conclusions about the people who repeat the mantra "don't bid more than you're willing to pay" as a sort of roundabout defense of shilling. It slowly but surely becomes evident that the people making this argument reflexively are sympathetic to the practice of shilling and should not be trusted.

 

"Don't bid more than you're willing to pay" is true as a stand-alone statement, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the practice of shilling is wrong.

 

I don't get your math. I don't bid more than I'm willing to pay ( normally ) and I don't defend shilling.

When people have a discussion about the practice of shilling, and somebody chimes in with, "I don't see what the big deal is. As long as you never bid more than you're willing to pay, it isn't going to affect you much anyway," then you can be sure that the person saying this is ethically challenged.

 

It's sort of like if people were talking about whether it's wrong to steal a car when the owner accidentally left the car keys inside the car. If a person's response to this question isn't "Yes, it's wrong -- even if the owner of the car is a nitwit for leaving the keys in the car" but instead they keep saying, "I don't see the problem. As long as you never leave your car keys in your car, it won't affect you anyway," then there is something amiss with that person's ability to handle a basic ethics question. (Yes, I realize this isn't a perfect example, but it's close enough.)

 

A person who was 100% clear on the ethics of the matter wouldn't waste time backhandedly victim-blaming. The backhanded "blame the victim" response is a giveaway that the person is sympathetic to the unethical practice.

 

If you're bidding on an auction and there are no other legitimate bidders who bid higher than you do, then you absolutely deserve to win the item at the price of the highest legitimate bid.

 

If you bid on an auction and you're outbid by a shill (an illegitimate bidder who has no genuine interest in winning the item for his own), and then you turn around and outbid the shill, then sure, you bid as much as you were willing to pay. But you were robbed of the amount of money over the highest legitimate bid.

 

This is obvious to anybody who has a core morality and ethics. Anybody who says otherwise lacks a core morality and ethics and should not be trusted.

 

In summary:

 

You see a comic at auction, and you decide you want to win it. You bid $100. Nobody outbids you. Then a shill comes along and bids $199. So you bid $200 and you win the auction.

 

The seller just stole $100 from your pocket.

 

"Don't bid more than you're willing to pay" has nothing to do with it. This concept has absolutely no bearing -- none whatsoever -- on the fact that you were just ripped off for $100.

 

Without a shill you would have paid $100. With a shill you paid $200. Simple math: The practice of shilling ended with you paying more than you would have paid in a legitimate auction.

 

I'll say it one more time: Anybody who doesn't understand this, or who responds reflexively with "But you bid what you were willing to pay! What's the problem?" has no core ethics/morality and should not be trusted.

 

Excellent post.

[Doohickamabob]

This movie thing....it will not last forever. It can't. The public will grow weary of them, even as it grew a little weary of Potter...none of the films beat Sorcerer's Stone until Deathly Hallows II, and that's mostly because everyone wanted to see how it ended.

"Prisoner of Azkaban" > "Sorcerer's Stone"

[RockMyAmadeus]

I love these shilling threads because they reveal which forum members have a core honesty and which ones have a core dishonesty.

 

You can read between the lines and draw pretty reliable conclusions about the people who repeat the mantra "don't bid more than you're willing to pay" as a sort of roundabout defense of shilling. It slowly but surely becomes evident that the people making this argument reflexively are sympathetic to the practice of shilling and should not be trusted.

 

"Don't bid more than you're willing to pay" is true as a stand-alone statement, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the practice of shilling is wrong.

 

I don't get your math. I don't bid more than I'm willing to pay ( normally ) and I don't defend shilling.

When people have a discussion about the practice of shilling, and somebody chimes in with, "I don't see what the big deal is. As long as you never bid more than you're willing to pay, it isn't going to affect you much anyway," then you can be sure that the person saying this is ethically challenged.

 

It's sort of like if people were talking about whether it's wrong to steal a car when the owner accidentally left the car keys inside the car. If a person's response to this question isn't "Yes, it's wrong -- even if the owner of the car is a nitwit for leaving the keys in the car" but instead they keep saying, "I don't see the problem. As long as you never leave your car keys in your car, it won't affect you anyway," then there is something amiss with that person's ability to handle a basic ethics question. (Yes, I realize this isn't a perfect example, but it's close enough.)

 

A person who was 100% clear on the ethics of the matter wouldn't waste time backhandedly victim-blaming. The backhanded "blame the victim" response is a giveaway that the person is sympathetic to the unethical practice.

 

If you're bidding on an auction and there are no other legitimate bidders who bid higher than you do, then you absolutely deserve to win the item at the price of the highest legitimate bid.

 

If you bid on an auction and you're outbid by a shill (an illegitimate bidder who has no genuine interest in winning the item for his own), and then you turn around and outbid the shill, then sure, you bid as much as you were willing to pay. But you were robbed of the amount of money over the highest legitimate bid.

 

This is obvious to anybody who has a core morality and ethics. Anybody who says otherwise lacks a core morality and ethics and should not be trusted.

 

In summary:

 

You see a comic at auction, and you decide you want to win it. You bid $100. Nobody outbids you. Then a shill comes along and bids $199. So you bid $200 and you win the auction.

 

The seller just stole $100 from your pocket.

 

"Don't bid more than you're willing to pay" has nothing to do with it. This concept has absolutely no bearing -- none whatsoever -- on the fact that you were just ripped off for $100.

 

Without a shill you would have paid $100. With a shill you paid $200. Simple math: The practice of shilling ended with you paying more than you would have paid in a legitimate auction.

 

I'll say it one more time: Anybody who doesn't understand this, or who responds reflexively with "But you bid what you were willing to pay! What's the problem?" has no core ethics/morality and should not be trusted.

 

Excellent post.

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I love these shilling threads because they reveal which forum members have a core honesty and which ones have a core dishonesty.

 

I don't get your math. I don't bid more than I'm willing to pay ( normally ) and I don't defend shilling.

When people have a discussion about the practice of shilling, and somebody chimes in with, "I don't see what the big deal is. As long as you never bid more than you're willing to pay, it isn't going to affect you much anyway," then you can be sure that the person saying this is ethically challenged.

 

It's sort of like if people were talking about whether it's wrong to steal a car when the owner accidentally left the car keys inside the car. If a person's response to this question isn't "Yes, it's wrong -- even if the owner of the car is a nitwit for leaving the keys in the car" but instead they keep saying, "I don't see the problem. As long as you never leave your car keys in your car, it won't affect you anyway," then there is something amiss with that person's ability to

You can read between the lines and draw pretty reliable conclusions about the people who repeat the mantra "don't bid more than you're willing to pay" as a sort of roundabout defense of shilling. It slowly but surely becomes evident that the people making this argument reflexively are sympathetic to the practice of shilling and should not be trusted.

 

"Don't bid more than you're willing to pay" is true as a stand-alone statement, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the practice of shilling is wrong. handle a basic ethics question. (Yes, I realize this isn't a perfect example, but it's close enough.)

 

A person who was 100% clear on the ethics of the matter wouldn't waste time backhandedly victim-blaming. The backhanded "blame the victim" response is a giveaway that the person is sympathetic to the unethical practice.

 

If you're bidding on an auction and there are no other legitimate bidders who bid higher than you do, then you absolutely deserve to win the item at the price of the highest legitimate bid.

 

If you bid on an auction and you're outbid by a shill (an illegitimate bidder who has no genuine interest in winning the item for his own), and then you turn around and outbid the shill, then sure, you bid as much as you were willing to pay. But you were robbed of the amount of money over the highest legitimate bid.

 

This is obvious to anybody who has a core morality and ethics. Anybody who says otherwise lacks a core morality and ethics and should not be trusted.

 

In summary:

 

You see a comic at auction, and you decide you want to win it. You bid $100. Nobody outbids you. Then a shill comes along and bids $199. So you bid $200 and you win the auction.

 

The seller just stole $100 from your pocket.

 

"Don't bid more than you're willing to pay" has nothing to do with it. This concept has absolutely no bearing -- none whatsoever -- on the fact that you were just ripped off for $100.

 

Without a shill you would have paid $100. With a shill you paid $200. Simple math: The practice of shilling ended with you paying more than you would have paid in a legitimate auction.

 

I'll say it one more time: Anybody who doesn't understand this, or who responds reflexively with "But you bid what you were willing to pay! What's the problem?" has no core ethics/morality and should not be trusted.

 

Excellent post.

 

 

 

This post has several holes in it, but I'll leave it to others to point them out.

[Doohickamabob]

This post has several holes in it, but I'll leave it to others to point them out.

Your post also has a hole in it. A gaping hole...

[bababooey]

This post has several holes in it, but I'll leave it to others to point them out.

Your post also has a hole in it. A gaping hole...

 

 

 

[ItsJustRyan]

Where's Symbo on this topic?

[Doohickamabob]

This post has several holes in it, but I'll leave it to others to point them out.

Your post also has a hole in it. A gaping hole...

If I'm gonna be a nerd then I want to be Anthony Edwards in "Revenge of the Nerds."

[youmechooz]

I love these shilling threads because they reveal which forum members have a core honesty and which ones have a core dishonesty.

 

You can read between the lines and draw pretty reliable conclusions about the people who repeat the mantra "don't bid more than you're willing to pay" as a sort of roundabout defense of shilling. It slowly but surely becomes evident that the people making this argument reflexively are sympathetic to the practice of shilling and should not be trusted.

 

"Don't bid more than you're willing to pay" is true as a stand-alone statement, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the practice of shilling is wrong.

 

I don't get your math. I don't bid more than I'm willing to pay ( normally ) and I don't defend shilling.

When people have a discussion about the practice of shilling, and somebody chimes in with, "I don't see what the big deal is. As long as you never bid more than you're willing to pay, it isn't going to affect you much anyway," then you can be sure that the person saying this is ethically challenged.

 

It's sort of like if people were talking about whether it's wrong to steal a car when the owner accidentally left the car keys inside the car. If a person's response to this question isn't "Yes, it's wrong -- even if the owner of the car is a nitwit for leaving the keys in the car" but instead they keep saying, "I don't see the problem. As long as you never leave your car keys in your car, it won't affect you anyway," then there is something amiss with that person's ability to handle a basic ethics question. (Yes, I realize this isn't a perfect example, but it's close enough.)

 

A person who was 100% clear on the ethics of the matter wouldn't waste time backhandedly victim-blaming. The backhanded "blame the victim" response is a giveaway that the person is sympathetic to the unethical practice.

 

If you're bidding on an auction and there are no other legitimate bidders who bid higher than you do, then you absolutely deserve to win the item at the price of the highest legitimate bid.

 

If you bid on an auction and you're outbid by a shill (an illegitimate bidder who has no genuine interest in winning the item for his own), and then you turn around and outbid the shill, then sure, you bid as much as you were willing to pay. But you were robbed of the amount of money over the highest legitimate bid.

 

This is obvious to anybody who has a core morality and ethics. Anybody who says otherwise lacks a core morality and ethics and should not be trusted.

 

In summary:

 

You see a comic at auction, and you decide you want to win it. You bid $100. Nobody outbids you. Then a shill comes along and bids $199. So you bid $200 and you win the auction.

 

The seller just stole $100 from your pocket.

 

"Don't bid more than you're willing to pay" has nothing to do with it. This concept has absolutely no bearing -- none whatsoever -- on the fact that you were just ripped off for $100.

 

Without a shill you would have paid $100. With a shill you paid $200. Simple math: The practice of shilling ended with you paying more than you would have paid in a legitimate auction.

 

I'll say it one more time: Anybody who doesn't understand this, or who responds reflexively with "But you bid what you were willing to pay! What's the problem?" has no core ethics/morality and should not be trusted.

Now i feel bad. I consider myself a virtuous seller and despise shilling. Now i cant be trusted.

[Iceman399]

Where's Symbo on this topic?

 

He was taking a "while" off from the boards about 2 weeks ago and reappeared 3 days later...I am sure he is taking a break for a "while" again and will be back when this is slowed down.

[Doohickamabob]

Now i feel bad. I consider myself a virtuous seller and despise shilling. Now i cant be trusted.

I don't know what you wrote in the thread, but my purpose was not to shame somebody who despises shilling.

[youmechooz]

I wrote that if you bid on something, lets say your max bid is $100, just think to yourself that no matter what, the book cost you $100. That way, if its shilled up to $99 you wont go into a rage about the $100.

[youmechooz]

Now i feel bad. I consider myself a virtuous seller and despise shilling. Now i cant be trusted.

I don't know what you wrote in the thread, but my purpose was not to shame somebody who despises shilling.

Yeah, had to re-read that post again and it doesn't really make sense and the conclusion was wildly_fanciful_statement

[Doohickamabob]

I wrote that if you bid on something, lets say your max bid is $100, just think to yourself that no matter what, the book cost you $100. That way, if its shilled up to $99 you wont go into a rage about the $100.

What you're talking about is bidding practice. That's a different subject than the question of whether shilling is wrong.

 

Certainly people should be careful how they bid, not blindly trust auctions to be shill-free, etc. That's a separate issue from a question of whether shilling is unethical. My point is this: IF the subject is "Is shilling wrong?" and a person comes back with "It doesn't matter, just don't bid higher than you can pay," then they've side-stepped the question.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

This post has several holes in it, but I'll leave it to others to point them out.

Your post also has a hole in it. A gaping hole...