Shill Alert2....

[Solar]

Wow! Look what I miss when I skip threads with titles referencing boring and repetitive subjects that I'm sick of hearing about on these boards. Maybe I'll have to start reading the pressing threads again too...

[deathlok]

Is this thread still going on?

 

pathetic.

 

More pathetic than you posting that it is?

 

At least as pathetic as you responding to how pathetic my post was about how pathetic this thread continuing is.

[OldGuy]

Is this thread still going on?

 

pathetic.

 

More pathetic than you posting that it is?

 

At least as pathetic as you responding to how pathetic my post was about how pathetic this thread continuing is.

 

Pathetic.

[deathlok]

Is this thread still going on?

 

pathetic.

 

More pathetic than you posting that it is?

 

At least as pathetic as you responding to how pathetic my post was about how pathetic this thread continuing is.

 

Pathetic.

 

[bobel]

shilling is not a mistake it's a willfull act. A mistake is having a condom break or not using one in the heat of the moment. Shilling is calculated move to create the illusion of a bidding competion not avoid reserve fees...spare me the justifications. I don't have any problem with someone that shills i just won't buy from them and think anyone else who does is a fool supporting behavior that is meant to seperate them from there money. Anyone who shills knows the consequence of getting caugth is the destruction of there credibility in a business built on reputation. I don't know either of the folks caught this week. I'd gladly break bread with them and get to know them I just wouldnt bid on their auctions or justify the behavior. If someone is willing to risk there reputation to make an extra couple bucks that's there choice but, when they get caught I don't want to here what a fair trader they are or excuses for willfull ethical lapses. I also don't agree with the nastiness about it. They got caught it isnt mass murder it is fraud. All the nasty name calling seems harsh. I am sure both people caught feel like floaters in a toilet already with out the extra derision.

[Harvey Dude]

This is news to me. I thought the problem with shilling is that it allows a seller to set a de facto reserve on a book without paying eBay the reserve fee of a buck or two. In other words, it is "eBay Reserve Fee Avoidance," not "STEALING." No one forced the bidder to bid higher. The bidder probably would have been willing to bid the same amount if the reserve had been set at the same level as the highest shill bid. Maybe not, but in most cases I would think so. and for all of you holier-than-thou types who STILL want to set Dan on fire for what he did, I can only hope that one day Redhook gets a hold of your high school buddies and starts dishing the dirt.

 

Moreover, the issue of shilling is not as black and white as some think. The idea that shilling is always stealing is absurd. In this case it is certainly not stealing. Not right, probably, but not stealing.

 

I admire some of the forumites loyalty to FD but some comments to mitigate his transgressions do not sit well with me. Shill bidding is unethical and some can rationalize that all they want. I have paid more for books due to shill bidding. Here is an example (twinvlys and shad464 shill bidder )

 

I have very low tolerance for deceptive practices and I report it when it comes to my attention. It has nothing to do with “holier than thou attitude." I commend DM226 for bringing this issue to my attention. Deceit and lies assume "lives of their own" and result in consequences that people do not intend. I am sure FD now understands the consequences of his actions.

.

[FFB]

This is news to me. I thought the problem with shilling is that it allows a seller to set a de facto reserve on a book without paying eBay the reserve fee of a buck or two. In other words, it is "eBay Reserve Fee Avoidance," not "STEALING." No one forced the bidder to bid higher. The bidder probably would have been willing to bid the same amount if the reserve had been set at the same level as the highest shill bid. Maybe not, but in most cases I would think so. and for all of you holier-than-thou types who STILL want to set Dan on fire for what he did, I can only hope that one day Redhook gets a hold of your high school buddies and starts dishing the dirt.

 

Moreover, the issue of shilling is not as black and white as some think. The idea that shilling is always stealing is absurd. In this case it is certainly not stealing. Not right, probably, but not stealing.

 

I admire some of the forumites loyalty to FD but some comments to mitigate his transgressions do not sit well with me. Shill bidding is unethical and some can rationalize that all they want. I have paid more for books due to shill bidding. Here is an example (twinvlys and shad464 shill bidder )

 

I have very low tolerance for deceptive practices and I report it when it comes to my attention. It has nothing to do with “holier than thou attitude." I commend DM226 for bringing this issue to my attention. Deceit and lies assume "lives of their own" and result in consequences that people do not intend. I am sure FD now understands the consequences of his actions.

.

 

No one said shilling was ok. What I said is that shilling and stealing are not the same thing. Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book. No one stole money from you. Would you have paid the same amount if there had been a reserve, but not another bidder bidding on the book? If not, then what the heck were you doing bidding that much in the first place? Trying to keep the other guy from winning?

 

Again,

 

shilling is not ok

 

shilling is not ok

 

shilling is not ok.

 

But,

 

Shilling is also not the same thing as "stealing."

 

And,

 

It's ok to forgive someone you think is a fundamentally good person even if they do something bad and even if they initially lie about it and even if their eventual apology for it sucks.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book.

 

Give me a break. Just because I am willing to pay $100 for a book, doesn't mean that shilling my bid up from $75 isn't stealing.

 

If I would have won a book for $75 in the absence of shilling...the seller stole $25 from me.

 

From your commentary, you'd think you were a lawyer or something.

[SharpComics.com]

FD, the shill-meister r, shill-o-rific , shill-o-rama ... ...shills suck .

 

I'm done.

 

k

[FFB]

Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book.

 

Give me a break. Just because I am willing to pay $100 for a book, doesn't mean that shilling my bid up from $75 isn't stealing.

 

If I would have won a book for $75 in the absence of shilling...the seller stole $25 from me.

 

From your commentary, you'd think you were a lawyer or something.

 

No he didn't.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book.

 

Give me a break. Just because I am willing to pay $100 for a book, doesn't mean that shilling my bid up from $75 isn't stealing.

 

If I would have won a book for $75 in the absence of shilling...the seller stole $25 from me.

 

From your commentary, you'd think you were a lawyer or something.

 

No he didn't.

 

[october]

What I said is that shilling and stealing are not the same thing. Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book.

 

Since when does willingness to pay a certain amount preclude theft? I give my friend $20 for a pizza, a price I am willing to pay. I ask for change if it is cheaper than that. The place is having a sale, he buys the pizza for $10 and pockets the rest. By your logic that isn't stealing.

[FFB]

What I said is that shilling and stealing are not the same thing. Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book.

 

Since when does willingness to pay a certain amount preclude theft? I give my friend $20 for a pizza, a price I am willing to pay. I ask for change if it is cheaper than that. The place is having a sale, he buys the pizza for $10 and pockets the rest. By your logic that isn't stealing.

 

That isn't what I said and that is a terrible analogy. Nice straw man argument. Come on, Andy.

[Excelsior!-migration]

This is news to me. I thought the problem with shilling is that it allows a seller to set a de facto reserve on a book without paying eBay the reserve fee of a buck or two. In other words, it is "eBay Reserve Fee Avoidance," not "STEALING." No one forced the bidder to bid higher. The bidder probably would have been willing to bid the same amount if the reserve had been set at the same level as the highest shill bid. Maybe not, but in most cases I would think so. and for all of you holier-than-thou types who STILL want to set Dan on fire for what he did, I can only hope that one day Redhook gets a hold of your high school buddies and starts dishing the dirt.

 

Moreover, the issue of shilling is not as black and white as some think. The idea that shilling is always stealing is absurd. In this case it is certainly not stealing. Not right, probably, but not stealing.

 

I admire some of the forumites loyalty to FD but some comments to mitigate his transgressions do not sit well with me. Shill bidding is unethical and some can rationalize that all they want. I have paid more for books due to shill bidding. Here is an example (twinvlys and shad464 shill bidder )

 

I have very low tolerance for deceptive practices and I report it when it comes to my attention. It has nothing to do with “holier than thou attitude." I commend DM226 for bringing this issue to my attention. Deceit and lies assume "lives of their own" and result in consequences that people do not intend. I am sure FD now understands the consequences of his actions.

.

 

No one said shilling was ok. What I said is that shilling and stealing are not the same thing. Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book. No one stole money from you. Would you have paid the same amount if there had been a reserve, but not another bidder bidding on the book? If not, then what the heck were you doing bidding that much in the first place? Trying to keep the other guy from winning?

 

Again,

 

shilling is not ok

 

shilling is not ok

 

shilling is not ok.

 

But,

 

Shilling is also not the same thing as "stealing."

 

And,

 

It's ok to forgive someone you think is a fundamentally good person even if they do something bad and even if they initially lie about it and even if their eventual apology for it sucks.

 

I am not a lawyer, but to shill someone seems very closely related to stealing IMHO.

 

shill - One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

 

swin·dle - To cheat or defraud of money or property.

To obtain by fraudulent means: swindled money from the company.

 

de·fraud -To take something from by fraud; swindle: defrauded the immigrants by selling them worthless land deeds.

 

steal -To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

 

Synonyms: abduct, appropriate, bag, blackmail, burglarize, carry off, cheat, cozen, crib, defraud, despoil, divert, embezzle, filch, fleece, heist, hold up, housebreak, keep, kidnap, lift, loot, misappropriate, nick, peculate, pilfer, pillage, pinch, pirate, plagiarize, plunder, poach, purloin, ransack, remove, rifle, rip off, sack, shanghai, shoplift, snitch, spirit away, stick up, strip, swindle, swipe, take, thieve, withdraw

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

What I said is that shilling and stealing are not the same thing. Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book.

 

Since when does willingness to pay a certain amount preclude theft? I give my friend $20 for a pizza, a price I am willing to pay. I ask for change if it is cheaper than that. The place is having a sale, he buys the pizza for $10 and pockets the rest. By your logic that isn't stealing.

 

That isn't what I said and that is a terrible analogy. Nice straw man argument. Come on, Andy.

 

And I commend you on the circular logic involved in your comments.

 

Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book. No one stole money from you. Would you have paid the same amount if there had been a reserve, but not another bidder bidding on the book? If not, then what the heck were you doing bidding that much in the first place? Trying to keep the other guy from winning?

 

[october]

What I said is that shilling and stealing are not the same thing. Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book.

 

Since when does willingness to pay a certain amount preclude theft? I give my friend $20 for a pizza, a price I am willing to pay. I ask for change if it is cheaper than that. The place is having a sale, he buys the pizza for $10 and pockets the rest. By your logic that isn't stealing.

 

That isn't what I said and that is a terrible analogy. Nice straw man argument. Come on, Andy.

 

It doesn't have to be a perfect analogy and if you think I used a straw man it was certainly not intentional. Your post reads like you don't think shilling is theft because the buyer was "willing" to pay that amount regardless of who bid. Technically that's true, but so what? The fact remains that shilling artificially inflates the price of an auction using unfair means. The seller is unjustly enriched and the buyer is out more money than they would have been absent the shilling. That sounds like theft to me, or at least fraud.

[FFB]

What I said is that shilling and stealing are not the same thing. Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book.

 

Since when does willingness to pay a certain amount preclude theft? I give my friend $20 for a pizza, a price I am willing to pay. I ask for change if it is cheaper than that. The place is having a sale, he buys the pizza for $10 and pockets the rest. By your logic that isn't stealing.

 

That isn't what I said and that is a terrible analogy. Nice straw man argument. Come on, Andy.

 

And I commend you on the circular logic involved in your comments.

 

Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book. No one stole money from you. Would you have paid the same amount if there had been a reserve, but not another bidder bidding on the book? If not, then what the heck were you doing bidding that much in the first place? Trying to keep the other guy from winning?

 

 

If that's what you're calling "circular logic," then someone needs to explain the concept of circular logic to you.

[THE_BEYONDER]

What I said is that shilling and stealing are not the same thing. Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book.

 

Since when does willingness to pay a certain amount preclude theft? I give my friend $20 for a pizza, a price I am willing to pay. I ask for change if it is cheaper than that. The place is having a sale, he buys the pizza for $10 and pockets the rest. By your logic that isn't stealing.

 

That isn't what I said and that is a terrible analogy. Nice straw man argument. Come on, Andy.

 

And I commend you on the circular logic involved in your comments.

 

Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book. No one stole money from you. Would you have paid the same amount if there had been a reserve, but not another bidder bidding on the book? If not, then what the heck were you doing bidding that much in the first place? Trying to keep the other guy from winning?

 

 

If that's what you're calling "circular logic," then someone needs to explain the concept of circular logic to you.

 

You're right...it's not circular . In fact...your comments have nothing to do with logic at all.

[FFB]

What I said is that shilling and stealing are not the same thing. Whether you were shilled or not, you paid a price you were willing to pay for a book.

 

Since when does willingness to pay a certain amount preclude theft? I give my friend $20 for a pizza, a price I am willing to pay. I ask for change if it is cheaper than that. The place is having a sale, he buys the pizza for $10 and pockets the rest. By your logic that isn't stealing.

 

That isn't what I said and that is a terrible analogy. Nice straw man argument. Come on, Andy.

 

It doesn't have to be a perfect analogy and if you think I used a straw man it was certainly not intentional. Your post reads like you don't think shilling is theft because the buyer was "willing" to pay that amount regardless of who bid. Technically that's true, but so what? The fact remains that shilling artificially inflates the price of an auction using unfair means. The seller is unjustly enriched and the buyer is out more money than they would have been absent the shilling. That sounds like theft to me, or at least fraud.

 

You haven't defined "theft" or "fraud" yet (two different concepts, as you may know). I haven't said that shilling isn't "dishonest" nor have I said that it isn't "unfair," nor have I said that it isn't "illegal," nor have I said "shillers rule, dude!" nor have I advocated the creation of a new national holiday called "Take an eBay Shiller to Lunch Day." What is said is, shilling is bad, but just because it's bad does not mean that it amounts to "stealing."

 

If you and Chris want to keep debating these semantics with me, fine. We can go around and around and around on this issue forever. (I don't see the point, since I'm not trying to convince you that shilling is "OK" or "not a bad thing," but whatever.) But don't use poor analogies or put words into my mouth just for the sake of winning a semantical argument.

[october]

You haven't defined "theft" or "fraud" yet (two different concepts, as you may know).

 

I was trying to avoid legal definitions and just stay within the realm of common usage. We could get technical and delve into some legal circle jerk, but I doubt either of us want to get into that on a comic book message board

 

I haven't said that shilling isn't "dishonest" nor have I said that it isn't "unfair," nor have I said that it isn't "illegal," nor have I said "shillers rule, dude!" nor have I advocated the creation of a new national holiday called "Take an eBay Shiller to Lunch Day."

 

I never claimed you said shilling was ok, why even bring it up? Can the hyperbole, Scott.

 

If you and Chris want to keep debating these semantics with me, fine.

 

Not really, I suppose debate is pretty pointless. Then again, this board thrives on pointless arguing.