NOS Grafton Re-entry levers - £280 and rising

[dyna-ti]

You see, there's hardly any good coming from such things. Yes, I come from Germany, too. Do you see the pattern?

Look, it is important for everyone to respect anyones personal rights. I for myself am standing up for that.

You are from Germany yes.But i dont see a question leading to that answer. :?

Im for the personal rights of members not to be scammed.

 

[supremate]

Well, perhaps I should make it clearer: It is not the issue, that everyone has the right not to get scammed, that goes without saying. It is the issue, that you can't justify harming someones rights because he might have done so to others, in bad cases by vague indication. In history this has lead to selfjustice, witch-hunt and other things like that. This is a very sensible thing, and the reason why there is an independent instance of judiciary established, which acts solely independent of the person by guaranteeing any humans personal rights, and where the presence of a solicitor to the defendant does not say anything of what he might have done or not, but does guarantee his independent personal rights by the society, equally as are the ones of the injured person. That balances the powers, since you are unguilty by default.

As a sidenote: there are individual rights that are more fundamental than others. Everywhere in justice different rights of different people are weighed against each other, also Schiller wrote "one mans freedom ends where another man's begins". While it is certainly regretable, that there was some material loss for some ebay-members, an individuals dignity, which I see in danger here, is more fundamental. As I said, it is a personal right which we all have to respect. Btw. in Germany's constitution it is the very first line

 

[Rod_Saetan]

So it was you right?

 

[SouthCoastRetro]

BUUUUUUNNNNNNDDDDLLLLLLLLLEE!!!!!

 

[supremate]

So it was you right?

No, I'm not involved. I thought my post has made my intentions clear.

But while we are at it, there's maybe another thing one should consider on the matter: I said that this scheme is just another version of ending an auction early.

In the present scheme the auction literally ends at an early point, where the price is still low, plus other bidders don't have a chance to get the item any more (yes they still can bid higher, but lets forget that for a moment). This is similarly done by any early low-ball BIN offering. Or it is done by snapping up something for a low price on the flea market without telling the seller the true value, in which case he wouldn't have sold it that cheap. All those schemes have in common, that you have advanced knowledge of some sort the seller doesn't have, which you use to have some gain while the seller has loss. This information asymmetry in itself is quite problematic, since the line between intentionally using advanced knowledge to earn money (a job), and a scam is a slippery slope. The scammed person looses money because of intentionally hidden information, as well as your client looses money because you don't teach him how to solve his problem as you could, so he pays you.

The present scheme is unethical in terms of fairness as is any low-ball BIN offer or some cheap flea market pick up, but it still used the official ebay tools, just as some low-ball BINs use ebays own messaging system. That the scheme is considered as a loophole is all but common, since using "holes" that nobody has filled before is an official way to earn money on a market.

By now the similarity to the well known low-ball BIN should be clear, so keep in mind what you do here fits for many members. Of course it is easy to point your finger at those few that are more different than others, but you know, the chain is forged with the first link...

As it happens we are conflicting here some community, or "Karma", ethics with the implifications of capitalism and money mechanics, which affects all of us, too. So my advise would be plain and simple: keep it outside retrobike, and inside ebay, just where it belongs.

 

[tintin40]

So what happened to the sale of the levers in the end?

 

[heartbreaker]

Yawn breath.

 

[mfh126]

So it was you right?

No, I'm not involved. I thought my post has made my intentions clear.

But while we are at it, there's maybe another thing one should consider on the matter: I said that this scheme is just another version of ending an auction early.

Nope, not even close. The shill bidding scheme is an attempt to screw over the seller by engaging in an act of deceit. Whereas ending an auction early usually only happens when a buyer makes a fair offer to the seller. For someone who wasn't involved in the scheme, you sure sound very defensive.

 

[Rod_Saetan]

So it was you?

 

[supremate]

The shill bidding scheme is an attempt to screw over the seller by engaging in an act of deceit.

A low-ball BIN offer has the same attempt, since it intentionally hides relevant information regarding the final items value to seek personal gain.

Whereas ending an auction early usually only happens when a buyer makes a fair offer to the seller.

Well, a public auction is as fair as it gets, isn't it? Also, what the seller considers as fair does depend on his knowledge. That knowledge is e.g. formed by letting the auction run. The person, who suggests the early ending, seems to have interest in avoiding that fair and public bidding, and he does so for his own gain, not for the sellers. Fair?
So you might speak of a seller that knows the value of his, say, bicycling goods. If you look on the pages of many of them you will find a note like "Please don't make any low ball offers" or "I will not end the auction early." Why?

It looks a bit like we are loosing the point here, since comparing one unfair behaviour to another and saying which is worse is not fruitful. What I was talking about is purely different in nature and sounds like this:

For someone who wasn't involved in the scheme, you sure sound very defensive.

Here we have how those things evolve. It's clear that I serve as a target, since I seem to stand on the wrong side. Did I mention vage indications? Witch-hunt? Harsh words, I know. But think about it.

Look, as I said there are rights that are fundamental and invulnerable, they must be respected anytime from all of us. I am defending these personal rights here, no less. Think about that as motivation if it helps you to draw a line between me and those scammers and to open up your mind. I consider standing up for that as quite naturally and important, since rights are lost in the long run when not kept up everytime, and the freedom of all of us depends on the freedom of any individual. Even if that single one steals apples, scams others, or does nothing at all, it doesn't matter for that fact. He has invulnerable rights.