NOS Grafton Re-entry levers - £280 and rising

[Rod_Saetan]

I see.

It was you.

 

[mfh126]

This will be my last post on this subject. I have more important things to do.

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.

No, it is not the same as schill bidding. When making an offer, the buyer is openly discussing a final price with the seller. Again, schill bidding is a scam to hide the final selling price from the seller, and scare away any other potential bidders by jacking the price very high very early. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

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?

Perhaps, but at least when an offer is made the seller has an opportunity to decide for himself whether or not to accept it. If he doesn't want to take offers, he can put that info into the auction as you indicated. Even if he isn't educated on the fair value of an item, he has the option to decide to accept the offer, be it a good or bad decision.

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.

It's interesting that you keep harping about "rights" as if these scammers have a "right" to engage in the elicit practices of deceit. I think you're in the minority with your viewpoints, but you have a "right" to your opinion.

And regarding one of your previous comments...

I don't see why on this retrobike site ebay problems should be sorted, really. Point is, there's hardly any good coming from things or behaviour like that.

We're discussing these Ebay problems because we're a community of (mostly) like-minded people here on Retrobike who watch out for each other. We don't like to see anyone get scammed since many of us also buy/sell on Ebay. You don't need to stick around if it bothers you.

 

[IDB1]

Well I would like to know which buyers/sellers to avoid regardless of where they trade.. as I'm fairly sure the majority would.

 

[supremate]

It's interesting that you keep harping about "rights" as if these scammers have a "right" to engage in the elicit practices of deceit. I think you're in the minority with your viewpoints, but you have a "right" to your opinion.

This is not my viewpoint. As I said, it is not the issue, that everyone has the right not to get scammed, that goes without saying. It is the issue to respect any individuals personal rights.
I'm sorry that I could not make you leave your linear perspective. There are two different things we are dealing with, not just one. They are different, both carry the word "right". One is the right not to get scammed, the other is any individuals personal right.

And regarding one of your previous comments...

I don't see why on this retrobike site ebay problems should be sorted, really. Point is, there's hardly any good coming from things or behaviour like that.

We're discussing these Ebay problems because we're a community of (mostly) like-minded people here on Retrobike who watch out for each other. We don't like to see anyone get scammed since many of us also buy/sell on Ebay. You don't need to stick around if it bothers you.

There's certainly all easy going in discussing ebay problems, I for myself as part of this community do this here, too. And to care for each other is an important thing, I do nothing different here btw.
But there's a point when you leave some general discussion and story telling, and get into someones personal area and might harm his personal rights. This point is where you should stop. This does not mean that the actual scam should not be sorted. But this is the part of the people actually involved, and not ours in general.

 

[uno-speedo]

and get into someones personal area and might harm his personal rights.

personal rights!?! ha-ha, comical to say the least.

 

[hollister]

name and shame

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

Spill the beans.

+1

What would you gain from that after all? Think about it, it has quite some similarities to to pillory someone, hasn't it?

I'm waiting to see if he will grace us with a mea culpa,...

else you do what? I don't see what puts you, or generally "us", in the position to await some apologies in that matter.

Also, site administrator and perhaps a mod or two, will be privy, since they might know of a situation where this information might be useful.

Sounds suspicious, what would that situation be like? Doesn't sound good to me either.

Look, you are close to punishing someone, you already indicated it by some sort of last respite. Problem is you are neither police nor justice, not even involved as I can see. Neither is the retrobike staff you are trying to ally with.

The problem appeared on ebay, and ebay has employees to deal with such problems in the context of law written down. I don't see why on this retrobike site ebay problems should be sorted, really. Point is, there's hardly any good coming from things or behaviour like that.

Look, this is a fun site, isn't it? And btw., this scheme is just another version of ending the auction early

You're on this ice. Not me.

I have an email directly from odessitka42 sent to me regarding a set of levers I had on ebay in August of last year. In this email, (from the ebay system, so not faked), he introduces himself as a fellow Retrobike member, by the name of __________, and then proceeds to low ball me for the part I'm selling. I understand that lowballing, while crude, is a form of negotiation, so I thank him, and let him know I'll consider it. At the same time, another member expresses interest, and has gone through some things, so I sell it to him. odessitka42 writes me again to ask if the levers are still available, but they are not.
Flash forward, I'm reading this thread, and remember the name; search through my old emails (I don't delete ebay emails since they go straight to a separate folder; they just get old, but I can search them whenever I want), and sure enough there's the name "odessitka42". Now I check on the name, and it no longer comes up on the ebay system. So I check this member's items for sale, and crosscheck it with anything on ebay currently, and discover the member is selling his items on ebay, but under a different name; his current ebay name seems to predate his odessitka42 name and has hundreds more feedback.

Now supremate, you want to come after me, for looking out for fellow forum members who might have had negative interactions with odessitka42, and were unable to get info? Try again. I don't know how things are done in Germany, but where I'm from, people look out for each other, while being very slow to snitch. So I'm being careful; discreet, if you will. I'm no one's judge, and he doesn't owe me an "apology", but perhaps it would be in his good interest to say, "that's me, and I can explain..."
I was a long time member of Honda-Tech (fairly large forum once upon a time), and the members there were very active when it came to outing scammers, even to the point of gathering a caravan to pay the offending member a visit- there was a certain trust. I'm not suggesting what should be done in this case, only that people be alert. and if anyone has suffered harm on ebay or here, I can possibly help.

I know it seems like I'm teasing by withholding the name, but from the information I've provided, it's not that hard to figure out who it might be, and if it is hard, maybe it should remain that way, till a larger problem arrises. Chances are that if the person had success with his scam, and had his ebay name closed down, or closed it down himself, he would most likely try it again, under a new name. So we should be vigilant in looking out for these types of scams and naming names when current. This one seems to have passed.

Frankly, I'm not sure if I should publicly reveal the name or not. One person asked for proof with this email I received from the seller, and I forwarded the email to him. I have no reason to fabricate this, and part of me is wishing I kept it to myself, cause I'm now in no man's land with this info. Like I said, I'd like the member to just step forward, and explain himself, not because he has to, but because it might be the right thing to do. Then again, who am I. Another issue, can anyone confirm odessitka42 was absolutely in the scam? That's still something I'd like to confirm, as it seems to be the case, but I would just like confirmation.

For the record: supremate is not odessitka42, at least not by what was shared in the email, with me.

 

[supremate]

Thanks for your reply goldenera, I'm glad you jumped into the discussion again. First of all: it should be clear by my postings that there's nothing personal regarding you, and certainly I'm not coming after you. So I hope you understand my postings as a purely factual discussion as they were ment, no way personal. Ok?

Now back to the issue: You told us more about the background of your findings, thanks for that. And you did so while still keeping the person private, using only his/her selfchosen public ebay-identity, which is the relevant one in that matter. This ebay-identity has been outed and reported to ebay as I have read on the first pages. No harm done here, that's the way to go. Now ebay and it's employees know his real name, know the name of the sellers, can identify the other 2 and can act accordingly, they also have to reveal that information to any lawyer contacting them in that matter.

You said you are unsure about whether you should publicly reveal the name or not. Think about why you are hesitating, the cause is most likely what I am talking about. Your motivation for making that persons identity public here on retrobike surely is to give help to the community, which should be fine of course and I must be crazy to opponent this. The problem is, goldenera, you are not involved, not entitled, and you are still acting on vage indications:

...who might have had negative interactions with odessitka42, and were unable to get info?

Why I'm emphasizing "might" should be clear. Lets think about the other part, the members that might be unable to get info otherwise? Well, it should be clear from the scheme, that if you have the name of one of them you get the names of all of them via a lawyer and ebay. Now every seller that has been victim of this scheme has the name of one of the three, which is exactly you want to provide him with. So frankly, if there is any retrobike member, that was victim of such a scheme, there is absolutely no need for what you consider nessessary, since it is already known to him. If you compare your knowledge to the one ebay employees already must have on that matter, it is negligible. So every victim of the scam gets much more information from ebay than from you.
BUT: What, if there is no retrobike member that was victim of the scheme? Your action would nothing but harm a persons private sphere here without having helped anyone. And again: everyone involved acted as ebay member while being involved in the scheme, and not as retrobike member. This distinction is very important in regard to possible consequences for the individual, since those have to be related to the action.

the members there were very active when it came to outing scammers, even to the point of gathering a caravan to pay the offending member a visit

I'm sorry to hear that. I thought I've mentioned selfjustice...


Well, there is something you've said regarding a possible motivation for outing, which I consider quite important:

Chances are that if the person had success with his scam, and had his ebay name closed down, or closed it down himself, he would most likely try it again, under a new name.

May be, but as a constitutional citizen you can not act on that assumption. Even if you were guilty in the past you are unguilty by default in the future. This is fundamental. It is the presumption of innocence I was mentioning before. And acting in foresight of a possible crime is nothing but negating this presumption of innocence and the way to general suspicion.

Look, I'm all with you that those scams never should happen, and that you have to be aware of others doing harm to you or your friends, let alone helping each other out. But as well, you have to be aware of yourself doing harm to others, this is most likely why you hesitate. And of course it would be of great personal extent (word?), if the guy stepped forward to say I apologize to anyone, get back to me to get things sorted. I think he probably would gain much from it in the community than he would loose. But this must be his choice. By your behaviour you seemed to not letting him that choice, indicating a punishment in form of violation of his private sphere which you have no the right to do so. There is a difference between punishing someone for having done something, and to teach him not to do so. Teaching him still respects his personal rights, while punishing doesn't. We are talking of a retrobike member here, and I pretty much think that we teach him in this thread not to do so any more.

 

[IDB1]

as a constitutional citizen you can not act on that assumption. Even if you were guilty in the past you are unguilty by default in the future..

Sorry but.. if someone robbed/scammed/etc. one of my friends last week, I would want to know who it was, if they KNEW 100%, so that I could be wary of them in the future.

The rights of my friends (on and offline) come above a known scammer..

 

[supremate]

Believe me, I understand you, 100%.

The rights of my friends (on and offline) come above a known scammer..

Remember, all people shall be equal before the law, and scamming refers to law, not to friendship. When you say "a known scammer" then this is a stigma. Stigmatising people after they have done a fault negates the idea, that one can apologize for a fault or take on the penalty to be respected part of the community/society again. So when doing so you "outlaw" the people having made a fault without perspective, which leads to more faults. It is not easy, but this, again, is the difference between teaching and punishing. It is not easy to forgive someone else a fault, bu you should be open to it when you expect the other one to excuse.

Again, I completely understand your feelings, IDB1. But we have to be aware of the biblic "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" if we are seeking a better future surrounding us. As a sidenote: As I can see from the general discussion here you have all in hands that you need to be aware of the scam. It also is quite obvious when it appears. And btw., it is more effective to get to know the scam instead of the scammer to be more safe in the future.