Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

You can't fight city hall- eBay protecting large sellers and shillers (probstein content)

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Luck15Hope

New member
Jan 11, 2012
140
0
Ok guy. You keep beating your head against that wall and see where it gets you. Good luck to you.
OK fellow. Ill continue to keep calm and raise concern without anger and unhappiness. All the while you keep spreading ignorance. Good luck to you as well.
 

Matsuicollector

New member
Aug 7, 2008
1,557
0
I get that from your post here, "This is the part where complaining about shilling runs into a problem in my opinion. It seems like you won all cards for at or below market price based on your statement and were happy with the prices."
You clearly say that you have a problem with people complaining about shilling if they win the cards for current market value and were happy and ok with those prices. To what extent the "impact" of the shill bad had on the market value of a cards is completely irrelevant. The FACT of that matter is that there was a shill bid that is against eBay policy and should not be tolerated in any form. No matter the "impact" it had on the auction.
If you werent defending shilling, my apologies to you, but you sure made it clear that you felt otherwise.

I see where the confusion was. I wasn't saying that I had a problem with people complaining about it in the sense that they should keep their mouth shut and move on and be happy with their purchase as they got it for what it's worth. I agree that he has a right to be upset, and I would be too. Sure, shilling is a problem and the fact that ebay did nothing to look into it and manipulated the feedback is egregious.

I guess the "complaining" I was talking about was more so along the lines of specifying an exact dollar amount of loss and trying to seek repercussions for it. Along these lines, my point was that it becomes difficult to say how much impact the shiller truly would have had on the final sale price had they not bid at all. It sounded as if the OPs ideal resolution for the matter would be if he was compensated for the difference between the prior bid and the shill bid. If this was the case, then the seller would take a greater portion of actual losses, because, as I was trying to point out, other bids may have gone through raising the final price. Maybe not for every shilled card, but probably some of them. This is the problem I was trying to point out. Is it fair that a seller takes this loss vs a buyer?
 

Luck15Hope

New member
Jan 11, 2012
140
0
I see where the confusion was. I wasn't saying that I had a problem with people complaining about it in the sense that they should keep their mouth shut and move on and be happy with their purchase as they got it for what it's worth. I agree that he has a right to be upset, and I would be too. Sure, shilling is a problem and the fact that ebay did nothing to look into it and manipulated the feedback is egregious.

I guess the "complaining" I was talking about was more so along the lines of specifying an exact dollar amount of loss and trying to seek repercussions for it. Along these lines, my point was that it becomes difficult to say how much impact the shiller truly would have had on the final sale price had they not bid at all. It sounded as if the OPs ideal resolution for the matter would be if he was compensated for the difference between the prior bid and the shill bid. If this was the case, then the seller would take a greater portion of actual losses, because, as I was trying to point out, other bids may have gone through raising the final price. Maybe not for every shilled card, but probably some of them. This is the problem I was trying to point out. Is it fair that a seller takes this loss vs a buyer?
I understand you now that youve made yourself more clear. Thanks. To the bold part, I would have to argue, YES the seller should take the loss in the scenario that you have presented. Whether that be a money loss, or a loss(punishment) from eBay as a result of them violating eBays shilling policy. The buyer has done nothing wrong. He has rather been wronged by the shill bid causing the price he is to pay to be significantly larger than what he would have paid had the shill bid not been placed. The "what if" bids can not be accounted for, so should not be included in the argument because there is no evidence that they would have been placed. The seller, however, has done something wrong by allowing shilling to take place in one of his auctions, which is against the eBay policy that every seller agrees to abide by in order to become a seller. Either two things should happen in the type of scenario you have presented. The seller should refund the amount the auction was at before the shill bid had been placed, if no other real bids were placed between the previous real bid and the shill bid. Or, eBay should take action against the seller for allowing the shill bid to occur during their auction per their eBay policy below.
Violations of this policy may result in a range of actions, including:


  • Listing cancellation
  • Forfeit of eBay fees on cancelled listings
  • Limits on account privileges
  • Loss of PowerSeller status
  • Account suspension
  • Referral to Law Enforcement
 
Last edited:

Matsuicollector

New member
Aug 7, 2008
1,557
0
I understand you now that youve made yourself more clear. Thanks. To the bold part, I would have to argue, YES the seller should take the loss in the scenario that you have presented. Whether that be a money loss, or a loss(punishment) from eBay as a result of them violating eBays shilling policy. The buyer has done nothing wrong. He has rather been wronged by the shill bid causing the price he is to pay to be significantly larger than what he would have paid had the shill bid not been placed. The "what if" bids can not be accounted for, so should not be included in the argument because there is no evidence that they would have been placed. The seller, however, has done something wrong by allowing shilling to take place in one of his auctions, which is against the eBay policy that every seller agrees to abide by in order to become a seller. Either two things should happen in the type of scenario you have presented. The seller should refund the amount the auction was at before the shill bid had been placed, if no other real bids were placed between the previous real bid and the shill bid. Or, eBay should take action against the seller for allowing the shill bid to occur during their auction per their eBay policy below.
Violations of this policy may result in a range of actions, including:


  • Listing cancellation
  • Forfeit of eBay fees on cancelled listings
  • Limits on account privileges
  • Loss of PowerSeller status
  • Account suspension
  • Referral to Law Enforcement

I find the above in bold to be problematic. I'm not sure how much control a seller has over shilling. Sure one could take steps to deter shilling, but without ebays support, the seller cannot PROVE a shill occured (i.e. associating the shiller account with the consigner) and thus cannot take additional steps to stop it (i.e. give the consigner a warning and then afterwards stop doing business with said consigner). And then you also have the situation where the shiller is neither related to the seller or consigner, but is someone in the community trying to raise prices. What do you do then? Obviously the shiller needs to be punished, but how does that factor into trying to resolve losses among the buyer and seller? The reason I bring up "what if" bids is that in the case where the seller has to refund the difference, the only person who is at any position to take a loss is the seller. Removing ourselves from the lack of response by this particular seller and the fact that this particular seller has had many instances of questionable auctions, is this something that the general seller should be taking losses for?
 

Luck15Hope

New member
Jan 11, 2012
140
0
I find the above in bold to be problematic. I'm not sure how much control a seller has over shilling. Sure one could take steps to deter shilling, but without ebays support, the seller cannot PROVE a shill occured (i.e. associating the shiller account with the consigner) and thus cannot take additional steps to stop it (i.e. give the consigner a warning and then afterwards stop doing business with said consigner). And then you also have the situation where the shiller is neither related to the seller or consigner, but is someone in the community trying to raise prices. What do you do then? Obviously the shiller needs to be punished, but how does that factor into trying to resolve losses among the buyer and seller? The reason I bring up "what if" bids is that in the case where the seller has to refund the difference, the only person who is at any position to take a loss is the seller. Removing ourselves from the lack of response by this particular seller and the fact that this particular seller has had many instances of questionable auctions, is this something that the general seller should be taking losses for?

I agree with you to an extent on the first bold part. The seller does not, by any rule, owe the buyer any compensation, or price reduction for the shill bid. He however is responsible for the shill bidding taken place during his auction. That is a fact. The problem of connecting the dots on the shiller and seller/consigner should be up to eBay to investigate and Im confident in their ability to do so when they want to. The actions against the seller should be taken against them by eBay per the shilling policy that Ive posted above.

The second bold part: You keep bringing up the idea that the seller is taking "losses". In the OP's scenario he was only bid up by the shill bid, not any other real bids. Therefore what the seller would "lose" in your mind would be the amount to refund the winner to the previous amount prior to the shill bid. The seller, however, would not be taking a loss in that scenario as you claim because the shill bid was a false bid and the auction would not have reached the winning amount had that shill bid not been placed. For the sake of our argument here, lets omit the idea of the seller having to refund any difference to remedy the situation as that is not a rule of any sort. Lets focus more on the fact of the violation of eBays shilling policy committed by the seller, regardless of his knowledge of the shill by the consignee or whomever. You have not responded to that aspect of the argument which is the main concern of this thread. That eBay fails to protect buyers when a sellers auction violate eBays shilling policy. In fact, went out of their way to remove negative feedback from the buyer who was not satisfied with winning an auction that violated eBays shilling policy.
 
Last edited:

Matsuicollector

New member
Aug 7, 2008
1,557
0
I agree with you to an extent on the first bold part. The seller does not, by any rule, owe the buyer any compensation, or price reduction for the shill bid. He however is responsible for the shill bidding taken place during his auction. That is a fact. The problem of connecting the dots on the shiller and seller/consigner should be up to eBay to investigate and Im confident in their ability to do so when they want to. The actions against the seller should be taken against them by eBay per the shilling policy that Ive posted above.

The second bold part: You keep bringing up the idea that the seller is taking "losses". In the OP's scenario he was only bid up by the shill bid, not any other real bids. Therefore what the seller would "lose" in your mind would be the amount to refund the winner to the previous amount prior to the shill bid. The seller, however, would not be taking a loss in that scenario as you claim because the shill bid was a false bid and the auction would not have reached the winning amount had that shill bid not been placed. For the sake of our argument here, lets omit the idea of the seller having to refund any difference to remedy the situation as that is not a rule of any sort. Lets focus more on the fact of the violation of eBays shilling policy committed by the seller, regardless of his knowledge of the shill by the consignee or whomever. You have not responded to that aspect of the argument which is the main concern of this thread. That eBay fails to protect buyers when a sellers auction violate eBays shilling policy. In fact, went out of their way to remove negative feedback from the buyer who was not satisfied with winning an auction that violated eBays shilling policy.

I don't think a seller should be held responsible for shilling by unknown parties, and I don't think the ebay rules were meant to punish sellers for unknown shillers either. Previously you posted the rules on shilling and the repercussions as per ebay. To me, those rules and repercussions seem to directed towards sellers PURPOSEFULLY manipulating their own auctions through their own accounts or accounts of others shilling FOR them.
 

Luck15Hope

New member
Jan 11, 2012
140
0
I don't think a seller should be held responsible for shilling by unknown parties, and I don't think the ebay rules were meant to punish sellers for unknown shillers either. Previously you posted the rules on shilling and the repercussions as per ebay. To me, those rules and repercussions seem to directed towards sellers PURPOSEFULLY manipulating their own auctions through their own accounts or accounts of others shilling FOR them.

The "unknown parties" aspect of your statement is just an assumption and still can not be used as an excuse for the sellers who sell on consignment. Those who sell on consignment are responsible for any shill bids made on those items by, as ebay calls them, "agents", "that is, people who are working with or on behalf of the seller".
Reference: eBays shill bidding policy tutorial: [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"[/FONT]
eBay listings provide a means for sellers to offer items to a global community of potential buyers. To enable the success of this global marketplace, buyers must have faith in the integrity and fairness of the marketplace. Any bidding on a seller's listings by "agents" of the seller—that is, people who are working with or on behalf of the seller—distorts the marketplace and is a violation of eBay's shill bidding policy."
In this instance, the person who is the owner of the card is the "agent" who is working with the consigner to sell his card. Even though the consigner may be unaware of the fact that the "agent" is using his services to shill his own item is irrelevant. The seller is still at fault because the "agent" was used to artificially increase the price of the item regardless of whether he may or may not have known about it. The seller is still accountable and is still subject to violations of the shilling policy.
 
Last edited:

Matsuicollector

New member
Aug 7, 2008
1,557
0
The "unknown parties" aspect of your statement is just an assumption and still can not be used as an excuse for the sellers who sell on consignment. Those who sell on consignment are responsible for any shill bids made on those items by, as ebay calls them, "agents", "that is, people who are working with or on behalf of the seller".
Reference: eBays shill bidding policy tutorial: "
eBay listings provide a means for sellers to offer items to a global community of potential buyers. To enable the success of this global marketplace, buyers must have faith in the integrity and fairness of the marketplace. Any bidding on a seller's listings by "agents" of the seller—that is, people who are working with or on behalf of the seller—distorts the marketplace and is a violation of eBay's shill bidding policy."
In this instance, the person who is the owner of the card is the "agent" who is working with the consigner to sell his card. Even though the consigner may be unaware of the fact that the "agent" is using his services to shill his own item is irrelevant. The seller is still at fault and subject to eBays shilling policy violations.

I guess my problem with this is who gets punished, and how that takes places. In the case of a seller having a known agent shill his auction, punishment as stated in the ebay rules is completely warranted. In the case of a consignee shilling for a consigner unbeknownst to said consigner, I also agree that the consigner has a responsibility to police this, but the question then becomes how much responsibility and how should they be held accountable. I don't neccessarily think they fall into the same category as those who purposefully have their auction shilled.

The only way for a seller to police this in my opinion, would be for the seller to sign a contract with the buyer stating some sort of repercussion for shilling their auction, whether that be profit forfeiture, etc. However, the only way to PROVE an item is shilled would be for ebay to investigate. You then run into the problem of people claiming auctions are shilled, and ebay having to put man hours into investigations. Which claims does ebay pursue? Do they pursue all? I can't even imagine how many claims buyers will submit, warranted or not. I realize there are major problems with the system. But so far, I have seen no reasonable solutions.
 

Luck15Hope

New member
Jan 11, 2012
140
0
I guess my problem with this is who gets punished, and how that takes places. In the case of a seller having a known agent shill his auction, punishment as stated in the ebay rules is completely warranted. In the case of a consignee shilling for a consigner unbeknownst to said consigner, I also agree that the consigner has a responsibility to police this, but the question then becomes how much responsibility and how should they be held accountable. I don't neccessarily think they fall into the same category as those who purposefully have their auction shilled.

The only way for a seller to police this in my opinion, would be for the seller to sign a contract with the buyer stating some sort of repercussion for shilling their auction, whether that be profit forfeiture, etc. However, the only way to PROVE an item is shilled would be for ebay to investigate. You then run into the problem of people claiming auctions are shilled, and ebay having to put man hours into investigations. Which claims does ebay pursue? Do they pursue all? I can't even imagine how many claims buyers will submit, warranted or not. I realize there are major problems with the system. But so far, I have seen no reasonable solutions.

eBay pays employees to do just this. That is their job. Not something that they would have to go out of their way to enforce. They pursue them all and dismiss the ones that are not warranted and take the appropriate action against the ones who violate the policies. I cant imagine how many claims they are receiving either, but they should all be looked into and some should not be ignored or dismissed just because they have a high volume of complaints. The reasonable solution is simple. If eBay does their job, then problem solved. It is clear that they always do not hold up their end of the enforcing bargain. eBay allows these problems to continue by not enforcing their own policies, plain and simple.
 

homerun28aa

Active member
Jun 8, 2011
19,072
8
It's the same outcome. The similarities end there.

Pretty surprised by your take on shilling TBH.

When it's a reserve price, you're aware that there is a reserve. With shilling, you are in a no reserve auction thinking that you're going up against other rational bidders. The problem is that one of the bidders is not a rational bidder because he isn't trying to win the auction for his max price, he's trying to run everyone else up. I don't agree that it's the same concept at all shilling is deceitful plain and simple and to argue otherwise is head scratching.
 

Joey_peapod

Active member
Jan 27, 2014
687
30
You beat the dead horse, cooked it, re generated it, and then beat it to death AGAIN.

its simple, assume everyone shills and bid what you would pay. I make $200 minumum a week on badly listed auctions and that's just on one player. There is no way he can police his 25,000 auction. Hell he takes up to a year to list,sometimes the people don't even know it's their card!
 

Members online

Top