So wait ... let me get this straight ...
Everyone on this board condemns shill bidding (with the exception of about 3 people who get roundly attacked in every debate on the topic). You all say it's bad if someone (who does not know your max bid) places bids with the intentional purpose of making you pay more. (Even though the shill bidder may never guess your highest price).
BUT you all think it's okay that Ebay (who knows your highest price to the penny) gives you an option to buy the item at the equivalent of the shill bid price - instead of at price you would have won the auction at the very first time. (The potential other snipes between $330 and $410 argument is weak as I have a last second snipe set - they would have already been in by that point. That's a red herring. And what about if there were no other snipes? You assume there are but that's not the case for a lot, if not the vast majority, of items.)
And to be clear, the point I'm making - which seems lost on people in the thread - is NOT whether I should have accepted the offer or not. Or the price paid for the item. Those are both irrelevant.
The point is - Ebay is acting exactly as a shill bidder does. Their Second Chance operating practice has EXACTLY the same effect as being shill bid against. You are forced to pay your maximum price by having fictitious bids placed against you. Everyone condemns shill bidding by individuals. But as long as Ebay gives you an option - you think it's okay that they shill bid in the Second Chance offer because you can always decline and try to win the fair auction a second time ... after the "fair" auction you already won had nonpaying bidders that prevented you from winning it at the fair price the first time.
Wow.
|