ultimately the only thing they will get Brent on is he over inflated the value of his Vault to get bank loans, paid all the loans back and no banks complaining but then charged civilly for overstating the value of his Vault............

I want to know how eBay, acting against their own best interest in kicking out their biggest moneymaker in cards, was wrong when they very publicly accused Brent of shilling and kicked him to the curb. I'm sure there is also a conspiracy afoot here to dupe the card collecting public into believing the mountains of evidence.

I don't think Brent attempted to overthrow the government though, so he might be safe?

They very much did not accuse Brent of shilling. Read their statement again. eBay couldn't give two shits about shill bidding. There are numerous reasons why eBay might have pulled this move. But going after PWCC for "shill bidding" could not possibly have been one of them.

Maybe all of the reporting is wrong, but they all seem to refer to shill bidding.

Here's an example:

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/...l-bidding.html

A Pre-War Card , :
 

..[IMG]http:/http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...NGLING_NEW.JPG imagehost.vendio.com/a/2042957/view/YUENGLING_NEW.JPG[/IMG]

..The Yuengling family switched from beer to , among other things , ice cream , after "Prohibition "....... This is "Swede" , who attended The Hill School , ( very pricey ) , which was made famous disguised as " Pencey Prep" by Holden Caulfield and J.D, Salinger.


..Every thread needs an obscure post card once every 4 million words.

..

In an email to buyers Tuesday, the marketplace said “it was determined that individuals associated with a trading card seller, PWCC, have engaged in ‘shill bidding,’ which is prohibited on eBay. As a result, eBay has restricted PWCC’s selling privileges and listings, effective today.” The company declined to elaborate on its statement. PWCC also denied the accusation which Travis says was never made.

In a statement to its clients, first reported by the website Action Network, PWCC accused eBay of making a “defamatory” accusation and acting in “bad faith.” PWCC said it is considering “all available legal options.”

Travis seems to inhabit an alternate universe sometimes.

Happens Often.
 

;;.. You can decriminalize shill bidding by just thinking about it.

..

This. It was surprising when it happened, that eBay not only kicked them off but very publicly made such an accusation that could bring liability to them if it wasn't true.

Claiming they did not do this is, simply, straight up lying. Which, to be fair, is about the only way one can pretend PWCC is the victim and there's no problem.

Not sure it should shock anyone that Travis is a staunch denier of information that has been put out there about PWCC and their business model. He has openly admitted that he benefits from doing business with them. They are not for me but lots of people feel the way about PWCC that Travis does. Travis seems more accepting or tolerant of some things in the hobby that more traditional collectors are not ok with.

They did not specifically accuse BRENT is probably what we'll hear back, so what he said was literally partially true. Of course harder to defend the lie that shill bidding had nothing to do with the press release since it mentions it specifically. Unless part two of the BS spin is that Travis somehow knows that was all a pretext.

:rolleyes:

I think you’ve got his schtick mastered. How many posts until he challenges to a vague wager?

Of course that's what you'll hear back because that's OBVIOUSLY what I said. We've been sitting here discussing Brent specifically and what he may or may not have done for two pages now. Then someone who lacks reading comprehension skills pipes in with "ebay said BRENT was shill bidding". I responded with, "no they didn't", and you clowns run with it like you always do. Then somehow you guys turns into me denying that ebay sent out a letter stating "individuals associated with PWCC engaged in shill bidding."

Most of your post was denying the statement had anything to do with shill bidding. That was certainly what you implied, not the wordsmithing parsing spin you are putting on it now. You're a bullshit artist. It's like me proclaiming, the Declaration of Independence never said all men were created equal.

🤣

So now reading comprehension is a "shtick"?

First, let's be clear. eBay's letter makes zero accusations against anyone beyond its own users, let alone any PWCC employee. The wording is intentionally vague. If you want to try to argue that it was in reference to a known PWCC employee, have at it. But if you want to twist it into any specific individual, let alone Brent himself, then you're just straight up lying now.

This is exactly the type of conversation that I find so irritating around here. You guys just twist everything anyone says and this nonsense just builds and builds.

Well Peter, you nailed it 100% exact.

I don't know the details on the ebay/PWCC fiasco.....
 

but from what I've seen on various social media platforms/forums, if a seller uses any of the words bro/brah/sir/yessir/boss excessively, or claims that they'll send tracking later in the day because they're at work and the wife/girlfriend sent it out a couple of days before and they have the receipt, then you're probably not getting the card.

At no point did I ever state or even suggest that ebays statement had nothing to do with shill bidding. I know exactly what they said, and so do you.

What I said is that the letter eBay sent out is bullshit because they CLEARLY do not care about shill bidding. If you'd like to challenge this claim, be my guest. But please stop attacking strawmen.

Just for fun, could you unpack this for me a bit? Are you suggesting that they don't care about shill bidding because it happens all day every day on their site and they do nothing about it? Or something else?

the Declaration of Independence never said all men were created equal.

Would you think I was disputing the substance or just quibbling about were vs. are?

I mean, the fact that they kicked off and publicly lambasted the biggest seller in a very profitable category, to their fiscal detriment, would suggest, obviously, that they in fact do care to at least some extent.

Again, one could simply say "I don't care about the ethics, I'm here for money and PWCC makes me money" and be fine. The complete baloney made up while accusing the facts as straw men and conspiracy theories is where this goes completely off the edge.

Hey Nicolo,

Not exactly 100% sure, but if you look back at some of those statements attributed to Ebay, like in the Oregonlive link you posted, it states that Ebay accused "individuals associated" with the seller of engaging in shill bidding. Your debating adversary may be using that specific wording to then be able to claim they never specifically named and accused the company's owner, Brent. Which, and I hate to admit this, is technically correct then. That may be the rack your adversary is trying to hang at least one of their hats on then.

Now as for Ebay not caring about shill bidding, ask your debating adversary to then come forward with what other logical and intelligent reasons Ebay had to remove one of their largest sellers from their site for then. Typically, you'll get some hemming and hawing, but never any actual or credible direct response, and without really any supporting facts or information whatsoever. It is usually the classic "I'm right, and you're wrong!" defense and attack mode they'll throw at you. I saw and realized there are some like that on here long ago, and quit wasting my time even responding to such people, and just threw them on my "Ignore" list. Unfortunately, when others quote them when posting, the "Ignore" list feature doesn't stop me from seeing their comments. Oh well. Good luck with your debate.

Double post.

If you post twice is it the Bob C. twins?:eek:

In all honesty, I'm not really invested in this enough to even rise to the level of a debate. Maybe a mild intellectual inquiry?

Just trying to understand the inference behind why eBay clearly doesn't care about shill bidding.

Yes, I'm suggesting that eBay's actions speak louder than their words. The problem of shill bidding has plagued their entire platform for decades. It is probably at least an order of magnitude worse on ebay than it is on any other auction website. Furthermore, it is not a difficult problem to solve, if solving means to reduce shill bidding activity by something like 95% or more. I could code it myself in less than a week. I also know that it's not an issue of competency, but rather one of priorities and self interests, as I have many data geek friends who either work there currently or have in the recent past (I used to live a few blocks from eBay headquarters here in San Jose). I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that someone has in fact already solved this problem but that their CFO, Steve Priest, chose not to implement it because it is something that they benefit from greatly. Whatever actions they do take toward this effort are merely done to save face, or as I believe is the case with PWCC, to tarnish the reputation of a very soon to be competitor.

LOL

Internet issues, I think.

Much as I hate agreeing with Travis, he is right that eBay does not care about shilling. But they clearly do when they are pushed or embarrassed. Sort of like PSA and SGC not caring a heck of a lot how many bad cards they have slabbed until they are called out in a way where they cannot spin it. Then they go after the exact people who they know who were participating in the shenanigans and they ban em.

And as Bob C points out the notice from eBay said people associated with PWCC. Could have been consignors but since we have not seen a formal complaint filed by PWCC against ebay, their banning from selling suggests they were involved in the shill bidding to some extent and the banning was justified.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing those details. Always helpful to better understand some of the insider baseball behind the curtain.

I just wish I could get more shill bidders to bid up my items when I sell my items using the auction format on eBay. But I suppose they would only be shill bidders if I was making it happen myself, which I suppose is my problem.

Good for you. Not worth the waste of your time. LOL

This has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, but for the sake of continuity in this thread, I will attempt to restate the Cliff Notes, as there have been multiple reasons stated for why eBay might have sent out that letter, several of which have garnered significant support among those paying attention.

The most common arguments are, in no particular order:

A) "Yay! ebay is finally cracking down on shill bidding! And Probstein is next!"... any day now, any day now...
B) The FBI came knocking on their door, asking for any and all records pertaining to PWCC as a result of the card trimming scandal/investigation.
C) eBay execs were pissed off when they learned that after many years of building their brand off of eBay's back, PWCC, their largest seller of sports cards, would be launching their own platform and stealing business from them (a fairly reasonable viewpoint for eBay to have, if you ask me). Thus, they wrote this very public letter and sent it to all of PWCC's customers in an effort to tarnish their reputation a mere few weeks before the launch of PWCC's new platform. Or what some might refer to as the, "you can't quit, you're fired!" approach.

Personally, while I acknowledge that option A is plausible, I see it as highly unlikely given their history of allowing shill bidding to permeate their entire platform prior to cutting off PWCC, and their otherwise continued lack of interest on this front since then. I think that some combination of B) and C) is what led to their decision to cut ties with PWCC, and that they intentionally scripted a very vague letter about "individuals associated with PWCC" that they hoped would damage PWCC's reputation. The timing of when this letter was sent out with respect to the launch of PWCC's new platform should not be lost on anyone. This was not a coincidence.

We are all free to call it how we see it, but this is how I see it, and I'm very much not alone. In fact, I believe my opinion is, by far, the majority opinion in this hobby.

I don't think there's any doubt that the two principal players in this saga deserve each other, and probably deserve the cloud of suspicion that comes with it.

It might be a wee aggressive to suggest that yours is the majority opinion, simply because none of us are doing public opinion polls, so it's anyone's guess exactly what the hobby thinks.

But if your assertion is that a large number of people are still buying from PWCC's auctions, so they must not be viewed as guilty by the hobby, then I suppose that's possible. It's also possible that a good slice of us aren't willing to let our morals get in the way of our collecting. And I suppose in that way, we deserve what we get just as much.

I should let the lawyers on the board speak to this but if eBay was at all attempting to damage PWCC's reputation because they were pissed off learning that PWCC would languish...I mean move...to their own platform, Brent should have and could have sued. eBay has already forgotten that PWCC was a leader in selling sports cards on their site. Does not impact their bottom line in any meaningful way.

Stuff trumps all. I used to say it in a somewhat moralistic, disapproving way. Now, I say it just as fact, in a resigned way. The generation of collectors to which I and many of us here belong, has been pushed aside by Travis' generation of collectors. If you care about altered cards, do your best to protect yourself but don't count on the hobby to do shit.

What a brilliant strategy it was. Trim enough cards, get them in holders, and eventually most people won't care.

LOL

Peter, so right you are.

It is the same with many things in life. Keep saying the same lies and half-truths over and over again and eventually people will somehow start to believe you.

And as for marketplaces like Ebay not caring about shilling, they actually do care about it. Just not necessarily to the point where they proactively go out of their way to search out and remove such perpetrators. But they do include it as being against their rules so that when an instance does get publicly outed and pushed in their faces, they can act and ban such perpetrators from their selling formats. Do they care that shilling doesn't negatively impact their reputations and customer bases, absolutely. But they also all know that can't possibly police and stop everyone that may try to shill bid an auction. When people point fingers at large sellers on such online marketplaces as facilitating and supposedly being involved with this shill bidding, isn't it possible that these sellers aren't actually involved, but that their customers/consignors are the ones really responsible for doing the shilling themselves, without these seller's direct knowledge? I am not saying any of these sellers are or are not complicit, I'll leave that to others to decide for themselves. Because these sellers are usually the biggest card sellers on these marketplaces, and thus tend to get the most auction views and repeat customers, spending the most money, the shill bidding customers/consignors might just be picking them to sell and shill bid their cards through. And somehow everyone thinks or feels that because these sellers don't then go out of their way to actively investigate and ban all these shill bidders, they are accused of actively supporting and being involved with them. God forbid they don't already have more than enough work to do in running and handling all the auctions and items they handle and process. So why doesn't the actual marketplace itself get the same level of blame and corrupt involvement leveled at it, like some of these sellers do? Maybe it is because they do have a specific written rule against shill bidding, and when pushed, they do appear to enforce it to some extent. And before one of the typical butt-holes comes on here and then tries to accuse me of defending shill bidding, or the sellers that are then accused of facilitating and colluding with the shill bidders, or actively involved with it themselves, I am not in any way for shill bidding and those that knowingly do it. So don't even start!!!

Was shill bidding the sole reason that PWCC get bounced from Ebay, probably not? But was it the basis or at least one of the significant reasons ultimately behind the decision, I would guess that is a big yes.

There are certainly generational differences in how people approach the hobby and the world in general. I think the majority of the harm/trimming issues began decades ago though. As I mentioned earlier, the percentage of trimmed cards in early PSA holders is staggering. Most of the well known trimmers are on the "other side of the hill". The vast majority of the younger collectors with the "meh, is what it is" mindset probably aren't the ones trimming cards. I think those people are sitting on the sidelines, completely silent, with a bucket of popcorn.