Quote:
Originally Posted by BobC
Hey Nicolo,
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.
|
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.