ebay finds that PWCC engaged in shill bidding?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Here's a thought -- PWCC now has more incentive than ever to show high auction prices.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Here's a thought -- PWCC now has more incentive than ever to show high auction prices.

Good point. If their prices fall off a cliff on their own site, they’ll have (even more) ‘splaining to do.

I find it interesting that 3 things have converged here…Ebay booting PWCC, PWCC launching their own platform, and an FBI investigation heating up. That’s a potent cocktail with a lot of money and potential legal problems at stake.

[JeremyW]

To quote Snowman:

"1 - PWCC has been working on their own separate platform to compete against eBay."

Seems to me, they will now be competing against many reputable, trusted, & established online auction houses.

Time will tell, I guess.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by conor912

Good point. If their prices fall off a cliff on their own site, they’ll have (even more) ‘splaining to do.

I find it interesting that 3 things have converged here…Ebay booting PWCC, PWCC launching their own platform, and an FBI investigation heating up. That’s a potent cocktail with a lot of money and potential legal problems at stake.

And, if they show low prices, the reason to consign to them goes away.

[bnorth]

Can the house bid on their own items in Oregon? Isn't that why several are located in Texas so they can?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by conor912

Good point. If their prices fall off a cliff on their own site, they’ll have (even more) ‘splaining to do.

How so? Why would this not be the expectation given that fewer buyers would be seeing these auctions now?

Originally Posted by conor912

I find it interesting that 3 things have converged here…Ebay booting PWCC, PWCC launching their own platform, and an FBI investigation heating up. That’s a potent cocktail with a lot of money and potential legal problems at stake.

The FBI investigation is "heating up"? I was unaware of this. Do you have any evidence to support this claim or is this purely conjecture based on the fact that ebay claims to have cut ties with PWCC over "shill bidding"?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Here's a thought -- PWCC now has more incentive than ever to show high auction prices.

Do you believe this incentive would outweigh the competing incentive to avoid shill bidding to whatever extent possible since they are/were under an FBI investigation with a sizeable portion of the community constantly breathing fire down their backs, waiting to catch them for any and every misstep?

To me it seems incomprehensible that PWCC themselves would be actively engaged in any shill bidding activity at any point since the FBI came knocking on their doors. Yes, of course random ebay users and their consignors engage in this activity all the time, but this isn't PWCC's problem to solve. It's ebay's responsibility. I just don't buy for one second that PWCC employees or its owners are actively shill bidding on their auctions. Same with Probstein and other consignment companies. Their consignors shill bid constantly, but that doesn't make them guilty of it too.

Perhaps worth discussing as well though is what defines "shill bidding" to begin with? Is it shill bidding if you have every intention of paying for the item and all the fees that go along with it should you win? PWCC doesn't consider that to be shill bidding, and neither do many/most? other auction houses.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I just don't buy for one second that PWCC employees or its owners are actively shill bidding on their auctions. Same with Probstein and other consignment companies. Their consignors shill bid constantly, but that doesn't make them guilty of it too.

See the screen shot in post 197. I encourage you to find and read the whole thread whence it came.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I just don't buy for one second that PWCC employees or its owners are actively shill bidding on their auctions. Same with Probstein and other consignment companies. Their consignors shill bid constantly, but that doesn't make them guilty of it too.

Originally Posted by conor912

See the screen shot in post 197. I encourage you to find and read the whole thread whence it came.

I've read it. Multiple times. It's not damning at all. This is another classic example of internet trolls passing around a nothing burger while painting it with a scarlet letter and proclaiming fraud. Then perpetuating this supposed "fraud" later as evidence of further claims.

The response given by PWCC in regards to this conversation is perfectly reasonable. The card in question didn't even belong to the person doing the bidding per PWCC. The conversation was had because PWCC had received complaints regarding Cortney DeLorme's "string bidding" activity. This is where someone places a string of minimum bids over and over, increasing the bid count with no intention of actually becoming the high bidder on an item. The card in question was worth many thousands of dollars, yet Cortney DeLorme was just string bidding it for who knows what reason. Brent communicated to DeLorme that he had received complaints about what looked like fishy behavior or shill bidding. This is also evident by Brent's comment in the screen shot where he says "Let's not play games here", implying that DeLorme knew exactly what he was doing. Brent was effectively telling him to just take the high bid rather than string bidding. Could he have worded it better? Could he have just banned DeLorme outright instead? Sure. But it wasn't DeLorme's card and it's quite clear from the screenshot itself that Brent was not happy about this bidder's behavior. Telling him to "take the high bid" on a card that was currently sitting at less than half of it's value has zero effect on the selling price.

This is clearly not a conversation where Brent is encouraging someone to shill bid on their own card. You simply cannot explain the "let's not play games here" line if it were. PWCC's response makes perfect sense here (https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?p=14599705). Yet everyone seems to want to ignore it and continues propogating this screenshot for years to come pretending as though it were something else. I don't play that game though, and neither should you.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I've read it. Multiple times. It's not damning at all. This is another classic example of internet trolls passing around a nothing burger while painting it with a scarlet letter and proclaiming fraud. Then perpetuating this supposed "fraud" later as evidence of further claims.

The response given by PWCC in regards to this conversation is perfectly reasonable. The card in question didn't even belong to the person doing the bidding per PWCC. The conversation was had because PWCC had received complaints regarding Cortney DeLorme's "string bidding" activity. This is where someone places a string of minimum bids over and over, increasing the bid count with no intention of actually becoming the high bidder on an item. The card in question was worth many thousands of dollars, yet Cortney DeLorme was just string bidding it for who knows what reason. Brent communicated to DeLorme that he had received complaints about what looked like fishy behavior or shill bidding. This is also evident by Brent's comment in the screen shot where he says "Let's not play games here", implying that DeLorme knew exactly what he was doing. Brent was effectively telling him to just take the high bid rather than string bidding. Could he have worded it better? Could he have just banned DeLorme outright instead? Sure. But it wasn't DeLorme's card and it's quite clear from the screenshot itself that Brent was not happy about this bidder's behavior. Telling him to "take the high bid" on a card that was currently sitting at less than half of it's value has zero effect on the selling price.

This is clearly not a conversation where Brent is encouraging someone to shill bid on their own card. You simply cannot explain the "let's not play games here" line if it were. PWCC's response makes perfect sense here (https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?p=14599705). Yet everyone seems to want to ignore it and continues propogating this screenshot for years to come pretending as though it were something else. I don't play that game though, and neither should you.

You don't by any chance own a pillow company, do you?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by conor912

You don't by any chance own a pillow company, do you?

No, definitely not. And since I don't think I can speak about pillow companies without having to put my name at the bottom of that post, I'll refrain from commenting further on that topic.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Do you believe this incentive would outweigh the competing incentive to avoid shill bidding to whatever extent possible since they are/were under an FBI investigation with a sizeable portion of the community constantly breathing fire down their backs, waiting to catch them for any and every misstep?

To me it seems incomprehensible that PWCC themselves would be actively engaged in any shill bidding activity at any point since the FBI came knocking on their doors. Yes, of course random ebay users and their consignors engage in this activity all the time, but this isn't PWCC's problem to solve. It's ebay's responsibility. I just don't buy for one second that PWCC employees or its owners are actively shill bidding on their auctions. Same with Probstein and other consignment companies. Their consignors shill bid constantly, but that doesn't make them guilty of it too.

Perhaps worth discussing as well though is what defines "shill bidding" to begin with? Is it shill bidding if you have every intention of paying for the item and all the fees that go along with it should you win? PWCC doesn't consider that to be shill bidding, and neither do many/most? other auction houses.

Got to have your name in your post brutha! Read rules at the top regarding opinions

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Got to have your name in your post brutha! Read rules at the top regarding opinions

I am not slandering or disparaging any person or company. We're simply discussing how to interpret a letter and recent events in the hobby. If I have claims to make against these companies, accusing them of criminal behavior, then I will put my name in the post. But I'm not posting my name publicly just to discuss generic recent public events that everyone else has the same access to and knowledge of.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I am not slandering or disparaging any person or company. We're simply discussing how to interpret a letter and recent events in the hobby. If I have claims to make against these companies, accusing them of criminal behavior, then I will put my name in the post. But I'm not posting my name publicly just to discuss generic recent public events that everyone else has the same access to and knowledge of.

Not my rules

If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Seven]

I've read through this thread, most of what I was going to say has been said by a few posters on the board, my general observations though are that:

If this is the true reason eBay is investigating PWCC for then I am all for it. It's been speculated a lot that PWCC along with Probstein have shill bid in their auctions to inflate the final dollar amount. Hopefully eBay has enough proof going forward to take down the rest of it.

I have no idea how this effects the card market. I've been saying eventually prices have to stabilize as they can't possible go up forever, but that could be more wishful thinking on my part than anything. While my purchases from eBay nowadays are few and far between at this point, for cards at least, It will be interesting to see how the next year shapes up for collecting, along with what the auction scene will look like, a year from now.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Not my rules

If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.



If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

Seem to know an awful lot, about an awful lot.

Different rules for different fools I guess. This is news to me

Just sayin'

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

Interesting that you would rather not give your name than continue to contribute.

[Leon]

You have easily crossed the line a bit. I told you that one post could stay. I didn't give you carte blanche to not follow the rules. To continue saying who you know and what you know and anything else, is going to require your name. Nothing personal.
I just went back and read the PM. I did say you could call out absolute fraud as you did in that one thread, without having your name...as it was such a good job. But in retrospect no exceptions should probably be made. I do like people who root out fraud in the hobby. Quite the conundrum.

Originally Posted by Snowman

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I intend to follow the rules. I've already spoken with Leon about this privately via PM. He told me that the purpose of the "post your name" rule is so that people cannot hide behind a keyboard, anonymously disparaging specific companies or individuals without their name being tied to it or to prevent company shills from posting anonymously.

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

"I don't buy for a second that this is eBay's attempt at cracking down on shill bidding. That's bullshit. If eBay wanted to crack down on this, they would have done so a long time ago, and they would have done it from the inside. They are the ones with all of the relevant bidding behavior and user data. Not the sellers. They can easily crack down on shill bidding, but they've chosen not to, likely because it's a project that would take money out of their pockets."

A quote from you. This is offering an opinion and/or disparaging them.

I could not care less whether you offer an opinion or not. However, when you do you must abide by the rules.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If he feels that my discussion on this topic is in violation of that, then I will stop contributing to these conversations. But I'm not disparaging anyone or any company in this discussion.

Awfully peculiar In my opinion. Im not sure your threat of not contributing outweighs putting a name with your post, at least with the admins that be.