Small Traditions LLC/SCANDAL UPDATE

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of course I don't know, but like Adam my assumption would be that a corporation with a 50 billion dollar market cap would have internal controls such that a statement accusing a customer of shill bidding to be widely disseminated would be subject to rigorous review.

I feel like I keep having to point this out, but this is the problem. Nowhere in that email did eBay actually accuse PWCC of shill bidding. Yet somehow, nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I feel like I keep having to point this out, but this is the problem. Nowhere in that email did eBay actually accuse PWCC of shill bidding. Yet somehow, nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption.

Travis, you're not wrong, but you know how people can be. They'll read something quickly and walk away with the first thing that pops into their head. And in this instance, I think most people get the impression from that Ebay email that PWCC was directly involved somehow in the shilling claims. So even if someone slows down and carefully reads the statement to ascertain the correct, true meaning of what was being said in it, it can still be argued that the average person will take a negative position against PWCC from it, and thus there is damage being done to their reputation. Reminds me of how Bill Clinton (who is/was a lawyer) argued on the stand against allegations towards him from the Monica Lewinsky situation, about how he did not have certain relations with her. I'm pretty sure sure most people were saying to themselves, "Yes, you did!", but being a lawyer is very often about the precise meaning of words, and their perception by the parties involved and affected.

I still would like to also see the actual terms of use agreement PWCC had with Ebay, and wonder if that could hold any clues or answers as to why Ebay said and did what they did in regards to PWCC.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I feel like I keep having to point this out, but this is the problem. Nowhere in that email did eBay actually accuse PWCC of shill bidding. Yet somehow, nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption.

So now it is someone else's fault that "nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption"? I am not a lawyer either but I don't think assumptions play a huge role in the judicial process.

For starters, maybe PWCC should not have placed themselves in the predicament they are now in--knee deep in fraud. Or do you see that as also someone else causing them all of this grief?

So do you love PWCC that much or do you just like playing the contrarian?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

So now it is someone else's fault that "nearly everyone still walks away with that assumption"? I am not a lawyer either but I don't think assumptions play a huge role in the judicial process.

For starters, maybe PWCC should not have placed themselves in the predicament they are now in--knee deep in fraud. Or do you see that as also someone else causing them all of this grief?

So do you love PWCC that much or do you just like playing the contrarian?

I mostly just like playing devil's advocate, or at least think that all sides should be considered in discussions. I hate when groupthink starts off with a set of assumptions (which are often invalid) and these discussions just build and build on top of them without those assumptions being challenged. This shill bidding topic is a prime example. People have been accusing PWCC of shill bidding (PWCC themselves, not just their consignors) for years. Before this whole eBay scandal blew up, whenever people were asked to provide evidence of these shill bidding claims, the crowd always pointed to the fact that PWCC got higher prices for their cards than other eBay sellers. This is of course absurd, and in no way constitutes evidence, or even suggests, that PWCC was shilling their own auctions.

As far as whether or not I "love PWCC"; no, I definitely do not. I have zero cards in their vault, and despite having consigned hundreds of cards in the past, I've never once chosen PWCC to handle my consignments. If they happen to have a card that I want up for auction, I will bid on it because I want the card and don't care who it comes from. As far as my experiences go with them, they haven't been positive. I bought a high-grade vintage card from one of their auctions a couple years ago and after it arrived I noticed that it was clearly trimmed on the left edge. Irrefutably trimmed. It was sharp as a knife and lighter colored than the other 3 edges. I took close-up photos of the edges which clearly showed what I was describing and asked to return the card. They threatened to ban me from all future auctions. I wasn't happy. I've also recently had another major issue with a high-end purchase that was extremely frustrating to deal with. But I don't let those experiences cloud my judgment about whether or not they have engaged in shill bidding. I believe it is in PWCC's best interest not to engage in shill bidding, and to furthermore prevent it to the extent they are capable. I do not believe that they shill bid, and am not capable of believing it without sufficient evidence. I believe they act in their best interests.

This whole discussion reminds me of all the conspiracy theories about all of the online poker sites "stacking the deck" to increase the rake (the amount deducted from each pot that goes to the house). It was very easy to demonstrate that this was not happening and that it would be extremely stupid for them to even try, yet if you were to poll 100 random online poker players, you would probably find that at least 30% of them believed the decks were in fact stacked against them.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I mostly just like playing devil's advocate, or at least think that all sides should be considered in discussions. I hate when groupthink starts off with a set of assumptions (which are often invalid) and these discussions just build and build on top of them without those assumptions being challenged. This shill bidding topic is a prime example. People have been accusing PWCC of shill bidding (PWCC themselves, not just their consignors) for years. Before this whole eBay scandal blew up, whenever people were asked to provide evidence of these shill bidding claims, the crowd always pointed to the fact that PWCC got higher prices for their cards than other eBay sellers. This is of course absurd, and in no way constitutes evidence, or even suggests, that PWCC was shilling their own auctions.

What is actually absurd is that you just posted the above. If ya want to play devil’s advocate or challenge groupthink, ya might want to start posting actual facts and accurate statements. When you don’t…and you don’t…it is not really contributing to an honest debate. The closer I read you the more I see you don’t always really know what you are talking about. Not sure why more do not call you out, honestly.

Anyway your conclusion that ‘the crowd always pointed to the fact that PWCC got higher prices for their cards than other eBay sellers’ was a basis for their determining shill bidding at PWCC is as spot on as you asserting eBay was materially impacted by their banning PWCC. The crowd does not have access to eBay bidder records but even without those there were countless times it was demonstrated shill bidding occurred.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

What is actually absurd is that you just posted the above. If ya want to play devil’s advocate or challenge groupthink, ya might want to start posting actual facts and accurate statements. When you don’t…and you don’t…it is not really contributing to an honest debate. The closer I read you the more I see you don’t always really know what you are talking about. Not sure why more do not call you out, honestly.

Anyway your conclusion that ‘the crowd always pointed to the fact that PWCC got higher prices for their cards than other eBay sellers’ was a basis for their determining shill bidding at PWCC is as spot on as you asserting eBay was materially impacted by their banning PWCC. The crowd does not have access to eBay bidder records but even without those there were countless times it was demonstrated shill bidding occurred.

Plus (as has already been pointed out) there is a publicly posted text message interchange in which Brent himself instructs his "minion" to place the shill bid. I don't have time to find it, but it's been well publicized. Perhaps Snowman conveniently forgot about that minor detail?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Plus (as has already been pointed out) there is a publicly posted text message interchange in which Brent himself instructs his "minion" to place the shill bid. I don't have time to find it, but it's been well publicized. Perhaps Snowman conveniently forgot about that minor detail?

I am the last guy on earth to defend Brent, but I actually think that particular text message in context is not that damning.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am the last guy on earth to defend Brent, but I actually think that particular text message in context is not that damning.

Well maybe not, to an accomplished attorney. I'm sure his words could be twisted and interpreted in similar fashion to Bill Clinton trying to define the word "is". But to the average collector schmuck like me, it looked awfully bad. I personally did not see much of a grey area.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

If ya want to play devil’s advocate or challenge groupthink, ya might want to start posting actual facts and accurate statements. When you don’t…and you don’t…it is not really contributing to an honest debate. The closer I read you the more I see you don’t always really know what you are talking about. Not sure why more do not call you out, honestly.

Feel free to respond to anything I say that you believe is not factual or an accurate statement. I have no interest in spreading non-truths and always welcome being corrected.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Anyway your conclusion that ‘the crowd always pointed to the fact that PWCC got higher prices for their cards than other eBay sellers’ was a basis for their determining shill bidding at PWCC is as spot on as you asserting eBay was materially impacted by their banning PWCC. The crowd does not have access to eBay bidder records but even without those there were countless times it was demonstrated shill bidding occurred.

I don't know what your point is here. However, all three statements are true.

• "The crowd" does constantly point to the fact that PWCC & Probstein get higher prices for their cards as the basis for their claims about both shilling their own auctions.

• eBay was materially impacted by their banning PWCC

• The crowd does not have access to eBay bidder records but even without those there were countless times it was demonstrated shill bidding occurred.

That said, and for some reason I feel like a broken record with the constant need to point out the obvious here, but there is a massive difference between demonstrating that shill bidding occurred and demonstrating that the consignment company itself is the one doing the shill bidding. Similarly, and perhaps also worth repeating, there is a massive difference between saying "PWCC shilled their own auctions" and "individuals associated with PWCC shilled their auctions".

[Peter_Spaeth]

There's a third category -- the auction house knew consignors were bidding up their own items, allowed it, and perhaps even facilitated it by cancelling sales if they won.

[Snowman]

To be clear, my point about eBay repeatedly acquiring smaller auction sites over the years wasn't to imply that they were doing something illegal or even shady by doing that. I have no reason to believe that any of these acquisitions weren't above board, and I think most were probably fairly savvy business decisions by eBay. I was mainly just pointing out the fact that it is evidence that eBay very much does take seriously their competition, even if that competitor is small relative to eBay. I am arguing that regardless of why eBay sent out that email, they definitely view/ed PWCC as a threat, and there is no shortage of very public examples of eBay attempting to minimize threats to their business, regardless of how small you think those threats might be (and PWCC is a much larger threat than many of the companies they've acquired or sought to acquire over the years). This in itself, of course, is not proof that they sent out that email for the sole intent of damaging PWCC's brand. However, I am simply pointing out that eBay has certainly established a precedent for this to be quite plausible.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Feel free to respond to anything I say that you believe is not factual or an accurate statement. I have no interest in spreading non-truths and always welcome being corrected.



I don't know what your point is here. However, all three statements are true.

• "The crowd" does constantly point to the fact that PWCC & Probstein get higher prices for their cards as the basis for their claims about both shilling their own auctions.

• eBay was materially impacted by their banning PWCC

• The crowd does not have access to eBay bidder records but even without those there were countless times it was demonstrated shill bidding occurred.

That said, and for some reason I feel like a broken record with the constant need to point out the obvious here, but there is a massive difference between demonstrating that shill bidding occurred and demonstrating that the consignment company itself is the one doing the shill bidding. Similarly, and perhaps also worth repeating, there is a massive difference between saying "PWCC shilled their own auctions" and "individuals associated with PWCC shilled their auctions".

"The crowd" does constantly point to the fact that PWCC & Probstein get higher prices for their cards as the basis for their claims about both shilling their own auctions. Which is it...constantly or always and whenever, as your initial post stated? Either way, so every time an accusation of shill bidding has been made by the crowd it always/constantly pointed to high prices as the reason? You need to read all the threads again. Neither constantly nor always are accurate on the frequency of the crowd using higher prices as the proof of shill bids.

eBay was materially impacted by their banning PWCC Define material because based on ebay's gross sales revenue of more than 10 billion, 7.5 million in fees paid by PWCC (which is significantly higher number than they paid) would not meet the definition of materiality.

That said, and for some reason I feel like a broken record with the constant need to point out the obvious here, but there is a massive difference between demonstrating that shill bidding occurred and demonstrating that the consignment company itself is the one doing the shill bidding. Similarly, and perhaps also worth repeating, there is a massive difference between saying "PWCC shilled their own auctions" and "individuals associated with PWCC shilled their auctions" I understand your distinguishing between the two but in my view if the company does not take steps to discourage shill bidding by consignors then they are almost as guilty as if the company engages in shill bidding itself. If PWCC knew several consignors were suspected of it, why keep taking their consignments? Further I am pretty confident the FBI and eBay can demonstrate shill bidding within the company. Not sure it would be that difficult to prove.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In the days before Brent blocked bid histories, and even more so when some of us knew who some of the bidders were, it was a lot more than prices realized that drove suspicion: massive string bidding, massive early bidding, people bidding on widely disparate cards that it seemed unlikely the same collector would collect, known market pushers even by Brent's admission bidding heavily, and perhaps above all tolerance of huge numbers of retractions. There were other anomalies too in the bidding sometimes that just looked bad. Could someone bound and determined to defend Brent offer a competing explanation in some cases? Sure. But overall, it was not a good look, at all.