Article about Collecting and Fraud in the Hobby

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[Lorewalker]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

[BCauley]

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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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 [codswallop] 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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

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?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

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?

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.

[BobC]

Double post.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by raulus

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?

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

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.