Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The no harm no foul was not proposed (at least by me) as some general overarching standard applying universally to every possible situation, and my answer to your hypothetical made that clear. It was proposed as a reason under the unique circumstances of this case what ML did in response to a no win situation was not "fraud." Was it a bad look, of course. As Scott writes, do people here really have no ability to see nuance and complexity and are able to think and live only in terms of black and white rigid rules and standards?

So your "gotcha" is a straw man as far as I am concerned. I'm more than content to take each situation on its terms, guided by general principles but not inflexible ones.

I thought you were saying, if there were no damages, there was no fraud.

Shill bidding produces no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

Continuing phantom auction lots produce no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

I see your flexibility not as reasoned nuance, but as basic inconsistency.

[Peter_Spaeth]

According to Emerson, little minds insist on a foolish consistency. You can characterize it however you want, to me each situation is different and sometimes you can't thread the needle with a perfect rule so you go by general principles, experience, judgment, and an innate sense of right and wrong. If you can't tell the difference between what ML did and ordinary shill bidding, I am sorry. That you can find some overarching words that apply to both is beside the point.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

According to Emerson, little minds insist on a foolish consistency. You can characterize it however you want, to me each situation is different and sometimes you can't thread the needle with a perfect rule so you go by general principles, experience, judgment, and an innate sense of right and wrong. If you can't tell the difference between what ML did and ordinary shill bidding, I am sorry. That you can find some overarching words that apply to both is beside the point.

Thanks for telling me I have a little mind. And I'll confess, I've probably never sniffed $2 million in cards either. I mostly collect game flannels, but I don't sniff them much, either.

But frankly, I'm not seeing your superiority in defending the deception of hundreds of bidders in an auction.

You're the one who says "Stuff trumps all" and you are currently defending that credo with one small tweak. Your new motto should be: Stuff (and money) trumps all." And if a deception is run in the chase for stuff and money, so what? Nobody is damaged.

I will again end with the caveat that if ML continued the phantom lots at the bequest of law enforcement, I would certainly consider that to be a legitimate reason to do so.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Thanks for telling me I have a little mind. And I'll confess, I've probably never sniffed $2 million in cards either. I mostly collect game flannels, but I don't sniff them much, either.

But frankly, I'm not seeing your superiority in defending the deception of hundreds of bidders in an auction.

You're the one who says "Stuff trumps all" and you are currently defending that credo with one small tweak. Your new motto should be: Stuff (and money) trumps all." And if a deception is run in the chase for stuff and money, so what? Nobody is damaged.

I will again end with the caveat that if ML continued the phantom lots at the bequest of law enforcement, I would certainly consider that to be a legitimate reason to do so.

As you wish. Feel free to mischaracterize.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I thought you were saying, if there were no damages, there was no fraud.

Shill bidding produces no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

Continuing phantom auction lots produce no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

I see your flexibility not as reasoned nuance, but as basic inconsistency.

I would love more info on why ML decided to move forward with the lots in the auction. To me, that is very relevant before anyone here can possibly conclude if their intent was pure or not.

Assuming it was, what they concluded was the best of all the choices might have ended up being misleading but it was not being done with an intent to deceive or harm others. And I do not see it in the same light at all as shill bidding which not only has measurable damages but is also clearly done with an intent to deceive.