... Larry did, Steve -- that is, you have begged the question by assuming the answer and then basing your conclusion on that assumption:

>> But if in the course of that bidding some bids were placed by people who
had absolutely no intention of paying for the item, that's unethical. <<

This statement is true ONLY if the rules of the auction prohibit shill bidding to begin with. And I am trying to get at REASONS why shill bidding should or should not be prohibited.

You have, however, added another consideration not explicitly discussed before; that is, the question of whether the shill bidders intend to PAY their bid price if they happen to end up high bidder.

What do you think of the "ethics" involved if either: the shill bidders intend to buy the item at the shill bid if it is the high bid --OR-- if the auction rules REQUIRE the shill to buy the item at the shill bid if it is the high bid.

Or is it your opinion that allowing a seller to bid on his own auction (either directly or through a third party) is inherently unethical and should never be permitted? If that is your opinion, what is the underlying REASON?

Keep in mind that many reputable auctions permit sellers to bid on their own items (either directly or through third parties (shills); if the seller ends up high bidder, the seller has to pay the house both the seller and buyer premiums. (The seller's obvious purpose is to prevent the sale of the item at a price far below what the seller wants.)

----- jim o\-S