... Michael? I'm sure you know the word means "lacking in candor" or "giving a false appearance of simple frankness". I think I pretty well laid out exactly how I feel on the subject and what I am willing (or unwilling) to do. In what respect was I lacking in candor or giving a "false appearance" in my comments

>> Jim, you disappoint me. Up until now, your arguments have been well thought
>> out and worthy of respect. This last post, however, is beneath you.

Guess I'm not pleasing everyone again today; but, that's what happens when you state opinions forthrightly.

>> 1. You say "Writing to bidders to advise them of the true nature of an
>> auction is (perhaps) a violation of a procedural rule made up and imposed by
>> eBay for the sole purpose of protecting revenue."

>> Are you serious?

Yes.

>> You really want to "own" that statement? Do you really believe that eBay's
>> fees are the only thing that went into the decision to implement that rule?

I overstated that point. I should have said "primary purpose".

>> Are you that cynical?

On this subject, yes.

>> Are you blind to the chaos that would result if sellers were allowed to email
>> each other's bidders with every bit of real or perceived dirt they think they
>> have on each other?

I am not a seller. The "no interference rule" doesn't apply only to sellers, it applies to everyone. Furthermore, the "chaos" you foresee is called the free enterprise system, which in most respects allows everyone free reign to "contact" buyers with any information they have about any seller's products. Can you imagine a society which had a rule prohibiting EVERYONE from ever making a critical comment about a seller's merchandise?? It is the essence of our system that consumer advocates can speak out to protect people against all manner of malfeasance, misfeasance or simple incompetence.

>> Surely, you can step back from your position long enough to consider that the
>> auction interference rule is in the best interest of the community.

I thought I had pretty much made it clear that I DON'T think this rule is "in the best interest of the community". Perhaps, if eBay had an adequate system of self-policing in effect, it would be. They don't. It isn't.

>> eBay has managed to build up a community of over 12 million users, with the
>> vast majority of them being bidders. They range in sophistication from
>> "professional" buyers like myself, to "recreational" bidders.

Sounds pretty much like society as a whole.

>> The success of the eBay community depends on the bidding community
>> having confidence in the selling community.

PRECISELY!! And how much confidence can the bidding community have if it knows that the selling community can commit fraud, deception and deceit with impunity and that anyone who has the specialized knowledge to prevent the scam is prohibited from making that knowledge available to the bidding community. To a lesser degree, the same consideration applies where the seller is merely mistaken or uninformed.

>> Consider this. How many bidders would we still have if their mailboxes were
>> constantly filling up with well intentioned "warnings" from community
>> members, "watch this guy, he's a scammer", "don't bid on that item, it's
>> junk", "you can get that cheaper elsewhere", "that's not really a book,
>> it's a booklet", and so forth.

You've mixed several different things together in there, Michael. I never address the issue of price; I don't care what sellers charge, as long as their descriptions are accurate. As for the bidders, would you be surprised to learn that I have received nearly 100 responses from bidders to whom I have written and NOT ONE has ever complained about receiving the information I provided. Most have said "thank you" in one form or another, sometimes profusely.

>> Worst of all, how about a warning not to pay too much, like "I hate
>> to see you pay that much, withdraw your bid and I'll sell you the same
>> thing cheaper".

That is a completely different thing. Happens all the time in the real world, of course, but I acknowledge the somewhat different nature of the auction process and accept that it is inappropriate for someone to contact bidders for the purpose stated in that example.

>> All these "warnings" could be just as well intentioned as the warnings you
>> like to send when you spot an auction description that offends you.

I spot lots of auction descriptions that "offend" me without ever saying or doing anything about them. Or, sometimes, I will write to the seller only. And I usually write to the bidders only after having contacted the seller first and giving him an opportunity to correct any misinformation in the description (in fact, I have many messages from sellers saying thanks for advising them about their material). The only time I don't contact the seller first is if I become aware of the auction too late to allow time for such contact.

>> eBay has the choice of allowing users to protect the bidders, or setting
>> up other ways of dealing with clearly fraudulent descriptions. I think
>> ebay made the wiser choice.

Once again, Michael, you've missed the point. There is no such thing as a "clearly fraudulent description" to a bidder who is uninformed about the true nature of the item involved. And eBay has no EFFECTIVE way of dealing with the fraudulent descriptions which are not "clear" (at least not in the realm of casino chips, which is the only area about which I have had any contact with them).

>> Jim, if you think the rule prohibiting auction interference should be
>> dropped, please share with us what the replacement rules should be. When
>> is it OK, and when is it not OK, to email bidders to "warn" them?

Ideally, I don't think eBay should have any rule prohibiting contact with bidders. Nevertheless, I will concede the point I made above that "stealing" of bidders by offering the same item for less can reasonably be prohibited. I could live with a rule that says a seller of the same or a similar item cannot contact another seller's bidders about that item, or perhaps even a rule prohibiting any seller from contacting another seller's bidders for any purpose. I see no good reason for a rule prohibiting contact by a financially disinterested third party.

>> Where do you draw the line? Only lawyers should be allowed to interfere?

Good grief, no!

>> Only "experts" should be allowed to interfere?

That's not my idea, though by implication that is eBay's position. I think ANYONE with knowledge that would prevent someone else from being taken advantage of should be permitted to share that knowledge.

>> I think anyone who thinks this through would have to agree that while
>> preventing fraud is a most desirable goal, allowing auction interference
>> is a wholly unacceptable way to deal with it.

Well, I have given this a lot of thought over the past 18 months and have had several discussions here on the bulletin board about it and I disagree completely with your conclusion.

>> 2. Regarding your kidnapping/speeding posit, are you saying that a seller who
>> fibs about the existence of a card club, and at the same time states that the
>> chips have no collector value, is equivalent to kidnapping a child?

Of course not, but the difference is one of DEGREE not KIND.

>> Do you really equate money with life itself?

No, but the point is that in both cases a wrong is being done which can be prevented by the simple expedient of ignoring a "rule" that would otherwise prohibit the action necessary to prevent the wrong.

>> 3. Here are two statements you make back to back: "There is nothing
>> inherently "wrong" in telling someone that he is about to be ripped
>> off by a scam artist."

>>and

>> "BTW, I never tell anyone they shouldn't bid, shouldn't pay for an item
>> they have bid on or anything else about what they should do. I provide
>> accurate information about the true nature of the item involved, nothing
>> more. What the bidder does with the information I provide is up to the
>> bidder."

>> Well, Jim, which is it? Is it your intention to tell them they are about
>> to be ripped off by a scam artist, or or is it your intention to merely
>> provide helpful information?

There is no contradiction. There IS no inherent wrong in telling someone that he is about to be ripped off. I simply choose to do the "telling" by providing accurate information about the auction item. It IS my intention to let the bidder know he's being ripped off; I simply choose not to use those words (in part to minimize any possible eBay interpretation of my contact as a violation of their rules).

>> If interfering with an auction is not inherently wrong, then why do you
>> go on to explain that interference is not what you are doing?

Whether it is "inherently wrong" or not, eBay (as you have explained several times) considers "auction interference" a suspendable offense. I see no reason to aggravate them any more than is necessary (or than I perceive to be necessary, if you will). It should be obvious that I would rather not have to fight a suspension, if I can avoid it by being careful.

>> Finally:

>> 4. "I wouldn't suggest that anyone else follow my example, though I
>> welcome anyone who cares to do so,"

>> Well, you're runnning for a position of leadership in the Club. Why,
>> if you don't want to lead the members by your example, do you share your
>> outlaw views on auction interference?

My comment about not suggesting that others follow my lead was a direct response to your observation that others might not have the (legal) resources I have to fight eBay if necessary. There is some risk in taking my "outlaw views on auction interference"; everyone else has to decide on their own whether to take that risk. Furthermore, this is NOT a club issue we are discussing. I am not acting on behalf of the club and do not advocate my position on this issue as a matter of club policy.

>> It's one thing to send these emails yourself, it's something else to
>> explain and defend the practice in front of the same people you are
>> asking to follow your lead. Do as you say, not as you do?

I don't understand your last comment, Michael. I haven't told anyone they SHOULDN'T do as I do. I'm not saying "do as I say, not as I do". I AM saying, "This is my position on the subject. You make up your own mind about what you are going to do or not do about it."

I have gone to great lengths to "explain and defend" what I have been doing in response to your comments on this issue. No one who chooses to vote for or support me will have to do so without knowing where I am coming from. Don't you think it would be hypocritical to ask people to "Follow Me" without telling them where we're going. You may or may not like what I have to say, but you will not be able to say later that I misled you about my beliefs, either actively or by omission.

So Michael, and anyone other than Michael who made it this far, thanks for your patience in reading this VERY LONG post! <g> Please respond if you like, but I may have to borrow Gene's fork after this one. ----- jim o\-S