TBT, I understand your point of view. You can't stay in business selling your merchandise for a loss, or allowing your costs to exceed your profits. However, you have customers and potential customers here. You're listening to them, which is commendable, but you've got to 'do it their way', meet their expectations. The replies here have asked for straight up dealing, no surprises. They don't like cancelled auctions. While many people also do not like auctions with reserves, feeling such a tactic is not a true auction, your potential customers are saying, in this thread, that it's okay for you to protect your interest with a reasonable reserve or starting bid. You also deal in toned coins, and the values for these can't be easily referenced by looking up numbers in a price guide. Use reserves. Good luck.
I do not feel the tone of this thread has a lynch mob attitude. You are correct this thread was not started about you. It was started about Ebay seller "e.mix" who I have reported to Ebay. He ends about 50% of his auctions in the last minute due to low bids. The tone changed not after you set the record straight concerning your auction but when you tried to justify that type of seller behavior. Going back and editing out your comments does not sit well either.
The whole point of this thread is to let everyone know (dealers included) that there are a lot of honest buyers out there and as such we expect to be dealt with honestly without deception. You want us to see the dealer’s side of the issue. We do, but just because you choose to operate a very difficult and competitive business and have to deal with a lot of scum in this hobby (Buyers & other dealers) does not in our minds justify deceptive sales practices as compensation to the business owner. As a buyer I could care less how much a business owners profit or loss is, that is none of my concern. I as a customer expect to be dealt with honestly and professionally and am willing to pay a fair price for what I desire. There are plenty of dealers to choose from and the great Ebay is not the only source of coins. If a dealer feels they cannot sustain their business without using manipulative and deceptive sales tactics then I will simply choose to take my business elsewhere. Ebay is a sellers market but I as a buyer still expect some level of honesty and integrity be maintained. If a dealer does not agree with his potential customers on what standard of salesmanship should be maintained and stands behind a practice his customers view as dishonest, deceptive, or manipulative with the excuse “It’s not against the rules” so be it. But just because something is not against the rules does not automatically make it ok and buyers reserve the right to not purchase from those sellers.
As far as dealers not frequenting these boards do to the hostility and lynch mob attitude. That’s sad, there is a lot of flack thrown there way by collectors due to market conditions that’s beyond their control. A lot of collectors find it easier to blame and bash the dealers for their mistakes and it is unfortunate.
But this thread does not fall into that category.
Bill
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
I just started this thread to warn others about e.mix but it seems to have taken on a life of it own. I think we all realize that dealers have costs and they need to meet those costs to stay in business. But we also realize that those are internal issues and don't concern the customer. We don't have to see both sides as it is a one sided view from the customers point, the vendors issues are his problem. If we like his product and practices we use him, if not we go elsewhere. The vendor has to adapt or perish. This may not be a popular point of view but I have found it to be accurate, my customers couldn't give a rats a$$ about my internal problems, just my service level.
Scott M
Scott M
Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker
<< <i>I think we all realize that dealers have costs and they need to meet those costs to stay in business. >>
And as has been said on this thread, eBay provides sellers tools to guarantee they meet their costs: the ability to set reserve prices and starting bid amounts. Using the "cancel the auction minutes before the close" tool is deceptive in my opinion, and an attempt to circumvent eBays fees which are based on the reserve price and/or the starting bid.
wow! i suprised(no, not really) at the attitude and opinions expressed in this thread. TBT is 100% right. it is the seller's property to what they please with it. the same peeps that are whining about ebay rules are the same ones that are happy to get screwed by the evil empire and brag about it. most of the folks on this forum leave me scratching my head (no - not head lice )
".....the same peeps that are whining about ebay rules are the same ones that are happy to get screwed by the evil empire and brag about it. most of the folks on this forum leave me scratching my head....."
4th Stooge, maybe you're scratching a little too hard or something...
You are correct it is his property and he does have a right to do anything he wants to do with it, nobody here disagrees with that. He can choose to sell it or not sell it. If he chooses to sell his possessions than buyers expect to be treated fairly and honestly without being decieved or manipulated.
And I would bet anyone who thinks just following the rules is all it takes to be successful at anything in this life is left scratching their head quite often.
Bill
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
it is the seller's property to what they please with it
the money i'm about to send in is my property too. after the auction ends i'll just decide not to buy because the price was not right. whether the auction was cancelled or payment was not made - it's a reneg.
E-Bay provides sellers tools to guarantee they meet their costs: the ability to set reserve prices and starting bid amounts. Using the "cancel the auction minutes before the close" tool is deceptive.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
Reading all of these posts, it seems that theirs hostility on both sides of the coin(no pun intended )
For a buyer, putting hard earned money down on a sellers product is really a contract, that states, that the sellers product is 100% what it is advertised as.
For the seller, it's not so cut and dry. They have a lot of 'behind the scenes' happening.
Surely it doesn't give a seller the right to tell a buyer what to do with his money, and how to spend it. The seller's standpoint is more of asking for someones 'labor' in return for his/her 'goods/service' ,Bartering at it's best.
Truely it's an agreement between 2 parties. -The one with the 'honest' upper hand is the Buyer. -The one with the 'minute' upper hand is the seller.
Considering that the buyer doesn't have counterfeit funds, it's a pretty honest trade(unless it's in pesos are something hehe)
Considering the seller, his product must live up to the standards of his claims, and if not, live up to the contract, and offer a better trade or funds back.
Not stepping off the subject too far.... When you take away the honesty in trade, and use tactics that manipulate the outcome of such a deal, you undermind the system of 'bartering' and in turn, Make people very angry.
This leads to the seller getting a bad wrap(whether it was an honest mistake or not) a contract is a contract, and if the seller doesn't live up to it, the confidence in his goods/service goes down the tube, in effect, saying bye bye to his/her business.
To Sum it up ,
-The customer is always right(unless their honesty is not true-counterfeit, taking advantage of refunds, etc) -The seller has to bend over backwards because a reputation is worth it's weight in Gold bullion(no pun again )
It doesn't matter how good your product is, if you suck, your product sucks, no matter how good it really is.
I just saw that there is a Seller's Cancellation History profile. I just won't waste my time bidding on coins from sellers who don't offer valid explainations for cancelling an auction. I'm the customer and there are plenty of sellers to choose from.
I guess I spoke too soon. In the bidding history, I saw the A link to Bid Retraction and Cancellation History and thought I it was a link to the sellers cancellation history. It wasn't. That is what's needed though but I'm sure that Ebay won't do it cause the sellers who cancel alot would complain and they're the ones who pay Ebay. I'll be studying sellers more closely from now on though.
<< <i>If the seller hasn't violated any auction rules and the auction terms are available for all to view then how is a buyer being deceived or manipulated? >>
Ebay has seller tools available for them to protect their investments and control the final sale price of their goods. They are called Reserves and minimum bids. If a seller is not wanting to part with his goods for less than a minimum dollar amount they can use that figure as a minimum bid or in plain sight for everyone to see let his potential buyers know he has a hidden reserve they must meet before he is willing to part with his goods. He then places his item up for sale entering into a contract to sell it to the buyer that meets his terms.
When a seller instead chooses to list his item without a reserve with a low minimum bid he is telling all his potential customers I have no reserve and my goods are up for sale at whatever the current market deems them worth. He again places his item up for sale entering into a contract to sell it to the buyer that meets his terms. A buyer in good faith enters into the contract and commits his money to purchase the item by placing his bid. BUT, in reality the seller only know to himself has a reserve but was either to cheap to pay the fees involved in listing a reserve or starting the auction at a higher opening bid to protect his investment, or is gambling by trying to entice more competitive bidding. Then when the seller sees he screwed up and his secret reserve is not met he ends the auction in the last few minutes refusing to sell his item.
I for one define that type of behavior as deceptive and manipulative.
And I will say again one of the reasons ebay allows a seller to end an auction early is NOT " I don't want to sell it for that amount of money" They provide sellers with the ability of setting a reserve or a high opening bid to prevent that from happening.
Bill
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
They have been several times I did not like what an auction was getting for a final value. But, I will never in a million years cancel an auction because of that. Besides, I am not a dealer, just a collector trying to sell my duplicates to buy other stuff. So, to me, it would not matter if I traded, or sold to get the cash to buy what I wanted. But, that is also beside the point. Don't cancel early because you do not like the current price. That is BS. Rampage!
<< <i> in reality the seller only know to himself has a reserve but was either to cheap to pay the fees involved in listing a reserve or starting the auction at a higher opening bid to protect his investment, or is gambling by trying to entice more competitive bidding. Then when the seller sees he screwed up and his secret reserve is not met he ends the auction in the last few minutes refusing to sell his item. >>
Here's the rub... If Ebay has considered what you state and allows this then there has been no sin committed. The seller's actions are ethical. Only Ebay decides the rules on their site. If they don't meet your personal standards then don't do business there. If the seller is outsides the bounds of those set by Ebay then I most certainly would agree with you about the character of the seller. I would suggest that rather than only flaming the seller here that an interested party contact safe harbor, bring this matter to their attention and bring the results of that report back to this forum. The imposing of ones personal standards on others without a concensus is pretty arrogant. What avenues any of you take in your Ebay sales are up to you as long as you play by Ebay's rules.
If I list a coin then it's my coin and I don't have to sell it if I don't want to. I can cancel all bids and go throw it in the gulf if I want to. I'm paying eBay to use their site and I can do whatever they allow me to do if I want to. As far as I'm concerned the bids are not a contract for sale but merely a proposal for sale which I do not have to accept. BUTT......... Dog97 as a seller would never cancel a bidder for any amount of money and he think sellers that do are chicken$hit. I have no problem buying with chicken$hit dealers but if they cancel me I wouldn't bother bidding on any more of their auctions.
Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
4th stooge please quit quoting the ebay rules and go read them. It states that the seller has the right to cancel an auction, but it also states that you can report the seller if they continue to do this, so it is a violation if one keeps making a practice of it. As was pointed out by members, this seller has done this before. For gawd sakes man because something is within the rules doesn't make it ethical. You keep saying the same thing time and time again, use your common sense and think this thing through.
Absolutely not: at one time is was legal to own slaves in this country, it was a rule of law, it was a rule of law in Germany at one time that property belonging to Jews could be confiscated, it is still a rule of law in some South Amercan countries that you can kill your wife if she angers you, it is a rule is some Islamic countries that a woman can be stoned to death for infidelity. In my shop its the rule to get as much from a customer as possible. Are these things ethical in your mind?
If I feel its unethical according to my standards of moral conduct, it is unethical. The opposite of this is called rationalization. One can rationalize anything, that is why we have rules and laws. Cheating or tax returns, padding expense accounts, etc. maybe accepted practices but they are still unethical.
With your last post Mike, you're beginning to stumble into the light. When slavery was legal it was ethical. Ask a lawyer. For instance, what may be ethical in one state may not be ethical in another.
There are only 4 reasons Ebay allows a seller to end an auction early and they are;
1. The item is no longer available for sale. 2. There was an error in the minimum bid or Reserve amount. 3. There was an error in the listing. 4. The item was lost or broken.
The problem is Ebay cannot prove the seller is actually breaking the rules. That is the UNETHICAL SORRY A** SELLERS LOOP HOLE. On top of that Sellers are Ebays bread and butter so they have a strong tendency to look the other way.
The seller almost always uses #1 for his excuse, "The item is no longer available for sale" Aside from his personal collection, do you really think a dealer owns a coin that is not for sale? If he is going to offer it for sale, it stays that way until it is sold. Coins do not just magically sell to a different buyer in a different venue at 8:00 PM 1 minute before the auction ends. Reason #1 "The item is no longer available for sale." has a period at the end of it. "The item is no longer for sale in this specific auction because I did not use the seller tools available to me and do not want to sell it for that price" does not qualify.
Or he will use #2 or 3. What it took him 3 to 10 days (depending on the length of the auction) to realize 1 minute before the end of an auction there was an error? The only error was he is a cheap Bast*** who does not want to pay the fees to protect his investment or he is trying to entice more competitive bidding. That is not an error it was his choice.
When a seller post an auction he DOES enter into a contract that he is only allowed to break for very specific reasons. When a buyer places a bid he DOES enter into a contract that he is only allowed to break for very specific reasons.
So it all boils down to seller ethics. How far can they lean over the edge without falling.
Can you not see the forest through the trees?
Bill
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Would you concede that sometimes ethical behavior is illegal? An example of this might be conscientious objectors, or if you lean to the right, say interrupting operations at an abortion clinic. Simply saying that the law defines ethics fails to take into account the constant evolution of the law and even the amendments to our own constitution. Obviously there were times when the law was deemed inadequate to define what was ethical. Gee, let me think, freedom of speech, suffrage, etc. If it's fair to say sometimes ethical behavior is illegal, wouldn't it also be possible to say that sometimes unethical behavior is legal until the legal system closes the loophole. To me, a person's ethics have little to do with what is legal, but rather with their moral character. If you believe the examples above don't apply to businesses, do you feel the current accounting problem at Worldcom was ethical? We've yet to establish whether any of the behavior of the ex-CEO was technically illegal, but do you believe it was ethical? I know in advance that this discourse will fall on deaf ears, but really there isn't much substance to your position.IMHO
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Mike, Please set me staight on this. It's ethical for you to insult me when I'm genuinely trying to help you understand that business ethics and lawful behavior are intertwined and that personal standards are a different matter entirely?
Don - You made some interesting arguments. They made me stop and think about the implications for a while. You are coming from an interesting perspective. Bear
This is getting off-topic, but I think some of you may have confused the following: rules, ethics and morality. This is how I look at the three:
Rules are a set of stipulated dictums.
Ethics are how you govern yourself within a set of rules -- i.e., strict, loose, etc.
Morals are how you govern yourself in spite of rules.
For example, the rules of our civil society (our laws) state that killing is only allowed under a narrowly defined set of circumstances. In most (nearly all) states, it is considered illegal to perform euthanasia, and thus it is considered proper medical ethics not to do so. It is considered very strict professional ethics for the doctor even to refrain from discussing such matter with a patient. However, it is a moral judgement for the doctor regarding euthanasia even if there was no law or any line in the medical canon of ethics about this.
Your help is not needed, I obey the law and lead an ethical existence. People have tried over and over again to try to get you to listen, but you refuse to, ignoring the rules posted by ebay and your twisted comments justifying slave as not unethical do not deserve anything more from me that derision. Either listen, educate yourself about ethical behavior and the law or expect these kinds of comments. Religion was founded to deal with moral standards of conducts, laws were promulgated to protect society from people who can justify or rationalize about anything. Deal with it.
Would you concede that sometimes ethical behavior is illegal?
In Cambodia, under the Khmer Rouge, dispensing medical service is illegal. Yet, as a doctor, it would be unethical not to dispense medical service when appropriate. Sometimes, differing sets of rules conflict. And, laws can make bad rules. (Or, is that the reverse?)
I think, however, the example of conscientious objector (with war or abortions) is one of morality overriding law, or even personal ethics. For example, it is considered by most to be bad personal ethics to harass others. Yet, many Americans in the '60's did just that wrt the Vietnam War. Or, more recently, abortion doctors.
Would your personal ethics ever cause you to act outside the rules? It is off topic, but my point is simply that the rules usually are not written to consider every bad action anyone might ever take. Most sets of rules are imperfect. Using inadequate rules to justify bad behavior is poor form. Most rules improve with time, and I'm sure these will too. The argument posited here is the same one used by child pornographers who call their erotic material artistic nudes. IMHO
BTW - EVP, I've really missed your posts lately, have you been busy or am I just reading the wrong threads?
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Don, the ethics course I took (which was required) when I was working on my MBA in the early 80's was one of the best and most eye opening courses I have ever taken. The first night we took an ethics test on only 3 people out of 40 passed. One thing we learned was that rules and laws were not necessarily written with ethics in mind. As I stated earlier they are written to protect society. Ethics are a code of honor, a moral standard and often times they come into conflict wi th laws. I wish I still had my library of ethic books, some of them made fascinating reading, but the exwife had a garage sale when I moved out.
I like where this thread is going much more than where it was before...
Yes, I think my sense of personal ethics could easily get me in trouble with the law. (Please don't ask me to get specific here!) That's because I agree that the laying down of rules is often wrong, insufficient or not clear. I view ethics as an interpretation of a set of rules.
An extreme example comes from a movie from a couple of years ago... Samuel L. Jackson plays a father who kills a couple of white hicks who brutalize his daughter. (Matthew McCaughnehay played the lawyer.) To Jackson's character, he had to deal with the rule of law, but his ethical duties as a father was to kill those wretched creatures. He felt that it was right to kill them. In the movie, a sheriff's deputy got lost his leg during the incident when Jackson's character killed the hicks. The deputy was bound by his professional ethics to testify on behalf of the state (against Jackson's character). Yet, his sense of morality -- he was so outraged by the hicks' actions -- that he tried really hard to be a lousy state's witness.
BTW - EVP, I've really missed your posts lately, have you been busy or am I just reading the wrong threads?
Thanks. I tend to haunt the NGC site more, but lately I've been busy with ANA stuff. And, for a long while, the posts here have really bored me. (Over at NGC as well!)
Yes EVP, I saw that one. The Israeli mossad hunting down NAZI executioners came to mind immediately. I also remembered the father who killed his son's karate instructor after he raped his child. The Israeli example is particularly interesting because their actions were legal and moral at home, and illegal abroad. I guess it all comes down to what one truly believes is acceptable, but as it relates to this thread, I for one believe bad behavior is still bad behavior even if it's technically legal. Mike, I wish I had taken the class. It sounds like a real opportunity to learn.
Bear - I'm glad I made you scratch and think, but as one of the most supportive members here, you always do the right thing
FYI - I'm not in any way suggesting that anyone's actions selling coins is in any way on scale with any of the extreme examples cited, and any comparison by me would be reprehensible, but I do however take umbrage with the argument that just because something is legal, it is therefore ethical.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Comments
I do not feel the tone of this thread has a lynch mob attitude. You are correct this thread was not started about you. It was started about Ebay seller "e.mix" who I have reported to Ebay. He ends about 50% of his auctions in the last minute due to low bids. The tone changed not after you set the record straight concerning your auction but when you tried to justify that type of seller behavior. Going back and editing out your comments does not sit well either.
The whole point of this thread is to let everyone know (dealers included) that there are a lot of honest buyers out there and as such we expect to be dealt with honestly without deception. You want us to see the dealer’s side of the issue. We do, but just because you choose to operate a very difficult and competitive business and have to deal with a lot of scum in this hobby (Buyers & other dealers) does not in our minds justify deceptive sales practices as compensation to the business owner. As a buyer I could care less how much a business owners profit or loss is, that is none of my concern. I as a customer expect to be dealt with honestly and professionally and am willing to pay a fair price for what I desire. There are plenty of dealers to choose from and the great Ebay is not the only source of coins. If a dealer feels they cannot sustain their business without using manipulative and deceptive sales tactics then I will simply choose to take my business elsewhere. Ebay is a sellers market but I as a buyer still expect some level of honesty and integrity be maintained. If a dealer does not agree with his potential customers on what standard of salesmanship should be maintained and stands behind a practice his customers view as dishonest, deceptive, or manipulative with the excuse “It’s not against the rules” so be it. But just because something is not against the rules does not automatically make it ok and buyers reserve the right to not purchase from those sellers.
As far as dealers not frequenting these boards do to the hostility and lynch mob attitude. That’s sad, there is a lot of flack thrown there way by collectors due to market conditions that’s beyond their control. A lot of collectors find it easier to blame and bash the dealers for their mistakes and it is unfortunate.
But this thread does not fall into that category.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Scott M
Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker
<< <i>I think we all realize that dealers have costs and they need to meet those costs to stay in business. >>
And as has been said on this thread, eBay provides sellers tools to guarantee they meet their costs: the ability to set reserve prices and starting bid amounts. Using the "cancel the auction minutes before the close" tool is deceptive in my opinion, and an attempt to circumvent eBays fees which are based on the reserve price and/or the starting bid.
Pete
Well I never thought that expressing my opinion was the same as being part of a "lynch mob". Apparently there is an attitude by some dealers that:
1. Because thay have a business they have a God-given right to a profit.
2. Rules are more important than ethics.
3. Disagree and you get you get called a name (member of a mob).
4. "The dealer is always right, not he buyer".
Ok, I'll just take my "mob" money and buy only from dealers who:
1. Understand that a business is a risk, not a ticket to welfare.
2. Ethics will always take first place to rules.
3. Don't resort to name calling when their practices are questioned.
4. Operate on the assumption that "the ethical customer is ALWAYS right".
Thank you for your attention,
Pushkin the Mobster
Charles
4th Stooge, maybe you're scratching a little too hard or something...
Did you miss the point or what?
You are correct it is his property and he does have a right to do anything he wants to do with it, nobody here disagrees with that. He can choose to sell it or not sell it. If he chooses to sell his possessions than buyers expect to be treated fairly and honestly without being decieved or manipulated.
And I would bet anyone who thinks just following the rules is all it takes to be successful at anything in this life is left scratching their head quite often.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
the money i'm about to send in is my property too. after the auction ends i'll just decide not to buy because the price was not right. whether the auction was cancelled or payment was not made - it's a reneg.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
E-Bay provides sellers tools to guarantee they meet their costs: the ability to set reserve prices and starting bid amounts. Using the "cancel the auction minutes before the close" tool is deceptive.
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
For a buyer, putting hard earned money down on a sellers product is really a contract, that states, that the sellers product is 100% what it is advertised as.
For the seller, it's not so cut and dry. They have a lot of 'behind the scenes' happening.
Surely it doesn't give a seller the right to tell a buyer what to do with his money, and how to spend it.
The seller's standpoint is more of asking for someones 'labor' in return for his/her 'goods/service'
,Bartering at it's best.
Truely it's an agreement between 2 parties.
-The one with the 'honest' upper hand is the Buyer.
-The one with the 'minute' upper hand is the seller.
Considering that the buyer doesn't have counterfeit funds, it's a pretty honest trade(unless it's in pesos are something hehe)
Considering the seller, his product must live up to the standards of his claims, and if not, live up to the contract, and offer a better trade or funds back.
Not stepping off the subject too far....
When you take away the honesty in trade, and use tactics that manipulate the outcome of such a deal, you undermind the system of 'bartering' and in turn, Make people very angry.
This leads to the seller getting a bad wrap(whether it was an honest mistake or not) a contract is a contract, and if the seller doesn't live up to it, the confidence in his goods/service goes down the tube, in effect, saying bye bye to his/her business.
To Sum it up
-The customer is always right(unless their honesty is not true-counterfeit, taking advantage of refunds, etc)
-The seller has to bend over backwards because a reputation is worth it's weight in Gold bullion(no pun again
It doesn't matter how good your product is, if you suck, your product sucks, no matter how good it really is.
whew, that was long winded.
I hope this helps somewhat.
Robert
Charles
That's exactly all we need!! Where is the "Seller's Cancellation History on Ebay?"
Thanks very much.
Charles
<< <i>If he chooses to sell his possessions than buyers expect to be treated fairly and honestly without being decieved or manipulated. >>
If the seller hasn't violated any auction rules and the auction terms are available for all to view then how is a buyer being deceived or manipulated?
apparently, if my statement isn't true on its face then I am missing the point...please explain.
<< <i>If the seller hasn't violated any auction rules and the auction terms are available for all to view then how is a buyer being deceived or manipulated? >>
Ebay has seller tools available for them to protect their investments and control the final sale price of their goods. They are called Reserves and minimum bids. If a seller is not wanting to part with his goods for less than a minimum dollar amount they can use that figure as a minimum bid or in plain sight for everyone to see let his potential buyers know he has a hidden reserve they must meet before he is willing to part with his goods. He then places his item up for sale entering into a contract to sell it to the buyer that meets his terms.
When a seller instead chooses to list his item without a reserve with a low minimum bid he is telling all his potential customers I have no reserve and my goods are up for sale at whatever the current market deems them worth. He again places his item up for sale entering into a contract to sell it to the buyer that meets his terms. A buyer in good faith enters into the contract and commits his money to purchase the item by placing his bid.
BUT, in reality the seller only know to himself has a reserve but was either to cheap to pay the fees involved in listing a reserve or starting the auction at a higher opening bid to protect his investment, or is gambling by trying to entice more competitive bidding. Then when the seller sees he screwed up and his secret reserve is not met he ends the auction in the last few minutes refusing to sell his item.
I for one define that type of behavior as deceptive and manipulative.
And I will say again one of the reasons ebay allows a seller to end an auction early is NOT " I don't want to sell it for that amount of money" They provide sellers with the ability of setting a reserve or a high opening bid to prevent that from happening.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
<< <i> in reality the seller only know to himself has a reserve but was either to cheap to pay the fees involved in listing a reserve or starting the auction at a higher opening bid to protect his investment, or is gambling by trying to entice more competitive bidding. Then when the seller sees he screwed up and his secret reserve is not met he ends the auction in the last few minutes refusing to sell his item. >>
Here's the rub... If Ebay has considered what you state and allows this then there has been no sin committed. The seller's actions are ethical. Only Ebay decides the rules on their site. If they don't meet your personal standards then don't do business there. If the seller is outsides the bounds of those set by Ebay then I most certainly would agree with you about the character of the seller. I would suggest that rather than only flaming the seller here that an interested party contact safe harbor, bring this matter to their attention and bring the results of that report back to this forum. The imposing of ones personal standards on others without a concensus is pretty arrogant. What avenues any of you take in your Ebay sales are up to you as long as you play by Ebay's rules.
BUTT.........
Dog97 as a seller would never cancel a bidder for any amount of money and he think sellers that do are chicken$hit. I have no problem buying with chicken$hit dealers but if they cancel me I wouldn't bother bidding on any more of their auctions.
Ethics are the rules and the rules are the ethics. They are one in the same.
Irishmike,
because you don't fell comfortable with a particular business practice doesn't make it unethical.
BTW, who's gonna report this seller?
THE SELLER IS BREAKING EBAY RULES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are only 4 reasons Ebay allows a seller to end an auction early and they are;
1. The item is no longer available for sale.
2. There was an error in the minimum bid or Reserve amount.
3. There was an error in the listing.
4. The item was lost or broken.
The problem is Ebay cannot prove the seller is actually breaking the rules. That is the UNETHICAL SORRY A** SELLERS LOOP HOLE. On top of that Sellers are Ebays bread and butter so they have a strong tendency to look the other way.
The seller almost always uses #1 for his excuse, "The item is no longer available for sale" Aside from his personal collection, do you really think a dealer owns a coin that is not for sale? If he is going to offer it for sale, it stays that way until it is sold. Coins do not just magically sell to a different buyer in a different venue at 8:00 PM 1 minute before the auction ends. Reason #1 "The item is no longer available for sale." has a period at the end of it. "The item is no longer for sale in this specific auction because I did not use the seller tools available to me and do not want to sell it for that price" does not qualify.
Or he will use #2 or 3. What it took him 3 to 10 days (depending on the length of the auction) to realize 1 minute before the end of an auction there was an error? The only error was he is a cheap Bast*** who does not want to pay the fees to protect his investment or he is trying to entice more competitive bidding. That is not an error it was his choice.
When a seller post an auction he DOES enter into a contract that he is only allowed to break for very specific reasons.
When a buyer places a bid he DOES enter into a contract that he is only allowed to break for very specific reasons.
So it all boils down to seller ethics. How far can they lean over the edge without falling.
Can you not see the forest through the trees?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
It took me to long to write that last post had I read all the new ones you and he had posted before hand I would not have wasted my time.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Would you concede that sometimes ethical behavior is illegal? An example of this might be conscientious objectors, or if you lean to the right, say interrupting operations at an abortion clinic. Simply saying that the law defines ethics fails to take into account the constant evolution of the law and even the amendments to our own constitution. Obviously there were times when the law was deemed inadequate to define what was ethical. Gee, let me think, freedom of speech, suffrage, etc.
If it's fair to say sometimes ethical behavior is illegal, wouldn't it also be possible to say that sometimes unethical behavior is legal until the legal system closes the loophole. To me, a person's ethics have little to do with what is legal, but rather with their moral character. If you believe the examples above don't apply to businesses, do you feel the current accounting problem at Worldcom was ethical? We've yet to establish whether any of the behavior of the ex-CEO was technically illegal, but do you believe it was ethical?
I know in advance that this discourse will fall on deaf ears, but really there isn't much substance to your position.IMHO
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Please set me staight on this. It's ethical for you to insult me when I'm genuinely trying to help you understand that business ethics and lawful behavior are intertwined and that personal standards are a different matter entirely?
Camelot
Rules are a set of stipulated dictums.
Ethics are how you govern yourself within a set of rules -- i.e., strict, loose, etc.
Morals are how you govern yourself in spite of rules.
For example, the rules of our civil society (our laws) state that killing is only allowed under a narrowly defined set of circumstances. In most (nearly all) states, it is considered illegal to perform euthanasia, and thus it is considered proper medical ethics not to do so. It is considered very strict professional ethics for the doctor even to refrain from discussing such matter with a patient. However, it is a moral judgement for the doctor regarding euthanasia even if there was no law or any line in the medical canon of ethics about this.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
In Cambodia, under the Khmer Rouge, dispensing medical service is illegal. Yet, as a doctor, it would be unethical not to dispense medical service when appropriate. Sometimes, differing sets of rules conflict. And, laws can make bad rules. (Or, is that the reverse?)
I think, however, the example of conscientious objector (with war or abortions) is one of morality overriding law, or even personal ethics. For example, it is considered by most to be bad personal ethics to harass others. Yet, many Americans in the '60's did just that wrt the Vietnam War. Or, more recently, abortion doctors.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Would your personal ethics ever cause you to act outside the rules? It is off topic, but my point is simply that the rules usually are not written to consider every bad action anyone might ever take. Most sets of rules are imperfect. Using inadequate rules to justify bad behavior is poor form. Most rules improve with time, and I'm sure these will too. The argument posited here is the same one used by child pornographers who call their erotic material artistic nudes. IMHO
BTW - EVP, I've really missed your posts lately, have you been busy or am I just reading the wrong threads?
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
you were no doubt on of the 37.
I owed that!
I like where this thread is going much more than where it was before...
Yes, I think my sense of personal ethics could easily get me in trouble with the law. (Please don't ask me to get specific here!) That's because I agree that the laying down of rules is often wrong, insufficient or not clear. I view ethics as an interpretation of a set of rules.
An extreme example comes from a movie from a couple of years ago... Samuel L. Jackson plays a father who kills a couple of white hicks who brutalize his daughter. (Matthew McCaughnehay played the lawyer.) To Jackson's character, he had to deal with the rule of law, but his ethical duties as a father was to kill those wretched creatures. He felt that it was right to kill them. In the movie, a sheriff's deputy got lost his leg during the incident when Jackson's character killed the hicks. The deputy was bound by his professional ethics to testify on behalf of the state (against Jackson's character). Yet, his sense of morality -- he was so outraged by the hicks' actions -- that he tried really hard to be a lousy state's witness.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Thanks. I tend to haunt the NGC site more, but lately I've been busy with ANA stuff. And, for a long while, the posts here have really bored me. (Over at NGC as well!)
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
4th,
Is that a sample of your ethics?
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
immediately. I also remembered the father who killed his son's karate instructor after he raped
his child. The Israeli example is particularly interesting because their actions were legal and
moral at home, and illegal abroad. I guess it all comes down to what one truly believes is
acceptable, but as it relates to this thread, I for one believe bad behavior is still bad behavior
even if it's technically legal. Mike, I wish I had taken the class. It sounds like a real opportunity
to learn.
Bear - I'm glad I made you scratch and think, but as one of the most supportive members here,
you always do the right thing
FYI - I'm not in any way suggesting that anyone's actions selling coins is in any way on scale with any of the extreme examples cited, and any comparison by me would be reprehensible, but I do however take umbrage with the argument that just because something is legal, it is therefore ethical.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor