Ebay gets ethical!

Camera,

My apologies, as it appears I misjudged you. I was beginning to believe you viewed ebay as some monopolistic power that was insensitive to the needs of their customers and who’s only motivation was to maximize their revenue due to the mistaken belief that greed was the primary function described in their mission statement. I thank you for posting this yet another fine example in a long list of examples where ebay has followed the desires of their customers.

But, I still believe it was a major mistake that ebay should ban the sell of human body parts – just think of all that money they are missing out on. Why, just look at all these moneymaking venues they are avoiding: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/items-ov.html

Since that announcement came from eBay.co.uk, perhaps it’s the British influence that has provided an example for the Yanks.

What are LIVE 8 tickets Camera?

Is that ANY tickets for live concerts?? If so, I seriously hope ebay.com.au dont adopt the same decision....alot of the time, tickets sell so fast, ebay is the only way to get a hold of them.

You may pay a little bit more (ie, my Robbie Williams tickets, I paid $330-ish instead of $150), but at least you have a chance at getting tickets.

quote:

You may pay a little bit more (ie, my Robbie Williams tickets, I paid $330-ish instead of $150), but at least you have a chance at getting tickets.

Wow! More than DOUBLE retail!?! Obviously a true fan! Probably in the front row, too -- screaming like a teenie-bopper and throwing underwear on stage!

Whilst I believe eBay UK are to be congratulated on this decision, they are bowing to "bad press" in a typically reactionary corporate manner.

The blighters imply that they first decided to allow the sale of Live8 tickets. Had they been truly sensitive to their clients attitiude the decision to ban the practice would have been made then, what?

This is one of the jolly rare occasion in which I would regard the buyers as even more unethical than the sellers.

Bartleby old thing, have a look at http://www.live8live.com/ - all will be revealed.

Emo

Ta, Emo. Now I understand what you're all on about.

What's to stop UK sellers logging on in say, eBau AU, and selling back to the British market from there?

GG

Emo,

Thanks for the Live8 link. I read much of what is on the site, but I guess I'm dense! I don't get it! OK, bunch of performers get together and put on mega-concerts to gather 10,000's people together to "in one voice" demand the leaders of the free world to forgive/cancel Africa's debt? And this is supposed to end poverty (only in Africa, presumably)?? Sounds like a dandy deal for Africa. Not a bad deal for performers as they are presumably NOT donating their performances since there are tickets that cost money involved. Also not a bad deal for audiences since they get to attend live concerts of their favorite performers in one venue and also get to feel like they are doing something positive for a "just cause". Unfortunately, not a very good deal for lenders who have make good faith loans to Africa expecting to at some point be paid back and are now being asked -- no, DEMANDED -- to forgive and forget those loans!?! The whole event is rather painless to everyone EXCEPT those who are owed money!

So if this effort is successful and all the lenders are forced to write off the African loans, I suppose the next Live8 (Live9??) operation will be to demand new loans BE MADE to Africa. If <I> was a lender, I wouldn't be very inclined to make anymore loans to African interests if I had been forced to write off previous loans!

How is THIS for a more reasonable(?) demand? All these performers and fans get together and raise enough money to pay 2/3, 1/2, or say even 1/3 of the debt owed by Africa, and THEN ask the remainder of the debt to be forgiven?!? Probably each of those performers could come up with at least a couple million dollars each with little or no problem!

Yielding soapbox....

I am as cynical as the next man (presumably your good self) when it comes to motives and methods of charities, but it seems the performers are donating their services unpaid.

If the debts are written off I don't think it'll be because the hard-headed money-men feel "forced" to do so.

I don't pretend to understand global economics but it seems many of these poor countries spend a vast amount of money "servicing" their debt, in other words paying the interest, not in repaying the principle. Sounds like the hold the credit companies have over so many of us.

Provided the money so released actually gets to where it's needed I don't see any problem. The only worry is that it'll be sucked off by corrupt governments to buy weapons and feather their own nests.

GG

quote:

Originally posted by Gardengnome:
Sounds like the hold the credit companies have over so many of us.

I assume there’s a “self-inflicted” before the “hold the credit companies”?

quote:

Originally posted by Gardengnome:
The only worry is that it'll be sucked off by corrupt governments to buy weapons and feather their own nests.

OK, don’t let this go to your head, but we are in agreement.

quote:

WE are in agreement

Sire, I take it now that you are assuming the Royal "WE", all of us must address you with greater respect?

your 'umble servant

Camera

I say Camera, steady on old chap!

By jingo sir, I hope you're not suggesting the blighter is usurping my position as the representative of the better social classes in the jolly old forum are you?

If so, the misbegotten bounder can bally well toddle off and practice his "acquired" airs and graces elsewhere!

Emo

quote:

Originally posted by Camera Collector:
Sire, I take it now that you are assuming the Royal "WE", all of us must address you with greater respect?

A bit of a stretch, but I’ll send you a ribbon for participating.

The “sire” is appreciated, but uncalled for.

Old business:
‘I take it now that you are assuming the Royal “We”’ – not unless you are referring to GG. You being a “schoolmaster” (I hope that wasn’t a required course) and all (or nothing), I may well be mistaken in the use of “we”. Since there were two of “us”, G********** and my***f (asterisks have been used to protect the innocent), in agreement, I thought the use of “we” was appropriate (maybe an “our”?), unless you think GG wasn't agreeing with himself? You would know better then me, or is it “I”? Glad to see you said, “I take it ” instead of your traditional “We take it”.

Since “we” (that would be you and I, and anyone else that drops in to discuss “we”) are discussing “we”; regarding your once saying, 'some of your posts have of late been a trifle "sub standard" shall we say'. Considering you (Camera) were the only one making that statement, it seemed your use of “we” was the wrong choice. The “we” in that context almost sounded like something a sheep (notice that sheep is both singular and plural – I “gather” that’s because you never see one by itself) would think (assuming sheep actually think – do sheep think, Camera?).

Of course, the “We” could always mean the mouse in your pocket.

In your schoolmaster role, did you happen to teach Bill Clinton what the definition of “is” is, and if so, what grade did you give him?

Also, you left out my “OK, don’t let this go to your head “ in your quote. Does that mean YOU agree that GG shouldn’t let it go to his head?

On to “all of us must address you with greater respect?”; I wouldn’t expect an old dog to learn new tricks – Fetch the bone, Rover. [wink, wink, or should I say, “baaaa”?]

Emo, your position as the representative of the better social classes in this jolly old forum is still intact.

[ Hopefully everyone (Camera, is “everyone” the right word?) will forgive me for digressing to the OP’s topic (OP can also mean Over Protective, and Odd Person) ]

You know, this writing off of unpaid debts sounds like a great idea. Everyone that agrees with it please loan me a $1000. You can use FoolPal to send your “loan” in care of I_found_another_chump.com

Obscurum per obscurius

quote:

Originally posted by Camera Collector:
Obscurum per obscurius

Mind translating that? At least you didn't use a bunch of astericks this time.

Now the dust has settled on ebay's announcement of ticket sales being withdrawn - the truth emerges:

LONDON (Reuters) - Internet auction site eBay ended a sale of free Live 8 tickets on Tuesday after Bob Geldof, the organizer of the awareness-raising concerts, labeled the site an "electronic pimp" and urged people to swamp it.

Tickets to the star-studded London show, which aims to pressure world leaders into fighting poverty in Africa, were given away to the winners of a text lottery. But they immediately started appearing on eBay for hundreds of pounds.

Geldof criticized the site and urged people to swamp it with bogus offers of tickets or massively inflated bids.

"What I would ask you to do tonight is to get on eBay and mess up the system," he told Sky News.

"Everyone should go on and pretend they have got tickets for Live 8 ... otherwise go on and bid ridiculous amounts of money for the tickets already on the site," said the feisty Irish rocker.

His appeal did not go unheeded. Within minutes bids which had been running in the hundreds of pounds surged to 10 million pounds.

eBay, which earlier on Tuesday rejected Geldof's call to end the sale saying there was nothing illegal about it, capitulated.

"eBay has decided to not allow the resale of Live 8 tickets on the site," a spokesman told Reuters.

"We have listened to eBay's community of users and the message has been clear -- that they do not want the tickets to be sold on the site. Once we are made aware of any Live 8 tickets being resold they will be taken down," he added.

Is this not typical ebay "doublespeak" They try to "pretend" they respond to public opinion, when in reality they couldn't care a !@*&!

I am not wholly in agreement with Sir Geldorf's views, but he has clearly demonstrated how you get ebay to respond to legitimate criticism - frighten it!

The lesson will not be lost on others .....

On the radio today (yup I still listen to it!) one of the panel said what he actually asked for was the "world army of hackers to bring this site to its knees" Now I can't find any other comment of like ilk on Google, so presume the panelist misheard him asking everybody to swamp it with bids.

Anybody heard the original speech?

Rant against ebay's morals? You bet - you should have seen their slow response to the Tsunami tragedy - people had really to "put the boot in" to get some sort of response. (In contrast to their rapid & positive reaction to 9/11)

quote:

Originally posted by Camera Collector:
(In contrast to their rapid & positive reaction to 9/11)

That almost sounds like a compliment.

quote:

Rant against ebay's morals? You bet - you should have seen their slow response to the Tsunami tragedy - people had really to "put the boot in" to get some sort of response. (In contrast to their rapid & positive reaction to 9/11)

Not sure I understand the political insinuations? Just WHAT did ebay do that was immoral/unethical? Allow tickets to be sold? NOT allow tickets to be sold? And why does this incident speak to the morality of Ebay rather than the morality of the people who listed/bid on the tickets?? To whom does "their" refer in your statement? Ebay? American people? USA country/government? What "people" "put the boot in"?

quote:

I am as cynical as the next man (presumably your good self) when it comes to motives and methods of charities, but it seems the performers are donating their services unpaid.

It SEEMS that you are NOT as cynical as I am!

Sorry Jab, don't quite follow you .

GG