...of this discussion as there has been no movement at all on the positions. And I can't even get insulting like I did with LS & DM since I respect Puppy too much! So if anybody wants to argue for MY side, feel free to jump in.
As I see it, there are 2 distinct issues here:
#1) SEMANTICS. What EXACTLY constitutes or is the definition of SHILL BIDDING. I maintain a shill bidder MUST have SOME type of connection with the seller and that a true shill bidder DOES NOT truely complete a transaction if the shill inadvertantly wins an auction.
#2) Is ANY bidding that raises the final bid WITHOUT winning OK, legal, ethical, moral, "should-be-a-law-against".
Puppy posted:
quote:
Suppose I find an auction with an opening price of $25. There are 3 bids, and I discover all three bids were placed by the same person. I don't like this other bidder, so I place a bid for $27 knowing that he/she will still win, but at a higher price than if I had not bid.
I'll give you that it would be next to impossible to prove,
I'm not in favor of ANY "rule" that can't be objectively proven!!! Any such rule is stupid, pointless, subjective, and a waste of time to read!
quote:
...but it might be possible to show a pattern of behavior if it went on and on.
So, now it would become "illegal" on ebay to LOSE AUCTIONS!?!? Well, maybe not one, but if you lose a BUNCH of them -- Look out! Ebay will come after you! "Don't even bid unless you can win!" I guess this would outlaw "nibbling", which means Rick would go for it.
Of course, any snipe that DOESN'T WIN, you'd be one of these "criminals", because all you accomplished with your bid was to raise the winning bidders final cost. Linda CERTAINLY well defines one of these "criminals" when she went up against that nuk.bidder. ALL she accomplished was to raise the item's final price.
I find it ironic, and even AGONIZING, that someone who has such a grasp of the objective analysis of data (see B.A. program) should think this subjective rule making on the basis of "thoughts" & "intentions" is a good idea!? Tell you what, when you can modify the BidAl sheet to devine/discern EACH bidder's "intentions" when they bid on auction and indicate it next to their name in the BidAl report, THEN we can discuss a "rule" on such. Yeah, just add a column to the BidAl report -- something like "Bidder's Intent". You could use keys like:
A = Wants to win but if only at an INSANELY low price.
B = Doesn't expect/want to win, but wants to watch auction bid action and see final bid.
C = Really wants to win item.
D = Really, really wants to win item.
E = Really, really, REALLY wants to win item.
F = Wants to bid on SOMETHING to get some ebay experience/practice. WHAT's the item again?
G = Likes seller & wants him/her to get a higher price for item.
H = Hates competing bidder and wants to see him/her pay higher price for item.
I = Hasn't a clue, and doesn't even realize bidding on something in an online auction.
J = Juvenile thinking this is some type of video game and doesn't think it has anything to do with a real item for sale for real money.
K = Doesn't really want to win item, but wants to follow auction, but ebay watch list is FULL.
L = Interested in item, but not THAT much, but DO want to find out what the reserve is.
M = Inebriated, so true intent indiscernible.
N = Drug user, so true intent indiscernible.
O = Meant to bid on a different item.
P = Meant to bid a lesser amount and is HOPING TO GOD to be outbid.
Q = Meant to bid with a different ebay ID.
R = "What does the 'Submit' button do?"
S = Pity bid. "Poor so-n-so has no bids on his item!"
T = sure you can think of more....
Once "intent" can be objectively and accurately defined for bidders, then and ONLY then does it make ANY sense to talk about rules based on same!
Signing off from the discussion, tho interested in the ebay answer to Puppy's sent query.
Jabbergah
..Do I think they will ever get a TOS? No, I do not, but they may get caught in their own game and end up owning something they didn't intend to buy! 
