Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:20:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1099 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:37EFDE75.DDFD1310@voyager.net...
> David Eaton wrote:
>
> > It kinda sounds, however, like you're arguing against your own • actions... let's
> > say the McDonalds set was the cure... wasn't the point of your action to
> > prevent some poor idiot from buying the set at 10x the regular cost?
>
> No, it was to increase the level of information in the market place. I
> WANT sellers to dig out rare sets, and I want buyers to buy them. If
> they are blowing their money on stuff they can get at retail, they're
> not spending their money on rare sets and thus not incenting sellers to
> dig up those rare sets so I can buy them too.
Larry, you know, I read your message about how low some of the auction
prices in SeriousCollector are. As a result I went to seriouscollector and
discovered some sets I liked the look of. I rapidly joined up and then
actually outbid a couple of your own proxy bids.
As I did this, I was thinking what a great guy Larry was for offering up
this
information even when it meant that he might lose out as a result.
Now I've read this I've had to put a different interpretation on it -
clearly
you were hoping to raise prices, thus attracting
more sellers in, and so benefitting yourself.
*sigh* you don't know how disillusioned you've just made me <evil grin>
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
> > It kinda
> > sounds like you thought the seller was in the wrong for not providing • the set
> > number, and you were trying to prevent victims from this wrong.
>
> Hmm... I'm not sure a buyer who acts on insufficient information is a
> victim per se, just an example of evolution in action.
>
> My issue was more aesthetic than moral. :-)
>
> > You can say
> > that since you were providing only neutral info you were behaving • neutrally,
> > but I still think the point of your action was to undermine the sale at • such a
> > ridiculous price. Hence it sounds like you were interfering the seller's • rights
> > of business conduct.
>
> Hmm.. another interesting point. I'm not sure that sellers have a right
> to control all the information available to buyers. Would we say that
> Ford was justified if they had managed to somehow prevent (especially if
> they did so by force or fraud...) Consumers Reports from reporting how
> flammable Pinto tanks were? I dare say not, most of us would agree that
> the market as a whole is well served by increased information.
>
> > Hmm... maybe that sounds unclear. My point is there that
> > you may have committed a neutral act, but your intent was otherwise. But • I
> > digress... after all, you never claimed that your actions were
> > moral/immoral/neutral to begin with.
>
> Oh sorry, I forgot to so claim, but I will now. I claim that increasing
> the flow of information in a lawful manner is in fact a moral thing to
> do, even an altruistic one, if you will, although I say not altruistic
> for me by my defintion, because it has a clear benefit to me of making a
> better market.
>
> eBay doesn't see it that way. They prefer to enable the seller to
> control information. They have written their TOS that way. Their
> perogative. But just one more fact to evaluate when we decide which
> company to give our custom to when seeking auction sites.
>
> > I agree with your actions, though... I'd've been tempted to still post • the set
> > number and availibility, because I think the buyers have the right to be
> > treated equally. That's not to say that some guy SHOULDN'T pay some • ridiculous
> > price for it, and that the seller SHOULDN'T sell it to them for that-- • indeed,
> > the buyer can be mistreated at his own fault, and it's not right or • wrong. But
> > purposely hiding the set number certainly made it easier for people to • be
> > mistreated. Hence, that's not really being morally evil, it's just not • being
> > very charitable. But I have a tendancy to want to be charitable... I • think most
> > people do.
>
> You have to decide what to do for yourself, I cannot do that for you, or
> it would be no good, but you already know that, I just like repeating
> myself...
>
> For me, now, it is clear cut. An eBay rep has said I can't. Until and
> unless I can get that ruling overturned, I have to abide or I am not
> true to my principles of abiding by contracts I freely enter into. Make
> no mistake, I freely entered into my agreement with eBay, I use their
> site as a buyer, therefore I MUST abide by their TOS or I am defrauding
> them.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
> lugnet.
>
> NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
> will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
