Dave Hinz wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:19:11 -0700, SteveB wrote:
Some brain dead Netizen wrote:
Exactly. The people who snipe make it so the people who don't snipe are
disadvantaged in the auction.
Wrong. IF the people who don't snipe are at any disadvantage, it is
because they put THEMSELVES at a disadvantage, either by not
understanding the rules of the game (proxy bidding and a time limit)
or by choosing to play by a different set of rules than the official
rules used by everyone else.
And even without using sniping, you CANNOT be "disadvantaged" if you
make an honest assessment of the maximum the item is worth to you and
then bid that amount. For some reason, that concept seems to be too
difficult for you to comprehend.
Sniping works EXACTLY as proxies do.
Then use the proxy. Oh wait, you don't want to. Why, oh why, might
that be? Oh, probably because it _doesn't_ work exactly as proxies do.
So in your world view, given the existing rules of eBay, where is the
line that determines whether placing my proxy bid is "cheating" or
not? Ten minutes before auction end? Thirty minutes? Two days?
And if someone outbids me in the last minute, can I attempt to outbid
him, or would you consider that to be "cheating" because I would then
be denying others the opportunity to outbid both of us?
You put the maximum you will pay into
the system, and if you are high, you get it. It just doesn't do it early
enough to allow bidding wars and clueless newbies to mess things up.
Translation: I am more entitled to this item than some newbie who
bids the way the auction is set up and hasn't stooped to sniping yet.
News flash: The "auction is set up" to allow sniping; both the sniper
and the newbie are playing by the rules. It's not a matter of
"stooping"; it's a matter of understanding the rules.
I think I've identified a couple of your ethical notions. Tell me if
I've got these right:
1) You as a seller have a moral entitlement to take advantage of those
who have no notion what an item is really worth, those who bid
irrationally in the heat of a bidding war, and newbies who don't yet
understand the rules; there is nothing ethically wrong with pitting
two or more of these rubes against each other to extract the maximum
price for your item, even if it's well above the fair market value.
2) Any bidder who acts in a way that might limit your ability to
capitalize on the ignorance or irrationality of other bidders is
cheating and acting unethically, even though they haven't violated any
rules of the game.
3) [A generalization of 2] Anyone who doesn't play by YOUR rules is
behaving unethically, even if they're playing within the bounds of the
official rules of the activity in question.
Do those sound about right?
I'm curious: There are other ways in which eBay rules differ from the
rules of traditional auctions, but you don't seem bothered with those.
Why is that? For instance, in an eBay auction, a bidder is limited to
the smallest bid increment; i.e., the bid shown reflects the smallest
winning margin, even if he placed a higher (proxy) bid. In a
traditional auction, a bidder is not limited to the smallest bid
increment; he can bid significantly higher than the current bid in an
attempt to intimidate other bidders into giving up. Without the
intimidation of a large bid, the other bidders may get caught up in a
nickel-and-dime bidding war and end up bidding well beyond the point
where the large bid would have fallen. Why do you not complain about
the inability to post a large (non-proxy) bid? Could it be because
that inability works to your advantage as a seller?
|