The Drama Continues.. Part Two

[Zwackery]

However, doing what someone just did to StLouisRams is not cool, (unless he had just persuaded the seller into offering the BIN, then it's frackin poetic.).

No, he didn't and he's pretty pissed. From gooddealz99's feedback:

 

BREACH OF CONTRACT. SELLER NON PERFORMANCE. I WILL SUE FOR MONETARY DAMAGES.

 

Buyer stlouisrams2006 Oct-27-06 05:56 190045215342

 

My question is why someone would pay $250.00 when one is listed @ $199.00?

Because people are lazy - even with freakin' search engines!

[+Wonder007]

Wow, this is incredible.

[bretthorror]

Although that seller can lick my beets, what monetary damages?

[lemoncurry]

Yes, a BIN there to begin with that happens to be a good deal is the seller's fault, more power to the lucky person to jump on it. (Unethical: trying to get the seller to back out for a better (but still too low) price!)

 

But I will never apologize for letting an ignorant seller know that some lowlife has talked him into ending early, and that this has cheated him, eBay, and all other potential buyers to various degrees. If the seller decides to start over, that's his prerogative.

 

(I only do it when I know this has happened; you can see when an auction has been revised to add a BIN, as well as when it has ended early of course.)

Edited October 28, 2006 by lemoncurry

[2600 Forever]

All this for a f*^ng Tank Command?

 

What's next, CIB Combat side deals?

 

And the buyer in that hidden bidder auction is retarded.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=290043701765

 

[Zwackery]

Although that seller can lick my beets, what monetary damages?

BINed for $70, the buyer can split up the lot and resell it for well over $300 (factoring in Tank Command primarily and the 7800 console with its games counting for the other part, and the 2600 games included boxed copies of Commando and River Raid II), realizing profit of approximately $250 (before eBay fees, plus that's a nice number to work with). Since the value alone of Tank Command was subsequently demonstrated, the buyer is claiming that he would have realized some sort of financial largesse from the purchase and is suing for damages based on projected profits and eBay purchases constitute a binding contract. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe it has some sort of merit within our glorious legal system, at least for small claims court. Maybe we'll see it on Court TV! "Judge Judy and the Case of the Purloined Cart" - hmmm, that sort of publicity might cause of a rash of overpriced E.T.s to appear on eBay...I'm feeling itchy already...

[Crazy Climber]

Wow, this is incredible.

I'll second that.

[Buyatari]

Ehh as a buyer you get upset, you send nasty emails, complain to ebay, post a negative if you want and then go to the next one. Yeah it sucks but its not as bad as mailing off $300.00 and having the seller close up his account moving far away. I dunno about you but I almost expect this kind of treament these days on eBay. If I wasn't such a basketcase I'd sell all this stuff and never look back.

[Mezrabad]

For the record: I'm NOT accusing StLouisRams of having negotiated an early BIN in this auction. The Seller is breaking the contract and is trying to get a better price. That does suck for StLouisRams and it breaks eBay rules.

 

Setting that nasty business aside, I'd like to kick a beehive for a moment.

 

Established: If a Seller sells something at an absurdly low BIN, then it is okay to take advantage of their ignorance.

 

Right? Is that the general consensus?

 

OK, stay with me now.

 

If everybody is okay with taking advantage of someone's ignorance, then what is wrong with taking advantage of someone's greed?

 

If an Informer tells a Seller after an auction "that item is worth way more $$$ than you are getting" and the Seller decides to relist: Did the Informer do something wrong or did the Seller? The Seller got greedy and decided what his "word" was worth. The Informer took advantage of that, but it is the Seller who is at fault.

 

We are picking and choosing the ways in which it is okay to take advantage of someone, aren't we? Is THAT okay with everyone?

 

It's either "anything goes" or it's "play by the rules."

 

It IS the wild, wild west on eBay and it DOES suck.

 

There's a standard in the world that says it is okay to buy it low from someone ignorant and to sell it high to someone else just as ignorant. Why do any of us think that's okay, but draw a line at derailing a deal when we're willing to pay closer to what an item is worth?

 

If others are playing "anything goes" and have no problem negotiating a BIN from a Seller in the middle of an Auction, then I have no problem with others playing "anything goes" and derailing that deal. It all comes down to the Seller's ignorance and greed, doesn't it?

[CPUWIZ]

The plot thickens.

 

DUN DUN DUN!

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=190045807815

 

[ItsAtariTime]

This is like a daytime soap ..

 

Buyer backed out?

 

Let's take turns hitting the BIN and not buying.. let's keep making him pay listing fees..

[Buyatari]

I will be suing you. Expect to feel the hit in your pocketbook! AVOID!

Buyer ivankoretsky( 192) Oct-23-06 14:59 280038566739

 

Man, your lawer must love you. You sue everyone.

[Mezrabad]

I will be suing you. Expect to feel the hit in your pocketbook! AVOID!

Buyer ivankoretsky( 192) Oct-23-06 14:59 280038566739

 

Man, your lawer must love you. You sue everyone.

 

Well who wouldn't love getting their share of $10.95 + fees? LOL

Edited October 28, 2006 by Mezrabad

[bretthorror]

This is like WWF but with Atari!

 

 

Does stuff like this happen all the time? This is too much!

[homerwannabee]

This is like WWF but with Atari!

 

 

Does stuff like this happen all the time? This is too much!

To tell the truth there is some Ebay controversy that seems to happen every other month or so. Usually it is something different. So just when you think there is no other possible way to screw someone over something like this happens.

[Phantom]

Well I think thats pretty low to screw up someone elses deal. if they got a good deal, good for them whether theyre reselling it or not. They did the work whether it be a search engine or a yard sale or whatever. But to screw up someones deal because youre jealous or lazy or you just dont like a person for whatever reason, does NOT justify nixing his deal. That is about the most unethical thing Ive ever heard in all my years of collecting. I dont know Stlouis Rams personally. I bought something from him a few years ago and it was maybe my best purchase ever on ebay. Not because of the price at all, but because it was exactly what was described and worked great. i even sent him a note thanking him. I remember him because Im a Huge football fan. Like I said, STL is actually one of the few EBAY sellers I know to be decent. I wouldnt post any deal anyone got in here until 3 weeks later atleast if this is the kinda shit thats gonna happen around here. If it were me that got screwed, The seller and the person that nixed the deal (if I knew whom) wouldnt have to worry about a lawsuit, but maybe their ass. I'd plan my next vacation in the vicinity of the asses that screwed me and take care of business my way. And the person that did this is probably spouting off around here how unethical it is to buy a BIN when you know its cheap. I dont get that at all. The unethical person is the jealous runt that screwed up that or any deal... plain and simple. Cheers

[wrldstrman]

This is like WWF but with Atari!

 

 

Does stuff like this happen all the time? This is too much!

 

 

Yes it happens all the time and it isnt limited to atari...Myself I would love just to bid on things I want I have a regular job but anymore when a rare item comes up for auction your almost forced to email the seller and either tell them you will be bidding or how much your willing to pay because if you dont someone will try and make a side deal..I havent watched any atari auctions in a long time but Ive had dozens of nes items I was watching disappear with buyer ended auction early..So ebays pretty much turned into if you see something you want you better try to make some kind of deal because if you dont someone else will...And im not just talking about trying to get a rare item for a low price I talking about having the chance to bid before the auction gets ended with a side deal...Its a really big problem with nes stuff.

[Mezrabad]

And the person that did this is probably spouting off around here how unethical it is to buy a BIN when you know its cheap.

 

Are you referring to my post? (Actually, I'd be thrilled if you were because it seems largely ignored.) Well even if you weren't, I feel like talking about it again. I'm not actually suggesting that it is unethical to take a BIN as a good deal (I don't think I even spoke of ethics). I'm saying that eBay is the wild, wild west and apparently anything goes. Some people have limits to what rules they will break, but if one person is willing to break a rule, then I find it difficult to sympathize with them when they complain about other people breaking rules just because that mixture of rule breaking doesn't happen to blend well with their own.

 

My question about taking advantage of ignorance vs. taking advantage of greed was constructed to motivate some deeper conversation about what seems to be a double-standard rather than the easier-than-thinking-about-it isolated black and white statements about behaviors the poster considers unrelatable. I think the behaviors are more similar than most people think they are.

 

For instance, derailing a deal is something most people are against because if vigilante actions like this were to take hold, then the posted "end of an auction" would cease to have any meaning. "Hey, the auction was over, I won, but some jerk just came in and derailed it!" However, when a Seller changes an auction to a Buy-it-now, especially at an interested party's request, or cancels an auction to engage in a side deal outside of ebay, they are doing just that -- changing the end of the auction. If a seller is ignorant of the value of an item and changes an auction to a buyer suggested BIN, then other bidders may be getting screwed as they are being deprived of their opportunity to bid the item up to its fair market value. The expected length of the auction has been changed. If it is okay to ask the seller to end the auction early for the convenience of one buyer (and at the expense of the other buyers) then why isn't it as acceptable to say to that Seller, "Hey the auction ended early and I didn't get to put in my bid which would have been $$$." Then it becomes up to the Seller to decide which is worth more, his contract or the difference between the $$$ and the BIN he posted at the suggestion of a buyer taking advantage of his ignorance.

 

I don't get the sense that everyone here thinks it's hunky-dory to engage a Seller in side deals or sudden BINs, but I'm getting that only a few have no problem trying to derail such a deal. I'm asking what is the difference? In thinking about it, (after initially posting my knee-jerk reaction), I realize that both behaviors are part of an "anything goes" attitude and that if we condemn one then I need it explained to me why we shouldn't condemn the other equally, or , if we look at one as merely an annoyance and the other as unacceptable, why?

 

I'm suggesting that disrupting an auction to get it changed to a BIN is as bad as disrupting a sale. If either is intolerable then both are intolerable. If one is considered okay, then why is the other not? Are we just making fine distinctions between different flavors of "jerk"?

[+Wonder007]

The plot thickens.

 

DUN DUN DUN!

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=190045807815

 

 

Wow, how about that....I cannot believe this....

[Phantom]

And the person that did this is probably spouting off around here how unethical it is to buy a BIN when you know its cheap.

 

Are you referring to my post? (Actually, I'd be thrilled if you were because it seems largely ignored.) Well even if you weren't, I feel like talking about it again. I'm not actually suggesting that it is unethical to take a BIN as a good deal (I don't think I even spoke of ethics). I'm saying that eBay is the wild, wild west and apparently anything goes. Some people have limits to what rules they will break, but if one person is willing to break a rule, then I find it difficult to sympathize with them when they complain about other people breaking rules just because that mixture of rule breaking doesn't happen to blend well with their own.

 

My question about taking advantage of ignorance vs. taking advantage of greed was constructed to motivate some deeper conversation about what seems to be a double-standard rather than the easier-than-thinking-about-it isolated black and white statements about behaviors the poster considers unrelatable. I think the behaviors are more similar than most people think they are.

 

For instance, derailing a deal is something most people are against because if vigilante actions like this were to take hold, then the posted "end of an auction" would cease to have any meaning. "Hey, the auction was over, I won, but some jerk just came in and derailed it!" However, when a Seller changes an auction to a Buy-it-now, especially at an interested party's request, or cancels an auction to engage in a side deal outside of ebay, they are doing just that -- changing the end of the auction. If a seller is ignorant of the value of an item and changes an auction to a buyer suggested BIN, then other bidders may be getting screwed as they are being deprived of their opportunity to bid the item up to its fair market value. The expected length of the auction has been changed. If it is okay to ask the seller to end the auction early for the convenience of one buyer (and at the expense of the other buyers) then why isn't it as acceptable to say to that Seller, "Hey the auction ended early and I didn't get to put in my bid which would have been $$$." Then it becomes up to the Seller to decide which is worth more, his contract or the difference between the $$$ and the BIN he posted at the suggestion of a buyer taking advantage of his ignorance.

 

I don't get the sense that everyone here thinks it's hunky-dory to engage a Seller in side deals or sudden BINs, but I'm getting that only a few have no problem trying to derail such a deal. I'm asking what is the difference? In thinking about it, (after initially posting my knee-jerk reaction), I realize that both behaviors are part of an "anything goes" attitude and that if we condemn one then I need it explained to me why we shouldn't condemn the other equally, or , if we look at one as merely an annoyance and the other as unacceptable, why?

 

I'm suggesting that disrupting an auction to get it changed to a BIN is as bad as disrupting a sale. If either is intolerable then both are intolerable. If one is considered okay, then why is the other not? Are we just making fine distinctions between different flavors of "jerk"?

 

MAN! I thought I was longwinded! lol just joshin but I am, ask anyone.

Now I wasnt refering to your post. Its just that people are very opinionated including me and I was just thinking aloud about how the person that derailed it, I have a feeling said person is among us or atleast annonymously reads here. That person probably sees nothing wrong with what he did. Did the auction suddenly get changed to a BIN? Im not aware of that. I saw a lochjaw and 30 other games go for 70$ and missed it by 3 mins a year and a half or go but i didnt run to the seller to say hey, I'l give you 80$ lol. Its just wrong and that one still pisses me off lol. If the buyer did nothing wrong like contact the seller, it is absolutley wrong, thats all I was sayin. Take care

PS > CPUWIZ its DUN DUN DUN DUN...you were missing a DUN you DUNNIE!

[Zwackery]

The plot thickens.

 

DUN DUN DUN!

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=190045807815

 

Auction ended with no bids ($189.99 starting bid, $249.99 BIN).

 

So now did the person who originally BINed this auction:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ATARI-7800-TANK-COMMAN...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

then back out?

 

And so the seller doesn't get the $249.99 or even the $69.99 of the original lot?

[lemoncurry]

The only sales I am talking about disrupting (actually, just educating the seller) ARE the ones where the buyer has persuaded the seller to change to a BIN or end early.

 

Which of course is not the case with the OP. That was the exact opposite, a cool BIN got disrupted.

 

The difference is, when someone lists a BIN without researching, everyone has the same chance to find it first and grab it, but when someone asks for a BIN, they are specifically trying to take advantage of a seller's ignorance and usurping the chance for others to bid for their personal gain.

 

I think the latter is a form of auction interference, if eBay had a way to police it they would since it costs them money, but they don't screen Questions to Sellers so that makes it difficult. It's too bad they don't automatically post all questions right in the ads like on Yahoo Auctions, that would nip such activity in the bud!

[Phantom]

The only sales I am talking about disrupting (actually, just educating the seller) ARE the ones where the buyer has persuaded the seller to change to a BIN or end early.

 

Which of course is not the case with the OP. That was the exact opposite, a cool BIN got disrupted.

 

The difference is, when someone lists a BIN without researching, everyone has the same chance to find it first and grab it, but when someone asks for a BIN, they are specifically trying to take advantage of a seller's ignorance and usurping the chance for others to bid for their personal gain.

 

I think the latter is a form of auction interference, if eBay had a way to police it they would since it costs them money, but they don't screen Questions to Sellers so that makes it difficult. It's too bad they don't automatically post all questions right in the ads like on Yahoo Auctions, that would nip such activity in the bud!

Agreed. Excellent point and great idea.

[shadow460]

Wow, this is incredible.

I'll second that.

 

Third. *looks at near mint Tank Command*

First, I've dealt with stlouisrams. Twice IIRC, and the first was for the other R7 title, Mean 18. I was very impressed with that deal, and the second deal for Midnight Mutants, went without incident. That $149 BIN for the bare Tank Command is in the stratosphere. I paid $100 for mine, shipped, and that was still 30% too much.

 

Second, one of the "mint" copies is not mint at all. How on this green Earth is a crushed box considered mint?

 

Third, why not take the very first auction at face value and assume the seller didn't know what Tank command was worth? Wasn't a boxed Quadrun just sold this past summer like that? Wasn't a loose Atlantis II (homerwannabe's now) sold in a lot for $13.50? Nothing's saying that all ebay sellers know the value of "those old Atari games".

 

But my main thought here is that every single one of those auctions, except the first for $69.99, is a complete rip off. If you really want a box for Tank Command, why not just replace one of the ones that was thrown away when it was opened? As long as you have a digital image of that and the intsructions (marked as a repro, of course), Kinko's will gladly hook you up for under $20.

 

Oh, I forgot. This is a Froggo game, and all their games suck. Don't sucky games wind up in the discount bargain bin for $1?

 

I've got my proximity suit on, flame away.

Edited October 31, 2006 by shadow460

[Buyatari]

Third. *looks at near mint Tank Command*

First, I've dealt with stlouisrams. Twice IIRC, and the first was for the other R7 title, Mean 18. I was very impressed with that deal, and the second deal for Midnight Mutants, went without incident. That $149 BIN for the bare Tank Command is in the stratosphere. I paid $100 for mine, shipped, and that was still 30% too much.

 

Don't blame the seller for pricing. Its obvious he doesn't know what its worth or we wouldn't be where we are. Blame the guy who emailed him and told him it was worth X ammount.