This seems to be a contentious issue, but I'm not versed in how they work.



Having never sold on eBay or participated in an 'auction-ending' offer, I'm curious -



When someone says "I'll give you $X to end the auction now", what happens then?



Is the transaction then performed outside of eBay/PayPal without feedback or protection?



And does eBay then get no % of the sale (thus meaning that both the buyer+seller used eBay's service to conduct their business, but are paying them nothing in return)?

Sounds spot on to me.



There is nothing stopping you asking the seller if he has a BIN price.



What the seller then chooses to do is their own business.  And that might mean breaking eBay rules.



I don't suppose they appreciate using their site to advertise your items for sale and then not getting their cut.



I wouldn't normally do it myself.  But I don't care if someone chooses to do that.

Get ready to duck.  Incoming tomato.  DEX 18.



If I saw a Woodgrain with a BIN of $25 where the buyer stated that he shipped to th USA only (as I once did), I certainly wouldn't seek to inform them of their error and direct them to this site.  Who wood?  To anyone that responds "I wood" to this, let me take the opportunity to say "You complete and utter f**kwit!"



I would press the BIN button with all haste and offer to pay all additional costs for the inconvenience of using USPS Global Priority.  If that failed, I would get a flight (and I don't fly since that unfortunate incident where I spent 12 hours sat next to a corpse on the way back from Australia   ) and collect the item in person.



My point is that I will do what I can to get the best deal possible.  I am free to ask the seller if they have a BIN price.  If they respond to this and choose to relist with a BIN then OK.  Someone might get to it before me.  I would be extremely pissed.  But if they cancel the listing and sell offline, that's their decision and the woodgrain is mine, all mine my precious.

Hell, I'm AC 10, everyone here has destroyed my armor.

If eBay was an ethical playing field, I'd probably agree, but it isn't. They care about the almighty $$, and that is the do all and end all of it, so I feel free to take advantage of whatever loopholes I want. However, I do not go making offers. I ask if they have a BIN. If they choose to end the auction, that is their decision. If they choose to post a BIN or make the auction private, same.

As far as value, I could argue that if someone is selling something and they don't know the rough value of it, tough. If I see an original Rembrandt at a yard sale, bet your ass I will pay $10 for it and keep my mouth shut. There is no excuse for not knowing the value of something you are selling. There are way too many resources to tap in that department. Unfortunately for a lot of sellers, they view eBay as a way to sell the "junk" they would normally toss out. To take advantage of an ignorant seller is.....

CAPITALISM. GO USA!

That being said, I'm sure many will argue that the Inverness I got was unfair, and that I took advantage of the seller. I did not. He gave me a price based on what he was offered IN TRADE. Just because the trade price was an undervaluation, and an attempt by a reseller to scam ignorant people, does not mean I should suffer for it. IF ANYONE HERE was offered the price I was, they would have sold off family heirlooms to get it. I dare anyone to deny that. I will certainly pay fair value for an item if it is asked, but I would be a fool to pas up a bargain. And it's not like I am going to resell it at the seller's expense, like some people. It will sit on a shelf and collect dust like 99% of the (let's face it) useless crap I collect.

Go Patriots!

Buy It Now items are not against eBay policy.  The seller has a selling price, and you can meet it, thereby completing the transaction.  I suppose contacting the seller who is selling "too low" would be the ultimate in honor, but … that is above my calling (Chaotic Good).  I am content simply to abide by eBay rules and snag the item, giving both the buyer and the seller what they want, without encouraging any questionable behavior.  It was there, I saw it first, but the important thing is:  everyone had the same fair shot at it.  You just "had to be there."  Usually I miss out on these, but I don't see them as being dishonorable.  Why?  They don't break the rules, and you don't have to break the rules to get them.



If you contact the seller and ask them to relist the item as a Buy It Now, that isn't a bad thing necessarily, because you're encouraging them to stay within the system, where everyone has a fair crack at it.  But by this point, warning bells should be going off in the seller's head.  A smart seller would realize that someone who would contact them in this manner is more aware of the item's true nature and value than the seller themselves … but it would surprise you how many un-smart sellers there are!





If they offer to sell the item to you outside of eBay, ta-da … you've just knowingly convinced the seller to evade eBay strictures, and filch the item for yourself before other honest bidders get a chance to go for it in-system.  You can argue that the seller is worse than the buyer in this situation, or vice versa; but you can't argue that either one is an honorable person.



Now I agree that eBay is not necessarily an ethical playing field, because it is a fundamentally flawed organization.  But it all comes down to behavior - what do we want our hobby to be?  We as collectors can uphold a higher ideal -- not because we're forced to, but because it makes for a better community.  We should be above the need to only play fair when we're forced to.  Are we strong enough to do that?  Or is everyone only interested in what they can get for themselves, by any means necessary?



The base problem, I believe, is Bad Greed.  Don't forget … the opposite does exist.  Greed Is Good (tm).  Without it, there wouldn't be a collector's market.  Having a financial interest in the hobby is not a sin.  Heck, to have no regard for money at all would be uncivilized.    But at what point does the money become more important than competing fairly with your fellow collectors?



My contention is that both money and honor should be important in the field.  (Witness the dollar figures attached to every item out there, by everyone, regardless of motivation.)  Without the money element, interest in the hobby would shrink rather than grow.  But I believe that for a worthwhile and growing community to exist, honor should supercede money at all times.



Yeah yeah, I know.  I'm an idiot, everyone for themselves, get the fuck out of my way, rules are for pussies, communities are for fags, the future is worthless and now is everything, it's mine, damn the torpedoes.  I don't mind if everyone doesn't agree with me.  But I don't mind voicing my opinion, either, because I want people to think about this.

harami2000 wrote:Right........  in that case what about people deliberately NOT reporting "interesting items" and thus causing the seller to fail to achieve the maximum value for their goods?

That's just as bad/"against the spirit of the community", no?

I take great pleasure in reporting interesting items for sale when I've got a copy (not often) just to watch the bun fight.  



When I haven't got a copy, I lurk in the background in the mistaken belief that the 123 on the auction counter was simply curious bypassers and I'm going to snipe it for an absolute steal.  

Just a couple of coppers worth:





Darkseraphim:

Buy It Now items are not against eBay policy. The seller has a selling price, and you can meet it, thereby completing the transaction. I suppose contacting the seller who is selling "too low" would be the ultimate in honor, but … that is above my calling (Chaotic Good).  <snip>

Filching is evil, you're absolutely right.  Stop it, you miserable 6th level thieves!  



However, darkseraphim, I have worse news...after the rest of that speech, you've clearly suffered an alignment change (to Neutral, possibly Lawful Good), because that was FAR too ethical...digging up DMG for the penalty...



Johnhuck:

When I haven't got a copy, I lurk in the background in the mistaken belief that the 123 on the auction counter was simply curious bypassers and I'm going to snipe it for an absolute steal.

Me too.   Doesn't work very often, though.  I'm cheaper than most.

Not a year ago, I'd have signed Kent's first post in this thread. Meanwhile I think very different. My belief is, that the ending of an ongoing auction is legitimate, no matter if the item in question had received bids already. A bid does not constitute a contract, since the deal is not closed yet. As a buyer, I would insist on relisting the item as a BIN with the agreed price, mainly as a security, in case there are any problems in the processing of the deal.



Thus, I have to support Frank on this issue. The seller is free to sell to whoever he chooses to (and at any price, too).  This is a very human bevahior, by both sides.



Besides, such deals offer mostly advantages to the buyer. If the seller is so stupid as to sell an item for a quarter of it's true price, so what? If the buyer is silly enough to offer double of what the item is worth, so what? Once stupidity and free will combine, I see no serious reason, why a smart person should not benefit from it.

You are all also forgetting about the possibility of a seller getting offered a FAIR buyout price . . . .



I rarely offer buyouts, but do sometimes on an item that I particularly want, mostly to insure that no one ELSE can do it to me. ;-0)



I can think of three cases where I offered buyouts and the seller refused . . . . in all three cases, I ended up winning the item at auction for LESS than I offered on the buyout, in one case by several hundred dollars.



So, there IS the possibility of the buyout offer that doesn't screw the seller . . . . and as for being "fair" to the rest of the community . . . . you see that "Ask Seller a Question" link? Well, it works for everyone . . . .



;-0)





Pat