Exactly! - The idea that it's done to minimize sale prices sellers fetch for items, even if the goal is to help buyers, that just didn't feel in line with the spirit of Ebay's mission/service. It makes extremely good sense, however, to prevent live auction linking for the reason you mentioned - because there is a real potential for abuse by sellers. I second your +1 to the mods, it's no easy job on a forum this big.
Ebay sales listing and the letter of the law at B&B
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
Exactly! - The idea that it's done to minimize sale prices sellers fetch for items, even if the goal is to help buyers, that just didn't feel in line with the spirit of Ebay's mission/service. It makes extremely good sense, however, to prevent live auction linking for the reason you mentioned - because there is a real potential for abuse by sellers. I second your +1 to the mods, it's no easy job on a forum this big.
I appreciate the rule. If this rule was not in place, an eBay seller with a financial interest could use this site as a proxy to expand bids on his/her item i.e. free advertising. That would not further the hard work that has built this site to what it is; contrary, it would cheapen this site and compromise our integrity. BIN? Ok. Most of the items listed under BIN are ridiculous priced items good for all site chuckle. Anything else? Well, if you found it on the bay and it's absurd, smile to yourself relishing the fact you stumbled upon another item that leaves you shaking your head.
No problem and I appreciate the dialog! Like I said earlier I'm not arguing to get rules changed. I wouldn't post ebay links even if it were allowed. My involvement here is just to explore the moral and theoretical connotations, and is purely for intellectual pleasure - not to gripe about one solution or another. I really couldn't care less about the banning of live-auction links because it benefits me.
In response to the example: I'd say yes it is fair, maybe not pleasant but it isn't unfair. Sure it would be frustrating after putting all that work into the search - I'd be mad too and have lost plenty of auctions I thought I had a good chance at, but the bottom line is ebay auctions are public and anyone who desires to has a right to bid. Does an elderly person who isn't comfortable searching on ebay but has learned how to surf a specific forum have less of a right to bid than the person who invested 10 hours searching listings? I'd say no, because they inherit their right to bid from the fact that ebay auctions are public, not by virtue of their work in finding said auction.
IMHO, if anything is unfair it is asking other members not to bid on an item, or sellers abusing an ability to post links. In the former case, it is asking people to give up their right to bid on a public auction under threat of damaging their relationship with online acquaintances. In the latter, it's obviously an abuse of the system designed to inflate prices beyond what the normal market activity would warrant.
I think it's possible that I upset people when posting dissenting views for the sake of friendly and respectful discourse, so I want to stress again that I'm not saying any of this to get rules changed. I recognize the current rule serves to benefit me as I'm only a buyer.
Happy Friday everyone!
I couldn't agree more. The issue at hand was whether the rule exists for that reason, which I believe makes a whole lot of sense, or instead if it exists to minimize the sale price and bidding activity of auctions so buyers can be more likely to win and at more favorable prices. The second doesn't make as much sense to me.
I agree, poor form indeed.
The idea of this site is to share information about wetshaving with each other and as such, certain guidelines have been established in furtherance of that mission.
We are all capable of reading the TOU and the various stickies in these forums and discerning the intent of the rules established to govern our interactions.
By signing up we agreed to observe the "B&B Code" so to speak. Not only the letter but the spirit as well.
We do a disservice to ourselves and our forum by trying to see how far the rules will bend before being broken.
This is an interesting discussion. I am curious about this situation - posting an eBay seller's name from whom one purchased goods. I recall posting in a thread that discussed different shaving scuttles that I purchased one from a seller on eBay for an affordable price and I really liked it. I posted his ebay name so people can find them. I have absolutely no relation to the seller and I feel that I was doing a good deed by sharing the info (and a review), but by posting the seller's identity (thus allowing to search on eBay for live auctions) - does this make me a rule breaker? 
This is an interesting discussion. I am curious about this situation - posting an eBay seller's name from whom one purchased goods. I recall posting in a thread that discussed different shaving scuttles that I purchased one from a seller on eBay for an affordable price and I really liked it. I posted his ebay name so people can find them. I have absolutely no relation to the seller and I feel that I was doing a good deed by sharing the info (and a review), but by posting the seller's identity (thus allowing to search on eBay for live auctions) - does this make me a rule breaker?
Were they BIN listings or live auctions?
There are different rules of conduct inside and outside of B+B. Out there, it's dog-eat-dog winner takes all. In here, we're a bit more gentlemanly and try to act in a more ethical way. If a fellow B+Ber is good/lucky/hard-working enough to identify and follow a particular auction that might be going under the radar, why would you draw attention to it by posting the link? You're certainly not doing your brother a favor there.
By the same token, a Philadelphia lawyer could argue that describing the auction without posting the actual link doesn't violate the technical letter of the law, but it's hard argue that you're not violating the intent. Do gentlemen weasel out on technicalities?
By the same token, a Philadelphia lawyer could argue that describing the auction without posting the actual link doesn't violate the technical letter of the law, but it's hard argue that you're not violating the intent. Do gentlemen weasel out on technicalities?
Agreed 100%. Posting a link and asking others not to bid is both counterproductive (draws attention) and unfair to anyone else who may know about it and wants to bid.
We need to help the mods and police ourselves. If you come across a post, KINDLY post to it that this is against B&B rules. It's the only way to massively get the word out and educate the new members. Later, the mods can remove the thread, but we have a responsibility to help police our community. This goes for all the rules that exist for B&B. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Just to note, you may have better luck if you post this under such and such area. This area is more for such and such...." or "Just so you know, it against B&B rules to post information about an ebay auction in order to help protect the integrity of our forum."
I agree, some have been following the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law, while others have not known that this is frowned upon. Politely informing somebody that they have done something that is not in line with the rules on B&B seems to be a good way to deal with it and they can self edit instead of the mods having to hunt down these posts and doing it themselves.
I would suspect it's easy enough to configure this forum software to search for ebay url patterns, zip it out and email a nice message to the poster. The censorship rule is already in place, it's just implementation, voluntary, by peers or mechanized. I'm not saying depend on automation completely, but just catch the simple mistakes such as posting an ebay url. Conversations that don't include urls would need peer based ixnay-ebay.
-jim
This is what B&B is all about. We know the letter of the law and it behooves us all to uphold the spirit of the law.
A friendly reminder in a thread is all we need to do, most folks comply when someone points out a transgression.
I agree 100 percent that we need to police ourselves and not rely on the Mods to deal with every single issue that arises, they have enough on their plates already.
I think ebayers should be allowed to advertise in the b/s/t. Maybe more forumites would start listing items on ebay with reasonable BIN prices, and ebay would become more like the forums, who knows. Or just have a spam forum, no rules.
I think this is it, plain and simple.
Spirit of the law vs letter of the law. From a purely philosophical perspective, the letter of the law states that we are to avoid posting links to live auctions. This is a pretty simple element, and I have seen that respected fairly well.
The element we are talking about is actually not "spirit" of the law, so much as "implied intent". Not discussing eBay auctions, in any way shape or form is quite different than the text in the guidelines. Implied intent is much more difficult to ascertain, and is speculative at best.
For a purely academic exercise, think about the letter of the following text, vs it's implied intent. I'm sure you will agree it is one of the most debated sequence of words in our society:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I would argue that Congress has followed that text to the letter. Many others would say it has not been followed at all. Those debates stem from what many believe is an implied intent of the first amendment.
The element we are talking about is actually not "spirit" of the law, so much as "implied intent". Not discussing eBay auctions, in any way shape or form is quite different than the text in the guidelines. Implied intent is much more difficult to ascertain, and is speculative at best.
For a purely academic exercise, think about the letter of the following text, vs it's implied intent. I'm sure you will agree it is one of the most debated sequence of words in our society:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I would argue that Congress has followed that text to the letter. Many others would say it has not been followed at all. Those debates stem from what many believe is an implied intent of the first amendment.
While I philosophically agree with you, we are dealing with a key difference here.
Gentlemen are capable, and likely to follow the "Rules As Intended" or "Spirit of the Law" whereas Congress is a legal body, and in this country Law can only be enforced to the "Letter of the Law" or "Rules As Written", not the spirit of the law.
I am unaware of a legal precedent for following the spirit of the law in a courtroom that hasn't been overturned by the Supreme Court.
That is why criminals get off on a "technicality".
In any case, as Jim says - the purpose of his comment was not so much to debate the rule itself, but to discern why some had interpreted it as they had.
With so many members it is easy to see that some may interpret it from one end of the spectrum to the other.
I understand the intent, and I agree with the intent, but I am not so sure as to why exactly some interpret it so very differently than others.
Last edited:
Lack of knowledge of the rules - written or unwritten? Just forgetting in the moment? Also - and I don't mean any disrespect at all to _anybody_ - but the great unwashed internet barbarians entering the mansion of B&B - surrounded by meticulous gardens - is a little different from the world wide anarchy.
I think you ex military - retired and veterans - know this already. The boots are far different acting then the old timers and the enlisted are different from the officers. No disrespect meant at all!!! (But I was born and grew up in enlisted housing, so I'm on their side.
)And this isn't strictly officers quarters, is it?
Why are rules interpreted differently by others? It's just the way it is. That's why there are courts and cops and legislatures and etc. You can define a society, but entropy will erode it away like the Pacific Ocean does to the West Coast. Energy must be input to the system in order to keep things running hummingly along and in between the rails.
But in this case of ebay chatter, I really think it's mostly a case of loose lips sink ships. I don't doubt the mods have examples of flagrant violation, but I bet it's mostly - oops!
IMHO YMMV.
-jim
I think when we speak of the spirit ot the law, we mean this:
The rules state not to post links to an active auction. Someone doesn't post a link but instead says hey, theres a mint condition FatBoy for $1 but listed wrong as a Schick Slim. OK, they didn't break the letter of the law but they violated the spirit of the law. You can call it spirit, implied intent, whatever....unless your an attorney AND In a court room right now, lets not mix words. Everyone one on this thread knows what is and is not allowed.
The rules state not to post links to an active auction. Someone doesn't post a link but instead says hey, theres a mint condition FatBoy for $1 but listed wrong as a Schick Slim. OK, they didn't break the letter of the law but they violated the spirit of the law. You can call it spirit, implied intent, whatever....unless your an attorney AND In a court room right now, lets not mix words. Everyone one on this thread knows what is and is not allowed.
That's it right there! Discussion ended...
Similar threads
