[John Chapman]

Hi Rosy

You've answered almost none of my questions. Very annoying. Have you ever thought about entering politics!  []

Since we now do all know that shill bidding is illegal (in many jurisdictions, and crucially that within which TNS operates), it would hardly be in line with forum policy to reinstate the original post now, would it?

Are you telling me that the forum has an official policy that if anyone mentions in passing that they have ever done anything illegal then the whole thread must be deleted? If not, then 'yes'.

Even if, to take a view not informed by benefit of hindsight, the removal of the post wasn't the correct reaction, that is now a moot point since the forum rules are very clear about not encouraging people to do things which are illegal.

Since Geek clearly stated that he had not sold on ebay for many years and had no interest in doing so why do you two keep banging on about encouraging people to do illegal things? Even disregarding that, that still doesn't explain why you [the Mods] removed the thread in the first place.

If you want to know the answer to the question you have only to post it, shorn of any suggestion that you are planning to use the information you obtain to commit an offence, back in the appropriate area in the forum.

There was no suggestion made that he was planning to use the information to commit an offense - not that any of us were even aware that it was an offence at the time.

Your understanding is a misunderstanding. Even if that is what the original poster meant, it was not what the original post said.

Now that's just not true, is it. You see Geek is my son. I saw the original question at the time and I have re-read his draft since. The story was given as background to give the original question context. The question very clearly said that the shill bidding occurred a couple of years previous to his original question, that he had no interest in selling on ebay. Since you will not re-post it and I am not allowed to quote it none of the other users will ever be able to decide for themselves.

In any case, you still haven't told me why this thread, which carries exactly the same information, is allowed to continue. Perhaps you will now ban this one also.
 
Geek is big enough to fight his own battles. I'm not even that bothered by heavy handed Moderators. We all have bad days and sometimes over react. But having been caught out why not just admit that one of you was a bit harsh on the day and maybe a bit of Moderators editing, or even a p.m., might have been more appropriate in hindsight.
 

[tommya300]

 I never thought to associate insider bidding to shill bidding. Having learned something on some other poor soul’s expense, is sad!
 I do not think there are any international laws on Shill bidding, on such puny financial gains made on, such as ebay. I guess you are saved by international waters. So the worst thing that ebay can do is give you a future hard time.

Since I never dealt I did not think or know, that eBay’s rules of engagement, specify banning, just disqualification. Ebay police are judge, jury and executioner to their own site.

 All I can do is chalk it up human intuition, maybe lack of sleep, to a small essence of paranoia. This clearance prompted the matter be addressed real quick got someone’s attention. The matter was settled apologies were expressed.

[tommya300]

Last night I posted a question about computer IP addresses, ie what are they and what do they identify? I confessed that 2 or 3 years ago during a brief flirtation with selling things on ebay I once got caught bidding on one of my own items using two ebay accounts. Ever since then ebay has somehow known who I am and every six months or so shuts my present account just as I am building up a good feedback score as a buyer. I wondered how they knew. I have used different email addresses, primary home addresses, and have even changed my computer a couple of times during this period.

On my missing thread someone suggested that they should not answer the question as it would encourage me to ‘scam’ people on ebay. Of course this is ridiculous and, in any case, I have no real interest in selling on ebay. It was far more trouble than it was worth and the real scammers in my opinion are ebay and PayPal  (who are owned by ebay) who between them take about 10 or 15%.

When I got up this morning my emails are telling me that I have had replies but do not tell me what they are. The thread is gone and seems to have been deleted. But I have no messages telling me why.

Have the ebay police got to this site? Has some ebay fan been offended that I was once caught bidding against myself on ebay and had me banned. Has something else happened on the thread while I was in bed which I have no knowledge about? Why would anyone delete my question but not tell me why?

I can only try to think outside the box, and surmise through deductive reasoning.
This one may have thin bulk…
You were nice and honest enough to spill you guts here, on the feedback scoring comments on ebay are a double edged sword you also can comment on the seller. You could of spilled a little sauce here and there and did not realize it; where the sum of all those may have triggered some relationship to initiate an ebay response?

This one has medium bulk…
An overhaul of ones internet profiling seems more like James Blondish. Ebay doesn’t have the time to cross reference all ISP, IP to client, like saying (WWW raised to infinity) in size. They would loose more than they can ever gain in profiting by this. For your computer to be recognized, I would think it would be sending out an internal beacon of some sort, initiated through some spyware, adware or virus. Working from inside out, the computer’s processor would be never idle and respond slow to any keyboard commands.

[rosy]

OK. John.

Several things happened here:

1- There was a response to a thread which may or may not have been heavy handed in the light of the information we had at the time. That's a matter of opinion on which we differ.

2- The mod in question apparently forgot to send Geek a message explaining the action - unlikely to have been a deliberate omission.

3- Geek posted a *seperate* question, about why his original thread was deleted. Which was a reasonable question, was answered in thread by BenV, Geek appeared to have accepted, if somewhat reluctantly, the explanation. I've no idea if he *did* repost his question, because I don't follow the tech boards.

I'm not answering questions on behalf of the mods. I'm only a mod on a technicality. I did glance at the original post last night before posting, because I can, but I wasn't involved in this decision. Also, since BenV had answered the question, the fact that the thread spiralled off into a more general discussion of the morality or otherwise of shill bidding hardly seems important and as I didn't know you had a personal interest in Geek's activities I thought you were merely joining in the more general discussion.

No, we don't delete threads just because people mention they've done something illegal/wrong in the past (you'll note indeed, that this one is still here). But if they appear to be explicitly seeking advice on doing something illegal in the future obviously we have to act. And that is how the original post was, rightly or wrongly, interpreted by the mods.

My comment last night was only in response your suggestion that we re-instate the thread, hence why I didn't answer all of your questions. No, I haven't thought of going into politics.

I hold my hand up to the fact that when I looked in the deleted post log last night and responded to your comments I found only the original post and not Geek's follow-up post in which he disclaimed any intention to attempt to repeat his shill-ing exploits, and maybe I would have been so abrupt had I seen it.

But my response with regard to whether re-instating the thread would be in breach of forum policy would not change.

[John Chapman]

Hi Rosy

I don't think we are ever going to see eye to eye on this one. But for what it's worth that was a very well structured and diplomatic reply. And you managed to not go completely ballistic on me, which is a common reaction I get from women.  [8D]

Will you marry me?
 

[Geezer]

Hi Rosy

I don't think we are ever going to see eye to eye on this one. But for what it's worth that was a very well structured and diplomatic reply. And you managed to not go completely ballistic on me, which is a common reaction I get from women.  [8D]

Will you marry me?
 

Evidently, plural marriages are not only legal in parts of Utah and Arizona, but, apparently, in Welsh Wales too.

[rosy]

Heh. Thanks John.

I do like a man who can separate "I think she's wrong" from "I think she's a bad person".

All the same, I think I'll stick with my original plan that if I marry anyone it'll be daveshorts, but it's kind of you to ask

[John Chapman]

Evidently, plural marriages are not only legal in parts of Utah and Arizona, but, apparently, in Welsh Wales too.

A Welshman bursts into his bedroom one night holding a sheep under his arm and stands in front of his wife.

'This is the pig I sleep with every night', he hisses.

'Dumb-arse', she replies, 'That's a sheep, not a pig'.

'I was talking to the sheep', he said. 

[]
 
Anyway, I've got big enough wellies for many wives.
 

[tommya300]

Evidently, plural marriages are not only legal in parts of Utah and Arizona, but, apparently, in Welsh Wales too.

A Welshman bursts into his bedroom one night holding a sheep under his arm and stands in front of his wife.

'This is the pig I sleep with every night', he hisses.

'Dumb-arse', she replies, 'That's a sheep, not a pig'.

'I was talking to the sheep', he said. 

[]
 
Anyway, I've got big enough wellies for many wives.
 

Take care of the wellies!! Since one wife in some cases is tough enough.
Plural can be devistating

He who has fight with woman during the day gets no (peace) (sp) at night.

Now a days why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free at any deary farm.