Heritage Auctions

Trotter wrote:

While these allegations have not been proven, we do not feel comfortable promoting Heritage Auctions until these accusations have been disproved.

I obviously only speak for myself but I feel as MODS you have overstepped the bounds into censorship with this.

An accusation is made, and in Britain at least it is up to the accuser to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence, and I believe that sites like this should continue it's impartial linking to content until there is actually a resolution. If it were found that HA had broken rules and/or laws then the site should decide (among its MODS) at that point if it were to drop support for content from that business.

I'd go as far to ask you guys to reconsider this decision.

onthetrail wrote:

Trotter wrote:

While these allegations have not been proven, we do not feel comfortable promoting Heritage Auctions until these accusations have been disproved.

I obviously only speak for myself but I feel as MODS you have overstepped the bounds into censorship with this.

An accusation is made, and in Britain at least it is up to the accuser to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence, and I believe that sites like this should continue it's impartial linking to content until there is actually a resolution. If it were found that HA had broken rules and/or laws then the site should decide (among its MODS) at that point if it were to drop support for content from that business.

I'd go as far to ask you guys to reconsider this decision.

Totally get where you're coming from onthetrail. However the TCG is not a court of law and we think that it is reasonable to put a pause on these listings as we don't want to steer any collectors into a potentially fraudulent situation.

Mr. Underhill wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

Trotter wrote:

While these allegations have not been proven, we do not feel comfortable promoting Heritage Auctions until these accusations have been disproved.

I obviously only speak for myself but I feel as MODS you have overstepped the bounds into censorship with this.

An accusation is made, and in Britain at least it is up to the accuser to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence, and I believe that sites like this should continue it's impartial linking to content until there is actually a resolution. If it were found that HA had broken rules and/or laws then the site should decide (among its MODS) at that point if it were to drop support for content from that business.

I'd go as far to ask you guys to reconsider this decision.

Totally get where you're coming from onthetrail. However the TCG is not a court of law and we think that it is reasonable to put a pause on these listings as we don't want to steer any collectors into a potentially fraudulent situation.

My personal opinion and it agrees with Mr Underhill's point of view is that TCG aims to advise and lead collectors. If a company is in trouble with the law and even if no verdict has been reached. It is a good ADVICE to avoid it until a concrete answer is given. This does not put TCG in a position of "jury" but of advising. And I think it's totally objective to tell his followers about it. Afterwards each individual will be free to make his own decision of course

Mr. Underhill wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

Trotter wrote:

While these allegations have not been proven, we do not feel comfortable promoting Heritage Auctions until these accusations have been disproved.

I obviously only speak for myself but I feel as MODS you have overstepped the bounds into censorship with this.

An accusation is made, and in Britain at least it is up to the accuser to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence, and I believe that sites like this should continue it's impartial linking to content until there is actually a resolution. If it were found that HA had broken rules and/or laws then the site should decide (among its MODS) at that point if it were to drop support for content from that business.

I'd go as far to ask you guys to reconsider this decision.

Totally get where you're coming from onthetrail. However the TCG is not a court of law and we think that it is reasonable to put a pause on these listings as we don't want to steer any collectors into a potentially fraudulent situation.

We have all talked about eBay over the years, and the word 'shilling' comes up fairly often, yet they are still linked to from TCG. They have been embroiled in and found guilty of many financial related crimes.
I don't remember so far back but were HarperCollins links removed from the site and new books not plugged when they and others were accused of price fixing? Were eBooks removed from the sites linking?

Honestly guys the consitency is all off here. I am not trying to be difficult and I get the thinking but to me it feels like an overeaction, and an overreach to something that as yet is unproven.

I respect the point and am pleased TCG is thinking about how it can mitigate any negative affects on collectors, but HA are being negatively affected too and this could be a red herring yet their future business could be harmed.

I know we have talked about particular sellers doing shill bidding on eBay, but you seem to be stating that eBay themselves are guilty of shill bidding, and have been found guilty of such in court. I haven't seen evidence of this, can you provide some? We treat questionable eBay listings/dealers quite differently than other listings here, definitely, but we don't ban eBay itself due to the fact that some listings are questionable. If the CEO of eBay has charges brought in court (as the CEO of Heritage has had at least one, settled out of court) that bring the entire site into question, then I will definitely reconsider our eBay policy, but it is still a marketplace that all of us use or have used, and most transactions there have no hint of illegitimacy.

As Trotter stated in the top of this thread, we aren't "featuring" Heritage auction listings at this time, while we monitor the situation. That's not a ban or censorship, that's editorial site management. There's no ban on any member from posting auction listings from any auction house for discussion or to raise awareness, but we do have to exert at least some editorial control in general, otherwise the site will just become a spam feed of every eBay listing (and other auction sites) that mention the word "Tolkien" - there are about a thousand new Tolkien listings a day on eBay - anyone think having those fed through TolkienGuide posts on a daily basis would be useful/valuable?

I fully support pushback on our editorial policies and decisions - it is always up for improvement, constructive criticism, and modification as we learn and grow. The mod team wanted to pause featuring Heritage listings when this news broke, and I supported them and still think we need to keep a close eye on what's going on there - any any other auction house (including eBay itself) if serious allegations arise.

I can see a couple of options - continue to not feature Heritage here; put Heritage listings in the event calendar but not feature in home-page posts like other auctions; feature the listings again, but add a disclaimer/link to this thread for each of them as the story develops; ignore the allegations and treat Heritage as we used to; perhaps more I am not thinking of. Other thoughts?

These allegations have been in the public domain for quite some time. I'd certainly recommend that anyone with an opinion on this does watch the youtube videos (at least the first video) in detail and make their own judgement about whether they would be comfortable before bidding on a Heritage auction.

I did so back in August, and I found the arguments presented in the video extremely compelling (doesn't make them proven facts, but they effectively influenced my opinion). Based on that, I *personally* wouldn't be comfortable bidding on a Heritage auction or linking to a Heritage Auction - and that's a judgement I'm obviously free to make that doesn't need to be bound by anything being proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is simply a call I'm making, based on the evidence currently at my disposal. If a rebuttal comes along, I'm happy to change my position. We all make these judgments every day about products we buy, people we vote for, etc.

I think we would all agree that it is fine for me to have a personal position on this, so I don't really see any problem with TCG taking an editorial position that it would prefer not to draw attention to auctions held by this particular organisation until (and if) things ever get squared away. No company has the right to have their auctions listed.

I think it is important to add, no one here is making any allegations whatsoever. We are just reading/watching stuff that is in the public domain and choosing how we (both personally and as moderators) respond to it.

Urulókë wrote:

I know we have talked about particular sellers doing shill bidding on eBay, but you seem to be stating that eBay themselves are guilty of shill bidding, and have been found guilty of such in court. I haven't seen evidence of this, can you provide some? We treat questionable eBay listings/dealers quite differently than other listings here, definitely, but we don't ban eBay itself due to the fact that some listings are questionable. If the CEO of eBay has charges brought in court (as the CEO of Heritage has had at least one, settled out of court) that bring the entire site into question, then I will definitely reconsider our eBay policy, but it is still a marketplace that all of us use or have used, and most transactions there have no hint of illegitimacy.

No that is a fair point Jeremy that I had not considered and ebay related cases were not related to customers and 'shilling', so I take that back as being related to this.

Urulókë wrote:

As Trotter stated in the top of this thread, we aren't "featuring" Heritage auction listings at this time, while we monitor the situation. That's not a ban or censorship, that's editorial site management. There's no ban on any member from posting auction listings from any auction house for discussion or to raise awareness, but we do have to exert at least some editorial control in general, otherwise the site will just become a spam feed of every eBay listing (and other auction sites) that mention the word "Tolkien" - there are about a thousand new Tolkien listings a day on eBay - anyone think having those fed through TolkienGuide posts on a daily basis would be useful/valuable?

That is fair and I am not questioning the site making decisions that are deemed in the best interests of collectors.

Urulókë wrote:

I fully support pushback on our editorial policies and decisions - it is always up for improvement, constructive criticism, and modification as we learn and grow. The mod team wanted to pause featuring Heritage listings when this news broke, and I supported them and still think we need to keep a close eye on what's going on there - any any other auction house (including eBay itself) if serious allegations arise.

That again is fair, I hope my pushback is not viewed as being awkward. I don't agree with the conclusion but I certainly do not question the motives.

Urulókë wrote:

I can see a couple of options - continue to not feature Heritage here; put Heritage listings in the event calendar but not feature in home-page posts like other auctions; feature the listings again, but add a disclaimer/link to this thread for each of them as the story develops; ignore the allegations and treat Heritage as we used to; perhaps more I am not thinking of. Other thoughts?

This is an awkward one, clearly the MODS feel strongly about this, enough to come to this decision. My own thinking is that the site should not exclude listings based on accusation, but I am not privy to the running of the site, or any website for that matter and I respect that the MODS have come to this decision with the best interests of collectors in mind. So again, don't think that my arguing in another direction is not with the same interests in mind.

Ultimately I don't agree with HA's exclusion from postings by the MODS but you all should continue to do what you feel is right for the site and its visitors.

One other thought I have on this is that TCG lists auctions for the benefit of potential buyers, NOT sellers or auction houses. Now whether it is actually helpful is another discussion (and one that there is some ongoing debate amongst the mods), but when you think of it in that light, this is simply TCG not listing auctions that it doesn't feel will be helpful to buyers. I think this happens every day when people make a judgement what to link to in "interesting auctions".

If listing auctions (especially on the front page) is seen as "promoting" auctions, I believe we have a problem -- and we should consider whether that's something we want people to (mistakenly) think.