Talk:K'sharra

I'm sorry, but bidding on your own mate's artwork? I dunno about you, but Tad Cooga doesn't make me pay for artwork he does; he /gives/ it to me if I ask for it. o.O It's forbidden for family members or spouses to bid on their relative's items on eBay, and for good reason - to me, it's no different from price inflation. I get the suspicion that K'sharra and her mate are working together to erase any evidence of Jurann's article and its contents. See Talk:Jurann about how the Artists Beware posts have now been removed, presumably by K'sharra. Spaz Kitty 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Artists Beware posts have been removed because they were posted to clarify a concern and make public amends. Instead they have been used to generate nothing but excessive drama, have been quoted in personal attacks, and have only served to worsen things: the exact opposite of the reason why I posted anything. As far as the issue in question from the post, it has been handled. So I see no reason the post should be left up to generate further damage.

I'm glad that you and your mate are in a permanent relationship and in no need of funds. Jurann and I, though, have only been dating a few months and do not share finances, and I cannot afford to simply give away my artwork. If Jurann bids and wins, he pays me the bidded amount and the artwork is his to keep as part of his collection. He has been collecting my art for many years in this fashion, even before we met. I see no need for this to discontinue. We are neither family nor spouses.

As far as your suspicion about Jurann's entry, I have nothing to do with his page. I am not working together with him in anything. If you will look at the history of my page, I have only been editing information, not blanking. I am doing my best to keep things fair and impartial, and I have made no attempt to remove pertinent information from my entry. Jurann manages his own dealings (including his WikiFur page), and I have no interest in it.

K'sharra - April 17, 2007 12:02 PST

With all due respect, and while defending Jurann is certainly nowhere near my intentions, I believe I should add my $0.02 here (for your reference: wesha_the_leopard @ ebay, 531 feedback, 100% positive). Namely, I don't see any problem in bidding on an item and not actually winning it at the end. For instance, I always stand up to my word, so if I claim (through my bid) that I will pay $399 for a certain item, and somebody else wins it for $400 and then botches the deal and backs out of it, I'm perfectly willing to pay the amount of my bid (on eBay, that's called "second chance offer") for the item. From what I see, this was precisely the case this time; and the items purchased were really paid for. The artist has received their money; the auction house has received their fee; IRS has received their tax share; the buyer has received their art and is now free to do with it as they wish (even if such wish constitutes re-selling the item somewhere else); everybody is happy, and as long as every party involved strictly adheres to the business rules, it's nobody's business who's who's "mate", relative, friend, or whatever. That's called free (as in freedom) market, the foundation of the capitalist economy. -- Wesha 06:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no strict problem with bidding and not winning. The problem is knowing whether or not the bids were motivated by intent to help the seller achieve a better price, rather than intent to win the item for themselves at the lowest possible price. For example, the winning bid at AFF's initial auction was specifically motivated by the intent not to let the pieces sell at such a low price, but to let the seller have another shot at it. Similar bids might also be made with the intent to "get the bidding started", or to keep it going if it has stalled. How many people complain about the ethics of this depends on the exact situation and apparent motive, and some may see nothing wrong with another person helping to increase the price as long as it's not beyond what other bidders are willing to pay - but I feel it can lead to a situation where it appears that an item is "worth" more than it would in auction composed fully of unrelated bidders.

I explained this in more detail in my reply to the LJ post now deleted, but essentially: A random bidder would have no reason to overbid, because they have no interest in seeing the seller get more than the minimum possible. The closer a person is to the seller, the more likely it is that the reverse is true - if they win, well, they paid a little more, but they were interested in the well-being of the seller so they don't care that much. If they don't win, then a person they care about gets more than they would have otherwise. It raises the apparent value of goods based not on the value of the item to the bidders, but because of a relationship between one of the bidders and the seller - one which the other bidders may not be aware of. This wouldn't matter if the items were easily valued, but in the case of art, how much it is worth often depends on how much others appear to value it.

Unless the bidder tells us (as actually happened above) that their motive was not to win the item for themselves but to help the seller get more money for it, we can never know that this was the case. However, it becomes far more likely if the bidder is related in some way. I don't want to go so far as to say that related bidders should not be able to bid, but I think there needs to be more than just their assurance that they are making an "honest" bid. In my mind, this issue could be helped by having such people seal a maximum bid for a particular auction before the first bid from anyone, and then having a trusted third party ensuring that - if necessary - they bid up to but not beyond this point. It wouldn't be a complete solution (perhaps someone can think of a better one?), but it might help prevent situations where the bidder doesn't really want the item for themselves but later sees it selling at a lower price than they think it deserves, or where they try to milk a person who outbid them for a little bit more. --GreenReaper^(talk) 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how any bid is placed. People could have a problem with that "maximum bid" being there because they might consider it just the same as price inflation. The matter here is that someone who cares about me also collects my art. There's no good way to deal with that. I can't give it to them without hurting myself, and I can't offer sale to them without in some way offending others. I have been under attack for this, but I have yet to hear a valid way to handle it that does not cheat myself, my mate, or the bidders, or any combination of the three.

Ksharra 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well . . . if they express interest for a piece that you want to auction, you could offer to do the same exact thing for them for the same price as it goes for at auction. If they don't want it at that price, it wouldn't have mattered if they did bid, because they wouldn't have won. If they do still want it, that means you might not have got quite as high a price for the first piece as you would have if they were bidding . . . but you'd have a guaranteed sale for that second piece, with no auction fees. Both the third party bidder and your mate should be happy as they both end up with the actual art rather than prints of it, at a price below or equal to the maximum they would have paid, and you would be happy as you'd make close to twice as much money for the same art concept - which hopefully would be easier to make the second time around. The second one might even be an improvement, which would be a bonus for them. --GreenReaper^(talk) 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, that cheats them in that neither of the buyers then have a UNIQUE original, which devalues each of the original works. Then, too, I might also run into problems if the buyer of the first original finds out a duplicate has been made later down the line and gets upset because they paid for a unique work and weren't informed of the possibility of another being made. Or if I advertise that a duplicate could be made, then it might lower the price of the bidding, devaluing the art. No, there is NO good way to handle it, from all the offers and options I have gotten. The fact is, being an artist who lives with an art collector is a hassle and not easy at all to deal with. There is no way for me to handle it in a way that makes everyone happy.

Ksharra 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

allow me to interject here if i may as i feel i have a great deal of experience in this matter. both as i run furbid-sf and am married to kacey.

the simple fact is that life is not fair. in fact, love and life are cruel companions. which means there is not possible way that all parties may be satisfied with any outcome.

i collect kaceys work. i have a very large collection in fact. however, none of it is purchased online, or in any auction. for that matter, i do not use furbid-sf. i am privy to information which would make any auction i participated in completely unfair. the same holds true for anyone who is bidding on a mates work. they are given an unfair advantage. though not as great an advantage, but one none-the-less.

my solution was simple. as kacey lists her work for what she feels it is worth as an opening bid, it becomes the value with which she would be happy with. if i so desire the work, i may purchase it from her at that price. though we trade hours, not cash, since our finances are mixed. if i do not wish to pay that price, the market gets their go at it. and, commissions are my preferred method of purchase. a fixed price for a work i dictate i want.

is it fair? i do not know. it works. and it keeps me from having a conflict of interest. that is the important part. see, i would rather see kacey happy, and successful through her own deeds and give up work of hers i would want, than to force problems upon her. besides, the way her art improves, in two months everything i get is obsolete.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a strong believer in the free market, and that's FREE (as in freedom) for everyone, mates, relatives, friends, or whoever alike, as long as they don't refuse to put their money where their mouth (==bid) is. Even if they bid on their own work. Paying a penalty in form of auction fee / income tax is a sufficient discouragement to do "shil bidding". Stop poking with the market and let the self regulating system it is do the job. -- Wesha 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (Remember: this is my personal opinion and I speak as a private person and not a Wikifur admin at this point).

i, on the other hand do not agree with you. what she was a party to was against the policies of furbid-sf. as all parties agreed to those policies when they made an account, then it places it in my court to decide. which, by the way, is also part of the policies.

i should also inform you that as furbid-sf is an online auction system, it is bound by the federal trade commission and the rules they make. one of those rules is that shilling/shielding is a form of fraud. which just so happens to be federally prosecutable.

which means, though you may have your opinion, it is the law and policies which were agreed to in an electronic contract with furbid-sf which make up the difference.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (this only applies to the furbid-sf issues, not to the aff issue)

First off, "what she was a party to" was posting an auction. You are implying that I was in some way participating in the bidding process, which is incorrect, and I am tired of your accusations against me. I have repeatedly, adamantly, honestly and openly stated that I do not condone shill bidding and I did not ask Jurann to bid on any of my works. Stop trying to smear my name.

Second, according to the FTC site, "“shill bidding” [is] when fraudulent sellers or their partners, known as “shills,” bid on sellers’ items to drive up the price, and “bid shielding” [is] when fraudulent buyers submit very high bids to discourage other bidders from competing for the same item, then retract their bids so that people they know can get the item at a lower price." (FTC Facts For Consumers) Jurann is not placing fraudulent bids and I am not placing fraudulent sales.

Third, there is nothing in the FTC site that states that friends, roommates, or boyfriends/girlfriends cannot legally purchase items from each other. You can quote eBay all you like, I'm not selling on eBay. As far as Furbid-SF's site rules, read your own Terms: "As a seller, you are not legally permitted to bid on your own items. This is known as shill bidding. If reported, your auction will be deleted, and you will still be responsible for any fees to us that you initially agreed to pay to use our services." (Furbid-SF Terms, Article 3) I did not bid on my own auctions. And there is nothing in Furbid's terms that states you cannot bid on a friend or mate's auction. Thus, Jurann did NOT violate the terms of "shill bidding" as defined in the terms on your site.

Ksharra 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

never quoted ebay. i do not use them, nor do i follow them.

i suggest you read over the faq, and then refer to article 7 of the policies page. it will answer where your interpretation is off. you are part of the process. you listed the auction. unless the auction listed itself, which is doubtful as i do not know of any auctions with the capacity to work a keyboard.

no desire to smear your name. you forget, i am on your side. but, i am also on the side of truth. i am completely and totally emotionally detached from this issue, which you are not. as i told you before, i have no desire to debate or argue this with you, though i do not mind discussing the issue with the admins of wikifur. i did not wish this to be an issue to begin with, however i was dragged into this by the public, which came about from your post. my interest is only in keeping the facts straight, without any emotional baggage.

as this is becoming circular, i will now cease speaking with you about this unless something which requires my attention is brought up. i will ot be holding any of this against you. my apologies to the admins and users of wikifur. they should not be wasting their data space or bandwidth for this problem.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 06:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is geared towards a more general case rather than this specific one, and further discussion should probably go on Talk:furry art with a view to expanding furry art to have a section on how people sell it, and what things to be aware of when buying it. --GreenReaper^(talk) 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In a few moments, I will be restoring the reference tags for the Artists Beware post. References remain valid even when the source is no longer accessable; there is a reason for the retrieved on date being included in references to an online source.

K'sharra brought up a couple of points on my talk page. In reponse to them, I do think her specific statement that at least one of the pieces will be going up for sale is of note. I also feel that Ayukawataur's statement is highly relevant, and explains a significant part of her reasoning for the FurBid-SF decisions. It could, perhaps, be framed a little more, perhaps "Ayukawataur stated that, as she perceived" suchandsuch, although I don't think that is necessary. -- Sine 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i have corrected the reason by which jurann was suspended from furbid-sf. please, for the record, if it must be placed here, it must remain accurate. and, for the record i do not believe that it belongs on her page. the only reason which her account/access to furbid-sf is being monitored is due to jurann. standard operating procedure when one of two mates is suspended. and trust me, i do not like it any more than they do. it means more work for me.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ayukawataur in that the information on Jurann does not belong on my page. I have already tried to remove it once for its irrelevance, but Sine restored it. I would appreciate if the information about Jurann was placed in the proper section instead of mine.

Ksharra 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to concur with the spirit of K'Sharra's request here. Individually the recent edits might make sense in the interest of clarification and providing additional info, but collectively what I see happening is that an article about a very talented furry artist is getting dominated and overshadowed by coverage of a couple of questionable acts in art auctions - not even by her, but by her mate.

Think of it this way - how much information about this is likely to be of interest 3-5 years from now? Or in a similar vein - if you were writing an article about similar types of incidents that took place 3-5 years ago, what would you include? --mwalimu 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Move the controversy stuff from this article to Jurann's page where it belongs, and just add a little link to there. I don't like the idea of a person who did nothing more than placing a few pictures up for bidding (100% legitimate activity, mind you) has gotten into a crossfire. -- Wesha 20:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

actually, i reworded it in the manner i did to emphasis that she is not being held at fault. however, it is relevant in the manner it is posted now. she did have a part in what happened. she may not be responsible, but her part did play out. as she was the one who made such public, that brings even more relevancy.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)