Pete, you're amazing. I guess I did say "on to the next thread", didn't I? Seems like you're set on disagreeing with everything I say, no matter how far out on a limb you have to go to do so.

You say "It is not necessary to talk to the Seller to find out his intentions. It is fair to make reasonable inferences. We do it all the time, in fact society would pretty much come to a standstill if we could not make such reasonable inferences about other people."

Really, Pete, how difficult is it to email a seller and ask him if he's aware of the new information before dragging him through the mud in public?

As a society, don't we allow every person accused of a crime or misdemeanor to speak in his defense before we pass judgement? Don't we usually interview a man suspected of something before we arrest him, just in case he has a reasonable explaination for whatever the problem seems to be? Do we shoot first and ask questions later? Aren't we commanded to not bear false witness against our neighbors?

You're assuming the man is guilty of an ethical violation, with absolutely no information about him or his knowledge of the background of this chip. And you say you have no duty to find out if it's just a simple misunderstanding before passing judgement. I hope you never get called for jury duty.

For many of us, selling on eBay is our livlihood. Having our names and auctions plastered all over a public specialty collecting board, viewed by many of our potential customers, and being labeled as "eggregiously unethical", can have a direct effect on our reputation and income. Seems to me it's not unreasonable to get BOTH sides of a story before accusing or condemning a man. Apparently, you feel no such obligation to get all the facts before coming to a conclusion about a man's character or integrity.

There is a whole world out there that is not aware of the CCGTCC, is not aware of the many fine points of the chipping hobby, and has no direct access to the wealth of factual information that club members do.

Maybe this guy IS aware of the recent discovery of six boxes of these chips, and purposely neglected to mention that, while still mentioning the Chip Rack value code. If so, he's probably guilty of some sort of ethics breach. If he's a club mmeber, he's probably violated the Code of Ethics. I do know he has not broken any eBay rules, since the information he does provide is factually correct. Under discussion here is an eBay auction, and eBay is a "caveat emptor" environment. I know, I know, you probably don't think it SHOULD be, but it is.

Mind you, I'm not defending him, I have no idea what he does and does not know about this chip. I'm discussing a general principle, and of it turns out he DID know about the six additional boxes, my comments still stand.

But, maybe he's NOT aware of the recent discovery of additional chips? Why not find out? There are no bids yet, so he can choose to add the information, if it's brought to his attention. Isn't that what you want, for the auction description to be as accurate as possible? Too much trouble to compose a brief email? I think it's not unreasonable to make some small effort to find out where he's coming from first, before labeling him a crook, especially where many of his best customers might read about him.

What harm is done by asking that he be contacted and be given a chance to defend himself?

To be honest, some of you guys scare me to death. I deal in antique chips, and feel quite knowledgable about them. Many of my customers tell me they read this board regularly, but have never posted. Casino chips scare me. There are so many of them, and the smallest differences between two chips can make a huge difference in value. I do come across them from time to time in my search for inventory, and I'm afraid that even if I describe a chip to the best of my knowledge, some of you will have information that I do not have, and make "reasonable inferences" about my ethics, and post a bunch of comments about me and my business, labeling me a crook.

Every other auction discussion board has rules preventing open discussion of a particular auciton without inviting the party being discussed to participate. This board has no such rule. And it scares me.