Well, I have no authority on this site - but I can offer my opinion based on my own observations.
Firstly, I have no qualms with Philip presenting his theories and acknowledge he has put a lot of time and effort into it. Having worked so intimately with it, he most certainly will have seen more subtle indications in the data he has put together than most others and may present conclusions that escape our cursory understanding.
Secondly, the specific naming of parties is something of which I'm sure admin here are very aware - but you're not going to see that advertised. IF there is an issue with legal risk or complaint from the named party, have no doubt appropriate and swift action will be taken. Further, don't expect any explanations - privacy laws will preclude that.
As for the named parties, whether they consider this to be a matter for complaint can be driven by a number of factors.
- The first of these is the nature of the accusation - shill bidding - and the concern by the seller may not be sufficient to warrant a response.
- Then there is the credibility of the source. If that is considered weak or groundless, then the real risk of the accusations fade significantly. In these cases it is often better to ignore them, as addressing them, especially in legal action, immediately gives some legitimacy to those accusations. This could result in more mud being thrown up and, even if completely exonerated, 'mud sticks'.
- It may also be that the accusations made do not match the prices attained. It's all well and good to shout "Shill! Shill!", but if buyers still see a good price at the end of it all, then they are not as likely to be put off - so support for the accusations will not be forthcoming from "affected" buyers. (This is one point about which I can see Phil getting animated - where buyers ARE getting shilled, but are still happy with the price they paid.)
- We can then look at the impact to the sellers trading. If it hasn't suffered, they may not be bothered. There is also the possibility that they have picked up some free advertising and, as a result, there are more people attracted to this seller that have been put off. Alternatively, have the places where Phil has declared his theories been in the vision of his customer base? If not, this could be another argument for letting things be. To take action would raise this dark cloud to new heights and put the spotlight on it.
Also, since Phil has spread his voice across a fairly wide arena, if the affected parties WERE to take action - they may just target him, rather than all the places he's published on. Phil would then have to go around and clean up - IF there were any judgement along those lines.
I welcome the opportunity for the Phil's of this world to make a noise, be civil and debate their ideas.
I don't doubt there are some curiosities that bear investigation and Phil has certainly found one. He hasn't convinced me (yet) of the severity of the problem and I may play devil's advocate - but I would not want to shut him down. He may be right.
