Regarding the eBay protest article

Okay, I just have to get something off my chest:

Did the unnamed reader quoted in the positive side of the article actually refer to small-volume sellers as slag and imply that they are less ethical as a group than big sellers? No matter how many times I see it, it still amazes me that someone could be so brazen! Such ignorant and insulting statements.

"Finally, if sellers really want to see the feedback rules stay the same, fine; I don't have a problem with that ... as long as they agree to begin shipping items first, before they're paid for."

Now THAT is unethical, in my humble opinion!

Okay, I'm finished.

It might help to post the article ...

Hi,
My name's Dave and I am the unnamed person in the article you're referring to. It's not that I intended to keep my identity a secret; I just happened to be unavailable when the author of the article contacted me to use my comments. Since she couldn't obtain my permission before deadline, she decided to use them without attribution. Not that it's a big deal; I noticed you didn't use your real name in your post either.
And just to set the record straight, I did not refer to small sellers as "slag"; I'm a small seller myself. If that term was used in the article it came from someone else.
In any case, I think you misunderstood my comment about shipping items vs. the feedback changes. It was intended to make Sellers stop and realize how much exposure a Buyer has in the typical eBay transaction.
In an eBay transaction there are three primary components: Sending Money, Shipping the Item, and Leaving Feedback. In most transactions there's a point where the seller holds both the merchandise and the money. Now, as a buyer, I probably don't know you from Adam and might be dealing with you from thousands of miles away. I have to put a lot of trust in your integrity and the only thing I have to "guarantee" your performance is feedback. Unfortunately, so many sellers now are holding feedback hostage (by forcing buyers to post feedback first) that it has become meaningless as a means of guaranteeing performance. So effectively Sellers control all three aspects of the transaction: Money, Item, and Feedback.
Who in their right mind would enter into a transaction under those conditions? Most eBay buyers actually; because they're forced to.
So now put the shoe on the other foot: Imagine as a seller you had to ship your item before being paid. In other words the seller would pay you after receiving the item. Now the Buyer would hold both the item and the money at the same time and the Seller would have feedback to ensure the transaction was completed satisfactorily.
There's nothing unethical about it, it's simply a question of who controls which aspect of the transaction at what time.
For too long Sellers have held all the transactional power, now eBay, recognizing this, tries to level the playing field and Sellers are screaming bloody murder. I suppose if I was an unethical seller I would too but conscientious sellers have nothing to fear: Describe your item accurately, leave feedback when your item is paid for, and ship when you say you'll ship - what's so hard about that?
To those Sellers that refuse to see the need for (and the value in) the feedback changes and have chosen to boycott eBay, good luck; perhaps the Community is better off without you.