No Resale Agreement?

[cvalue13]

CAN WE ALL JUST REPETITIVELY POST “@***** IS RIGHT” ON ALL THESE THREADS?

@***** ’s original thread was locked down.

He made 3-4 more threads all on ~same topic.

He’s taken over 2-4 more threads, for being close to “his” topic.

He’s used fabricated ChatGPT responses as support for his topic.

He’s posted website “articles” as support, not mentioning that he wrote the article.

In those articles, he’s cited his own forum posts here as support, not citing himself as author of the posts.

He’ll stop at nothing.

CAN WE ALL JUST POST “@***** IS RIGHT” REPETITIVELY ON ALL THESE THREADS?

Sponsored

 

[CyberGus]

CAN WE ALL JUST REPETITIVELY POST “@***** IS RIGHT” ON ALL THESE THREADS?

@***** ’s original thread was locked down.

He made 3-4 more threads all on ~same topic.

He’s taken over 2-4 more threads, for being close to “his” topic.

He’s used fabricated ChatGPT responses as support for his topic.

He’s posted website “articles” as support, not mentioning that he wrote the article.

In those articles, he’s cited his own forum posts here as support, not citing himself as author of the posts.

He’ll stop at nothing.

CAN WE ALL JUST POST “@***** IS RIGHT” REPETITIVELY ON ALL THESE THREADS?

@cvalue13 is right

 

[Deleted member 3316]

Anyone who inspects the totallity of your arguments can come to no conslusion other than you are debating in bad faith.

The three of you are arguing in bad faith.

You have clearly demonstrated that by your continual refusal to answer any of my questions to clarify your understanding continually misquoting my statements to strawman the argument.

If you actually thought it was a worthless idea you wouldn’t be so threatened by it.

 

[CyberGus]

The three of you are arguing in bad faith.

You have clearly demonstrated that by your continual refusal to answer any of my questions continually misquoting my statements to strawman the argument.

My continued participation in this forum is not predicated upon submitting myself to cross-examination. You should be able to articulate your position directly without needing to take queries from your audience.

For the record, I have one and only 1 Reservation, and have never stated otherwise. I will not resell my Cybertruck for any amount. I speculate that most who post here regularly feel the same.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

You should be able to articulate your position directly without needing to take queries from your audience.

Thanks Cybergus.
How do you suggest I deal with persistent shitposters actively misrepresenting and misquoting my statements to mean the opposite of my intent?

 

[cvalue13]

How do you suggest I deal with persistent shitposters actively misrepresenting and misquoting my statements to mean the opposite of my intent?

not ignore counterpoints and direct answers as being mere subterfuge of people looking to scalp?

just a start

Your “points” aren’t complicated - they’re merely uninteresting

 

[CyberGus]

Thanks Cybergus.
How do you suggest I deal with persistent shitposters actively misrepresenting and misquoting my statements to mean the opposite of my intent?

I've often found it difficult to follow your reasoning.

Fortunately, this forum is neither a professional nor academic pursuit to me, so when the conversation gets hard I just a make a joke and move on

 

[Deleted member 3316]

not ignore counterpoints and direct answers as being mere subterfuge of people looking to scalp?

just a start

Your “points” aren’t complicated - they’re merely uninteresting

I address every counterpoint.
But once again you are avoiding the content of the post to which you are responding,(strawman) which is centred around dishonest interactions, much like your last statement.

If it wasn’t of interest to you why all the vehement opposition? Why would you actively misrepresent my statements to strawman and deride the idea. I posit it’s of great interest to you because you find it threatening to your potential to profit off Teslas ingenuity. You would interact more honestly if that was not the case.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

I've often found it difficult to follow your reasoning.

I would say that is because it’s been actively confused by constant misrepresentation and strawmaning by others to illicit a derisive response.

 

[Alan]

If we all block him he won’t be able to take over any more threads with garbage.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

If we all block him he won’t be able to take over any more threads with garbage.

Yet another Troll challenged by an idea…

“…a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others’ perception.”

 

[cvalue13]

I address every counterpoint.

Oh no - not the main counterpoints. Those you “respond” to only by evasive word avalanche.

Just one example: the main assumption of your “idea” you’ve never explained - despite being asked two dozen ways by as many people:

• You say “unprecedented” CT demand creates an equally unprecedented line of people willing to pay above MSRP
• You say that amongst reservation holders, “many” are “parasitic profiteers” intending to scalp their vehicles, robbing Tesla of lost income
• You say Tesla can foil these scalpers and capitalize on this unprecedented line of people willing to pay above MSRP by holding auctions for CT units

But

• You’re unwilling say how many such auctions Tesla needs to to effectively foil the plans of the unknown number of reservation holders that are “parasitic profiteers”
  

But, seems clear that for Tesla’s auctions to foil the plans of reservation-holding “parasitic profiteers,” Tesla would have to hold as many auctions as there are people willing to pay above MSRP.

Otherwise, if Tesla holds fewer auctions than there are numbers of people willing to pay above MSRP, some or all of the parasitic profiteers with reservations will still have a market for their scalping.

So all reservation holders (mostly genuine, but a few scalpers), will all have to wait until Tesla is done selling so many units at auction that secondary demand prices equal MSRP.

Tesla isn’t jumping at this idea?!


[commencing evasive word avalanche in … 3… 2… ]

 

[Deleted member 3316]

Fantastic, this is the first time you’ve interacted in a way that resembles honesty with this.
You have Steelmaned it in a genuine manner and used logic but applied that logic to misunderstandings.

• You say “unprecedented” CT demand creates an equally unprecedented line of people willing to pay above MSRP
• You say that amongst reservation holders, “many” are “parasitic profiteers” intending to scalp their vehicles, robbing Tesla of lost income
• You say Tesla can foil these scalpers and capitalize on this unprecedented line of people willing to pay above MSRP by holding auctions for CT units

well summarised.

You’re unwilling say how many such auctions Tesla needs to to effectively foil the plans of the unknown number of reservation holders that are “parasitic profiteers”

My unwillingness is clearly articulated in the above statement of unknowns.

We don’t and can’t know how many there are.

If all the reservations ahead of you are converted to a genuine owner rather than a scalper/Flipper/parasitic profiteer,

none would be auctioned.

But a percentage of cancellations (for arguments sake 50%) would be offered at auction.
“How do you define a genuine owner” I hear you say…. Only a genuine owner would be willing to engage in a contract that doesn’t really effect their ownership other than their capacity to sell it before the lock out period.

But, seems clear that for Tesla’s auctions to foil the plans of reservation-holding “parasitic profiteers,” Tesla would have to hold as many auctions as there are people willing to pay above MSRP.

Otherwise, if Tesla holds fewer auctions than there are numbers of people willing to pay above MSRP, some or all of the parasitic profiteers with reservations will still have a market for their scalping.

Nope, the only way the scalper can get a vehicle to resell is at auction for the highest price. If they are willing to buy and hold for the lockout period you are not delayed any longer than you already would have been.

I posit these people will cancel. Only a percentage of these cancellations would be auctioned. Queue jumpers will just have to wait til they win an auction. Or wait until the lock out period expires.

So all reservation holders (mostly genuine, but a few scalpers), will all have to wait until Tesla is done selling so many units at auction that secondary demand prices equal MSRP.

No. Just no. That’s not how it would work.
But your last statement recognises an added benefit, if Auction prices are getting close to MSRP, it encourages Tesla to lower prices again and balance the production/delivery disparity with auctions. Tesla would not hold inventory.

I understand that is a long post but when people rip open a FUD pillow it takes a lot of words to shove all those feathers back in the cover.

 

[SparkChaser]

Do Most Tesla Cybertruck Order Holders Aim To Follow Through? (insideevs.com)

 

[cvalue13]

My unwillingness is clearly articulated in the above statement of unknowns.

but your willingness is motivated only by a problem.

you can’t scope the problem, so there’s no basis for caring about it.

instead you ask that people accept a problem exists.

which is little more than starting your argument by asking to assume your conclusion.

But a percentage of cancellations (for arguments sake 50%) would be offered at auction.
“How do you define a genuine owner” I hear you say…. Only a genuine owner would be willing to engage in a contract that doesn’t really effect their ownership other than their capacity to sell it before the lock out period

so now you’re re-clarifying that your auction idea rests entirely on the effectiveness of your ROFR idea.

your ROFR idea is ineffective. so your auction idea rests on nothing.

for example:

Nope, the only way the scalper can get a vehicle to resell is at auction for the highest price.

you jumped to this only by assuming your ROFR idea has dissuaded the scalper from simply executing on the initial purchase under reservation.

if your ROFR idea doesn’t work, the scalpers merely execute on the initial purchase under reservation.

your ROFR idea doesn’t work.

I understand that is a long post but when people rip open a FUD pillow it takes a lot of words to shove all those feathers back in the cover.

and here you are.

skipping from your misunderstandings to the conclusion that others must be idiots.

let’s examine:

First, the feasibility of your entire plan must assume that Tesla is too stupid to have thought of it (or recognized its brilliance) in the first place. You have no basis for this assumption. For the air-breathing world, it’s not Feasible that Tesla hasn’t thought about this harder, longer, better, than you.

So why haven’t Tesla done it? Because it’s a bad idea for reasons you don’t understand, or because it’s a great idea Tesla can’t understand? (Hint: could be that for Tesla a few scalpers are good for business - better even than the “lost” profits; but that’s a story for another day.)

Second, you’ve demonstrated that the entirety of your auction idea rests on the underlying effectiveness of your ROFR.

Consider initially the stakes of the ROFR: causing all legitimate buyers to agree to [12-24] month lockout period in order to trap the unstated number of would-be scalpers. But you promise there are some! But are there enough for all legitimate buyers to accept a ROFR on their purchase? You can’t say. Your stakes are f*cked before you even get to your solution.

But let’s assume you’ve proved up your stakes (you haven’t), then second - your “solution”: the ROFR.

Here, your being obviously untrained and unfamiliar in how, when, or why, such provisions are effective mechanism - you simply wave your hands and declare “a thing like this exists, and trust me it works.”

You’re wrong. After 15 years as a transactional lead lawyer in an industry that revolves upon billion-dollar singular transactions riding on effective ROFRs (and their hybrid forms), ask me how I know.

Now, let’s say Tesla we’re so hair-brained as to not understand this (I can find out next week when I have lunch with Tesla’s general counsel) - what’s the effect?

As an initial matter, Tesla would be unable to draft terms that work for a personal property asset such as a vehicle. Even assuming they could (they can’t), those terms would be gameable.

Guess who won’t game them? Legit reservation holders.

Guess who will? Scalpers.

Guess how much Tesla will spend prosecuting then attempting to enforce ROFRs? More than most of the auction profits.
In fine:

• your entire auction idea rests on the effectiveness of your ROFR idea
• your ROFR idea doesn’t work, as an initial matter
• even assuming the ROFR idea could work as an initial matter, it would only work to dissuade and burden the people you say (without support) are supposed to benefit from the ROFR
• meanwhile, the very people you say (with only hand-waving) would be dissuaded by the ROFR idea, would be the ones upon which the ROFR is most ineffective
• the end result is proportionally more legit reservation holders would drop out due to the ROFR than would scalpers
• meanwhile, Tesla is now auctioning the cancellations of once legit Reservation holders
• but Tesla doesn’t auction enough units to undercut the scalpers still viable market

Tesla gets auction money, scalpers get flipping money, legit reservation holders are to no positive effect burdened by the ROFR, and the remaining legit reservations holders have cancelled - and bought Chevy’s and Ford’s

@***** IS LEGACY PSY-OPS

Sponsored