Garr255/Werner - Auction shilling

[Kluge]

Wow, I never thought this forum of all other would have such attitude towards auction shilling.

Please explain to me - why the hell not? If I want to buy something, I know the price I'm willing to pay and that's it. If it goes up beyond that for a tiniest bit, in fair or fixed way - I will never buy it.

I admit, I'm new too this marketplace/economics atmosphere, but this seems logical enough for me.

The whole premise is that it didn't go above anyone's maximum. Let's pretend that StarSoccer was willing to bid BTC65. He was winning at BTC61. Garr comes along when there were no other bidders and bids BTC62, forcing StarSoccer to bid BTC63 (a difference of BTC2, had Garr not interfered).

Really, though, salesmen of every corporate business are encouraged to engage in much worse sales tactics on a daily basis. Yeah, we hold people we respect and trust to a higher level, but this isn't some damning, horrible evil we need to shoot him in the face for.

I get pissed off every time I have to talk to one of those shill "just following orders" shitheads at a corporate call center (speaking as someone who worked at one... for a day). I think we care, as a community, about this incident so much because we're more worried about a trend toward full-blown sociopathy, not over caring about this single incident in itself. I think we'd all prefer the status quo Garr we have faith in, than face a trend of evidence proving humanity as a stinking pile of filth, where everyone we trust has just managed to cover their tracks better.

That said, I've done worse with a Hell of a lot more and never caught even a small fraction of the flak Garr's caught over the last day. Maybe it's because Garr's held to a higher standard. - Or because I rapidly fluctuate between total indifference and full-blown outrage to a point where communicating with me is always futile.    

[1714696675]

1714696675

[1714696675]

1714696675

[kibblesnbits]

Rampion: I'm saddened that you don't think I'm worthy of participating in the community because of one blatantly stupid mistake. I've never done anything else wrong and do not plan to ever again.

Not one.  Several.  And while the apology is well worded, it only comes as a last resort.  You were planning on challenging the accusation, remember?  In my opinion, he's still not being honest.  He wanted the extra coins for himself, not for any benefit to Cognitive (as he claimed).  He's shown an ongoing pattern of conduct of lying and cheating other members of the forum, and only confessing when the amount of evidence was irrefutable. 

Anyone really looking to forgive so quickly,read through all of Werners posts.  All of them.  It's an account of someone supposedly living in Germany.  Its an entire second persona designed only to scam.  The Werner account was specifically designed for this purpose, and it wasn't created only a few days ago.

I request Theymos take back the 250BTC ASAP.  No telling what this kid's going to do once he gets a little college in him.

[theymos]

forcing StarSoccer to bid BTC63

Did Gar255 put a gun to his head? No one forced the bidders to do anything.

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it except that Garr255 should have warned bidders that he might do it. I rank his actions there as "a bit shady," though he handled the fallout badly (due to inexperience, I suppose).

In any case, alts aren't against forum rules, and scammer tags are typically only given when an explicit agreement is broken. Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

[gambitv]

theymos, you might want to go work for this company then. I think they welcome 'a bit shady' tactics.

Now I am even more suspicious of auctions on this forum. Off to bctc.co for me I think.

forcing StarSoccer to bid BTC63

Did Gar255 put a gun to his head? No one forced the bidders to do anything.

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it except that Garr255 should have warned bidders that he might do it. I rank his actions there as "a bit shady," though he handled the fallout badly (due to inexperience, I suppose).

In any case, alts aren't against forum rules, and scammer tags are typically only given when an explicit agreement is broken. Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

[PrintMule]

forcing StarSoccer to bid BTC63

Did Gar255 put a gun to his head? No one forced the bidders to do anything.

Exactly as I was saying.

You people are so quick to join the witchhunt, no matter type of witch in question. To channel your own frustrations at something, or keeping heat away from yourselves, or following some paladin moral code, it does not matter. There's a dutch auction going on somewhere nearby on 1-3 avalons, and the poster did not lower the price for some time - and scam accusation immediately followed. Maybe he's spending some time away from pc or something?

[kibblesnbits]

forcing StarSoccer to bid BTC63

Did Gar255 put a gun to his head? No one forced the bidders to do anything.

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it except that Garr255 should have warned bidders that he might do it. I rank his actions there as "a bit shady," though he handled the fallout badly (due to inexperience, I suppose).

In any case, alts aren't against forum rules, and scammer tags are typically only given when an explicit agreement is broken. Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

Are you kidding me?  It's not even close.  I agree that "alts" are a part of forum life.  This is fraud plain and simple.  Anyways,  the trust ratings are in place for a reason. 

[Rampion]

forcing StarSoccer to bid BTC63

Did Gar255 put a gun to his head? No one forced the bidders to do anything.

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it except that Garr255 should have warned bidders that he might do it. I rank his actions there as "a bit shady," though he handled the fallout badly (due to inexperience, I suppose).

In any case, alts aren't against forum rules, and scammer tags are typically only given when an explicit agreement is broken. Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

OK, cool. So it's totally OK to have bidding sockpuppets on these forums. You still deserve the trust of the mods and admins if you have sockpuppets that pose as independent third parties that artificially inflate trust on your business ventures or raise the price of you auctions.

Just FYI, sockpuppeting is considered a serious issue when money of third parties is involved, just check wikipedia and you will see there were convictions and serious consecuences for many individuals engaged in sockpuppeting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

The fact that the forum allows sockpuppeting to artificially build trust when business transactions are involved or to inflate auction prices seems totally wrong to me, as it's a clear demonstration of untrustworthy behaviour in my book, I have to admit I'm utterly disappointed but it's your forum, so you make the rules and we either accept them or we leave. Duly noted.

[Kluge]

forcing StarSoccer to bid BTC63

Did Gar255 put a gun to his head? No one forced the bidders to do anything.

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it except that Garr255 should have warned bidders that he might do it. I rank his actions there as "a bit shady," though he handled the fallout badly (due to inexperience, I suppose).

In any case, alts aren't against forum rules, and scammer tags are typically only given when an explicit agreement is broken. Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

Would you find it acceptable for yourself to bid up forum ad slots with socks? I now can't help but notice you've never explicitly stated you won't. Should it raise a red flag for me that you have not explicitly stated you won't bid up ad slots with socks, or would it be reasonable to assume you would not, considering your reputation? You've never explicitly stated (AFAIK) you will not sell our PMs to Google. Should I now assume it would be acceptable for you and Hearn to negotiate a deal where our "private information" is for sale to them?

Are you turning into a robot, theymos, where a binary answer is required for substantial moral judgment? How could you possibly reconcile your creativity with belief in binary morality? Have you become an adherent to iron-fisted order, seeking to ascend to the level of a robot slave? Or what - does calling an action "a bit shady" qualify as really pushing the limits of moral judgment on your part?

Are you really that cynical?

[Rampion]

forcing StarSoccer to bid BTC63

Did Gar255 put a gun to his head? No one forced the bidders to do anything.

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it except that Garr255 should have warned bidders that he might do it. I rank his actions there as "a bit shady," though he handled the fallout badly (due to inexperience, I suppose).

In any case, alts aren't against forum rules, and scammer tags are typically only given when an explicit agreement is broken. Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

Would you find it acceptable for yourself to bid up forum ad slots with socks?

I don't know why you are even asking, he was very clear, I will quote it for you:

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it

Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

[coinsquirrel]

forcing StarSoccer to bid BTC63

Did Gar255 put a gun to his head? No one forced the bidders to do anything.

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it except that Garr255 should have warned bidders that he might do it. I rank his actions there as "a bit shady," though he handled the fallout badly (due to inexperience, I suppose).

In any case, alts aren't against forum rules, and scammer tags are typically only given when an explicit agreement is broken. Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

Obviously no one physically forced anyone's hand, but Garr certainly invalidated StarSoccer's previous bid, by bidding with his alternate ID. Thus, StarSoccer had no other choice but to increment his own bid, if he wanted to win the auction. Clearly Garr had no intention of winning his own auction, and he knew that if by placing his bid, he was forcing all bidders to bid at a new price point. I wasn't involved here, so I'll chalk this up to semantics, but we should really be asking the bidders themselves if they felt like they were forced into submitting higher bids.

I will full-heatedly dispute that this is in any way similar to a reserve price. Reserves are always set before bidding begins, before interest in the item can be gauged. Additionally, in any respectable auction system, the reserve price can not move, like Garr had the ability to do with his Werner account. He was giving everyone the impression that there was broader market interest in the item. This is what we call creating a bidding frenzy.

[Rampion]

If Theymos used an alt to bid up the auction for ads, and then won and paid for them, I do not see how this is a scam.

Having more than one account is fine under the current rules of the forum.

Theymos was selling the ads for the forum, Garr was selling for Cognitive. Both socks of theymos and Garr could keep and use the products.

I don't even see how you guys think this is scamming.

What gets me pissed off is the fact Garr lied about it the account not being his. If you guys were trying to say he needs a tag like Matthew, than maybe, but scam? No way.

I have to disagree and I'd consider shill bidding a scam, but I acknowledge this can be discussed and I may be proven wrong. But, an untrustworthy tag has no discussion IMO, Garr255 proved clearly to be untrustworthy, unless of course Theymos decide that *HE* trusts Garr255 no matter he lied in fron to the whole community, so he decides not to apply any untrustworthy tag for him. At the end of the day is his forum, who is "officialy" trustworthy or untrustworthy depends on him, not on us, we can just make our own conclusion and act accordingly.

[kibblesnbits]

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it

Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

Then these quotes should be stickied at the top of the auction page.  Better yet:

Bid here only to a maximum of what you are willing to spend.  Auctioneers may opt to artificially inflate the price using alternate accounts if necessary.  No one is putting a gun to your head to outbid said alternate accounts.  Shilling/sock-puppeting is condoned and expected behavior.  Bid accordingly.

I would request the above, if true, be stickied at the top of the auction page.

[Rampion]

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it

Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

Then these quotes should be stickied at the top of the auction page.  Better yet:

Bid here only to a maximum of what you are willing to spend.  Auctioneers may opt to artificially inflate the price using alternate accounts if necessary.  No one is putting a gun to your head to outbid said alternate accounts.  Shilling/sock-puppeting is condoned and expected behavior.  Bid accordingly.

I would request the above, if true, be stickied at the top of the auction page.

Well, it's true, we had confirmation from the forum admin.

So, +1 to the sticky.

[theymos]

Would you find it acceptable for yourself to bid up forum ad slots with socks?

Notice that I called it a bit shady. I wouldn't do it, and my trust in people will be reduced if I see them doing it. But it's not the end of the world.

It's not ethical to do this sort of thing because the participants in the auction expect you not to do it. By secretly acting contrary to their expectations, you're betraying their trust. But while it should happen very rarely, sometimes you get into situations like this accidentally or due to insufficient ethical consideration. It's something I can forgive fairly easily if it doesn't become a habit.

The preceding ethical analysis is irrelevant to forum administration, though. Scammer tags are given, in general, to people who break explicit agreements.

[Rampion]

Would you find it acceptable for yourself to bid up forum ad slots with socks?

Notice that I called it a bit shady. I wouldn't do it, and my trust in people will be reduced if I see them doing it. But it's not the end of the world.

It's not ethical to do this sort of thing because the participants in the auction expect you not to do it. By secretly acting contrary to their expectations, you're betraying their trust. But while it should happen very rarely, sometimes you get into situations like this accidentally or due to insufficient ethical consideration. It's something I can forgive fairly easily if it doesn't become a habit.

The preceding ethical analysis is irrelevant for forum administration, though. Scammer tags are given, in general, to people who break explicit agreements.

Sorry to insist Theymos, but I would like to really understand the logic.

Are you saying that you may create a sockpuppet to support your business ventures and artificially raise price in your auctions "accidentally"? Like it was an accident in the road, something you did not plan and "just happened"?

THEN:

First time you shill bid, it's ok. Second time, not so well. Garr255 did it at least 3 times in 3 separate auctions.

So maybe you are implying that the first time you get caught shill bidding is OK, as it might be "accidental". Second time you get caught, is not forgivable any more.

I don't want to be a pain in the ass, I just want to know clearly what's the position of the forum so I can act accordingly.

[PrintMule]

Position is -if you shill will have your public image damaged, and that's all.

There's a thread going on with buying of forum accounts for god's sake.

[theymos]

Forum policy: No matter how many times you do this, you will never get a scammer tag unless you have an explicit agreement which says otherwise. Auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

Personally: I might forgive someone if they do this kind of thing once, but probably not twice.

Are you saying that you may create a sockpuppet to support your business ventures and artificially raise price in your auctions "accidentally"? Like it was an accident in the road, something you did not plan and "just happened"?

You can accidentally betray someone's trust if you misunderstand what their expectations are. If Garr255 thought that people generally had no problem with bidding via alts, the betrayal of trust would be accidental. This isn't the case here, but it's possible.

[starsoccer9]

forcing StarSoccer to bid BTC63

Did Gar255 put a gun to his head? No one forced the bidders to do anything.

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it except that Garr255 should have warned bidders that he might do it. I rank his actions there as "a bit shady," though he handled the fallout badly (due to inexperience, I suppose).

In any case, alts aren't against forum rules, and scammer tags are typically only given when an explicit agreement is broken. Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

I am not quite sure how you can justify bidding up your own auctions as an okay auction.  A secret reserve is 100% differnt as its public posted and will not change.

So because I say nothing it means its okay to do it?Personally anyone who runs an auction and doesnt go through with the auction if all the rules are followed for example a reserve price is met and He chooses to just not follow through I would mark down as untrustworthy and deserves the same thing Matt has under his name. It is a verbal agreement when you post rules in the auction that you plan to follow through with them. Otherwise your saying that I can post what ever I would like and not be held liable simply because I never said i wouldn't

In any case since you are going with the "He never said he wouldn't" I think any scammer who scammed should just get the tag removed, as he never said he wouldnt scam. So its okay

[Rampion]

Position is -if you shill will have your public image damaged, and that's all.

There's a thread going on with buying of forum accounts for god's sake.

The truth is that it is almost impossible to discover a shill bidder unless a the cheater makes a mistake (like Garr255 did by posting with his sockpuppet account by mistake).

If there's no incentive in being honest and ethical because unethical and dishonest behaviour is tolerated, then the honest folks with principles get ass-raped by the unethical guys doing their thing.

I strongly disagree on "shill bidding" being a "secret reserve", ebay for example forbids this and in my opinion they rightly do so.

Forum policy: No matter how many times you do this, you will never get a scammer tag unless you have an explicit agreement which says otherwise. Auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

Personally: I might forgive someone if they do this kind of thing once, but probably not twice.

Clear enough.

I have to say I've been surprised by things going on the auctions subforums. We constantly have:

a) People pumping up price through PM that cannot be verified
b) Bidders that do not honor their bids
c) Auctioneers that did not set a reserve price and then decide not to honor winners because the price is not good enough for them.

I have to say that for me that's utterly amateurish and disappointing. I'd like to see some serious business going on, and not only jokes and scams. In this sense, I think the new trust system will help a lot. People can RATE other folks, and this is a huge improvement that also makes mod's life easier.

That said, I think a clear set of rules should be stickied to the auction subforums: for example, we should say that shill bidding is allowed. That not honoring the winner is OK unless the auctioneer signs a contract that obliges him to do so (which is kinda contradictory, because the whole point of an auction is to be binding, but I guess we have our very own system here). We should say that auctioneers have the right to constantly change their "reserve price", and that they can say they received any offer through private messages. And so on... I really think this will improve a lot the current auction subforum, so every interested part won't believe they are participating in a "real" auction, where a set of basic rules are implied (first of them is that the winner will be honored, if not, what kind of auction is this?), while on these forums ANY rule and condition has to be stated on beforehand, including: no shill bidding, honoring winners, no artificially pumping price up by "accepting PM offers", etc.

This will make people wary that ALL THE CONDITIONS must be stated in the OP.

[Rampion]

I don't know if Garr lied in public (on the forum) about the account being his or not. If he did I does not look good.

Yes he did, more than once:

I can't believe what's happening here...

I did not bid up those auctions. I am not arguing the accusation that the werner account is under my control because I want to keep my BFL orders! Otherwise, believe me: I would be!

I'm having the ugly feeling Garr may be close to Theymos or other mods. Maybe they are friends in meatspace? I see a lot of indulgence.

I really don't want to beat on Garr, the mistake is not so huge and he is so young, but really puzzles me seeing his trust status so high, no tag of any kind for him, when he was just caught using shills to support his business ventures and artificially raise the price in his auctions, and then he lied to everybody until the evidence was too serious to deny the facts.

I have to say all this makes me a little sad, I've been investing a lot of time in these forums for the last months and I always had the impression that this was a fair and well balanced community, where mods were totally impartial and judged everyone by the same standards.