Garr255/Werner - Auction shilling

[Plazmotech]

If he wanted to win the auction then obviously he was willing to pay BTC63, no? He's still not forcing anybody to pay money they would not be willing to pay. This is equivalent to refusing a price in a bargain, something perfectly reasonable.

I don't see any problem in what Garr did, however I am disappointed he didn't warn people he was doing this. However, that's still not something worthy of a scammer tag.

Right, except they weren't bargaining. They were in a binding auction, and last time I checked, an auction doesn't automatically get advanced to the maximum amount that a bidder is "willing to pay".

If Gar255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a multi-person multi-account bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

FYP

If Garr255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a multi-person multi-account multi-person bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

It's a multiperson BARGAIN. He's allowed to change the price to whatever he wishes. The buying must make the decision to either buy or drop the at the current price Garr255 is offering.

It's ridiculous people think the mere fact that Garr255 is setting a price to something he is selling is morally wrong. Garr255 can do whatever he pleases with the price of what he is selling (As long as he commits to a buy). What's morally wrong of Garr's actions is the decision to keep this price manipulator anonymous. Had he revealed the existence and admitted to the use of the account before beginning the "auction", his actions would be completely free of any moral fault.

[1714845460]

1714845460

[ibminer]

If Garr255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a multi-person multi-account multi-person bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

It's a multiperson BARGAIN. He's allowed to change the price to whatever he wishes. The buying must make the decision to either buy or drop the at the current price Garr255 is offering.

It's ridiculous people think the mere fact that Garr255 is setting a price to something he is selling is morally wrong. Garr255 can do whatever he pleases with the price of what he is selling (As long as he commits to a buy). What's morally wrong of Garr's actions is the decision to keep this price manipulator anonymous. Had he revealed the existence and admitted to the use of the account before beginning the "auction", his actions would be completely free of any moral fault.

The mere fact that he has an 'anonymous' account that he pretends to act like someone else, to me, is morally wrong and deceiving.

[Plazmotech]

If he wanted to win the auction then obviously he was willing to pay BTC63, no? He's still not forcing anybody to pay money they would not be willing to pay. This is equivalent to refusing a price in a bargain, something perfectly reasonable.

I don't see any problem in what Garr did, however I am disappointed he didn't warn people he was doing this. However, that's still not something worthy of a scammer tag.

Right, except they weren't bargaining. They were in a binding auction, and last time I checked, an auction doesn't automatically get advanced to the maximum amount that a bidder is "willing to pay".

If Gar255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a multi-person bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

I agree that what he did isn't morally correct even without these alterations.  I'm kidding, i know, typo i can't read..  If he called it anything other than an auction, the buyers would have no preconceptions, and thus would be *forced* to ask "how exactly does this work."  People assume they know how auctions work, see my point?
edit: strikethrough.

N… No I don't see what you're trying to say.

Or at least, what I extracted from your post is that you believe Garr255 calling it an auction was a mistake, he should have called it something else so people would be forced to ask how it works, and thus would be informed of the rules of the "auction" beforehand, therefore negating the moral invalidity of Garr255's actions?

[crumbs]

[...]
 What's morally wrong of Garr's actions is the decision to keep this price manipulator anonymous. Had he revealed the existence and admitted to the use of the account before beginning the "auction", his actions would be completely free of any moral fault.

In other words, if he shilled from his own account (why bother with establishing an alt if everyone knows it's you?), everything would be fine, yeah.  Lulzy, 'coz no one would be stupid enough to think of the charade as an auction, but ethically wrong?  No.

[ThatDGuy]

[...]
 What's morally wrong of Garr's actions is the decision to keep this price manipulator anonymous. Had he revealed the existence and admitted to the use of the account before beginning the "auction", his actions would be completely free of any moral fault.

In other words, if he shilled from his own account (why bother with establishing an alt if everyone knows it's you?), everything would be fine, yeah.  Lulzy, 'coz no one would be stupid enough to think of the charade as an auction, but ethically wrong?  No.

+1

Who would participate in such a farce?

[Plazmotech]

If Garr255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a multi-person multi-account multi-person bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

It's a multiperson BARGAIN. He's allowed to change the price to whatever he wishes. The buying must make the decision to either buy or drop the at the current price Garr255 is offering.

It's ridiculous people think the mere fact that Garr255 is setting a price to something he is selling is morally wrong. Garr255 can do whatever he pleases with the price of what he is selling (As long as he commits to a buy). What's morally wrong of Garr's actions is the decision to keep this price manipulator anonymous. Had he revealed the existence and admitted to the use of the account before beginning the "auction", his actions would be completely free of any moral fault.

The mere fact that he has an 'anonymous' account that he pretends to act like someone else, to me, is morally wrong and deceiving.

I completely agree to that, however it's beside the point. The point is the moral validity of manipulating the prices to his desire, which I find completely valid.

Had Garr255 warned he would "shill" his "auction" beforehand, it would remove the need to use a anonymous account.

[ibminer]

If Garr255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a multi-person multi-account multi-person bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

It's a multiperson BARGAIN. He's allowed to change the price to whatever he wishes. The buying must make the decision to either buy or drop the at the current price Garr255 is offering.

It's ridiculous people think the mere fact that Garr255 is setting a price to something he is selling is morally wrong. Garr255 can do whatever he pleases with the price of what he is selling (As long as he commits to a buy). What's morally wrong of Garr's actions is the decision to keep this price manipulator anonymous. Had he revealed the existence and admitted to the use of the account before beginning the "auction", his actions would be completely free of any moral fault.

The mere fact that he has an 'anonymous' account that he pretends to act like someone else, to me, is morally wrong and deceiving.

I completely agree to that, however it's beside the point. The point is the moral validity of manipulating the prices to his desire, which I find completely valid.

Had Garr255 warned he would "shill" his "auction" beforehand, it would remove the need to use a anonymous account.

It just seems like you are trying to shed a positive light on a situation that didn't actually happen?... fact is, he did do it anonymously. As you said, if he didn't, we wouldn't be here right now.

[Plazmotech]

[...]
 What's morally wrong of Garr's actions is the decision to keep this price manipulator anonymous. Had he revealed the existence and admitted to the use of the account before beginning the "auction", his actions would be completely free of any moral fault.

In other words, if he shilled from his own account (why bother with establishing an alt if everyone knows it's you?), everything would be fine, yeah.  Lulzy, 'coz no one would be stupid enough to think of the charade as an auction, but ethically wrong?  No.

+1

Who would participate in such a farce?

I would. He's selling his stuff, why shouldn't he have control over the price of the sell? Hell, if he wanted to he could sell it for a fixed price of BTC100, but he didn't, instead, used the "auction" as a tool to gauge the demand of his audience, then placed a price point.

[crumbs]

I agree that what he did isn't morally correct even without these alterations.  I'm kidding, i know, typo i can't read..  If he called it anything other than an auction, the buyers would have no preconceptions, and thus would be *forced* to ask "how exactly does this work."  People assume they know how auctions work, see my point?
edit: strikethrough.

N… No I don't see what you're trying to say.

Or at least, what I extracted from your post is that you believe Garr255 calling it an auction was a mistake, he should have called it something else so people would be forced to ask how it works, and thus would be informed of the rules of the "auction" beforehand, therefore negating the moral invalidity of Garr255's actions?

Pretty much, though moral invalidity is a bit high flung & confusing for me.  Wrong.  People presume they loosely understand what an auction is. The word "shill" -- never used in any but the derogatory sense -- is a part of that understanding, specifically that shilling is illegal & thus would not be a part of an honest auction.  See where i'm going?

[Plazmotech]

If Garr255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a multi-person multi-account multi-person bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

It's a multiperson BARGAIN. He's allowed to change the price to whatever he wishes. The buying must make the decision to either buy or drop the at the current price Garr255 is offering.

It's ridiculous people think the mere fact that Garr255 is setting a price to something he is selling is morally wrong. Garr255 can do whatever he pleases with the price of what he is selling (As long as he commits to a buy). What's morally wrong of Garr's actions is the decision to keep this price manipulator anonymous. Had he revealed the existence and admitted to the use of the account before beginning the "auction", his actions would be completely free of any moral fault.

The mere fact that he has an 'anonymous' account that he pretends to act like someone else, to me, is morally wrong and deceiving.

I completely agree to that, however it's beside the point. The point is the moral validity of manipulating the prices to his desire, which I find completely valid.

Had Garr255 warned he would "shill" his "auction" beforehand, it would remove the need to use a anonymous account.

It just seems like you are trying to shed a positive light on a situation that didn't actually happen?... fact is, he did do it anonymously. As you said, if he didn't, we wouldn't be here right now.

I'm saying his actions as a whole were partially incorrect (due to the fact he used an anonymous account), however the act of setting his own pricepoint wasn't. It seems people here are arguing that his setting of the pricepoint of his own items is morally incorrect, which I find ridiculous.

Hell, if you were to sell your own prized possession and the price people are willing to pay for it is below the price you're willing to sell at, wouldn't you want to manipulate the price?

I do, however, once again, agree 100% that the act of doing so using an anonymous account is very incorrect.

[Plazmotech]

I agree that what he did isn't morally correct even without these alterations.  I'm kidding, i know, typo i can't read..  If he called it anything other than an auction, the buyers would have no preconceptions, and thus would be *forced* to ask "how exactly does this work."  People assume they know how auctions work, see my point?
edit: strikethrough.

N… No I don't see what you're trying to say.

Or at least, what I extracted from your post is that you believe Garr255 calling it an auction was a mistake, he should have called it something else so people would be forced to ask how it works, and thus would be informed of the rules of the "auction" beforehand, therefore negating the moral invalidity of Garr255's actions?

Pretty much, though moral invalidity is a bit high flung & confusing for me.  Wrong.  People presume they loosely understand what an auction is. The word "shill" -- never used in any but the derogatory sense -- is a part of that understanding, specifically that shilling is illegal & thus would not be a part of an honest auction.  See where i'm going?

Yes, and I agree.

[crumbs]

[...]
 What's morally wrong of Garr's actions is the decision to keep this price manipulator anonymous. Had he revealed the existence and admitted to the use of the account before beginning the "auction", his actions would be completely free of any moral fault.

In other words, if he shilled from his own account (why bother with establishing an alt if everyone knows it's you?), everything would be fine, yeah.  Lulzy, 'coz no one would be stupid enough to think of the charade as an auction, but ethically wrong?  No.

+1

Who would participate in such a farce?

I would. He's selling his stuff, why shouldn't he have control over the price of the sell? Hell, if he wanted to he could sell it for a fixed price of BTC100, but he didn't, instead, used the "auction" as a tool to gauge the demand of his audience, then placed a price point.

Why do you suppose people pay a premium for setting a reserve, why do you think the word "shill" has negative connotations, and why, ffs, would Garr try to hide his actions behind a sock account if they're reasonable, expected, and justified???

Edit:  Posted before i saw your reply.
/all good

[ibminer]

I'm saying his actions as a whole were partially incorrect (due to the fact he used an anonymous account), however the act of setting his own pricepoint wasn't. It seems people here are arguing that his setting of the pricepoint of his own items is morally incorrect, which I find ridiculous.

Hell, if you were to sell your own prized possession and the price people are willing to pay for it is below the price you're willing to sell at, wouldn't you want to manipulate the price?

I do, however, once again, agree 100% that the act of doing so using an anonymous account is very incorrect.

This is why I wouldn't do an auction-style format if I wanted to sell something at a specific value... or I'd set a reserve.

[starsoccer9]

Okay, I am making an open request to Gar255 so I have nothing to hold against him. I ask he does the following:

1. Verify you are still sending me the miner and have intent to so

2. Verify you plan to send the 5bitcoins

3. Confirm you wont ever shill bid your own auctions ever again

[boonies4u]

Okay, I am making an open request to Gar255 so I have nothing to hold against him. I ask he does the following:

1. Verify you are still sending me the miner and have intent to so

2. Verify you plan to send the 5bitcoins

3. Confirm you wont ever shill bid your own auctions ever again

+1

[Flying Hellfish]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=239343.0

Not sure, but I doubt this kid has learned anything from this whole mess.

[Plazmotech]

Okay, I am making an open request to Gar255 so I have nothing to hold against him. I ask he does the following:

1. Verify you are still sending me the miner and have intent to so

2. Verify you plan to send the 5bitcoins

3. Confirm you wont ever shill bid your own auctions ever again

Sounds reasonable. I'm sorry for your "loss", but I must ask you one question.

Had Garr255 warned people he could manipulate the prices would you still participate in the auction? After all, Garr255 has a right to sell his products for whatever price he would like to, and might've just been using the initial "auction" as a way to gauge the demand for the chip, and then set a price he would be willing to sell at.

[ThatDGuy]

Okay, I am making an open request to Gar255 so I have nothing to hold against him. I ask he does the following:

1. Verify you are still sending me the miner and have intent to so

2. Verify you plan to send the 5bitcoins

3. Confirm you wont ever shill bid your own auctions ever again

It sounds like #3 is not exactly prohibited by forum rules.  "a bit shady" but not prohibited:

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.

[Entropy-uc]

The fact is he obviously learned this practice was acceptable via whatever means and now he has apologized for it offered damages an people are still crucifying him. I'm sure 99% of the people crucifying him have done something along the way the regret as well and wouldn't want a lifetime tag of it.

And now for the moral dilemma that outlines the hypocrisy here. You just described the reasoning behind me making a trolling bet, yet even though I also didn't intend to profit nor actually profit (in fact I paid much more than Garr will ever be able to pay in his lifetime probably) as a result of it, I'm still deemed a scammer or "untrustworthy". Why would that be? Because he's a few years younger than me?

Matthew numerous people relied upon your pledge as a mechanism to offload the risk of holding Pirate debt.  They made bets with you, and then purchased debts in the secondary market with the expectation that your bet would protect them in case of a failure.  This strategy was openly discussed in dozens of posts in the days after pirate's default.

By continuing to pretend you would honor a bet you couldn't possible pay, you caused many people to take actions that cost them real money. That is why you deserved to never be trusted in this community.

I wasn't foolish enough to use that strategy but I have no doubts that 10s of thousands were lost by people relying on your good reputation at the time.  Quit trying to whitewash yourself.

[starsoccer9]

Okay, I am making an open request to Gar255 so I have nothing to hold against him. I ask he does the following:

1. Verify you are still sending me the miner and have intent to so

2. Verify you plan to send the 5bitcoins

3. Confirm you wont ever shill bid your own auctions ever again

Sounds reasonable. I'm sorry for your "loss", but I must ask you one question.

Had Garr255 warned people he could manipulate the prices would you still participate in the auction? After all, Garr255 has a right to sell his products for whatever price he would like to, and might've just been using the initial "auction" as a way to gauge the demand for the chip, and then set a price he would be willing to sell at.

Most likely not