Garr255/Werner - Auction shilling

[ThatDGuy]

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

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

Not to defend Garr's actions in any way, but that above post was made chronologically before his second confession here in this thread today.  He was still holding that his first confession was forced at the time, and by virtue of that, we should have believed it wasn't true (the first confession).

Garr should probably also make a follow-up post in Cognitive's thread as well, though, taking the blame for the situation himself instead of trying to shift it to Inaba.  Those shareholders will hopefully be made aware of what actually happened, or learn about it on their own:

P.S. Does BFL Josh actually have the authority within his organization to refund your order without your expressed consent?

Honestly, I do not know the legalities of this. I see it as a wrongdoing, as many BTC were put forth to secure this order.

Josh has agreed not to cancel any orders I placed, so this should in no way affect Cognitive.

My sincere apologies go out to all Cognitive shareholders who may have worried over Josh's threat of canceling our orders.

--Garrett

[1713987486]

1713987486

[1713987486]

1713987486

[crumbs]

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.

Is that a rhetorical question, and if not, what would the answer change?  If i came to a shillathon, my buying strategy would certainly differ from that of a real auction.  I'd still show up & see how desperate the seller is to sell, but i wouldn't "bid"   Perhaps if i knew the seller was gauging the market, i'd bring 10 shills of my own & troll the price up absurdly high, just to get the seller to overstock & be forced to sell at a loss

[kibblesnbits]

...

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.

Yet another person I will NOT have fiduciary dealings with.

This is a very useful thread.  I could not devise a better test for determining who is and is _not_ honest.

I'm honest, I wouldn't do an auction and use a sock puppet for it, but I'm saying I see nothing wrong with it, just the method he executed it (Using an anonymous sock puppet) was bad. If I were to do an auction, and I genuinely wasn't happy with the prices I would raise the current bid, however I wouldn't use an anonymous sock puppet, and I would warn people I might do it beforehand.

Nominated for dumbest forum post 2013. I'm serious.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

It's almost certainly someone pretending to be a sock-puppet of Garr's for a laugh.

Yes, it is.

Which victim complained giving you the right to comment on whether the account was someone else's sock-puppet?  How much did that victim lose?  Did you contact this sock-puppet and offer him the chance to pay back whatever he took before you looked at his IP address?

Just to cut off any speculation - that account was NOT mine.  I've never used any account here other than this one - and I freely give permission for any checks admin want to do to check the truth of that statement.

I just want to make sure that sock-pupper was given the same benefit of the doubt as the Werner one was before Theymos checked its IP address and/or did whatever other checks he felt he needed to do to make the quoted statement.

+1

In response to theymos' "Yes it is" post, am I the only one reading it him stating that it was just for laughs, oppose to confirming that it's one of Garr's SP?

Full Disclosure: My email post was made prior to theymos' comment, hence being posted afterward.

I have a couple other emails I'll need to digest before I post anything further. I'm still not at the end of this thread between RL and emails slowing me down. And coffee and pissing.

Supposedly there's a source linking svbeon and Garr, but it's not confirmed yet.

BRB in 15 minutes. What could possible happen within such a short time frame?

[PrintMule]

Teh high school drama continues.

Something missing. Musical numbers I guess.

[Deprived]

It's almost certainly someone pretending to be a sock-puppet of Garr's for a laugh.

Yes, it is.

Which victim complained giving you the right to comment on whether the account was someone else's sock-puppet?  How much did that victim lose?  Did you contact this sock-puppet and offer him the chance to pay back whatever he took before you looked at his IP address?

Just to cut off any speculation - that account was NOT mine.  I've never used any account here other than this one - and I freely give permission for any checks admin want to do to check the truth of that statement.

I just want to make sure that sock-pupper was given the same benefit of the doubt as the Werner one was before Theymos checked its IP address and/or did whatever other checks he felt he needed to do to make the quoted statement.

+1

In response to theymos' "Yes it is" post, am I the only one reading it him stating that it was just for laughs, oppose to confirming that it's one of Garr's SP?

Don't think anyone read it as him confirming it as being a Garr SP.

My reading is that he was confirming it was someone pretending to be a GARR SP for a laugh.  I read it that way as my post - which he was replying to - specifically said that (the "pretending to be" bit).  Garr can't use one of his own SPs to pretend to be a Garr SP - as it actually would be one.  So Theymos was clearly confirming it wasn't a Garr SP - hence my follow up of why he'd comment on (and do he checks necessary to make informed comment on) someone else's SP but not Garr's one.

If he's actually saying it was Garr doing it for a laugh then that WOULD be truly hilarious - but for entirely the wrong reasons.

[theymos]

You (your forum) refused to confirm Werner is Garr's sock puppet for how long?

About 30 hours. Were you starting to go grey from waiting? The situation was successfully resolved in less than two days, partly due to my work behind the scenes. Immediately publishing the alt account info would not have been wise, though I would have published it eventually (as John alluded to earlier in the thread).

IP address logs are confidential, but I reserve the right to release alt account info when someone is abusing alt accounts as Garr255 and svbeon were doing.

To be clear: I barely know Garr255. I've sent him less than 30 PMs in total, almost all of which were related to forum administration. I chose him as a treasurer because he seemed to have more to lose than any of the other candidates if he ran away with the money.

[starsoccer9]

You (your forum) refused to confirm Werner is Garr's sock puppet for how long?

About 30 hours. Were you starting to go grey from waiting? The situation was successfully resolved in less than two days, partly due to my work behind the scenes. Immediately publishing the alt account info would not have been wise, though I would have published it eventually (as John alluded to earlier in the thread).

IP address logs are confidential, but I reserve the right to release alt account info when someone is abusing alt accounts as Garr255 and svbeon were doing.

To be clear: I barely know Garr255. I've sent him less than 30 PMs in total, almost all of which were related to forum administration. I chose him as a treasurer because he seemed to have more to lose than any of the other candidates if he ran away with the money.

Well why isnt he getting a scammer tag or anything then?

I am still waiting for him to follow through on his deal to send me 5btc and nothing.Also i would like to get a response on how you think its okay because he simply didnt say he wouldn't. That is how a 2 year old argues not an adult. If that is how the forum is gonna work pirate deserves his scammer tag removed as he never said he wouldnt disappear. The same goes for Matt.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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?

Why is this even being discussed. Clearly it was in the Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Marketplace > Auctions section and not the Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Marketplace > Not Really an Auction section, of which doesn't exist.

On eBay, everybody knows it's an auction site, and nobody needs to clarify that in their offerings, although some do. eBay has a policy pertaining to shills, and I've always safely assumed that some policy pertaining to same was available on this forum, but never looked, for I've yet to participate in auctions here as a buyer or a seller. I'm now taken aback to learnt that that's not the case.

Back to reading this epic thread, then attend to emails, then to Google Fu.

To quote The Bridge on the River Kwai:

Madness!

[boonies4u]

The situation was successfully resolved in less than two days, partly due to my work behind the scenes.

Theymos deems it resolved. 

[starsoccer9]

The situation was successfully resolved in less than two days, partly due to my work behind the scenes.

Theymos deems it resolved. 

It was cant you tell. He apologize and did nothing. No one got any money as he promised and nothing as changed. so everything must be resolved

[r3wt]

...

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.

Yet another person I will NOT have fiduciary dealings with.

This is a very useful thread.  I could not devise a better test for determining who is and is _not_ honest.

I'm honest, I wouldn't do an auction and use a sock puppet for it, but I'm saying I see nothing wrong with it, just the method he executed it (Using an anonymous sock puppet) was bad. If I were to do an auction, and I genuinely wasn't happy with the prices I would raise the current bid, however I wouldn't use an anonymous sock puppet, and I would warn people I might do it beforehand.

Nominated for dumbest forum post 2013. I'm serious.

I second that motion. then i third it, then i fourth it.

[TomUnderSea]

You (your forum) refused to confirm Werner is Garr's sock puppet for how long?

About 30 hours. Were you starting to go grey from waiting? The situation was successfully resolved in less than two days, partly due to my work behind the scenes. Immediately publishing the alt account info would not have been wise, though I would have published it eventually (as John alluded to earlier in the thread).

IP address logs are confidential, but I reserve the right to release alt account info when someone is abusing alt accounts as Garr255 and svbeon were doing.

To be clear: I barely know Garr255. I've sent him less than 30 PMs in total, almost all of which were related to forum administration. I chose him as a treasurer because he seemed to have more to lose than any of the other candidates if he ran away with the money.

Already going gray.  Having a grandchild with do that to you.

".. work behind the scenes ..."

I can think of all sorts of things you should have been doing, could have been doing or would have been doing.

At this point, I'm struggling to come up with any that put you (and this forum) in a good light.

Selling off shares in Garr's business?
Talking Garr into 'fessing up 'cause you could not cover for him?
Trying to get Garr to return the 250 BTC he is holding?


Sorry dude, at this point, you are wearing the same shirt that Garr is.

[r3wt]

Sorry dude, at this point, you are wearing the same shirt that Garr is.

Yes i agree. way back on page 8 i was feeling sympathetic with Garr due to that apology letter. i see that 12 hours later he has yet to reimburse starsoccer or to pay the 5 btc as promised. Theymos taking up for Garr is not a wise move from a pr standpoint. That's like a jew taking up for hitler--ok so the analogy isn't perfect, but basically at this point Garr has admitted to scamming and Theymos seems to be holding him to a different standing, possibly due to his role as a trustee of the forum.

[stereotype]

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?

Why is this even being discussed. Clearly it was in the Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Marketplace > Auctions section and not the Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Marketplace > Not Really an Auction section, of which doesn't exist.

On eBay, everybody knows it's an auction site, and nobody needs to clarify that in their offerings, although some do. eBay has a policy pertaining to shills, and I've always safely assumed that some policy pertaining to same was available on this forum, but never looked, for I've yet to participate in auctions here as a buyer or a seller. I'm now taken aback to learnt that that's not the case.

Back to reading this epic thread, then attend to emails, then to Google Fu.

To quote The Bridge on the River Kwai:

Madness!

Ebay does indeed have a policy...... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1292179/eBay-seller-fined-bidding-auctions-boost-price.html

[theymos]

Well why isnt he getting a scammer tag or anything then?

I am still waiting for him to follow through on his deal to send me 5btc and nothing.Also i would like to get a response on how you think its okay because he simply didnt say he wouldn't. That is how a 2 year old argues not an adult. If that is how the forum is gonna work pirate deserves his scammer tag removed as he never said he wouldnt disappear. The same goes for Matt.

Pirate promised to pay back people's money plus interest. Matthew promised to pay people who bet him if he lost. Garr255 promised nothing. I do not recognize any sort of implicit contract. Something isn't a binding auction just because it's in the Auctions section. (I realize that some libertarian philosophers do recognize many types of implicit contract, but I strongly disagree with this notion.)

If you mistrust Garr255, use the trust system. I'm not going to remove anyone from the default trust network for rating Garr255 negatively. But scammer tags require a more severe crime than just going against the expectations of bidders.

[kakobrekla]

Well why isnt he getting a scammer tag or anything then?

I am still waiting for him to follow through on his deal to send me 5btc and nothing.Also i would like to get a response on how you think its okay because he simply didnt say he wouldn't. That is how a 2 year old argues not an adult. If that is how the forum is gonna work pirate deserves his scammer tag removed as he never said he wouldnt disappear. The same goes for Matt.

Pirate promised to pay back people's money plus interest. Matthew promised to pay people who bet him if he lost. Garr255 promised nothing. I do not recognize any sort of implicit contract. Something isn't a binding auction just because it's in the Auctions section. (I realize that some libertarian philosophers do recognize many types of implicit contract, but I strongly disagree with this notion.)

If you mistrust Garr255, use the trust system. I'm not going to remove anyone from the default trust network for rating Garr255 negatively. But scammer tags require a more severe crime than just going against the expectations of bidders.

Scammers, you are all alike.

[starsoccer9]

Well why isnt he getting a scammer tag or anything then?

I am still waiting for him to follow through on his deal to send me 5btc and nothing.Also i would like to get a response on how you think its okay because he simply didnt say he wouldn't. That is how a 2 year old argues not an adult. If that is how the forum is gonna work pirate deserves his scammer tag removed as he never said he wouldnt disappear. The same goes for Matt.

Pirate promised to pay back people's money plus interest. Matthew promised to pay people who bet him if he lost. Garr255 promised nothing. I do not recognize any sort of implicit contract. Something isn't a binding auction just because it's in the Auctions section. (I realize that some libertarian philosophers do recognize many types of implicit contract, but I strongly disagree with this notion.)

If you mistrust Garr255, use the trust system. I'm not going to remove anyone from the default trust network for rating Garr255 negatively. But scammer tags require a more severe crime than just going against the expectations of bidders.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.0
Pirate said "Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred.  I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent."

He never said it wouldn't take 5 years. Therefore i dont belive he deserves a scammer tag. If he would of said it will only take a week then he deserves the tag. He only said he expected it. Which he later posted he was having problems with one client.

He also said clearly he closed down. He never said he would give back every coin or anything. I think if we are going with because he never said it as a policy most scammers should be getting there tags removed. For example, the guy who bought 5 coins with paypal never said he wouldnt reverse it. He simply said he would send it. Did he? He sent the coins yet he probably has a scammer tag wrongfully.

Also last time i checked an auction has some normal rules. Such as it will run for a finite amount of time and will be sold. I assumed it also didnt allow shill bidding but i assumed wrong. My mistake. Theymos would you mind posting the offical rules of the auction thread so I know from now on what is and isnt acceptable

[crumbs]

If you mistrust Garr255, use the trust system. I'm not going to remove anyone from the default trust network for rating Garr255 negatively. But scammer tags require a more severe crime than just going against the expectations of bidders.

Is there any way to punish the bidders who tarnished Garr255's reputation?  Can't we just ban them ffs?

[r3wt]

Well why isnt he getting a scammer tag or anything then?

I am still waiting for him to follow through on his deal to send me 5btc and nothing.Also i would like to get a response on how you think its okay because he simply didnt say he wouldn't. That is how a 2 year old argues not an adult. If that is how the forum is gonna work pirate deserves his scammer tag removed as he never said he wouldnt disappear. The same goes for Matt.

Pirate promised to pay back people's money plus interest. Matthew promised to pay people who bet him if he lost. Garr255 promised nothing. I do not recognize any sort of implicit contract. Something isn't a binding auction just because it's in the Auctions section. (I realize that some libertarian philosophers do recognize many types of implicit contract, but I strongly disagree with this notion.)

If you mistrust Garr255, use the trust system. I'm not going to remove anyone from the default trust network for rating Garr255 negatively. But scammer tags require a more severe crime than just going against the expectations of bidders.

for the love of Humanity theymos, call a spade a spade and be done with it. Shill bidding is scamming. Garr is a scammer or at the very least dishonest. While i don't support giving him  a scam tag(since those are dead apparently plus the fact that Garr's apologized/promised to make it right.), the fact of the matter is its still dishonest to shill bid and its still a scam no matter how liberal your interpretation of the term 'scam' is.

r3wt