[SOLD] Auction: Hawaii Vacation Condo - 2 bedroom Dec 3-10 2011

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

Umm, no.  I won the auction.  The auction closed at 20:00 UTC.  My original bid was UP TO 66 BTC at 1 BTC over the high bidder.  In either case, I won the auction at either 66 BTC or 35 BTC.

You "re-opening" it because you don't want the price stated is completely bogus.  I edited my message because it was more clear that way.  In either case, I had the last bid and it was higher than the previous high bidder.

If you continue with this, I will report it as a scam auction, plain and simple, as that's what it is.

Until I found out that you had done a bidnapper bid (which was not allowed in the rules) and then edited your message I posted a message congratulating you for winning and giving you a bitcoin address to send the bitcoins to.

I did not reopen this because I was not happy with the amount. I would not have reopened it if you had done a straight 36 BTC bid. I only reopened it because you did an unfair bidnapper bid and then edited your message after bidding had finished.

I would have just given it to Anteres, but as I said, I can see both sides, so I am giving you the chance again as well. It is up to you whether you send me a PM at all, send one for 41 BTC, 66 BTC or any other amount, so yes it is a silent bid.

This is how this is being settled, and that is final.

[Inaba]

What the fuck is a "bidnapper bid?"  Show me where in the rules (not your new, edited rules) that is says there's no "bidnapper bid."  Whatever the hell that is.  That's not even a word. *boggle*

If you want to get sticky on the rules that don't exist, my bid was for 66 BTC, which is higher than Antares 35 BTC bid (which he edited) or his 40 BTC edited bid.  So your fictional "bidnapper bid" doesn't even apply in that instance either.

The whole point of an *AUCTION* is to get the lowest price you can (as a bidder).  If you want(ed) a specific amount, THEN SPECIFY THAT AMOUNT IN YOUR POST.  Don't change the rules later because you didn't like the outcome.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

What the fuck is a "bidnapper bid?"  Show me where in the rules (not your new, edited rules) that is says there's no "bidnapper bid."  Whatever the hell that is.  That's not even a word. *boggle*

If you want to get sticky on the rules that don't exist, my bid was for 66 BTC, which is higher than Antares 35 BTC bid (which he edited) or his 40 BTC edited bid.  So your fictional "bidnapper bid" doesn't even apply in that instance either.

Hi Inaba,

What I mean is that the rules simply stated to place your bid as an amount of BTC at least 1 higher than the current bid. You instead placed a bid that was "1 higher up to a maximum of..."

Because you chose to bid in a different way than everyone else but it didn't EXPLICITLY state that you couldn't do it that way, I didn't think it was fair to just accept Antares bid or your bid, as it wasn't clear whether or not the way you bid was wrong. This is why it has been reopened as a silent auction where messages cannot be edited.

Silent bid or not, the choice is yours.

[Inaba]

I am reporting you for a scam auction.  I am also going to make it my mission to let everyone know you are a liar and a cheat, who fails to follow through with the goods he's sold because you don't like the outcome.

[SgtSpike]

What the fuck is a "bidnapper bid?"  Show me where in the rules (not your new, edited rules) that is says there's no "bidnapper bid."  Whatever the hell that is.  That's not even a word. *boggle*

If you want to get sticky on the rules that don't exist, my bid was for 66 BTC, which is higher than Antares 35 BTC bid (which he edited) or his 40 BTC edited bid.  So your fictional "bidnapper bid" doesn't even apply in that instance either.

1)  Take a chill pill.
2)  Bid fairly, like everyone else.  Everyone else submitted bids at a set amount, not "the previous bid + 1 BTC."  You should've done the same.

[Inaba]

There were no rules to specify otherwise.  Sorry you wern't quick enough to figure it out.

[SgtSpike]

There were no rules to specify otherwise.  Sorry you wern't quick enough to figure it out.

It said place "a" bid, not place 30 bids.  By bidding 1 above everything between 35 and 66, you're effectively placing 30 bids.

[Inaba]

Oh... so you're saying people could only bid once?  Then that invalidates most bidders, since they usually bid more than once.  The point of bidding is to bid... not state a price and then you can't increase it.  *THAT* is your defense?

[SgtSpike]

Oh... so you're saying people could only bid once?  Then that invalidates most bidders, since they usually bid more than once.  The point of bidding is to bid... not state a price and then you can't increase it.  *THAT* is your defense?

You were the ONLY one who intended to bid in the fashion you bid.  NONE of the other bidders bid that way.  Jeremy did NOT intend to allow bidding of that variety.  And yet you still expect to win it at "1 + the previous bidder"?  Come on...

It's unfair in a forum environment to bid "ebay style" because everyone can see your top bid.  People won't bid you up just for the sake of bidding you up, and if your top bid is higher than what anyone else is willing to pay, you will never be bid up.  You could effectively win auctions for very little this way.  That is why no one in their right mind would expect someone to bid in such a manner on a forum.  Jeremy probably didn't think he needed to make such exclusions because respectable people would KNOW not to make bids like that.

People like you are why legal paperwork has to be hundreds of pages long.  Always looking for the loophole to cheat other people.

[Inaba]

Bullshit twice over.  Bullshit 1: I gave a high bid of 66 BTC, not some open ended +1 bid like you are trying to make it out to be.  If someone wanted to outbid me, all they had to do was bid 66 BTC.

Bullshit again on "you could effectively win auctions for very little this way" because someone could bid a ridiculous amount and I'd be stuck with a ridiculous amount +1.  So both your arguments are complete bullshit.

[SgtSpike]

Bullshit twice over.  Bullshit 1: I gave a high bid of 66 BTC, not some open ended +1 bid like you are trying to make it out to be.  If someone wanted to outbid me, all they had to do was bid 66 BTC.

Bullshit again on "you could effectively win auctions for very little this way" because someone could bid a ridiculous amount and I'd be stuck with a ridiculous amount +1.  So both your arguments are complete bullshit.

You did not give a high bid of 66 BTC.  You gave a bid of the previous high bid + 1, up to 66 BTC.  Those are completely different.

Sure, someone could bid a ridiculous amount.  But most people aren't in the business of making people suffer just to make people suffer.  If you have a reasonably high bid, it's very likely that no one will bid against you.  Well, unless you have enemies who WANT to see you pay your max bid for the item.

[Inaba]

How are they different?  Explain how they are different, please.

If a normal bid on any auction site in the world is not a valid bid, then the "up to" amount is 66 BTC, which is the final bid.

[kookiekrak]

How are they different?  Explain how they are different, please.

If a normal bid on any auction site in the world is not a valid bid, then the "up to" amount is 66 BTC, which is the final bid.

so you're saying you bid 66 btc then.

this isnt ebay. you cant have a bid up to X amount.

you can only bid a set amount of btc that you're willing to pay for right then and there.

[Inaba]

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.  If the "up to" bid is not a valid bid, then the max of the up to bid is the final bid.

[SgtSpike]

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.  If the "up to" bid is not a valid bid, then the max of the up to bid is the final bid.

Except that wasn't specified in the rules (or your post) either.  Hence the reason for a silent bid "bid off".  A lack of clarification of the rules, along with a mis-communication of what you actually meant by your bid, is exactly why I see an extension of the original deadline to be appropriate.

[Inaba]

You're right, I'm glad you admit that it was not prohibited by the rules.  You've just successfully sunk your entire argument and made mine, thanks.

There was no miscommunication on what I meant by my bid.  My bid was just like any bid on any auction site in in the world.  Everyone that has ever bid on eBay or another auction site knows exactly how online auctions work.   My bid was very clear.  +1 BTC up to 66 BTC.  No more.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

Silent auction was won by Antares for 105 BTC.

Congratulations Antares, that's a great price for a week in a 2-bedroom in Hawaii!

As agreed, please send 105 BTC to 14BY4YPW2h3cK92Nn7CNK9KJZRS2qhUZXz by Monday, 14 November and PM me the name you would like on the booking confirmation and an email address to send the scanned booking confirmation to.

Sorry for all the controversy.

Highest Regards,
Jeremy

[SgtSpike]

You're right, I'm glad you admit that it was not prohibited by the rules.  You've just successfully sunk your entire argument and made mine, thanks.

There was no miscommunication on what I meant by my bid.  My bid was just like any bid on any auction site in in the world.  Everyone that has ever bid on eBay or another auction site knows exactly how online auctions work.  

You're taking my words out of context.  I was saying that you didn't specify your bid to be 66 BTC in your post.  You specified it to be 1 more than the previous high bid, up to 66 BTC.  And you didn't say that it would be 66 BTC if the "up to" bid was not a valid bid, nor did the rules say that the high end of an invalid "up to" bid would automatically be the high bid of that person.

I already explained why bidding on a forum cannot work in the same manner as it does on eBay or other auction sites.  Anyone but a cheat would accept that.

[Litt]

I can understand some frustrations from both sides, because this outcome was likely unexpected by both parties. I'm sure OP expected simply having people bid in increments outbidding the previous bid, whereas Inaba had other interpretation of the rules stated that did not cover other possible way of placing a bid.

Regardless, Inaba's bid is not exactly the same as all the other online auction bids. The clear difference between ebay bids and the bid made here by Inaba that is apparent to me is that on Ebay, other bidders will not know that someone else will be adding +1 to their bid because the highest bid is hidden.

If this highest bid is not hidden, it will simply discourage anyone else to bid up because they would know that they will be outbid and only be raising the price.
This does not work out well for the seller and I can understand why he wouldn't want this.

I can also see why Inaba is frustrated because he did say he was willing to pay up to 66btc which would make that the highest bid. However this was a conditional only statement if the other bids were made upto 65btc which didn't happen. Inaba did not give room for interpretation for the OP to accept his bid of 66btc without complying with the rest of the statement which limits Inaba to +1btc of maximum bid. OP had to either choose to accept the entire statement and allow the conditional bid to stand, or redefine the rules to exclude it altogether.

[Inaba]

You're taking my words out of context.  I was saying that you didn't specify your bid to be 66 BTC in your post.  You specified it to be 1 more than the previous high bid, up to 66 BTC.  And you didn't say that it would be 66 BTC if the "up to" bid was not a valid bid, nor did the rules say that the high end of an invalid "up to" bid would automatically be the high bid of that person.

I am not taking your words out of context.  I am showing you that your whole argument is based on fallacy and misconstrued logic.  The auction did not prohibit a bid such as mine.  Online auctions are typically handled in the fashion I bid.  Ergo the bid is valid.  Being the generous and understanding soul that I am, if Jeremy had come to me and said "Hey, I did not intend this to be a normal auction, but a flat auction, do you want this for 66 BTC, the maximum you were willing to pay?" I would have paid him 66 BTC, even though it was within my rights to demand the auction be concluded as per the rules..  

However, that's not what happened.  Instead, he saw the price was too low and decided to "reopen" the auction for "silent bids."  Even though my maximum bid was ALREADY PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.  It's not a silent auction if the bids are known in advance.  In the public auction, my bid was KNOWN to anyone who cared to look - it was 66 BTC, no more.  It was not an open ended bid like you keep trying to make it out to be... this is functionally what your argument hinges on, and since it's fallacious to claim as such, when my bid clearly was NOT open ended, your argument falls apart.

His auction clearly stated "NO RESERVE."   He didn't get the price he wanted, so he changed the terms and actually instituted a reserve after the fact (nominally 40 BTC).  He got his 105 BTC (presumably Antares is good for it), instead of half or 1/3 of that.  Very convenient.  Very sneaky. Very shady. Very dishonest.