New marketplace rules for 2011?

I think everyone who saw the recent auction will probably agree that it was a shambles. It seems we need some clearer guidelines for auctions. Could we perhaps have the marketplace rules expanded to cover auctions?

Here's my suggestion:

• All auctions require proof photo at start
• All auctions require a minimum increment (e.g. $20)
• Bidders must have a certain amount of posts / reputation (to prevent people signing up just to bid)
• State start price
• State end date and time - ensure you can be on at that time
• Seller closes auction by posting at the end time
• Bids must be for the base price - shipping is on top of the high bid. Do not offer a shipped bid
• If a bidder wishes to consider releasing a beta, they must purchase the item first before even mentioning the idea of a fundraiser

The auction system could be open to abuse, i.e. used as a way to circumvent eBay fees. I feel that restricting bids to existing members would be fair - that way, it's not a free-for-all (i.e. eBay without fees), bidders can be trusted without asking for references and members get a perk for being members.

 

Nice rules!
I like them.

 

I couldn't agree more and was thinking of starting a similar thread myself. That auction was a joke and the fact that a fundraiser was in process at the same time as the auction itself just undermined the whole thing. For that thread to then be deleted (without an explanation) as soon as questions were asked made me lose a little faith. Anyway........

There should always be a clear start bid AND clear bid increments. This should be posted in the OP to avoid any confusion.

I also agree that all bids should exclude any shipping costs. Without knowing the shipping costs to ALL destinations how are you supposed to bid and know if you have met the minimum requirements?

 

Is it possible to get a VB extension for this?

 

:clap:

Great suggestion retro, I like those rules :thumbsup:

 

hmm shipping costs were stated from the start though. I can't help the way my mind thinks

In the UK we have a Disability Discrimination Act law. It means that all people are equal, but disabled people may need a little extra adjustment to accomodate them for an equal footing with the non-disabled. The adjustments are not just for wheelchair ramps but all facets of life including articulation of communication or even someone to think for them etc. Sometimes stuff comes out of me backwards too which sucks. The auction may work one way but my retard brain may work another. Of course this law doesn't really apply to the black market but I would hope people are understanding that it is not to be deliberately obtuse and react accordingly.

Anyway I'm not against more strict guidelines but one thing we will have to remember: this is not eBay so some policies may be difficult to automate and as such may be challenging to enforce in a way that is fair for all.

It was a little weird to have a fundraiser and an auction, I think maybe ASSEMbler got a little carried away and wanted to try supply DonnyK as much cash as possible to help him in his second life and at the same time get something cool for us. This is not a bad thing of course but it would have been a logistical nightmare to manage, especially when on average a sizeable number of pledges usually never put their money where their mouth is. I'm sure ASSEMbler only had the best interest of both the community and DonnyK at heart and his impusle may have just got the better of him, after all he is only human and any perceived lack of judgement in this instance is ultimately forgiveable though I hope it would not be repeated.

I think restricting the auctions to current members could also be negative. The recent auction attracted a couple of new members in itself. I would hope they stick around, put up their feet and make this place a home from home, learn some things, share some things and trade too. New members or post counts below 50 should probably need some form of feedback verification before they are allowed to bid though so the auction is still open to them but they have a proven track record to put their (or someone elses) money where their mouth is.

The arbitrary limit is because anyone with 50 posts or so has probably engaged with sufficient number of members to have presented a character profile and perhaps a couple of good trades via eBay under their belt too. If it was up to me the market would be invisible to anyone below 50 posts (such modification is technically possible) to avoid confusion of the rules, unless the user was manually verified as per above of course.

How would they know to buy what they cannot see? Word of mouth, or in this day and age word of keyboard. If there is something that may be of interest to them the internet may find a way to let them know

Also marketplace auction or not, personally I'd like to see an SSL certificate installed for https for PM's at the very least but it would likely need a wider installation to avoid rewriting large chunks of code - presently there is no real secure way for buyer/seller to exchange personal information and if someone was incredibly paranoid it could lead to a mexican standoff (not that I have had one thus far but others may) and more negativity. Even with no paranoia it would certianly be reassuring at least.

Just my 2 cents.

 

These were not only 2 cents... These were a million dollars...

Anyhow I agree with everyone's opinions on this. It would tidy up the marketplace.
Also it would be good to make auctions only with the permission of Assembler.
Because if everyone posts his auctions here "chaos" will ensue.

 

Oh absolutely, none of the events leading to the chaos this time were anyone's fault, really. Nothing wrong with bidding shipped / unshipped per se, but it proved it led to confusion. Likewise, the seller did nothing wrong, but the listing had a lot of questions asked that basically made us think - oh yeah, should have thought of that! It's a good learning experience - putting up rules for start prices, bid increments etc. would certainly help the next auction run smoother. ;-)

I definitely hope that those who came because of the auction will stay too, of coure!

 

Add to my list:

Private offers are not allowed. Auctions must run to the specified end, and be sold to the high bidder in the thread.

Also, note the thread on bump deleting - I put some suggestions over there:

http://www.assemblergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31515

 

I think this is better than "only 50 posts or more" which just encourages spamming. If they've got a good amount of positive feedback on ebay or a few hundred posts and good reputation at some other respected forum then that makes them just as trustworthy (or potentially untrustworthy, for that matter) as anyone with the same here.

Remind me why this is necessary? If someone wants to say "I'll buy this now, and by the way, I'm thinking of a fundraiser" then so what? The auction will continue anyway. Anyone wanting it for their collection alone will still try and outbid. Maybe a few people could pool resources and make a joint bid. As long as one person puts their arse on the line to pay in full at the end of the auction itself then that's all that matters. The community should be allowed to raise funds for these kinds of things.

The Geist Force auction/fundraiser situation was weird because none of this stuff was sorted out. There was just a fundraiser thread and an auction thread with no indication of how they worked together or who was going to pony up the cash in the short term if the fundraiser succeeded.

edit: agree with the rest, btw.

 

As a new member and avid collector, I find it somewhat irritating to find I have to post 50 times before I want to trade with fellow collectors. That would take me forever. I've been using other forums for years and I doubt I've hit the 50 mark on some of those.

To be honest I don't think I can be arsed with jumping through hoops to achieve Trader status. eBay rating makes sense to me. One of the key reasons for joining the forum was to get to know fellow collectors and also hopefully trade with them but it seems neither of these are likely to happen any time soon

 

I second or is it third retros Idea. I think the 50 post is not a bad idea. makes it easy for vallidation also unless you have posted a while and been interactive you just do not know fellow members. However, We may want to think a few less post and time. The reason is someone wanting to bid coudl sign up today and spam the site to get to 50 post fast so 25-30 post and been a member for over 5 months may be a better idea.

 

That's EXACTLY why. There shouldn't be a thread asking people to get a fundraiser going AT THE SAME TIME as the auction. The fundraiser shouldn't be a bidder. That was my point.

However, you also shouldn't have an idea of what people will bid for something. If you say "I'm going to bid and release for a fundraiser", OK. You could have people PM you saying "yeah, I'll give $20"... then you have an idea that you have a pledge of say $500 and so can bid that amount. Nah, if you're going to bid you do so off your own back. Don't bid what you don't have. I have no problem with someone bidding $1,000, winning, paying, THEN holding a fundraiser to release it.

You have to post 50 times to SELL. You're free to buy, as long as the seller is OK with it.

50 posts isn't hard. Post a joke in the joke thread, mention an interesting Youtube video, post whatever in off topic. As long as it's quality posting as opposed to spam that's obviously trying to get your post count up, you're fine. Just contribute to the forum. That's all we ask. If you only want to buy something and not even chat with us, we're not so keen to have you.

Please do get to know us. Post in the introduction thread if you haven't, share your collection, join in chats. It's all very appreciated. Valued members of the community who contribute with even a bit of banter are more than welcome. You're still welcome to buy, just don't be offended if anyone asks for references.

 

One person needs to say they will cover the cost of the final community bid. As long as that bidder pays and it's the highest bid then who are you to say that the community can't contribute?

"Bidders must have a certain amount of posts" is still in your first post in this thread.

 

No, the community bid should NOT come before the end of the auction. That's rude.

No it's not, not like that. Stop twisting my words.

My first (UNEDITED) post is a list of my own suggestions for rules.

ONE of those suggestions was that bidders must have a certain amount of posts OR REPUTATION. Please don't misquote me by cutting out a vital part in future.

Anyone who doesn't just want to be an argumentative wanker for the sake of it would have read that as an either or, and realised that in itself would be something that's up for debate. Is it effective to limit by posts? I don't really think so. Having a decent on-site reputation system would be good, but it's hard to implement and ensure it gets used. This is my eBay isn't a great way of proving reputation, IMO.

Now if you'll excuse me, I don't have time for petty little quabbles over points I made clearly a week ago. I'm off to by flowers for my friend's funeral.

 

Define "rude" (preferably without calling me an "argumentative wanker" this time).

 

Certainly.

rude

/ru:d/
-adjective
1. discourteous or impolite, especially in a deliberate way.


Let's say it's akin to you selling a house by auction, and telling people you think may be interested via a particular channel, e.g. a newspaper. Someone else decides it would make a good timeshare property. Instead of bidding against the others, they announce their intention and look for pledges to buy timeshares. This is deliberately discourteous (and hence meets our dictionary definition of rude), as it is going against the seller's intended method of selling, and may damage their sales. Some people may still bid, others may decide to just pledge money to the timeshare deal - they still get what they want. Ultimately, this could affect the hammer price of the property in a negative way. Of course, it could do the opposite, too. Still, you would expect a timeshare company to just bid, then sort out the details of the timeshare later.

What I'm saying is - if you want to release something to the community that's up for auction, then bid your own money and take the risk on your shoulders. Don't go looking for pledges in front of the seller's face - that's rude.

Of course, you'll attract people to a pledge who simply wouldn't have bid on the item, just giving $10 or so. Then you'll get others who really want it and will pledge hundreds of dollars. We've seen this in the past with other community dumps, where the dumper already paid large sums for the item, the bids have gone cold and someone chips in a few hundred to get things going again. That sort of person may have bid on the item themselves were there not a community coffer already going.

As for my rules, they're merely suggestions. We've never really had auctions on-site, as a result of the recent ones we realise that they probably weren't dealt with in enough detail in the rules. I'm sure Kev will come up with something that'll help run auctions more smoothly in the future. :thumbsup:

 

So can we agree that if the seller permits it a fundraiser can run parallel to an auction? It seems like you're assuming something is offensive when it's not clear to me why it would be.

 

Well, in theory that's OK, at least from the manners point of view. Why a seller would want to permit it is beyond me, though. If we're saying the pledge total is counted as the high bid (assuming it's higher than any other) regardless of how much more than the next highest bid is, I can see how that could be attractive to a seller. If someone's bid $800, the increment is $20 but the pledge reaches $1,000 then the seller gets $1,000, not $820. However, they have to wait for the person responsible to collect all the pledge money, which will no doubt take time. I don't think many people would want to wait.

Don't forget, it's a pledge. Whoever runs the fundraiser risks being in hot water.

Normally speaking, the person doing the release has the item. They want to recoup money, so get people to PayPal donations. When their account is at the predefined goal, they release.

If you're taking pledges, people haven't coughed up the money. You may find people drop out. You also have to get the people to give the money quickly. In the case of Geist Force, payment was due very fast. The person dealing with the fundraiser would probably have had to have coughed up the money initially anyway... in which case, they might as well have bid and then sorted out the fundraiser after!

 

Whoever says they're doing the fundraiser obviously needs to stump up the cash regardless of what donations they receive. I'm just arguing that radio silence on even the possibility of a fundraiser is unnecessary.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what Assembler comes up with.