Auction abuse (in General)


Brakke Bres [Ow man] May 30 2008 7:43 AM EDT

I thought using the auctions to avoid the xfer fees was not allowed?

Meaning bin at 1 CBD when you already discussed a price somewhere else.

AdminShade May 30 2008 8:50 AM EDT

It's allowed afaik.

also there always is the chance someone else will snipe it ;)

QBOddBird May 30 2008 8:53 AM EDT

As I recall, there was a thread about putting items in auctions at an oversized value to increase their worth and thus the amount Central would bid on them. Jon posted that he disapproved.

Wouldn't this cause the opposite, and thus likely have the same disapproval?

AdminG Beee May 30 2008 8:54 AM EDT

We kinda talked this one over at the start of last month and it was a bag of worms.

I myself screwed up in so much as I've done the $1 shuffle through auctions myself so wasn't really qualified to impose a "ruling" so to speak.

It does feel wrong, and it does feel like an exploit. Jon said during the last debate that if he'd wanted folks to be able to xfr for $1 then he'd have set the fees at this rate and to be honest, you can't argue with that logic.

I'd be happy if we stopped this kind of thing happening in the future and let the community police it. Kinda rich coming from me though given I've been guilty of the exact same thing in the past.

Moment of weakness (or more likely "beerness") I'd imagine.

So, what say the community?
I vote for an amnesty for all that have gone before, but we put a stop to it from now onwards. Penalty of 2x the xfr fee for folks found to be abusing it.

QBOddBird May 30 2008 8:56 AM EDT

I'm with you there, Beee.

BluBBen May 30 2008 9:00 AM EDT

I second Beee.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] May 30 2008 10:23 AM EDT

I agree with Beee.

IndependenZ May 30 2008 10:27 AM EDT

Sounds good!



But... total amnesty is a bit easy. I say we punish them who are supposed to set an example, like admins. Especially G Beee. :p

j/k

QBRanger May 30 2008 10:31 AM EDT

Or just set the min amount for an auction as the permanent xfer fee.

AdminG Beee May 30 2008 10:38 AM EDT

That wouldn't be a bad idea Ranger but obviously needs a change in coding and would also stop me from dropping any items into auctions for $1 as an "admin giveaway".

In the meantime we can police it ourselves without Jon having to make a change.

Edicinnej May 30 2008 10:58 AM EDT

If there is a vote of amnesty will the people who have been fined be receiving a refund?

AdminLamuness May 30 2008 12:17 PM EDT

Still a good deal! Penalty of 2x the xfer fee would be... $1cbd x 2 = $2 cbd! ;)

Wasp [Demon Forging] May 30 2008 12:26 PM EDT

Selling something in auctions for the price you agreed on though is a different story. If you agree to sell something for 1.8 million. Throw it in auctions for a BIN of that price. The $1 BIN price is a bit extreme and I'd say its dodgy. At the end of the day they still have the risk of losing that item to some nobody for $1 lol.

AdminG Beee May 30 2008 12:33 PM EDT

I think the point is that if it "feels wrong" and looks like someone is trying to pull a fast one to avoid a xfr fee, then it probably is wrong.

QBRanger May 30 2008 12:57 PM EDT

"Still a good deal! Penalty of 2x the xfer fee would be... $1cb x 2 = $2 cb! ;"

No.

The fine would be 2x the normal xfer fee.

AdminLamuness May 30 2008 2:05 PM EDT

Sigh. Yes, Ranger we all know that.

{cb1}Linguala May 30 2008 2:45 PM EDT

Sounds good.
Maybe it's better to make a poll for this, it would show much better representation.
I think more people are inclined to check a poll than to read a post entirely.

AdminNightStrike May 30 2008 2:51 PM EDT

I think a good thing to ask is "Why do people try to duck the xfer to begin with?" As I see it, there are certain transfer fees (tattoos being one) that are just plain huge. I would say that maybe transfer fees should have a cap of some sort so that we actually can trade large NW items without breaking the bank in transfer costs. I would bet that if that happened, there were be much less frequent use of auctions to avoid transfers.

AdminNightStrike May 30 2008 2:52 PM EDT

As an addendum to that, and in tying in with the $1 auction admin giveaways, I recall numerous incidents where people gave away expensive equipment in contests, and transferred them via auctions. It's dumb to charge a giant fee on someone who is trying to GIVE stuff away for free.

AdminG Beee May 30 2008 2:58 PM EDT

As I said, "I think the point is that if it "feels wrong" and looks like someone is trying to pull a fast one to avoid a xfr fee, then it probably is wrong" so we're covered if someone is just trying to give stuff away for free.

QBRanger May 30 2008 2:59 PM EDT

Personally:
I think that things should not change from how it is now.

If Jon wants it to be different, he can change it. IE, up the min bid needed etc...

But others have used this to their advantage, why put the kibosh on it now.

QBRanger May 30 2008 3:00 PM EDT

But I do have a question:

As of right now, until we hear a definitive answer to the contrary, is it still legal as it has been in the past up to now?

AdminG Beee May 30 2008 3:01 PM EDT

At the risk of going all italic and repeating myself again :). "...if he'd wanted folks to be able to xfr for $1 then he'd have set the fees at this rate...".

QBRanger May 30 2008 3:03 PM EDT

Yes, I understand Beee.

But this has been brought up a few times in the past and nobody stated it was illegal.

So I assume, since nothing has been stated from up above, it still is "legal" and not punishable===yet.

AdminG Beee May 30 2008 3:10 PM EDT

Henk has brought up a good point that I feel should be addressed.
I'm happy to gauge the opinion of folks from this thread and ask the rest of the admins to help enforce penalties if we decide it's the right thing to do.

Given that I have done it myself in the past doesn't best qualify me to make the decision, but we don't need Jon (or polls) to make all the calls.

QBRanger May 30 2008 3:14 PM EDT

Henk has.

And it was addressed in a few past threads.

And nobody stated it was illegal to do.

Why all of a sudden a change?

AdminG Beee May 30 2008 3:18 PM EDT

It wasn't "addressed" it was discussed and never resolved. As you say, in a past few threads. Let's close it out once and for all...

Who better to declare it "illegal" than the full admins or Jon ?

Is there any reason to leave it be other than because it's always been this way ?

QBRanger May 30 2008 3:20 PM EDT

http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002OcA

Is the latest thread to deal with this issue. April 1.

Jon stated in it that it was obvious this was illegal, but then later stated he would put a delay on BIN auctions to stop this process. A fine solution that I do not believe was implemented.

However, later, Jon then states that if the admin allow it, then so be it.

At least that is what I interpret.

Can we, for once and for all, get a final ruling on this?

AdminG Beee May 30 2008 3:21 PM EDT

OK.

We have a final ruling. It's now considered illegal and will come with a penalty of x2 the actual xfr fee.

As normal the community will help police it.

QBRanger May 30 2008 3:22 PM EDT

"Who better to declare it "illegal" than the full admins or Jon ? "

Nobody.

However, it was allowed by full admins in the past, why the change?

I have never done it, but would like the option given a 2M xfer cost for a set of DBs.

AdminNightStrike May 30 2008 3:59 PM EDT

"Is there any reason to leave it be other than because it's always been this way ?"


Yes, and I thought I made that clear in my post.

Xfer fees are way too high.


Further, Ranger brought up a point that had forgotten about -- Jon said he'd go implement some change in the auction code for delays of some sort.

So honestly, I think that there is nothing wrong with it, and it should be allowed to continue. There is risk at play, but I see it as no different at all than using the rentals to give ultra-cheap loans instead of dealing with the again very high xfer fees when you do a loan through your external transfers page. And the cheap rental thing is expressly allowed.

So....

I vote that it continue to remain an allowable action as it has been thus far.

QBRanger May 30 2008 4:14 PM EDT

In the interest of being consistent:

If we are to change the auction "bug", should it not be changed with rentals as well?

In my mind it is difficult to allow one and not the other.

AdminNightStrike May 30 2008 4:21 PM EDT

The rental minimum is $1000. Make the auction minimum $1000 and then allow people to use auctions the way we all currently use rentals. That way, everyone's happy.

QBRanger May 30 2008 4:21 PM EDT

How would 1000 instead of 1 change anything?

AdminNightStrike May 30 2008 4:24 PM EDT

It's already been approved as good enough for Rentals. So if it's good enough for rentals, it should be good enough for auctions.

QBOddBird May 30 2008 4:25 PM EDT

Xfer fees reflect the inflated amount of cash in the CB economy, and if you have an item with that much NW in it then surely you can afford the fee to x-fer it?

QBOddBird May 30 2008 4:28 PM EDT

Besides, there's a significant difference between renting something for a 28-day max and perma x-ferring it.

Wizard'sFirstRule May 30 2008 5:38 PM EDT

so 3 situation:
a) setting auction at agreed value (say 1.8m) = legal
b) giving away items to unspecified person (at $1) = legal
c) giving away items to a specified person at agreed value (at $1, but with another cash transfer) = illegal.

am I correct?

Brakke Bres [Ow man] May 30 2008 6:28 PM EDT

"Jon stated in it that it was obvious this was illegal, but then later stated he would put a delay on BIN auctions to stop this process. A fine solution that I do not believe was implemented."

Don't think this is implemented, I'm checking auctions on a regular basis and I never see those bin 1 CBD auctions.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] May 30 2008 6:30 PM EDT

ow and not able to set BINS at all would solve this problem faster then anything else, but that can't be a solution.

TheHatchetman May 31 2008 12:57 AM EDT

yes, PK

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 31 2008 1:39 AM EDT

from the above referenced post, jon's intentions seem crystal clear to me and i am at a loss to see where anyone is still unsure of his intentions. fines should be imposed until such time as a coded fix takes effect.

QBOddBird May 31 2008 2:02 AM EDT

Agreed, dudemus. He made himself very clear.

I find it unlikely that anyone is unsure of his intentions; rather, they are trying to convince an admin or Jon that they should be allowed to continue the practice, based on whatever reason. There is, in fact, very little risk in these cases, just to counter the popular argument. After all, few are 'Auction Camping' like one would store camp due to the autobid feature. So if one tells another, "Go immediately and BIN this item," chances are 99% of the time they will get it.

Khardin May 31 2008 3:23 AM EDT

How about central bank buying anything for auction at less than what it could be sold to the store?

Wizard'sFirstRule May 31 2008 8:39 AM EDT

even if the BIN is at store price, it is still a lot less transfer.

Yukk May 31 2008 6:34 PM EDT

Now we need to keep an eye on the store so people don't sell items while a friend camps the store and purchases the item then xfers the difference.
There are no fees there and no more risk than an auction.

iBananco [Blue Army] May 31 2008 7:14 PM EDT

The difference for most items is 4% of the NW, which is a lot more than the 1% xfer fee.

Ariac May 31 2008 9:25 PM EDT

Why exactly do we need xfer fees? Just makes it seem to me like I have less money than I really do.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 31 2008 9:39 PM EDT

in most game economies these things are termed money sinks. they are necessary to keep a realistic economy, money needs to be removed as well as created to maintain some sort of balance.

Ariac May 31 2008 9:53 PM EDT

Thought it was a money sink... but isn't there another way we could do this?

Daz May 31 2008 10:06 PM EDT

Think of it as shipping and handling charges. It's just that in CB, there are mages and monsters and other nasties that try and steal your item. Therefore the shipping company needs to charge higher rates to keep the top-notch mercenaries employed to defend the item. They are really starting to regret that refund policy with some of the items that are around now...

And Thats why we pay so much to transfer an item. It's not that much of a problem, because they ship the items so fast anyway.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 31 2008 10:31 PM EDT

"Thought it was a money sink... but isn't there another way we could do this?"

usually it is handled either this way or by reducing rewards. more going out or less coming in...that is about the only options.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Rmm">Auction abuse</a>