Auction abuse (in General)

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.

It's allowed afaik.

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

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?

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.

I'm with you there, Beee.

I second Beee.

I agree with Beee.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

"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.

Sigh. Yes, Ranger we all know that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...".

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.

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.

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?

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 ?

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?

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

How would 1000 instead of 1 change anything?

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.

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?

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

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?

"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.

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

yes, PK

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

"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.