Garr255/Werner - Auction shilling - page 5.

starsoccer9

legendary

Activity: 1630

Merit: 1000

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 04:41:08 PM

Quote from: r3wt on June 21, 2013, 04:24:53 PM

Quote from: TomUnderSea on June 21, 2013, 04:20:28 PM

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.

Garr255 is not a trustee of the forum:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/official-list-of-forum-trustees-and-community-council-members-155002

I only have a mild interest in Garr255's particular case. But I am very annoyed by the incredibly stupid ideas about justice and ethics that many people in this thread seem to have. Garr255's actions were definitely unethical, but it's nothing like a real scam.

So it was unethical but not a scam, at least we are getting somewhere. I am quite sure shill bidding is illegal on almost all auction sites and anyone who has dealt with one would call it fraud.

boonies4u

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Vivisector999 on June 21, 2013, 04:44:33 PM

LOL, anyways, glad I jumped on your site. I haven't seen this much drama in a long time.

Welcome :3

r3wt

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

always the student, never the master.

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 04:41:08 PM

Garr255's actions were definitely unethical, but it's nothing like a real scam.

fyi, shill bidding is a felony in the United states, so there again, whether or not it was a real scam is subject to conjecture/opinion.

sources: My uncle runs an auction house in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Vivisector999

hero member

Activity: 541

Merit: 500

I know I am new here and all. Interesting thread to read to try to figure out how everything is around here.

1 thing I can't figure out though. Everyone seems to be complaining about the auction shills, which seems to have happened not just the 1 time but at least 3 times. (And only 1 shill was he considering paying people back (The one where he got caught red-handed)). The forum admins here don't seem to care about the auction system here having any sort of validity. But why is everyone missing the fact that not only was the Werner account shilling bids, he was also trolling others with it. Maybe scamming and trolling are acceptable here???

LOL, anyways, glad I jumped on your site. I haven't seen this much drama in a long time.

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: ThatDGuy on June 21, 2013, 04:40:05 PM

Didn't Garr255 himself basically say that he scammed people? He also said right in the following post that he would offer starsoccer9 and Vezunchik BTC5.

Yeah, but he wasn't properly mirandized. So pics & GTFO!

boonies4u

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 04:27:14 PM

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.)

see

Quote from: Garr255 on June 21, 2013, 03:10:17 AM

I am offering each of the participants in the auction, starsoccer9 and Vezunchik, BTC5 of my own personal funds, which more than makes up for the financial loss due false bids in the auction.

Until he "makes up for the financial loss" I wouldn't call this resolved.

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: r3wt on June 21, 2013, 04:24:53 PM

Quote from: TomUnderSea on June 21, 2013, 04:20:28 PM

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.

Garr255 is not a trustee of the forum:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/official-list-of-forum-trustees-and-community-council-members-155002

I only have a mild interest in Garr255's particular case. But I am very annoyed by the incredibly stupid ideas about justice and ethics that many people in this thread seem to have. Garr255's actions were definitely unethical, but it's nothing like a real scam.

stereotype

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1000

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 04:27:14 PM

Quote from: starsoccer9 on June 21, 2013, 04:08:36 PM

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.

I still dont see anything negative in Garr255's rating. Maybe some people expect a lead theymos. ??

ThatDGuy

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 04:27:14 PM

Quote from: starsoccer9 on June 21, 2013, 04:08:36 PM

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.

Didn't Garr255 himself basically say that he scammed people? He also said right in the following post that he would offer starsoccer9 and Vezunchik BTC5.

Quote from: Garr255 on June 21, 2013, 03:10:17 AM

Hi all,

First, I apologize for taking too long to attempt to resolve this situation. I've been extremely frustrated with myself all day. I have been regretting what I have done since the moment I did it.

I hereby confess to bidding up my own auctions using the "Werner" forum handle. This is despicable, I know. I did this out of pure greed. Scamming anyone was not the priority, getting a few extra measly bitcoins for Cognitive's auction was my goal. I have always acted in the best interest of Cognitive, because I know, believe, and practice my fiduciary duty which comes as a result of handling others' assets. I want everyone to know that I will continue doing my best to run the company, the same as I always have. My track record on the forum has been flawless before this incident, and that's what hurts me most. I'm disgusted with myself when people are questioning whether they can trust me now.

Although some may view this as a petty offence (as I did previously), I do not any longer. As an attempt to at least partially make up for my wrongdoing, I am offering each of the participants in the auction, starsoccer9 and Vezunchik, BTC5 of my own personal funds, which more than makes up for the financial loss due false bids in the auction. I realize that what I have done is unacceptable, and I do deeply regret it.

r3wt

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

always the student, never the master.

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 04:27:14 PM

Quote from: starsoccer9 on June 21, 2013, 04:08:36 PM

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

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 04:27:14 PM

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?

starsoccer9

legendary

Activity: 1630

Merit: 1000

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 04:27:14 PM

Quote from: starsoccer9 on June 21, 2013, 04:08:36 PM

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-savings-and-trust-home-closed-50822
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

kakobrekla

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Psi laju, karavani prolaze.

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 04:27:14 PM

Quote from: starsoccer9 on June 21, 2013, 04:08:36 PM

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.

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: starsoccer9 on June 21, 2013, 04:08:36 PM

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.

stereotype

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on June 21, 2013, 04:09:06 PM

Quote from: Plazmotech on June 21, 2013, 03:01:50 PM

Quote from: crumbs on June 21, 2013, 02:54:30 PM

Quote from: Plazmotech on June 21, 2013, 02:49:24 PM

Quote from: coinsquirrel on June 21, 2013, 02:36:35 PM

Quote from: Plazmotech on June 21, 2013, 01:23:37 PM

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:

Quote

Madness!

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

r3wt

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

always the student, never the master.

Quote from: TomUnderSea on June 21, 2013, 04:20:28 PM

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.

TomUnderSea

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 04:03:49 PM

Quote from: TomUnderSea on June 21, 2013, 02:33:08 PM

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

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

always the student, never the master.

Quote from: kibblesnbits on June 21, 2013, 03:33:41 PM

Quote from: Plazmotech on June 21, 2013, 02:32:18 PM

Quote from: TomUnderSea on June 21, 2013, 02:17:57 PM

Quote from: Plazmotech on June 21, 2013, 01:23:37 PM

...

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.

starsoccer9

legendary

Activity: 1630

Merit: 1000