Garr255/Werner - Auction shilling - page 6.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

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!

starsoccer9

legendary

Activity: 1630

Merit: 1000

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.

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.

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

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.

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on June 21, 2013, 03:51:29 PM

Quote from: Deprived on June 21, 2013, 02:46:37 PM

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 01:41:00 PM

Quote from: Deprived on June 21, 2013, 01:40:24 PM

It's almost certainly someone pretending to be a sock-puppet of Garr's for a laugh.

Yes, it is.

Which victim complained giving you the right to comment on whether the account was someone else's sock-puppet? How much did that victim lose? Did you contact this sock-puppet and offer him the chance to pay back whatever he took before you looked at his IP address?

Just to cut off any speculation - that account was NOT mine. I've never used any account here other than this one - and I freely give permission for any checks admin want to do to check the truth of that statement.

I just want to make sure that sock-pupper was given the same benefit of the doubt as the Werner one was before Theymos checked its IP address and/or did whatever other checks he felt he needed to do to make the quoted statement.

+1

In response to theymos' "Yes it is" post, am I the only one reading it him stating that it was just for laughs, oppose to confirming that it's one of Garr's SP?

Don't think anyone read it as him confirming it as being a Garr SP.

My reading is that he was confirming it was someone pretending to be a GARR SP for a laugh. I read it that way as my post - which he was replying to - specifically said that (the "pretending to be" bit). Garr can't use one of his own SPs to pretend to be a Garr SP - as it actually would be one. So Theymos was clearly confirming it wasn't a Garr SP - hence my follow up of why he'd comment on (and do he checks necessary to make informed comment on) someone else's SP but not Garr's one.

If he's actually saying it was Garr doing it for a laugh then that WOULD be truly hilarious - but for entirely the wrong reasons.

PrintMule

hero member

Activity: 980

Merit: 500

FREE $50 BONUS - STAKE - [click signature]

Teh high school drama continues.

Something missing. Musical numbers I guess.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Quote from: Deprived on June 21, 2013, 02:46:37 PM

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 01:41:00 PM

Quote from: Deprived on June 21, 2013, 01:40:24 PM

It's almost certainly someone pretending to be a sock-puppet of Garr's for a laugh.

Yes, it is.

Which victim complained giving you the right to comment on whether the account was someone else's sock-puppet? How much did that victim lose? Did you contact this sock-puppet and offer him the chance to pay back whatever he took before you looked at his IP address?

Just to cut off any speculation - that account was NOT mine. I've never used any account here other than this one - and I freely give permission for any checks admin want to do to check the truth of that statement.

I just want to make sure that sock-pupper was given the same benefit of the doubt as the Werner one was before Theymos checked its IP address and/or did whatever other checks he felt he needed to do to make the quoted statement.

+1

In response to theymos' "Yes it is" post, am I the only one reading it him stating that it was just for laughs, oppose to confirming that it's one of Garr's SP?

Full Disclosure: My email post was made prior to theymos' comment, hence being posted afterward.

I have a couple other emails I'll need to digest before I post anything further. I'm still not at the end of this thread between RL and emails slowing me down. And coffee and pissing.

Supposedly there's a source linking svbeon and Garr, but it's not confirmed yet.

BRB in 15 minutes. What could possible happen within such a short time frame?

kibblesnbits

hero member

Activity: 557

Merit: 500

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.

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: Plazmotech on June 21, 2013, 03:17:35 PM

Had Garr255 warned people he could manipulate the prices would you still participate in the auction? After all, Garr255 has a right to sell his products for whatever price he would like to, and might've just been using the initial "auction" as a way to gauge the demand for the chip, and then set a price he would be willing to sell at.

Is that a rhetorical question, and if not, what would the answer change? If i came to a shillathon, my buying strategy would certainly differ from that of a real auction. I'd still show up & see how desperate the seller is to sell, but i wouldn't "bid" Cheesy

Perhaps if i knew the seller was gauging the market, i'd bring 10 shills of my own & troll the price up absurdly high, just to get the seller to overstock & be forced to sell at a loss Grin

ThatDGuy

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on June 21, 2013, 03:17:22 PM

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/information-on-everyones-favorite-asic-producer-bfl-239343

Not sure, but I doubt this kid has learned anything from this whole mess.

Not to defend Garr's actions in any way, but that above post was made chronologically before his second confession here in this thread today. He was still holding that his first confession was forced at the time, and by virtue of that, we should have believed it wasn't true (the first confession).

Garr should probably also make a follow-up post in Cognitive's thread as well, though, taking the blame for the situation himself instead of trying to shift it to Inaba. Those shareholders will hopefully be made aware of what actually happened, or learn about it on their own:

Quote from: Garr255 on June 20, 2013, 04:56:25 PM

Quote from: investr on June 20, 2013, 11:29:13 AM

P.S. Does BFL Josh actually have the authority within his organization to refund your order without your expressed consent?

Honestly, I do not know the legalities of this. I see it as a wrongdoing, as many BTC were put forth to secure this order.

Josh has agreed not to cancel any orders I placed, so this should in no way affect Cognitive.

My sincere apologies go out to all Cognitive shareholders who may have worried over Josh's threat of canceling our orders.

--Garrett

starsoccer9

legendary

Activity: 1630

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Plazmotech on June 21, 2013, 03:17:35 PM

Quote from: starsoccer9 on June 21, 2013, 03:14:36 PM

Okay, I am making an open request to Gar255 so I have nothing to hold against him. I ask he does the following:

1. Verify you are still sending me the miner and have intent to so

2. Verify you plan to send the 5bitcoins

3. Confirm you wont ever shill bid your own auctions ever again

Sounds reasonable. I'm sorry for your "loss", but I must ask you one question.

Had Garr255 warned people he could manipulate the prices would you still participate in the auction? After all, Garr255 has a right to sell his products for whatever price he would like to, and might've just been using the initial "auction" as a way to gauge the demand for the chip, and then set a price he would be willing to sell at.

Most likely not

Entropy-uc

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 501

Quote from: Matthew N. Wright on June 21, 2013, 09:56:26 AM

Quote from: Nightowlace on June 21, 2013, 09:52:40 AM

The fact is he obviously learned this practice was acceptable via whatever means and now he has apologized for it offered damages an people are still crucifying him. I'm sure 99% of the people crucifying him have done something along the way the regret as well and wouldn't want a lifetime tag of it.

And now for the moral dilemma that outlines the hypocrisy here. You just described the reasoning behind me making a trolling bet, yet even though I also didn't intend to profit nor actually profit (in fact I paid much more than Garr will ever be able to pay in his lifetime probably) as a result of it, I'm still deemed a scammer or "untrustworthy". Why would that be? Because he's a few years younger than me?

Matthew numerous people relied upon your pledge as a mechanism to offload the risk of holding Pirate debt. They made bets with you, and then purchased debts in the secondary market with the expectation that your bet would protect them in case of a failure. This strategy was openly discussed in dozens of posts in the days after pirate's default.

By continuing to pretend you would honor a bet you couldn't possible pay, you caused many people to take actions that cost them real money. That is why you deserved to never be trusted in this community.

I wasn't foolish enough to use that strategy but I have no doubts that 10s of thousands were lost by people relying on your good reputation at the time. Quit trying to whitewash yourself.

ThatDGuy

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: starsoccer9 on June 21, 2013, 03:14:36 PM

Okay, I am making an open request to Gar255 so I have nothing to hold against him. I ask he does the following:

1. Verify you are still sending me the miner and have intent to so

2. Verify you plan to send the 5bitcoins

3. Confirm you wont ever shill bid your own auctions ever again

It sounds like #3 is not exactly prohibited by forum rules. "a bit shady" but not prohibited:

Quote from: theymos on June 21, 2013, 04:51:31 AM

Quote from: coinsquirrel on June 21, 2013, 04:27:19 AM

forcing StarSoccer to bid BTC63

Did Gar255 put a gun to his head? No one forced the bidders to do anything.

Having an alt that artificially raises the bid price is similar to a secret reserve price in an auction. There's nothing inherently wrong with it except that Garr255 should have warned bidders that he might do it. I rank his actions there as "a bit shady," though he handled the fallout badly (due to inexperience, I suppose).

In any case, alts aren't against forum rules, and scammer tags are typically only given when an explicit agreement is broken. Garr255 never promised not to bid on his own auctions. He never even promised to honor the results of the auctions. Without contracts that say otherwise, auctions are only devices to assist in price negotiations.

Plazmotech

jr. member

Activity: 54

Merit: 1

Quote from: starsoccer9 on June 21, 2013, 03:14:36 PM

Okay, I am making an open request to Gar255 so I have nothing to hold against him. I ask he does the following:

1. Verify you are still sending me the miner and have intent to so

2. Verify you plan to send the 5bitcoins

3. Confirm you wont ever shill bid your own auctions ever again

Sounds reasonable. I'm sorry for your "loss", but I must ask you one question.

Had Garr255 warned people he could manipulate the prices would you still participate in the auction? After all, Garr255 has a right to sell his products for whatever price he would like to, and might've just been using the initial "auction" as a way to gauge the demand for the chip, and then set a price he would be willing to sell at.

Flying Hellfish

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1756

Verified Bernie Bro - Feel The Bern!

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/information-on-everyones-favorite-asic-producer-bfl-239343

Not sure, but I doubt this kid has learned anything from this whole mess.

boonies4u

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

Quote from: starsoccer9 on June 21, 2013, 03:14:36 PM

Okay, I am making an open request to Gar255 so I have nothing to hold against him. I ask he does the following:

1. Verify you are still sending me the miner and have intent to so

2. Verify you plan to send the 5bitcoins

3. Confirm you wont ever shill bid your own auctions ever again

+1

starsoccer9

legendary

Activity: 1630

Merit: 1000

Okay, I am making an open request to Gar255 so I have nothing to hold against him. I ask he does the following:

1. Verify you are still sending me the miner and have intent to so

2. Verify you plan to send the 5bitcoins

3. Confirm you wont ever shill bid your own auctions ever again

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

Quote from: Plazmotech on June 21, 2013, 03:10:06 PM

I'm saying his actions as a whole were partially incorrect (due to the fact he used an anonymous account), however the act of setting his own pricepoint wasn't. It seems people here are arguing that his setting of the pricepoint of his own items is morally incorrect, which I find ridiculous.

Hell, if you were to sell your own prized possession and the price people are willing to pay for it is below the price you're willing to sell at, wouldn't you want to manipulate the price?

I do, however, once again, agree 100% that the act of doing so using an anonymous account is very incorrect.

This is why I wouldn't do an auction-style format if I wanted to sell something at a specific value... or I'd set a reserve.

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: Plazmotech on June 21, 2013, 03:06:20 PM

Quote from: ThatDGuy on June 21, 2013, 03:03:24 PM

Quote from: crumbs on June 21, 2013, 03:02:51 PM

Quote from: Plazmotech on June 21, 2013, 02:57:56 PM

[...]
What's morally wrong of Garr's actions is the decision to keep this price manipulator anonymous. Had he revealed the existence and admitted to the use of the account before beginning the "auction", his actions would be completely free of any moral fault.

In other words, if he shilled from his own account (why bother with establishing an alt if everyone knows it's you?), everything would be fine, yeah. Lulzy, 'coz no one would be stupid enough to think of the charade as an auction, but ethically wrong? No.

+1

Who would participate in such a farce?

I would. He's selling his stuff, why shouldn't he have control over the price of the sell? Hell, if he wanted to he could sell it for a fixed price of BTC100, but he didn't, instead, used the "auction" as a tool to gauge the demand of his audience, then placed a price point.

Why do you suppose people pay a premium for setting a reserve, why do you think the word "shill" has negative connotations, and why, ffs, would Garr try to hide his actions behind a sock account if they're reasonable, expected, and justified???

Edit: Posted before i saw your reply.
/all good

Plazmotech

jr. member

Activity: 54

Merit: 1

Quote from: crumbs on June 21, 2013, 03:09:01 PM

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

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

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?

Pretty much, though moral invalidity is a bit high flung & confusing for me. Wrong. People presume they loosely understand what an auction is. The word "shill" -- never used in any but the derogatory sense -- is a part of that understanding, specifically that shilling is illegal & thus would not be a part of an honest auction. See where i'm going?

Yes, and I agree.

Plazmotech

jr. member

Activity: 54

Merit: 1

Quote from: ibminer on June 21, 2013, 03:06:09 PM

Quote from: Plazmotech on June 21, 2013, 03:04:14 PM

Quote from: ibminer on June 21, 2013, 03:01:23 PM

Quote from: Plazmotech on June 21, 2013, 02:57:56 PM

If Garr255 hadn't of called it an auction, rather, a ~~multi-person~~ ~~multi-account~~ multi-person bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

It's a multiperson BARGAIN. He's allowed to change the price to whatever he wishes. The buying must make the decision to either buy or drop the at the current price Garr255 is offering.

It's ridiculous people think the mere fact that Garr255 is setting a price to something he is selling is morally wrong. Garr255 can do whatever he pleases with the price of what he is selling (As long as he commits to a buy). What's morally wrong of Garr's actions is the decision to keep this price manipulator anonymous. Had he revealed the existence and admitted to the use of the account before beginning the "auction", his actions would be completely free of any moral fault.

The mere fact that he has an 'anonymous' account that he pretends to act like someone else, to me, is morally wrong and deceiving.

I completely agree to that, however it's beside the point. The point is the moral validity of manipulating the prices to his desire, which I find completely valid.

Had Garr255 warned he would "shill" his "auction" beforehand, it would remove the need to use a anonymous account.

It just seems like you are trying to shed a positive light on a situation that didn't actually happen?... fact is, he did do it anonymously. As you said, if he didn't, we wouldn't be here right now.

I'm saying his actions as a whole were partially incorrect (due to the fact he used an anonymous account), however the act of setting his own pricepoint wasn't. It seems people here are arguing that his setting of the pricepoint of his own items is morally incorrect, which I find ridiculous.

Hell, if you were to sell your own prized possession and the price people are willing to pay for it is below the price you're willing to sell at, wouldn't you want to manipulate the price?

I do, however, once again, agree 100% that the act of doing so using an anonymous account is very incorrect.

Topic: Garr255/Werner - Auction shilling - page 6. (Read 23119 times)