Garr255/Werner - Auction shilling - page 7.

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

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?

Plazmotech

jr. member

Activity: 54

Merit: 1

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.

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

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.

Plazmotech

jr. member

Activity: 54

Merit: 1

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.

ThatDGuy

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

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?

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

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.

Plazmotech

jr. member

Activity: 54

Merit: 1

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?

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

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.

Plazmotech

jr. member

Activity: 54

Merit: 1

Quote from: Deprived on June 21, 2013, 02:52:29 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~~ multi-account bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

FYP

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.

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

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.

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

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~~ multi-account bargain that functions rather like an auction would you agree that what he did isn't morally incorrect?

FYP

Plazmotech

jr. member

Activity: 54

Merit: 1

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?

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: ibminer on June 21, 2013, 02:45:19 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on June 21, 2013, 02:37:19 PM

Quote from: ibminer on June 21, 2013, 02:30:34 PM

This is the 2nd disheartening thread in one week for me... between Avalon being accused of mining with customer equipment and mods allowing sockpuppets, BTC is causing me more anxiety than fiat. Cool

...I am just too much of a geek to walk away from it... but I do have a threshold Undecided

You should see all the wicked stuff that is done with *real money.

Completely agree... I have seen and experienced it first hand. 'There ain't no rest for the wicked' Grin

... Just thought I would find something different in bitcoins, I was just being optimistic I guess. I should have realized that people are evil and allowing them to 'cloak' themselves just gives them more freedom to be evil. I know there are some good people out there... just no clue how I would ever find them without putting out a lot of risk with a high chance of getting burned in the bitcoin world.

There was a pretty dramatic post awhile back, expounding on people losing faith in their currencies, their governments, and now ... Bitcointalk.org. Cheesy

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

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.

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

Quote from: RodeoX on June 21, 2013, 02:37:19 PM

Quote from: ibminer on June 21, 2013, 02:30:34 PM

This is the 2nd disheartening thread in one week for me... between Avalon being accused of mining with customer equipment and mods allowing sockpuppets, BTC is causing me more anxiety than fiat. Cool

...I am just too much of a geek to walk away from it... but I do have a threshold Undecided

You should see all the wicked stuff that is done with *real money.

Completely agree... I have seen and experienced it first hand. 'There ain't no rest for the wicked' Grin

... Just thought I would find something different in bitcoins, I was just being optimistic I guess. I should have realized that people are evil and allowing them to 'cloak' themselves just gives them more freedom to be evil. I know there are some good people out there... just no clue how I would ever find them without putting out a lot of risk with a high chance of getting burned in the bitcoin world.

TomUnderSea

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: ThatDGuy on June 21, 2013, 02:16:43 PM

...

John K. did show up, and took what seems like the fair stance on all of this, back on page 2

Quote from: John (John K.) on June 20, 2013, 07:40:06 AM

I personally agree that this is something bad, and that it should be looked into. I've always been against the notion of having sockies here, like I told theymos last time... Anyway, only theymos can do the checks here (barring Thomas Stefan of course). I'll PM and direct him to this thread.

I know.

What really disappointed me is John K. is taking theymos' coin as a mod. His reputation was unblemished but now he is answering to theymos.

When (not if) John K. has to either obey his boss, or do the correct and ethical thing, what will he do? I want to believe he will do the correct and ethical thing but we won't know if he doesn't. Unless of course, Garr is involved with a sock puppet and screws it up.

Until that day, John K. is no longer as clean as he was. There will always be the doubt that he will put theymos' interests ahead of _anyone_ who employs him for escrow, etc.

yeah, this shit storm is getting worse

ibminer

legendary

Activity: 1789

Merit: 2535

Goonies never say die.

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

Wait!!!!!

You (your forum) refused to confirm Werner is Garr's sock puppet for how long?

You (your forum) refused to violate the sanctity of a deleted post for how long??

Now, just off hand, you quickly confirm that an account that makes Garr look bad _is_ a sock puppet.

Dude, this is REALLY wrong. You are playing favorites. You are using your position on this forum to promote your own interests and that of your friends. You are doing this in a fashion that appears to be underhanded.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck; it is a duck.

You, theymos, are looking as bad as Garr and Josh. Perhaps you should look to MNW as a role model of how to do the right thing.

I just considered not posting the above to protect my presence here. Fuck that. Go ahead. Delete this post and ban my account if you think it necessary.

If this forum represents bitcoin, bitcoin will suffer a long time before it succeeds, if ever.

He may just be responding more promptly given the situation, and assuming he is actively monitoring this thread... and seeing it is a sensitive situation right now, is attempting to do the right thing by revealing it is not Garr... but it does seem like he, and some others, have a soft spot for Garr, just an observation... but given the reality of this forum right now, every post on this thread right now could be getting made by theymos and other mods. AHHH am I the only actual user here?? am I being scammed?? AHHH!!!

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Quote from: ibminer on June 21, 2013, 02:30:34 PM

This is the 2nd disheartening thread in one week for me... between Avalon being accused of mining with customer equipment and mods allowing sockpuppets, BTC is causing me more anxiety than fiat. Cool

...I am just too much of a geek to walk away from it... but I do have a threshold Undecided

You should see all the wicked stuff that is done with *real money.

coinsquirrel

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 0

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".

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Somebody (no way of knowing who the person is) emailed me the following link and asked if I could post it in this thread.

http://www.freebitcointips.co.uk/apps/profile/106642709/

He (or she, but probably a he) also mentioned a Twitter account with the same name, but didn't provide a link. I found it, but opted to not post it, for I'm still reading this epic thread, of which I think it's about to become more epiccer (not sure if it's 1 c or 2).

Topic: Garr255/Werner - Auction shilling - page 7. (Read 23108 times)