Topic: Split: mprep's unethical violation of auction rules - page 2. (Read 1465 times)

I have had very little interaction with mprep and no reason to "have it out for" him. An auction is a legally binding contract. Just because it is a negligible amount doesn't change the law. Some how these "higher standards" staff here pretend to have only apply when they are making that judgement upon others.

"Once a bid is accepted, the seller has no right to accept a higher bid, nor can a buyer withdraw the buyer’s bid[ii]. Generally, an auction is complete when the bid is accepted. A binding contract is created by the auction."


https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/law-auctions

Contract law? Give me a break dude.

Good luck going to a lawyer let alone a judge and tell them that you want to sue this dude that extended an auction on a bitcoin forum and now you're angry.

You should read up on contract law.

After reading up on this it would appear that you (BayAreaCoins) just have it out for mprep for whatever reason.

I see no issues in extending the auction if there is valid reason for doing so (which mprep stated).

When it comes to "Violating a contract", that's just nonsense. Perhaps that is how you want it to be, but it's not.

---

Lock this thread and toss it away again please, no need for this.

This is also known as a violation of contract. When you open an auction you are putting out an open offer to contract with any bidders. You could literally be sued for this if he wanted to spend the time and money (and he would win).

Some light reading.
https://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/the-three-3-types-of-auction-contracts/

This is just another example in an endless chain of examples of rules meaning nothing until the forum overlords decide they do, and it always works out for them. So why should they change it? This is a pathetic abuse of trust exclusions which are nothing but a hand tailored tool to allow the staff to freely exclude people from trust in retaliation for legitimate grievances, no matter how many people trust them (other than the staff).

Quicksy believes you should be able to steal a million dollars and have no repercussions.   

The DT system is working great - it allows us to quickly snip scammers in the butt.

What matters here is:

Did mprep use his mod power to edit a post in an auction thread?
If yes then that is bad. IMHO he should never do that again ever. did he learn from his mistake and never repeated the same thing? if yes then we need to forgive him and allow him to improve himself. if he insists on doing it and says what he has done is right, he shouldn't stay as a mod.

I don't see him saying that, so he should stay as a mod.

Now, did he tag the OP for pointing this abuse of mod position? that's bad and he needs to reconsider the tag.
Did OP tag mprep because mprep tagged the OP? that's retaliatory feedback but it shouldn't be worrying for mprep.

IMO, you both should give each other another chance and move on.

Emphasis by me.

Answer to your Q: Because nothing will happen, except that whenever DT1/DT2 member jumps in to rate accordingly, he/she will lose their DT position easily. Happened multiple times. Current DT system is a shit show. For instance, look what a mess became of OgNasty and many others personal disputes etc. DT misuse at least happened in those cases. Shortly, people are scared to voice themselves. (I've been abused by DT member Vod (link), but nothing really happened to stop it. Vod can keep on abusing/misusing DT trust system and nobody seems to react much. I would increase amount of DT users to combat this sort of bullshit, or remove DT all together, or at least change trust view calculations to not be so heavy when one DT2 member starts abusing. (Vod blackmailed me for instance.... pretty untrustworthy bullshit to me!!))

Changing auction ending time (=auction rules) during the auction isn't OK. Ruling that "bidders can withdraw their bids if they're unhappy" doesn't cover it, as bidders may not watch the auction all the time to notice. However, mprep apparently made it quite clear that he can change the auction rules like that if he wants. And likely all the bidders had the option to cancel their commitment to buy in case they won, after the auction ending time was changed. Right? It's a bit hard to draw the line what are the binding rules for auctioneer in these auctions.. Moving discussions off auctions board I don't agree with, just my 2 cents. Nobody ever gets shit (or whatever posts) posted in their auction threads moved or removed like this. Mods should be fair in that regard, even when the pressure is targeted at the mod. But that's not that big deal, IMO.

But it's quite lame and pathetic to bring up years old single instance mistake already handled and learned from, only to act as a weak (if even that) support on your side and piss people off. Not cool. If you're going to do that, you should also forget everything good people have done and assume everyone is bad no matter what they've done.

I think your thread meets the elements of a contract. (a contract does not need to be 'signed' nor even in writing for it to be binding). Not that it matters, but if you didn't intend on making the terms of your auction binding, then why did you ask that certain users (who logically would have little credibility) pay a deposit?

I don't think you did that. It looks like you extended the auction, and expected the previous high bidder to honor his bid, which based on your thread, this is what happened - you announced the previous high bidder was the winning bidder. If you had rejected his bid, it would have gone to the next highest bidder, or if you rejected all bids, it would have started back at the opening bid amount, neither of which happened.

Mprep seems faulty here, just my opinion. Why no Reputed people are getting involved in this.
This is pretty serious topic.

I've decided to unlock this thread for additional comments and discussion.

Tl;Dr: Mprep auction was set to end on March 15, 2018 as long as it had a valid bid.  The auction had a valid bid and Mprep randomly decided on the 15th to extend the auction for 10 days.  I made a comment about this and mprep personally attacked me... when I commented back about his personal attack from a mistake two year ago... Mprep pulled all the negative stuff in regards to his scammy auction and stuck it here.


If you went to a community auction or an eBay auction and made a valid bid... then suddenly the person operating the auction lets you know minutes before the end that the auction actually won't be ending today, but in 10 days from now.  I would hope people would be pissed and would leave negative feedback or whatever against that company in order to prevent other folks from wasting their time with dishonest/dysfunctional auctions.

I fucked off in regards to brigading against you to be removed as a mod when I realized I made a mistake by breaking forum rules in 2015 (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcointalk-needs-to-replace-or-remove-mprep-as-a-mod-vote-police-site-ftl-1026785) and my poll tilted to your side.  I was wrong... as stated bellow earlier.  


I've had three years to think about that at this point and this is the first time I've heard about that since it happened.   


You didn't reject any bids though.  This is another example of you bending the rules to meet your needs.  

I'm going to lock this thread because it's pointless to continue this conversation and I didn't create this thread.  

(I'm sure MPrep will have no problem using his mod powers to unlock this thread to respond if he feels the need to, but as far as I'm concerned he is a scammer (or at the very least a VERY poor business person that causes harm to people that may potentially do business with him) and that is that.

There is a reason why the auction thread can't be edited...

You've ran a dishonest auction + you've abused your power as a global mod editing factual information on your auction thread.

I've added negative trust to your account now at this point.

Wow. 

MPrep used his global mod powers to edit an auction thread to take my comments out and move them to a new thread.

The auction section of Bitcointalk is supposed to not be able to be edited to hold people to their word during auctions (which Mprep admittedly did not do and now he's using his global mod privileges to edit his auction! LOL)

Go make a real living rather than whoring out your global mod account and abusing your power to cover up your fuck ups..

I wouldn't consider bidding or creating an auction as drafting up or signing a contract, especially since no deposit was sent in. Loss of opportunity? I could see that. Was said opportunity guaranteed in the first place? No, not really, not even per the rules. Even if we were to entertain the idea that it is a contract (it isn't), as per it's rules, I'm free to reject any bid or ad at any point in time for any reason. Even with that aside, as per the footer of my auction's OP, I reserve the right to accept custom offers that circumvent the auction entirely (though I perhaps should state this more explicitly next time).

The issue with this would be that due to the unforeseen delay, after the user provided payment, he'd only be able to place his ad on around the 2nd of April rather than on the intended 20th of Match. I admit that that one's on me - was in a bit of panicked state when I started up the auction, due to issues with previous auction's bidders. Going to have to work on the process of handling sig ad auction so it wouldn't happen again.

It seems that extending the auction is damaging to thewealthapostle (assuming his bid is valid, if not, then it is damaging to irfan_pak10) as doing so will potentially require him to pay a higher bid, or end up not getting to buy mprep's signature space at all.

One should assume that the other bidders would react favorably to extending the auction because it allows them to potentially buy something they would not otherwise be able to purchase.

I would generally view extending the end time of an auction as backing out of a contract, provided of course the terms of the auction do not affirmatively allow this under the circumstances.

If thewealthapostle agreed to the extension (perhaps because he would like additional time to come up with the funds to pay his bid), then I do not see an issue.

The easy solution is to close the auction, collect payment within 48 hours, put up the new advertisement once the current contract expires, and to keep the current end date in mind when subsequently auctioning off your signature space.

Split the thread since this is getting really off-topic. Posted a redirection note in the auction thread, in case anyone was interested in the discussion.

---

Right back at ya. Your impulsive, rash and inconsiderate nature is what earned you a Trust exclusion spot on my list after all. Hard to trust feedback coming from someone without any restraint and respect of the rules (ironic, huh?).

Says the guy who brigaded to kick me out since I handled user reports on your ad spam and ref spam. Situations' change and since you're obsessed with technicalities, considering that the rules outline that I can reject any bid, I could selectively reject bids and reach a similar effect to the extension.

Interesting definition of "help". When you're part of a community, helping yourself is in part helping the community I guess.

Thanks.

Bringing up the eternal debate between noble ref spam and whorish sig ads I see. I publicly disclose that the content in my sig is an advertisement (on both sides of the signature). My ad doesn't break the rules and users are free to disable signatures to hide all sigs including mine or use grue's sig ad blocker userscript. Your ref spam is against the rules and cannot be avoided without outright ignoring all the stuff you post and any user who quotes your content.

I'd rather promote services in the proper altcoin thread my affiliate link "maybe" belong in than whore out my Global Mod signature space.

Although, in hindsight, I believe you did the right thing by removing the link.  I didn't know affiliate stuff wasn't allowed in self-modded threads.

The way I saw it... a big reason why Bitcoin was successful was the number of ponzis here on Bitcointalk early on.  At least the service I was linking was honest about what they are doing.

It is very possible to set up a "for sure" paying and "fair" CLAM ponzi using the Proof of Stake system... I guess I try to think the best of people until they prove me different.

Personally attacking me when you are the one fucking up... classy dude.     I've always thought you shouldn't be a mod because you strike me as a "bad" person.

I'm not here to preach ethics at you anyways.  You're just a greedy fuck that doesn't stick to their word obviously and you don't see anything wrong with that .

Regardless of what links I've posted attempting to help my community... I at least do what I say I'm going to do (or try my hardest.)  I definitely wouldn't go against my word and jerk people around on their plans set up around my rules.

Good luck with your "maybe it will end in a few weeks" auction.