Alright. I think it's time to address the key
facts , and certain things which could of been misinterpreted. It's incredibly difficult to keep up with all the information which has been presented, and remembering it all when presenting an argument. I'm going to try my best to address the issues, and my personal opinion about the facts, and accusations. I'm not a lawyer, and it seems that the self bidding is a somewhat complex issue. So let's try, and look at this diplomatically instead of claiming abuse.
First of all let's address the topic subject; "Trust abuse"
Vod left you the feedback of: "Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical. Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter." Ref:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/auction-casascius-2013-brass-half-ms-64-starts-05-btc-fast-1399824So let's dissect this:
"Scammed" this is actually subjective. I've already voiced my concerns about the practice of auctioneers bidding on their own auctions, however I'm willing to concede that in some auctions this is an accepted practice. Although, having said that it's normally specified in the original terms that the auctioneer can bid themselves. Let's make this clear that this isn't a requirement in some jurisdictions, but more of a courtesy.
This is all depending on the country/state you live in. In some countries, and US states it's prohibited to self bid, unless disclosed prior to the auction. So, depending on how you view this it's very difficult to know which laws/rules to follow when the forum is home to such a diverse amount of people with various different nationalities, and cultures. There's no one rule that we could possibly follow so it's probably better to follow your own personal ethics. I do believe Vod has likely followed his own ethics when leaving the feedback that he left.
In short. I personally would be willing to say that you haven't scammed anyone per say. TheNewAnon135246 was the one that maybe should have won the auction, and may feel that he was scammed, but they have been largely nonvocal to my knowledge on this whole thing. (possibly because it's since been sold to them)
Vod then goes on about it being "unethical", and that you do not believe it to be so. Well, let's just pinpoint he is saying "unethical", and not illegal. Therefore, this is subjective, and leaves a lot to be interpreted by the individual leaving the feedback.
Now, Vod could potentially back up this claim if he wanted (he doesn't really have to due to it being subjective) in saying that the self bid was made somewhat close to the end of the auction. Possibly in an attempt to: 1. Prolong the auction in attempt for higher bids 2. Not sell at the going price.
These two points could be argued further, because of your admittance that you should have set a reserve price or higher starting price.
Okay, so looking at the personal messages exchanged between the two of you I'm finding it very difficult to understand from a external point of view, and therefore can't come up with a logical, and accurate opinion. There's one thing looking at messages, and another actually understanding them. None of us on the outside were there at the time, and therefore have no idea of the factors which may have played a part in the exchange e.g stress, tension, past dealings (you've previously claimed you ran into problems with Vod prior to this). What it looks like to me is that both of you may have been playing tactical tennis at first, and hoping the issue would resolve itself, but none of you were willing to make the first move. Maybe, Vod did by reducing it to a neutral, but you didn't think that was enough due to the word "scammer" in the rating. I'm not sure about this, and it's more of an assumption than anything else.
I know you tried to summarize the messages sent in one of your posts, but the thing is you've also included your personal opinions/explanations which lead to bias opinions being formulated.
If we were to look at the claim of "not factual" then the only argument I see is that the word "scammed" might be subjective, because you might get off on a technicality that self bidding is allowed in certain jurisdictions.
My personal view point was made clear in one of my previous posts in another topic that I personally don't consider self bidding ethical if it's not clearly disclosed prior to the auction start. I also made the point that I wouldn't of had too much of an issue if someone wasn't already winning the auction, and quite close to winning it. I wasn't actually aware that self bidding was common practice when I made my reply a few weeks back.
I've since looked into it, but the consensus is that it should be disclosed publicly. Not legally, but as a ethical stand point I would agree. I expect you are willing to disclose this in the future, because you've repeatedly said that you acknowledge that it's generally not accepted, and you willing to disclose reserve prices etc.
However, you did suggest here that the coin was sold to the highest bidder:
What ended up happening with that coin? Did you sell it to TheNewAnon? Or did you end up not selling it at all?
Sold to the highest bidder.
I'm not sure if you mean the actual high bidder which was you or TheNewAnon. However, even if it was sold to TheNewAnon this didn't seem to be your initial intention. I say this because you were accepting offers for the coin after the auction had ended. Unfortunately, I can't quote this effectively due to it being in a locked topic. However, anyone can read through the replies to verify this. At this time the coin wasn't sold per your own words, and that you were accepting offers in PM.
Let's try to wrap this up as this is a headache to try, and digest and figure out what is factual, and what is fiction. Generally, speaking this isn't a problem legally, or anything like that. It's more of the personal viewpoint of the person leaving the trust. I would back up anyone that says self bidding without a disclosure is unethical. However, I'm prepared to admit that this is rather subjective, and could be easily be interpreted the other way.
However, at the end of the day it's up to the person leaving the feedback, and I personally don't believe Vod is abusing his power. Maybe, his feedback could be worded differently considering the technicalities mentioned earlier,but in all honesty This has escalated into a personal problem between the two of you.
My personal view point is I don't consider what you did ethical. I think I've made that more than clear. However, I concede that you may have an argument that self bidding is an accepted practice. Although, this doesn't translate into being ethical. In cases like this I would personally consider past history, and attitude of the issue.
You have a good history in general, and would of probably been considered trustworthy before all of this. Your attitude is harder to determine. It's hard to look at the feedback you left on Vod, and consider whether it was retaliatory or not. You also seem to push the ideas that self bidding is legal, and is used in a wide variety of auctions. You've also conceded yourself that in future auctions you shall take on board this learning experience, and alter them by including a reserve price etc.
