TOPIC: Guiding Principles for Auction Queue List?

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Dergidan wrote: It seems like we're settling back on the status quo system which seems to basically boil down to Wheaton's Law.

Based on the conversation so far, I'll chat with Azzy, Raly, and Kermitking about when I'll start my listing. I don't plan to run another during preorders if my first is successfully funded, and I may or may not go fixed-price. I need to do some math.

I have an alternative proposal:

Why don't Azzy, Raly, Kermitking, and yourself all start and auction today - and see what happens?

You might be pleasantly surprised.

And, if it goes badly, you'll have generated some decent evidence for your hypothesis that concurrent auctions are bad.

Why not fight against each other and maybe find you all succeed, and if you fail then that sucks and is bad for all of you. Screw being nice to each other and keeping things equitable.

That's a great stance to have. Especially as another auction runner who stands to profit at other auction runners failing and getting disheartened.

Might want to reconsider your stance on this situation.

Daniel White wrote: During my ongoing auction, there have been a number of folks who have approached me about running the next auction (in order, Azzy, Ralykam, KermitKing, Dergidan). There are probably more folks out there who want to run one who are just lurking right now, too.

I see this thread has spawned lots of speculation/disagreement about other things which may or may not actually be problems, but I also see one very specific pragmatic challenge: auctioneers who want to coordinate with each other don't currently have a particularly easy way to identify each other.

That specific challenge could be solved in a very lightweight fashion by a thread which says "post here if you're considering running an auction soon and would like to coordinate with other people who are considering running an auction soon". No obligation if you don't feel like it, but it's there if you do feel like it. Hopefully non-controversial?

FWIW: I have never run an auction, but if I ever decide to, I would personally be glad of the existence of such a hypothetical thread.

Daniel White wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Whereas I think it would be "a shame" if a group of forumites, absent any convincing argument or evidence that a set of proposed norms around auctions would benefit buyers, True Dungeon, or the community, began to characterize other forumites who happen to disagree with them as being discourteous, inconsiderate sandbaggers who are "burning" other people.

Please be nice. I did not say those things about you or other people who disagree with me. I have been very polite and don't feel I deserve what you said.

Thanks,

Dan

Daniel White wrote: My hope is that people like Ral and Derg don't get sandbagged by some third party because they're being courteous to me or Azzy, even without a formal queue. If folks start behaving that way because of their "freedom to run an auction whenever," that'd be a real shame. I don't really want to see people get burned because they're being courteous and considerate.

The comment immediately above makes it sound like folks who coordinate are courteous and considerate, whilst people who have dissenting MOs would be categorically not courteous and not considerate. Clearly that's not what you meant to imply, but the comment did come across that way to me.

While I'm not a blind champion of the free market, I also don't care for the oligopoly that is being proposed.

I have always wanted each auctioneer to have success, so have delayed starting until it was virtually certain the prior would fund.

Recently the number of auctioneers or potential auctioneers has increased, and I believe it is good form to at least ask before starting. I neglected to do this earlier this year, resulting in me postponing my auction for awhile, despite it being a different "style"

Anyone can run an auction at any time. The great thing about this tight knit community is that we care about one another, how they feel about certain things, etc.

It is speculation that 2 concurrent auctions would cannibalize one another. That said, if we wanted to test this, 4 at once is probably the way to go.

One issue that I see is that of retracting bids. If a bidder were to bid on however many of a given item, then see the other auction is about to fund with a lower price, they could retract their bid, and the 2nd auctioneer might be stuck, or have a lot of complicated walking back to do.

Trying to make things better for everyone is something that happens a LOT around here, and I'm happy for it.

Arnold wrote:

Daniel White wrote: My hope is that people like Ral and Derg don't get sandbagged by some third party because they're being courteous to me or Azzy, even without a formal queue. If folks start behaving that way because of their "freedom to run an auction whenever," that'd be a real shame. I don't really want to see people get burned because they're being courteous and considerate.

The comment immediately above makes it sound like folks who coordinate are courteous and considerate, whilst people who have dissenting MOs would be categorically not courteous and not considerate. Clearly that's not what you meant to imply, but the comment did come across that way to me.

While I'm not a blind champion of the free market, I also don't care for the oligopoly that is being proposed.

The issue I was trying to address is this: Person X is waiting to run an auction out of some combination of perceived-self interest and goodwill to the current auctioneer. Person Y goes ahead and starts an auction without waiting. Person X may not feel very good about their decision anymore, is likely to feel burned by the experience, and may feel that person Y has sandbagged them. I don't want someone to end up feeling hurt because they were being (or trying to be) nice.

Hopefully, that puts what I was trying to express in a bit more careful way. I wasn't trying to insult anyone who just doesn't believe that concurrent auctions are a bad thing, or who, like you, may feel constricted by the additional structure. I hope that helps clarify the concern.

I do not understand why you feel like a queue creates an "oligopoly." To my mind, if anything, the proposed queue would increase accessibility, and broaden the number of folks able to get involved.

Who would want to participate in an auction where retracting a bid is allowable? This causes unnecessary run-ups of one item in order to keep the other items low.

The retraction also creates a situation where if someone were outbid by another for PYP and they then go to another source just to find the next day that their bid is back on the top now causes someone to have a potentially awkward situation of themselves retracting because they took another path as a result of being outbid.

I never knew anyone allowed bid retraction. Is that a thing and just something I missed?

It's not really "allowed" but it happens from time to time as there's no way to "force" someone to honor their bid.

Daniel White wrote:

Arnold wrote:

Daniel White wrote: My hope is that people like Ral and Derg don't get sandbagged by some third party because they're being courteous to me or Azzy, even without a formal queue. If folks start behaving that way because of their "freedom to run an auction whenever," that'd be a real shame. I don't really want to see people get burned because they're being courteous and considerate.

The comment immediately above makes it sound like folks who coordinate are courteous and considerate, whilst people who have dissenting MOs would be categorically not courteous and not considerate. Clearly that's not what you meant to imply, but the comment did come across that way to me.

While I'm not a blind champion of the free market, I also don't care for the oligopoly that is being proposed.

The issue I was trying to address is this: Person X is waiting to run an auction out of some combination of perceived-self interest and goodwill to the current auctioneer. Person Y goes ahead and starts an auction without waiting. Person X may not feel very good about their decision anymore, is likely to feel burned by the experience, and may feel that person Y has sandbagged them. I don't want someone to end up feeling hurt because they were being (or trying to be) nice.

Hopefully, that puts what I was trying to express in a bit more careful way. I wasn't trying to insult anyone who just doesn't believe that concurrent auctions are a bad thing, or who, like you, may feel constricted by the additional structure. I hope that helps clarify the concern.

I do not understand why you feel like a queue creates an "oligopoly." To my mind, if anything, the proposed queue would increase accessibility, and broaden the number of folks able to get involved.

I actually had a post ready to go very much like Matt's, but ran in to some chores that prevented sending.

Daniel - your previous post came off like a "guilt trip" something akin to "anyone that doesn't abide is bad". Maybe not how you meant it, but even your clarification has loaded terms ("goodwill" for X "burned" by Y's "sandbagging"). And ask yourself, what if Person Y has been waiting themselves... are they still bad?

Oligopoly - why does the line start with the 4 people who talked with you? Especially when several have already run auctions in the last 6 months.

I'll put this out there - I'd hoped to run an auction this season. I'm not sure that makes sense anymore if several people are coordinating (or loaded term "colluding" ).

(And Daniel - really not a personal attack, I just really don't like this idea.)

Another vote here for open auction creation. I prefer one person's auctions over others, so i don't understand why i would need to wait until it was their "turn".

Also, while I'm certain it would not be the intent in the beginning, I think eventually there will be a group that will want one person to 'coordinate' this queue of auctions. For that reason, I'm against a prescribed order of who gets to run an auction and when.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Dergidan wrote: It seems like we're settling back on the status quo system which seems to basically boil down to Wheaton's Law.

Based on the conversation so far, I'll chat with Azzy, Raly, and Kermitking about when I'll start my listing. I don't plan to run another during preorders if my first is successfully funded, and I may or may not go fixed-price. I need to do some math.

I have an alternative proposal:

Why don't Azzy, Raly, Kermitking, and yourself all start and auction today - and see what happens?

You might be pleasantly surprised.

And, if it goes badly, you'll have generated some decent evidence for your hypothesis that concurrent auctions are bad.

Why not fight against each other and maybe find you all succeed, and if you fail then that sucks and is bad for all of you. Screw being nice to each other and keeping things equitable.

That's a great stance to have. Especially as another auction runner who stands to profit at other auction runners failing and getting disheartened.

Might want to reconsider your stance on this situation.

Nobody's provided a problem that needs this solution other than:
a) running concurrent auctions is bad for ... reasons.
b) people might get hurt feelings for getting "jumped in the line" for running auctions.

Matt's answer is prove a) in reality not theoretical. I for one agree with Matt - regardless of whether he has / is / will running an auction.

And attributing alterative motives not in evidence is a really crappy way to argue.

Quotations for emphasis not douchebaggery.

“I” will choose to be courteous to those wishing to do an auction if I wanted to run one as well.

“I” may and will probably wait till there would be an opening or communicate like it has been proposed in a earlier post to see who all wants to do an auction.

“I” will choose to support an auction that suits my needs, times, prices, or individuals. Not based on who is in “the” que at a certain time.

(FYI I often support new people’s auctions or ones that just need a lil push to be successful)


What I would not do is enforce “you” The community to conform to my system or thoughts. I hope the same would be in return. In my limited time over the last few years I have seen little to no issue with people being cordial. There’s enough support to go around. Maybe not at the peak opportunity.

I’m not a fan of let’s get in a line because that just becomes a race to be first.

I agree this may be a solution to a problem that may not be there. I’m all about communication and understandings but I stop at obligation.

Daniel White wrote: I do not understand why you feel like a queue creates an "oligopoly." To my mind, if anything, the proposed queue would increase accessibility, and broaden the number of folks able to get involved.

I simply don't like the queue system you're proposing because it unofficially put restrictions on what industrious potential-auctioneers can/would do and limits my choices as a buyer to whomever has the current 'dibs'.

Thomavan wrote: I prefer one person's auctions over others, so i don't understand why i would need to wait until it was their "turn".

I agree with this 100%

Thomavan wrote: Also, while I'm certain it would not be the intent in the beginning, I think eventually there will be a group that will want one person to 'coordinate' this queue of auctions. For that reason, I'm against a prescribed order of who gets to run an auction and when.

Thomavan's second point is also valid. Who becomes the gatekeeper for this proposed system? If TPTB wanted to set it up, I'd be fine with it. But in the absence of anything official, nobody in the community should be trying to set themselves up as an authority over how others try to sell their tokens and auction services.