TOPIC: Guiding Principles for Auction Queue List?

Justice wrote: 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.

Man do I love this post.

I believe most here have very good intentions. I don't think anyone in this thread believes that they are proposing a system that will hurt others or opposing a system that they believe will help others. But Justice's post here I think hits the nail on the head. You can make rules for yourself, and talk with others to get their opinions and hopefully work with them.

BUT,

This game and the forum belongs to TD. Unless they come up with some rules concerning how people try to auction items, then you're simply trying to enforce rules on others where I don't believe you have any right to do so.

I’ll be honest, I don’t care for the “current auction” and would love someone to put up one with rules and items I’m in favor of.

Also, modules? No modules it looks like so no modules?

Arnold wrote:

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'.

Thanks. I understand and respect that view, which is one reason I won't be trying to move forward with the queue thing.

macxdmg wrote: I’ll be honest, I don’t care for the “current auction” and would love someone to put up one with rules and items I’m in favor of.

Also, modules? No modules it looks like so no modules?

Yeah, it looks like modules aren't being offered on the TD store page, so people are assuming that they aren't happening this year.

Not trying to imply negative motives to anyone but a thread like this sounds to me at least like some people are trying mainstream the ideas needed to corner a market and that doesn't really sit right...

Anyway I have nothing positive to contribute so I'll be going now.

Picc wrote: Not trying to imply negative motives to anyone but a thread like this sounds to me at least like some people are trying mainstream the ideas needed to corner a market and that doesn't really sit right...

Anyway I have nothing positive to contribute so I'll be going now.

It really never had anything to do with that, it was about transparency and sharing the auction opportunities. The potential negative effects and appearances are the main reasons the idea has been effectively quashed within a day of it being brought up.

I do understand why it could read that way, which is why I'm quick to defend those who proposed the idea.

From what I could see, nobody was trying to take advantage in any way.

Picc wrote: Not trying to imply negative motives to anyone but a thread like this sounds to me at least like some people are trying mainstream the ideas needed to corner a market and that doesn't really sit right...

Anyway I have nothing positive to contribute so I'll be going now.

Funnily enough, how a lot of it STARTED was kind of the opposite...it was a handful of people wanting to organize what they were going to do anyway, which is try to not step on top of one another on auctions (which a lot of people tend to try to do anyway, not just this year) and make it more transparent (instead of 5 people messaging each auction runner and trying to coordinate if/when they're going to launch theirs next) ....then stuff got really twisted really fast.

Dergidan wrote:

Picc wrote: Not trying to imply negative motives to anyone but a thread like this sounds to me at least like some people are trying mainstream the ideas needed to corner a market and that doesn't really sit right...

Anyway I have nothing positive to contribute so I'll be going now.

It really never had anything to do with that, it was about transparency and sharing the auction opportunities. The potential negative effects and appearances are the main reasons the idea has been effectively quashed within a day of it being brought up.

I do understand why it could read that way, which is why I'm quick to defend those who proposed the idea.

From what I could see, nobody was trying to take advantage in any way.

I would agree that there is no shenanigans in the initial ask. As one who watched the conversation develop on discord, individuals wanted to be cordial and respectful to the process, but inquired if it would be beneficial for coordination to occur. A great thing with open communication is that many on the forum including myself voiced our opinions or concerns regarding guidelines / structure being placed on auctions.

Seriously, I (personally) appreciate the conversation being brought up and discussed. (Even if there was a bit of a dogpile.) No negative motivations attributed.

Lequinian wrote: .
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.

Appreciate your input. Hope the clarification of what I was trying to get at helped. In the example, not saying Person Y is bad at all. In the example, I think they're totally blameless. How do they know who else is out there waiting? How long those people have been waiting, etc?

I was also not intending to say that the line should start with the folks who talked to me. While I see how my post could be read that way, I just listed them in the order they did that, but left completely unresolved how a queue would be formed. I didn't want to go there unless the community really liked the idea.

For me, personally, an auction is a net loss. If I want to make money, I'm better off devoting the time to my real job. I have zero interest in "cornering the market" on auctions. Anyone somehow thinking this idea was motivated by personal financial gain is really, really, off base. Honestly, I'm not sure if I'll even run another auction after the one I'm doing now. The level of personal accusations associated with this thread has not been pleasant.

I understand and appreciate that a lot of folks don't like this idea, and that's fine. Not every one of my ideas is going to be universally loved, although I'm happy the "no pins option" is going strong with VTD. I do hope however that folks will take the suggestion in the spirit it was made: of trying to improve the community we have.

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.

Why are you equating running concurrent auctions as people "fighting"? I've never considered myself to be in an adversarial position with other auctioneers running at the same time as ones I've run.

Why do you think multiple concurrent auctions, something that has been happening routinely for years, is a bad thing?

How is "only level 4 or higher players can run auctions, and only after they make their way to the front of a queue, and by they way there are already several people in line" more equitable than "anyone can run an auction whenever they want"?

Have you had a bad experience as a buyer due to concurrent auctions?

This whole thing is so bizarre.

In the last 90 days alone these following auctions have run concurrently, and without public controversy or complaint:

~September 15th - September 19th truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=584&id=251827#384918
~September 15th - September 16th truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=584&id=251801&start=0
~September 17th - September 21st truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=584&id=251843&start=0
~September 21st - September 28th truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=584&id=251865
(It's a little hard for me to get exact dates due to the forums way of aging threads with notices like "One month and 3 weeks ago").

In fact, had there been a limit of 1 auction at a time, buyers clearly would have been underserved, perhaps missing out on chances to get tokens before the 2019 PYPs became unavailable.

No one has presented any convincing evidence that concurrent auctions are bad for buyers, True Dungeon, or the community.

Daniel White wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Especially if there had been several years of unproblematic auctions without these norms.

Not everyone would characterize last year's auctions, of which you ran the lion's share (and ran very well, I'd say), as "unproblematic." No dispute that you're an excellent auctioneer, but it does kind of shut out other folks when one person is running so many of the auctions. I do appreciate, though, that you've stepped back a bit this year and given other folks a chance to step up. Thanks for doing that.

No one was shut out.

Anyone could have run an auction, and in fact, many people did.

During the 2020 preorder period: Kakitahan, Azzy, Matt Goodman, Braxton, edwin, Cliff, Jpotter, and myself all ran auctions, many of them concurrently.

Let's be clear on which of us may be shutting people out of running auctions:

• I am advocating anyone should be able to run auctions at any time.
• You are advocating limits and restrictions on who can run auctions and when.

Please, anyone: if you want to run an auction, just do it! Nothing is stopping you - I believe you can do this!