[X] My Assistant

^^
Well, technically you were outbid, it's just that the system immediately place another bid on your behalf to help you stay on top. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

I'm little confused,question:
first A set a max proxybid @100m
then B bid 80m
again B bid 90m,after a while B edited the reply.
Now A's current proxybid should be ?

I'm little confused,question:
first A set a max proxybid @100m
then B bid 80m
again B bid 90m,after a while B edited the reply.
Now A's current proxybid should be ?

if you're speaking about a particular case, well... latanium already said what there was to say.

if you're speaking on a general base, my guess is the new one - since it somehow supports A as well. auctioneer's call, though.

This post has been edited by Scremaz: Sep 22 2017, 12:09

if you're speaking about a particular case, well... latanium already said what there was to say.

if you're speaking on a general base, my guess is the new one - since it somehow supports A as well. auctioneer's call, though.

I just want to know how proxybid works (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

The way it's set up to work is, if a post is edited, it's as if it was never made, so all effects it might have had on the bid chain (including on proxy bids) disappear. The only exception is that a line is added to the edit log.

So

first A set a max proxybid @100m
then B bid 80m
again B bid 90m,after a while B edited the reply.

=>

first A set a max proxybid @100m
then B bid 80m

=> A is shown as winning at a bid of 80m + minimum bid increment

Also, I think I fixed the proxy bid notify false alarm mentioned above.

This post has been edited by Superlatanium: Sep 22 2017, 12:26

The way it's set up to work is, if a post is edited, it's as if it was never made, so all effects it might have had on the bid chain (including on proxy bids) disappear. The only exception is that a line is added to the edit log.

So
=>=> A is shown as winning at a bid of 80m + minimum bid increment

Also, I think I fixed the proxy bid notify false alarm mentioned above.

It has a loophole.
It can be misused to intentionally increase bid value of auto bid.
Let me explain
Below is a hypothetical case. I am taking blackjac name as an example.
Suppose A is selling a equipment in auctions.
1st bid was 10m
Then Blackjac autobid 300m on it.
So now bid is 10.1 in favor of Blackjac.
Now no other person wanted to bid more then 10m for that equipment.

Then A colluded with B to increase bid value.to extract maximum amount from blackjac.
B has no intention of buying. He just wants to increase bid value.
But B don't know what Blackjac might have set max value.
So,B bidded 20 m .
B got auto outbidded.
Then B bidded 100 m
Then 200m
Then 290m
Till now B got out bidded
Now when B bid 310m he found that black jack has limit less than it.
So he edit his bid.
His bid get cancelled.
Now Blackjac has to pay 290m for that equipment.
.
This would be unfair to blackjac.
And A got more money through unfair means.

(This was just a hypothetical case. I don't want to offend anyone.
I just take names for easy understanding)

So this is a loophole.
Which can be used to increase the bidding of equipments.

I am again saying I am not accusing anyone.
I am just stating a loophole.
Thanks
(IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by ALL_MIGHT: Sep 22 2017, 13:00

Yeah, that's exactly why I coded in an edit log, and why post edits to disguise the reveal of a proxy bid are against the rules.

Yeah, that's exactly why I coded in an edit log, and why post edits to disguise the reveal of a proxy bid are against the rules.

Now that the issue of intentional price raising has finally come up, maybe its time to implement some real deterrents to it.

My suggestion would be to request some kind of collateral/deposit to at least weed out the people who clearly do not have enough money but yet bid intentionally to raise the price. Eg Assume the bid for an item is 100m. In order to outbid, you'd have to bid 100.3m. Given a deposit requirement of 80%, you'd have to put 80.24m in escrow (or sth of similar value). This should prevent a portion of intentional price rigging at least for high cost items.

My concern is: how to be sure that the one who makes the price go up actually had the money?

thanks, super.

and sorry became a troller about that.

because it happened a bit similar last time.

Guess this isn't resolved after all. Amiya does not like what happened and thinks (1) BJ shouldn't have bid and then edit the post, invalidating it but prompting a bid response (not allowed per auction rules), and (2) morineko should have shown intention to bid earlier, rather than protest after the fact about a counterfactual and then attempt to bid.

I don't know if morineko was serious about bidding 300m+. Amiya is suggesting a do-over; even if he will still win the item over BJ, we need to have a final price that everyone agrees on.

I agree, I think this sounds like the fairest way to come to an agreement on it, what do others think? morineko, do you actually want to participate or were you just screwing around?

(I will PM this post link to everyone involved)

Can we also say that sniping at the last second is a disrispectful behaviour and literally makes this whole equipments the most cringeworthy equipment ever auctioned.

No idea if rules could help in that though (personally I would make losing bids not extend the time so that proxy bids cannot be sniped at the last second because fuck sniping).

Everyone look at this may be you can see something....





come up and fight me
さァ・・・掛け狂いましょう？

Edited Pic　for Sapo84

This post has been edited by Amiya: Sep 24 2017, 03:49

ignored?

how about making another exception?

Hea01 320m

so the quote above made the bid invalid itself.
Hea01 330m

Hea01 330m
even not a real one ... lol

I think there are 3 possible outcomes:
1) 309M stands
2) everyone agrees on the fact that no-one would have bid more than 280M so 280M stands
3) auction restarts with 280M as start to see if anyone else was interested and would have put a bid

I think 1) and 3) are completely fair, 2) is 99.999% fair but it's the most forgiving options (blackjac probably didn't want to deceive anyone with the edit and WM just didn't see the edit).

It doesn't change anything for me so good luck (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

I think there are 3 possible outcomes:
1) 309M stands
2) everyone agrees on the fact that no-one would have bid more than 280M so 280M stands
3) auction restarts with 280M as start to see if anyone else was interested and would have put a bid

I think 1) and 3) are completely fair, 2) is 99.999% fair but it's the most forgiving options (blackjac probably didn't want to deceive anyone with the edit and WM just didn't see the edit).

It doesn't change anything for me so good luck (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

raising bid all by oneself is valid or not?

raising bid all by oneself is valid or not?

There is no rule against it, but it's obvious in that case that the bid was raised while thinking that blackjac's one was valid.
It's a bit unforgiving to punish such an error.
And the problem lies in the fact that no solution is 100% perfect.

This post has been edited by Sapo84: Sep 24 2017, 05:17

well, ok, restart it then.

if the exception accepted, it means others have to bid at least 318.27m, because 309m was a valid bid, right?
but in fact it would roll back to 280m in the end.
so it means the actual minimum bid increment at the moment was 318.27m-280m = 38.27m = +13.67%
nice and free advantage, isn't it? Was this increment written on the rule because it works?

if the exception accepted, it means others have to bid at least 318.27m, because 309m was a valid bid, right?
but in fact it would roll back to 280m in the end.
so it means the actual minimum bid increment at the moment was 318.27m-280m = 38.27m = +13.67%
nice and free advantage, isn't it? Was this increment written on the rule because it works?

If it restarts from 280M the correct number is 300001k (next valid bid 309001k which is higher than 309M).
So 200001k increment (7.14%).

It's even lower than normal Kedama's increment (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

This post has been edited by Sapo84: Sep 24 2017, 05:36

There is no rule against it, but it's obvious in that case that the bid was raised while thinking that blackjac's one was valid.
It's a bit unforgiving to punish such an error.
And the problem lies in the fact that no solution is 100% perfect.

Should put it in rules,as invalid,in that way we won't face this problem again. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)