I share BC's concern for the integrity of the auction process when persons have multiple hats and how to segregate their roles, interests and access to information depending on which hat they happen to be wearing.

Comments please?

[This message has been edited by codebuster (edited 11-06-98).]
 

I just wanted to make a point about something that might be missed. Neomax's involvement as a seller and bidder in Club99 auctions was discussed on the Club99 board before we ran th auctions..I didn't think either you or BC were aware of this. So, I thought I would point it out.

Crystal

 

You haven't seen me enraged either! Not even SneakyDave has been able to do that to me. If you don't believe me ask qaboardwidow about what she calls my "Nazi" look. Heheh.

Thanks for pointing that some aspects of my concern were discussed on the Club99 board.

I'd like to see Pat's response here for the permanent record and also give folks the opportunity to discuss this topic in detail and satisfy themselves on the question.

I personally don't have a problem with Pat bidding on auctions (either mine or others). My estimation of Pat is that he conducts himself with the highest integrity.

My concern though is that there are potentially other online auction employees that may be in a position to take advantage of or misuse information they have access to as employees.

This is what I want to hear Pat's views on and anyone else who feels a concern about the possible abuse of "inside" knowledge.
 

Pat has been very open about the fact that he buys/sells on AU. He has not hidden himself behind a pseudonym. He has not tried to obscure his identity. He has not tried to hide the fact that he does this.

 

First it is important that those who run the auctions use the auctions. You need only see the difference between the bid page we had just after our change-over to the new design and its display now to understand what happens when "ergonomic experts," not auction bidders, control the look of the bid page:-)

Just as on eBay, AU does not prohibit our staffers from buying or selling although good sense rules.

I should say here that I do not have a backoffice connection to see confidenial bid info at this time. I have never had write access and only two individuals in the company do. I have in the past had read-only when I was writing statistical stories but I do not at this moment nor have I had this access for four or five months. I could get it with a phone call but I don't need it and I don't have the time, so why have it.

But even if I had a backoffice connect, I would follow eBay rules. Indeed, eBay has a set of formal rules that set the limits that staffer's must adhere to or face reprimand.

Certainly, those of us on AU are as aware of the problems that our actions could cause. The fact that our database is complete and archived for future search certainly means that we're even more circumspect on that issue. We could be "found-out" for indescretions that occurred six months ago:-)

I will say that we should formally adopt the rule that no one with access to our database be allowed to bid on a reserve auction item.

Indeed, the only other prohibition against eBay staffer's buying is that they may not bid within the last 24 hours of an auction.

Obviously eBay has a problem with snipe bidders... an issue we avoid by having our "going, going gone" auction ending format that extends the auction by five minutes from the last bid.

Beyond that we are only to do what we say. If we buy something, we better pay for it. If we sell something, we better describe it properly and deliver what we describe.

If you looked at the reason behind eBay, you'd know that staff shouldn't buy is absurd. As I understand it, Pierre created this site originally because he wanted a place for his significant other to buy and sell Pez dispensers. Why create a site, if the rule was that once the site was created, you couldn't use it?

Regarding the use of user id's.

I have the [email protected] id and I do not use it to buy or bid, period.

I use the user id Neomax@waganet -- my primary email address BTW -- as my primary selling ID on AU. I used this ID until very recently on eBay as well. (I transferred the ID to my wife's account so that she would benefit from the accumulated feedback as I really have no intention of selling on eBay. If need be, I will buy on eBay using her account.)

After making that change on eBay, I did see that I was vulnerable to "imitation" on eBay's QnA board and registered defensively the user ID neomax using the secondary email address of [email protected] (so as not to confuse or conflict with the prior use of [email protected]).

I will admit that I have a couple of other user id's on AU that I've asked to have purged from the AU database. They were obtained during testing of the system at various times and are not used at all. The only reason I know I still have them is that I receive multiple copies of our newsletter:-)

I might add that I have purchased bid$afe for my neomax@waganet account on AU. My wife's trading account is also registered as a bid$afe account.

My wife is atypically silent at present as I'm still trying to get my office set up. It will house a couple of computers that at present are sitting idle. Right now, she's only got computer time when I'm sleeping:-)

Certainly it would be devestating to me personally if I did not follow the highest ethical standards in my bidding, buying and selling.

But then I've always done so. I can recall last year a purchase I made on eBay. IT was a Miro video display card that was designed to work with the Miro DC30+ video editing system I was building. The card had a retail value of $150 but my winning bid (not my top bid) was $35. I went ahead and sent the fellow the $60 I'd bid on the item asking only that he not charge me for shipping in return. What can I say, it was Christmas time:-)

Finally, in conclusion, all I can say is that the database of users -- and we don't use the cutsy sunglasses and id's of our major competitor -- is searchable by anyone who can construct not only the items we are currently bidding upon but also the one's that we have bid upon.

We're intolerant toward shillers, scammers and scum and I know that we would be just as intolerant of staffer's who abuse our system or any other online auction system for that matter.

neomax

Is there any provision for disclosing this fact to other buyers in those auctions? It seems to me if the buyers are okay with it, there's no problem. In 3D auctions, you often see the same bidders again and again. Sometimes workers from one auction house will go bid in another auction house too.

People get less upset when everything's disclosed up front.

As I said earlier in this thread, my concern was not about you personally and never has been.

As a victim of malicious eBayers who reported my feedback to my wife for her role in assisting me in an auction that I took no personal gain from and in which she was a legitimate bidder, I can attest to the necessity for Caesar's wife being above suspicion.

I'm happy that you took the time to reply and put yourself on record and I would invite you to make comments about the eBay Employee Rules in the topic that I have posted on The eBay Outlook.
 

This feature certainly makes it more difficult for shillers to operate. And the fact that AU does not trash auction information after 30 days they way eBay does also gives me a greater confidence in AU as opposed to eBay.
 

You wrote: "It does seem a bit iffy, having employees with access to exclusive information bidding against competing buyers who do not have such information. Is there any indication that anybody's abusing this inside access?"

No. And consider this as well, Edfan. The display of the pages with description info etc. is complete and makes sense when viewed as a web page. The actual information is contained in several database tables and is not "user friendly" in appearance which means that no one from an auction is going to be looking at the database as a normal act, unless they are the techy's searching for what caused a glitch. Only a very few folks on staff even have read access.

eBay's rules make sense on this, though. Those rules prohibit those who do have read access from bidding on reserve auctions.

The key and only secret information available to the person with database access is the reserve amount.

Now remember that our software tells everyone when the current bid is within 15 percent of the reserve.

Still, the "insider" who would be able to find out the precise reserve amount stated by the seller. This would give the insider an advantage. It is a good rule that those with access to the database not be allowed to bid on reserve auctions.

That is really the only advantage, other than say the knowledge a staffer might have about the value of a particular collectible type.

Oh, and CODE: Rest assured I don't take any of this discussion personally.

Actually, what is the role of the "auctioneer" at an automated, computerized auction:-) Actually it is a great job if you can get it...

The reality is that the real auctioneers in the online auctions are the sellers. They set the description, the opening bid, the tease to get people to bid, the reserve (if any) and the payment terms. The auction software takes care of the rest.

They are the auctioneer and they are prohibited from making more than one bid on their own auction. They can't employ shills, bid rings or engage in other bid manipulation.

When we individually assume this role, whether or not we are an employee of the auction, neither can we.

Ultimately, though, while a shiller can attempt to get another ID, if one of our employees were caught doing that, they'd be fired.

Typically, our employees are not high-volume dealers because they are too busy with their work ... and for most, it just isn't worth the risk...

neomax