Alts, in the area of bans(excluding IP bans), are considered separate users, even if one of the accounts has confirmed that they are the same. Why is the policy of considering separate or the same different in auctions from bans? In my opinion, delaying a bid payment by a phew minutes(and semi-spamming the recent forum activity) is much less serious than "ban evading", although EMC allows the latter to occur since you believe in second chances(which I do too). So the first one should be allowed. At the end, if no one outbids the 2 "alts" they will have to pay anyway. Yea, I do agree with you that it may add interest, but in this specific case, it is clearly a game-like auction, because the item is relatively worthless, but it became a "forum game", which usually auctions do, and the price tag ended being quite high. Your argument about interest increasing could also be back down pretty easily. During my first classes of economics I took last year, you are thaught to assume that people behave in a natural rational behavior. Noone rational would bid on this auction unless they knew that it was a "game," but they still had to know that they had the responsibility to pay up, even if they won. I seriously doubt that someone would have bid after, and then regret it saying as an excuse: "the other bids by other bidders suggested to me that the item was valuable" That only states that this person did not read the OP clearly.
The validity of the auction itself was tampered with. I cannot make the call if it would have resulted any differently, but it COULD have. Due to this possibility, the auction is no longer valid. On the note of in-game ban punishments, etc that's in-game and the only reason we allow it is because we know that the player could easily make a new account and join again anyways. If a player wants to keep making accounts to prove they are going to behave, I'm at least willing to let them try since they did pay Microsoft for the option, they were just too lazy to use a VPN. Certain punishments are IP bans, certain ones are not. The ones that players use alts to get around usually are because they are thinking they are sly and that we don't know it's an alt. Or it's because their true punishment was the removal of their identity, allowing them to play but not have the funds/rep they once had due to past transgressions. Note: No one was 'punished' due to this auction. Someone was sent a reminder as to the proper limits of an alt on the forums and an auction was invalidated. That's it.
@Krysyy (or anyone else who can edit the rules): could you please add this rule to this thread? As far as I can see, it's not in here, which makes it difficult for people who missed the post stating the rule, or newer players to see and know the rule.
I'll clear it up so that it cannot be misconstrued, then look at adding it in the auction rule modifications that were coming later this week anyway.
Just my opinion here. First I'd like to mention that I disagree with whole thing. Sure, if an auction host uses alts to increase the price then they are cheating because they benefit from their own actions. But I fail to see the problem otherwise. Yes, a product can look more in demand. But if someone starts bidding on an item without even bothering to look what they're bidding on and only because others were bidding then I think the real problem is the player who buys items without even bothering to look at what they're getting. That's just my opinion and I have no intention of discussing this any further. What I do want to address is the way in which the rules get currently applied. I think it's unfair and could be executed much better. A bid is a promise from a player to another player and it's also an insurance that the auction host will be getting at least that amount of rupees. By locking an auction thread you're always negatively affecting the host. Even if the host didn't have anything to do with the things that transpired, and I don't think that's right. The rules should be uphold to protect the integrity of the game, sure, but also to protect the players. And that's not happening here. Now: I have to stress out that fortunately these issues don't happen often. But should lack of quantity be a reason not to strive for better quality? Also if you take into account that it has happened a few times in the past where staff made a wrong call effectively resulting in the auction host getting denied the amount of rupees they'd normally be entitled to. To put this simple: it's the host who's always penalized, not the offending player(s). I think it would be much more fair to pause an auction, double check the incident and if there has been a problem then to remove all the offending messages up to the point where the auction is untainted. You could optionally even go as far as to exclude the offending player from that particular auction, and then restarting said auction. Of course: assuming it wasn't the host that initiated the whole thing. If they did then they obviously were directly involved and it should be handled as such. But if that's obviously not the case.... Now, I can see what a possible counter argument could be: "tainted auction", the prize been driven up higher, etc, etc. In the end it's still a player who decides whether or not to bid. And if such a player decides not to check the value of what they're bidding on but instead allow themselves to be influenced by totally unrelated details then nothing is going to prevent that from happening either way. But bottom line: I don't think it's right to always penalize the auction host when things like this happen. Especially because I believe that rules are meant to protect players and because it's a bit too easy in my opinion to accept collateral damage to happen like this. Alas, just wanted to get that out of the way.
I almost think people should have to define alts to the staff. I know the staff can usually determine it but there is a real need for clarity. For example, by circumstance or fate you decide, I have all 3 of my kids attending college back home plus my wife and I who both play. While they have become much less active than I have, the fact is there is only one alt for me, 3167 of my main mjnoe70. I put this poor alt in my areas where I need redstone or breeding to work. However, to be fair, I would give or gather the items I have in an auction to my own family and if there was any payment they would just /pay me. We wouldn't be working through my auctions. What is an alt in this case, which is player and ip driven. However, I'm sorry but it seems very unethical to vote on your own auction no matter what the desired outcome. Extending hours of an auction or false price raising are both really a bad idea. In addition this creates a bump too. The idea they have to pay themselves is a falsity as no exchange of funds is likely to happen nor delivery of goods. While I am in no position of power, I must state I really believe EMC should outlaw a players alts from being allowed to do anything to the auction. Heck, I'd be more accepting if you said, the OP or his alts can BUMP an auction as long as they note they are that players alt but to keep clarity, I just suggest that only the OP player used can do anything in ones own auctions. My last comments are auctioneers, if you are not liking sales prices, you have the ability to set a starting bid. This means you hit a minimum to sell. In the end, I'll have to wait for staff clarity to the auction updates coming.
I thought we had talked about this before, but I don't see it in the rules... what are the rules with regard to overbidding yourself?
Haven't had a problem with it not being followed since so it got pushed to the backburner with the changes we decided to hold off with to focus on something else. I'll look into it, but it's common sense really, so when it gets added, it gets added.
There's a lot in the rules that are not written down word for word that do fall under the overarching 'common sense' notion. The use of the term 'common' is used in terms of how many people generally understand the restriction without it being written down in print simply on the basis of what it achieves. For example, in this specific case, the use of overbidding yourself in order to extend the timer is exploiting the system to get around the auction terms set by the host. Therefore, by default, that's obviously frowned upon and most players would infer that it would not be allowed. Thus it is 'common' sense that overbidding yourself should not reset the timer. While I understand that you are a player who likes everything in black and white, our rules are currently at a point in which they REALLY need to be scaled back. They are overwhelming to new players and difficult to work with. We used to have a simple set of rules that could be applied to multiple situations without needing to argue over semantics. We've put far too much effort into defining regulations to the point that they are stifling. This has to change and is why we decided to put any modifications on the backburner while rules could be reworked from the ground up.
I couldn't disagree more. After all, you're giving the auction host more rupees, who would mind that? ... Also, the auction is both bumped and extended again, allowing more players to see the auction, and for more bids to be placed, again, increasing the amount of rupees the auction host gets. Win-win situation (is that used this way in English? ) for all parties. Interesting. I partly agree, and partly disagree. Suggestion thread coming up soon. (soon is relative, dinner's almost ready...)
Someone outbidding them self should be able to reset the timer, as their bid is as valid as anyone else's..
