Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings: you'd need 53 extra player heads because the minimum required quantity to auction off player or mob heads is 54 in total. Also keep in mind that you cannot mix player and mob heads into one set of 54. If it's only one head then it might be easier on you to do an in-game auction on your residence (but to make sure that you tell every participant to use /ch r before the bidding starts, otherwise you'd risk spamming town chat). Hope this can help.
Thanks to the help of PengiunDJ and ChumMiner i actually got 54 Heads in total, im glad i didnt have to buy / or farm them. Awesome Community!
The last bid that counts. So if someone says the minimum increment is 100r and your bid is only 10r more than the previous one, it wouldn't be valid.
Valid means legally or officially acceptable. So, if the bid is done by a player that is banned or the minimum bid increment was not met for example, the bid would be NOT valid. Does this make sense? Feel free to quote me if you still don't understand A valid bid is one that is "accepted" so to speak
No, a cactus is a regular MC item and those need to be auctioned off in DC's quantities. See the top post of this thread for all the details.
If you did, they would have been closed down. AFAIK there hasn't been a single invalid auction that has slipped by a Staff member. In-game auctions are completely different. Running an auction completely in-game allows players to auction any item in any quantity. No, you cannot.
Well I was about to do the same as this http://empireminecraft.com/threads/auction-1-dc-of-lava-buckets.55053/#post-992442 But after reading this thread, I understand it would have to be a dc before I can auction now. Thanks ^_^
I've gone over the rules once again and couldn't help notice that although there is a section which clearly states what could happen to players who break them, it doesn't seem to provide much protection for those affected by the misconducts of these players. I'm specifically focusing my attention on auction hosts here by the way. So I was wondering what people think of this suggestion: If the winner of an auction fails to comply to the rules, and this incident has been confirmed by the staff, then the auction host is given the right to chose between either of these next options: The auction is declared invalid. If the pick up has already been done then the previous winner is required to return the item(s). The auction host can then start a new auction. Or: The winner is declared invalid which automatically results in the previous bidder becoming the optional new winner. If they still want the item(s) then the auction host has the right to provide them for the previously made bid. If the the previous bidder is no longer interested then the auction is declared invalid, as explained in the first step. Obviously you can't 'just' declare the previous bidder the new winner and demand payment. After all: several days could have passed in the mean time, and the bidder could already be participating in other auctions. But if they still really want the item(s) then I think its only fair if both the hoster & previous bidder are given the right to make that deal.
