Why pool has OFFICIALLY lost my business.

[theinvestor]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

It the other bidder had no intentions of paying and simply running up the bids, then you ended up bidding against your self.

Exactly.

Raider, they took over 3 months in order to tell me that they would give me option to buy for my second highest bid.

These auctions were back in early April. A total of 5 auctions that were driven up by the same non paying bidder.

[sdsinc]

Originally Posted by Raider

Second, your claim that it was rigged, If you can prove it was Pool that bid on these auctions, then I'd agree with you, but I doubt you can do that and I also doubt Pool would risk their reputation by doing such a thing.

Well he didn't say that Pool rigged the auction. It's just that pool is exploiting a fake bid to jack up the final price.
Clearly, all the bids from the deadbeat are invalid.

I really think that Pool would improve their reputation by reauctioning the domain, like SN & NJ do. It's up to them... Also the whole bidding process is less transparent at pool. The competitors let you see all the participants that are bidding on the name(s) you're after.
TBH Pool is the shadow of its former self today. They only catch the crumbs after Snap has had lunch

[DotComGod]

Usually what is done in this case is all of the non payng bidders bids are removed and the second highest bidder should get the name at his high bid after the non paying bidder is removed.

-=DCG=-

[JuniperPark]

Put another way:

1) At best, Pool is demanding to profit from their own failure to screen deadbeat bidders, which is ethically indefensible.

2) At worst, Pool is fraudulently shill bidding its own auctions, which considering their lack of ethics demonstrated in scenario #1, must be considered as a very real possibility.

[stewie]

Originally Posted by DotComGod

Usually what is done in this case is all of the non payng bidders bids are removed and the second highest bidder should get the name at his high bid after the non paying bidder is removed.

-=DCG=-

100% totally agree, it is Pool.com 's job to protect the integrity of the auction and protect the bidders from this sort of thing, they are the ones who allowed this non paying bidder into the auction, they are the only ones who know the ID of this person and now they are going to try to captailize from his/her non paying bids. That doesn't seem fair, right, or professional to me.

just seems like a shakedown of its customers.

JMO

[Doc Com]

sar.ca


NameRD - 2009-04-06 16:38:35
You $660 USD 2009-04-06 16:37:58
NameRD $635 USD 2009-04-06 16:36:38
You $595 USD 2009-04-06 16:35:57
NameRD $575 USD 2009-04-06 16:35:05
You $535 USD 2009-04-06 16:30:43
NameRD $525 USD 2009-04-06 16:26:39
You $495 USD 2009-04-06 16:22:02
NameRD $475 USD 2009-04-06 16:26:32
NameRD $425 USD 2009-04-06 16:22:32
NameRD $401 USD 2009-04-06 16:21:44
You $395 USD 2009-04-06 16:21:29
NameRD $375 USD 2009-04-06 16:21:40
NameRD $301 USD 2009-04-06 16:20:47
You $295 USD 2009-04-06 16:20:38
NameRD $251 USD 2009-04-06 16:20:45
StewKat $211 USD 2009-04-06 16:20:14
NameRD $201 USD 2009-04-06 16:19:42
StewKat $200 USD 2009-04-06 16:20:07
StewKat $165 USD 2009-04-06 16:19:21
You $151 USD 2009-04-06 16:19:10
NameRD $150 USD 2009-04-06 16:14:55
StewKat $131 USD 2009-04-06 16:13:28
bidder_36821 $120 USD 2009-04-06 15:54:02
wzhxvy $110 USD 2009-04-03 03:20:33
jjweqr $100 USD 2009-04-03 03:02:29
wzhxvy $90 USD 2009-04-02 14:29:01
StewKat $80 USD 2009-04-01 21:25:37
JenYoung $70 USD 2009-04-01 21:24:01
wzhxvy $60 USD 2009-04-01 20:00:29

Rigged, shill, fake, bots - it is immaterial what, who, or why.

This is not rocket science or advanced physics.

The facts are that the winning bidder did not pay.

At that time, all of his bids are null and void, NOT just the winning bid.

This auction then falls to where and at what point did another legitimate (assumed) bidder dropped out.

The $251 mark is generous because, technically, your bid (at whatever the minimum per Pools terms) is the next raise over StewKat.

Perhaps you could have actually gotten this name at $212, if StewKat had no intentions of bidding beyond the $211.

Also...

Assume that you decide you do not want the name.

Sure, they said they will re-auction.

But who is to say that someone at Pool does not jump on the phone and call StewKat.

Then what? He gets the name at $211?

Quite a jump down the rungs there from a legitmate $660 bid to a $211 bid.

[Raider]

Originally Posted by sdsinc

Well he didn't say that Pool rigged the auction.

He suggested it in his post.

Originally Posted by sdsinc

It's just that pool is exploiting a fake bid to jack up the final price. Clearly, all the bids from the deadbeat are invalid.

I really think that Pool would improve their reputation by reauctioning the domain, like SN & NJ do. It's up to them... Also the whole bidding process is less transparent at pool. The competitors let you see all the participants that are bidding on the name(s) you're after.
TBH Pool is the shadow of its former self today. They only catch the crumbs after Snap has had lunch

I agree with you.... But this is how Pool has been operating for as long as I can remember, at least 6 years now. It's always been Pools policy to include bids from non-paying bidders, Is it right? NO, I don't think it is, As messed up as their policy is, it's the terms each bidder agreed to.

I don't use Pool very much these days and I'm not one of their supporters, They lost my support long ago with that stupid sealed bid idea they concocted.. I just believe when you enter into an agreement, as Investor did, and Pool is in compliance of that agreement, theirs little room to complain.

[theinvestor]

I am not complaining but i don't feel that i should stay quiet about what is happening here...for all i know i could be outbidding these non paying bidders in other auctions and having to pay more for no reason. Is pool contacting me about these auctions? Of course not...they got their money!

Here is auction#2 : Again ...they wanted me to pay $160 ! I offered to pay $95 no problem...i refuse to pay a penny more. Even if i believe it's cheap at $160...i'm not letting them profit off me from a non paying bidder.

fpf.ca

NameRD - 2009-04-06 16:02:01
You $160 USD 2009-04-06 16:05:53
You $135 USD 2009-04-06 16:03:11
NameRD $125 USD 2009-04-06 15:57:41
You $125 USD 2009-04-06 16:01:12
NameRD $110 USD 2009-04-06 15:57:36
You $95 USD 2009-04-06 15:57:08
bidder_36821 $70 USD 2009-04-06 15:53:50
You $60 USD 2009-04-01 20:00:32

[victornumber]

I guess the key is to stop bidding when you recognize that the person is a nonbidder because if they end up not paying, then you still get the cheaper price (did not bid against yourself).

[Doc Com]

I realize now what the problem is.

You are buying .ca

Apparently Canadians are not to be trusted (booo hisssss)

Buy moobees.

[Pool.com]

I appreciate all the different views in this thread but allow me to explain my perspective, for better or worse. When an auction is bid up quickly by two parties, then the rest of the participants are often left to watch because the value quickly surpasses what they would be willing to bid. They never have the chance to get in on the auction at their best bid. But clearly, if the second place bidder is willing to honour their highest bid, then the issue of whether "anyone else would have bid" is moot.

Consider this scenario... an auction gets quickly bid up between PersonA and PersonB from $100 to $1000. PersonC watching from the sidelines would be willing to buy the domain for $250 but never gets a chance to place their bid because the bidding is so quick.

The auciton closes with PersonA winning at $1000. And later (possibly months) it is determined that PersonA is fraud. Maybe it has taken this long for a charge back to occur (charge backs can occur as long as 6 months to a year after a transaction occurs). So, if possible, the domain is taken back from the "winner".

Now, what many people in this thread say should happen is that the bids placed by PersonA should simply be declared void in which case PersonB would now get the domain for $100, the point at which the bidding war started.

But in fact, PersonC would argue they should have a chance to bid now that the war has cleared. However, if PersonB says their high bid stands, then the issue of PersonC's lower bid is moot.

So, awarding to PersonB without further competition is fair as long as the award is at their highest bid. Otherwise, the only fair thing to do is re-open the auction to all bidders excluding the original winner.

Ultimately, the second place bidder is being given a choice. They can say no, send the domain to a new auction, which is what we would do. We simply give the second place bidder the rights of first refusal before scheduling a re-auction. And if they choose to not buy the domain they now have the option to bid whatever they like in a new auction.

They also have the choice to say yes, I still value the domain at my high bid and rather than risk losing it in a re-auction, I'll take it.

But ultimately, the choice is theirs to make.

[Raider]

Originally Posted by Pool.com

I appreciate all the different views in this thread but allow me to explain my perspective, for better or worse. When an auction is bid up quickly by two parties, then the rest of the participants are often left to watch because the value quickly surpasses what they would be willing to bid. They never have the chance to get in on the auction at their best bid. But clearly, if the second place bidder is willing to honour their highest bid, then the issue of whether "anyone else would have bid" is moot.

Consider this scenario... an auction gets quickly bid up between PersonA and PersonB from $100 to $1000. PersonC watching from the sidelines would be willing to buy the domain for $250 but never gets a chance to place their bid because the bidding is so quick.

The auciton closes with PersonA winning at $1000. And later (possibly months) it is determined that PersonA is fraud. Maybe it has taken this long for a charge back to occur (charge backs can occur as long as 6 months to a year after a transaction occurs). So, if possible, the domain is taken back from the "winner".

Now, what many people in this thread say should happen is that the bids placed by PersonA should simply be declared void in which case PersonB would now get the domain for $100, the point at which the bidding war started.

But in fact, PersonC would argue they should have a chance to bid now that the war has cleared. However, if PersonB says their high bid stands, then the issue of PersonC's lower bid is moot.

So, awarding to PersonB without further competition is fair as long as the award is at their highest bid. Otherwise, the only fair thing to do is re-open the auction to all bidders excluding the original winner.

Ultimately, the second place bidder is being given a choice. They can say no, send the domain to a new auction, which is what we would do. We simply give the second place bidder the rights of first refusal before scheduling a re-auction. And if they choose to not buy the domain they now have the option to bid whatever they like in a new auction.

They also have the choice to say yes, I still value the domain at my high bid and rather than risk losing it in a re-auction, I'll take it.

But ultimately, the choice is theirs to make.

Another thing is, and I'm sure you already thought about this, PersonA and PersonB could be in collusion with one another in order to get the domain for a lower price... That is if you voided out bids from PersonA.

I understand your position, but I think the best thing to do is NOT offer to person B and simply re-auction the domain.

[broe-foe]

Originally Posted by Pool.com

I appreciate all the different views in this thread but allow me to explain my perspective, for better or worse. When an auction is bid up quickly by two parties, then the rest of the participants are often left to watch because the value quickly surpasses what they would be willing to bid. They never have the chance to get in on the auction at their best bid. But clearly, if the second place bidder is willing to honour their highest bid, then the issue of whether "anyone else would have bid" is moot.

Consider this scenario... an auction gets quickly bid up between PersonA and PersonB from $100 to $1000. PersonC watching from the sidelines would be willing to buy the domain for $250 but never gets a chance to place their bid because the bidding is so quick.

The auciton closes with PersonA winning at $1000. And later (possibly months) it is determined that PersonA is fraud. Maybe it has taken this long for a charge back to occur (charge backs can occur as long as 6 months to a year after a transaction occurs). So, if possible, the domain is taken back from the "winner".

Now, what many people in this thread say should happen is that the bids placed by PersonA should simply be declared void in which case PersonB would now get the domain for $100, the point at which the bidding war started.

But in fact, PersonC would argue they should have a chance to bid now that the war has cleared. However, if PersonB says their high bid stands, then the issue of PersonC's lower bid is moot.

So, awarding to PersonB without further competition is fair as long as the award is at their highest bid. Otherwise, the only fair thing to do is re-open the auction to all bidders excluding the original winner.

Ultimately, the second place bidder is being given a choice. They can say no, send the domain to a new auction, which is what we would do. We simply give the second place bidder the rights of first refusal before scheduling a re-auction. And if they choose to not buy the domain they now have the option to bid whatever they like in a new auction.

They also have the choice to say yes, I still value the domain at my high bid and rather than risk losing it in a re-auction, I'll take it.

But ultimately, the choice is theirs to make.

Sounds like BS to me.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by Pool.com

I appreciate all the different views in this thread but allow me to explain my perspective, for better or worse. When an auction is bid up quickly by two parties, then the rest of the participants are often left to watch because the value quickly surpasses what they would be willing to bid. They never have the chance to get in on the auction at their best bid. But clearly, if the second place bidder is willing to honour their highest bid, then the issue of whether "anyone else would have bid" is moot.

Consider this scenario... an auction gets quickly bid up between PersonA and PersonB from $100 to $1000. PersonC watching from the sidelines would be willing to buy the domain for $250 but never gets a chance to place their bid because the bidding is so quick.

The auciton closes with PersonA winning at $1000. And later (possibly months) it is determined that PersonA is fraud. Maybe it has taken this long for a charge back to occur (charge backs can occur as long as 6 months to a year after a transaction occurs). So, if possible, the domain is taken back from the "winner".

Now, what many people in this thread say should happen is that the bids placed by PersonA should simply be declared void in which case PersonB would now get the domain for $100, the point at which the bidding war started.

But in fact, PersonC would argue they should have a chance to bid now that the war has cleared. However, if PersonB says their high bid stands, then the issue of PersonC's lower bid is moot.

So, awarding to PersonB without further competition is fair as long as the award is at their highest bid. Otherwise, the only fair thing to do is re-open the auction to all bidders excluding the original winner.

Ultimately, the second place bidder is being given a choice. They can say no, send the domain to a new auction, which is what we would do. We simply give the second place bidder the rights of first refusal before scheduling a re-auction. And if they choose to not buy the domain they now have the option to bid whatever they like in a new auction.

They also have the choice to say yes, I still value the domain at my high bid and rather than risk losing it in a re-auction, I'll take it.

But ultimately, the choice is theirs to make.

Person C is beat, out of the picture, and done bidding at their own will.

Making assumptions about what Person C might do is pure conjecture and has no place in this conversation.

That is like saying, "Gee, even though we sold this domain for $1000, maybe someone would pay more."

Speculation and conjecture have no place in an auction like this. An auction took place and every one that was a willing bid did bid up to their limit.

I lost a domain today in a bidding war. Now, three people submitted bids higher than me at the last minute. Do I make a motion to re-open the bidding because I have changed my mind?

Honestly, if that is your policy (as you stated above) you really need to make that clear and known to all.

Take it or leave it.

[doc24]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

I dumped pool and quit my business with them quite sometime ago. I won a domain and never received notice of which registrar they sent it to. When I called 2 weeks after I paid and had no idea where the domain was (WHOIS was never updated) they told me it was not their problem - they simply purchased the domain and had fullfilled their end of the contract obligation. They reminded me that they were not a registrar. It was only after I contacted Amercian Express to dispute the charges did someone at pool and the gaining registrar contact me.

Anyways, the issue of shill bidding or someone being on the inside has concerned me for quite sometime. We saw evidence come to light with the .asia auctions - the auctioneer won most of the better ones. Imagine that - he knew exactly what he had to bid to win. And he claimed there was nothing wrong with that. Gee, reassured the hell out of me, eh?

Lately, I have noticed that auctions I have bid I am getting beat by the last bid.
And it is only auctions that I have entered multiple bids on. It has not been on auctions that I have only entered one bid on.

This may not make make sense, but it is a pattern that is quite peculiar.
It appears to be an enticement tactic.

So I stopped entering anything more than one bid.
I have one price I will pay and enter one bid.

Guess what? TDNAM has started doing this.

The odd part?

Both notices I had received I got in less than 48 hours (one being less than 24 hours).

Samethings happened to me and then I got an email from one of the management asking why I did not do business with them anymore.

A: They have crap names most of the time
B: Shill bidders
C: more non paying bidders
D: never notify you of register, its like pulling teeth
E: Cant get their stories straight
F: Its become cybersquatter heaven and Typo Central

He responded with "Well whats junk to some is gold to others"

I responded "Junk is Junk" Have a nice day

Originally Posted by Doc Com

Person C is beat, out of the picture, and done bidding at their own will.

Making assumptions about what Person C might do is pure conjecture and has no place in this conversation.

That is like saying, "Gee, even though we sold this domain for $1000, maybe someone would pay more."

Speculation and conjecture have no place in an auction like this. An auction took place and every one that was a willing bid did bid up to their limit.

I lost a domain today in a bidding war. Now, three people submitted bids higher than me at the last minute. Do I make a motion to re-open the bidding because I have changed my mind?

Honestly, if that is your policy (as you stated above) you really need to make that clear and known to all.

Take it or leave it.

That is BALONEY
Chargebacks NEVER take up to a year, in fact they have paperwork sent out within 15-30 days of chargeback and the MERCHANT must respond within usually 7 days or the chargeback is valid. I have used merchant accounts for 25 years so that statement is absolutely ridiculous!!!-PERIOD

Originally Posted by Pool.com

I appreciate all the different views in this thread but allow me to explain my perspective, for better or worse. When an auction is bid up quickly by two parties, then the rest of the participants are often left to watch because the value quickly surpasses what they would be willing to bid. They never have the chance to get in on the auction at their best bid. But clearly, if the second place bidder is willing to honour their highest bid, then the issue of whether "anyone else would have bid" is moot.

Consider this scenario... an auction gets quickly bid up between PersonA and PersonB from $100 to $1000. PersonC watching from the sidelines would be willing to buy the domain for $250 but never gets a chance to place their bid because the bidding is so quick.

The auciton closes with PersonA winning at $1000. And later (possibly months) it is determined that PersonA is fraud. Maybe it has taken this long for a charge back to occur (charge backs can occur as long as 6 months to a year after a transaction occurs). So, if possible, the domain is taken back from the "winner".

Now, what many people in this thread say should happen is that the bids placed by PersonA should simply be declared void in which case PersonB would now get the domain for $100, the point at which the bidding war started.

But in fact, PersonC would argue they should have a chance to bid now that the war has cleared. However, if PersonB says their high bid stands, then the issue of PersonC's lower bid is moot.

So, awarding to PersonB without further competition is fair as long as the award is at their highest bid. Otherwise, the only fair thing to do is re-open the auction to all bidders excluding the original winner.

Ultimately, the second place bidder is being given a choice. They can say no, send the domain to a new auction, which is what we would do. We simply give the second place bidder the rights of first refusal before scheduling a re-auction. And if they choose to not buy the domain they now have the option to bid whatever they like in a new auction.

They also have the choice to say yes, I still value the domain at my high bid and rather than risk losing it in a re-auction, I'll take it.

But ultimately, the choice is theirs to make.

That is BALONEY
Chargebacks NEVER take up to a year, in fact they have paperwork sent out within 15-30 days of chargeback and the MERCHANT must respond within usually 7 days or the chargeback is valid. I have used merchant accounts for 25 years so that statement is absolutely ridiculous!!!-PERIOD

[eksperts]

Originally Posted by Pool.com

...an auction gets quickly bid up between PersonA and PersonB from $100 to $1000. PersonC watching from the sidelines would be willing to buy the domain for $250 but never gets a chance to place their bid because the bidding is so quick...

PersonA and PersonB gets chance bids, but PersonC never gets? Is there diferent rules for each person? Sorry, I dont get it.

[Doc Com]

For someone to claim, "that's how we do it" does not mean it is right.

If Pool wants to remove any doubt or suspicion, they will nullify all bids by the winner, not just their final winning bid.

[JuniperPark]

Originally Posted by Pool.com

I appreciate all the different views in this thread but allow me to explain my perspective, for better or worse. When an auction is bid up quickly by two parties, then the rest of the participants are often left to watch because the value quickly surpasses what they would be willing to bid. They never have the chance to get in on the auction at their best bid. But clearly, if the second place bidder is willing to honour their highest bid, then the issue of whether "anyone else would have bid" is moot.

Consider this scenario... an auction gets quickly bid up between PersonA and PersonB from $100 to $1000. PersonC watching from the sidelines would be willing to buy the domain for $250 but never gets a chance to place their bid because the bidding is so quick.

The auciton closes with PersonA winning at $1000. And later (possibly months) it is determined that PersonA is fraud. Maybe it has taken this long for a charge back to occur (charge backs can occur as long as 6 months to a year after a transaction occurs). So, if possible, the domain is taken back from the "winner".

Now, what many people in this thread say should happen is that the bids placed by PersonA should simply be declared void in which case PersonB would now get the domain for $100, the point at which the bidding war started.

But in fact, PersonC would argue they should have a chance to bid now that the war has cleared. However, if PersonB says their high bid stands, then the issue of PersonC's lower bid is moot.

So, awarding to PersonB without further competition is fair as long as the award is at their highest bid. Otherwise, the only fair thing to do is re-open the auction to all bidders excluding the original winner.

Ultimately, the second place bidder is being given a choice. They can say no, send the domain to a new auction, which is what we would do. We simply give the second place bidder the rights of first refusal before scheduling a re-auction. And if they choose to not buy the domain they now have the option to bid whatever they like in a new auction.

They also have the choice to say yes, I still value the domain at my high bid and rather than risk losing it in a re-auction, I'll take it.

But ultimately, the choice is theirs to make.

NONSENSE.

BidderC has 3 days to enter any proxy bid he wants. Your scenario would be credible if you didn't have proxy bidding, but since you DO have proxy bidding your argument does not hold water.

The ultimate "choice" you are giving is:
1) Pay Pool a premium for allowing (or not preventing) fraud
OR
2) Re-run the auction will possibly more bidders.

Not much of a choice there, is it?

Pool sowed the seeds of mistrust in this industry with the "sealed bid" shenanigans a few years ago, and lost a TON of business as a result. Didn't you learn your lesson?







doc24: Credit card holders can do chargebacks up to 12 months later.

[doc24]

Originally Posted by JuniperPark

NONSENSE.

BidderC has 3 days to enter any proxy bid he wants. Your scenario would be credible if you didn't have proxy bidding, but since you DO have proxy bidding your argument does not hold water.

The ultimate "choice" you are giving is:
1) Pay Pool a premium for allowing (or not preventing) fraud
OR
2) Re-run the auction will possibly more bidders.

Not much of a choice there, is it?

Pool sowed the seeds of mistrust in this industry with the "sealed bid" shenanigans a few years ago, and lost a TON of business as a result. Didn't you learn your lesson?







doc24: Credit card holders can do chargebacks up to 12 months later.

You can only do chargebacks that long if it INVOLVES fraud only
That USA rules. CC companies may try to tell you different, but this is a fact

And you MUST prove its fraud.....!!!!

[JuniperPark]

Originally Posted by doc24

You can only do chargebacks that long if it INVOLVES fraud only
That USA rules. CC companies may try to tell you different, but this is a fact

And you MUST prove its fraud.....!!!!

Nope. I lost, and the only fraud was that the credit card holder lied.

And since the credit card companies ENFORCE their rules and there really is no appeal, what credit card companies tell you IS fact. When they say they are taking money back they DO.