Why pool has OFFICIALLY lost my business.

[doc24]

Originally Posted by JuniperPark

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.

They can tell you anything they want but it is well documented in the merchant account industry on time frames, so get the facts straight before you comment. If you have a merchant that is not competant, thats their problem, but the FACTS are ...stated in every merchant agreement on chargebacks. In fact competant merchant processors first send a letter of inquiry, then if its not acceptable. They will capture funds and hold until investigated

[JuniperPark]

Originally Posted by doc24

They can tell you anything they want but it is well documented in the merchant account industry on time frames, so get the facts straight before you comment. If you have a merchant that is not competant, thats their problem, but the FACTS are ...stated in every merchant agreement on chargebacks. In fact competant merchant processors first send a letter of inquiry, then if its not acceptable. They will capture funds and hold until investigated

I'm telling you this from 1st hand, direct knowledge, my account. IT HAS HAPPENED.

How about you get YOUR fact straight before posting.

[doc24]

Originally Posted by JuniperPark

I'm telling you this from 1st hand, direct knowledge, my account. IT HAS HAPPENED.

How about you get YOUR fact straight before posting.

First hand account doesnt mean anything. You may have MORONS at your merchant account
but I guess over 25 years in retail, wholesale and merchant agreements , with over 55 attempted chargebacks and only 2 losses in 25 years is not good enough for you

You just need to be right, have a very merchant processing wonderful day

[JuniperPark]

Originally Posted by doc24

First hand account doesnt mean anything. You may have MORONS at your merchant account
but I guess over 25 years in retail, wholesale and merchant agreements , with over 55 attempted chargebacks and only 2 losses in 25 years is not good enough for you

You just need to be right, have a very merchant processing wonderful day

Oh, ok, you've made the assumption that retail sales works the same as online sales, and your ASSumptions are better proof than 1st hand experience.

That makes perfect sense.

[doc24]

Originally Posted by JuniperPark

Oh, ok, you've made the assumption that retail sales works the same as online sales, and your ASSumptions are better proof than 1st hand experience.

That makes perfect sense.

I now know its obvious you know nothing about merchant accounts.
Online for 10 years is retail, Its called retial online, you know like AMAZON, so gfet a clue,

Go be right with your 1 experience and grow up

[JuniperPark]

Originally Posted by doc24

I now know its obvious you know nothing about merchant accounts.
Online for 10 years is retail, Its called retial online, you know like AMAZON, so gfet a clue,

Go be right with your 1 experience and grow up

Oh, so by "online" you mean you physically swiped their card and got their signature. Quite a feat. ARE YOU HIGH??

[doc24]

Originally Posted by JuniperPark

Oh, so by "online" you mean you physically swiped their card and got their signature. Quite a feat. ARE YOU HIGH??

Again just shows your lack of merchant processing, stop commenting before you totally show you absolutely know nothing on this subject because its obvious you do not

[Raider]

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.

Are you one of those who enter proxy bids long before the auction ends? If you are, your the exception to what most bidders do, which is wait until the last day and last hour to place a bid, This prevents driving up the price leading up to the auction.

I'm afraid Pools argument about bidderC does hold water, Also, If they did what you and others are suggesting by voiding out all bids from the non paying bidder, What's to prevent bidderA and bidderB from working together and blowing out the auction early? where bidderA doesn't pay and bidderB gets the domain for cheap? You still think that would be fair to the C bidders?

[doc24]

Originally Posted by Raider

Are you one of those who enter proxy bids long before the auction ends? If you are, your the exception to what most bidders do, which is wait until the last day and last hour to place a bid, This prevents driving up the price leading up to the auction.

I'm afraid Pools argument about bidderC does hold water, Also, If they did what you and others are suggesting by voiding out all bids from the non paying bidder, What's to prevent bidderA and bidderB from working together and blowing out the auction early? where bidderA doesn't pay and bidderB gets the domain for cheap? You still think that would be fair to the C bidders?

Raider is absolutely correct

[Raider]

Originally Posted by doc24

They can tell you anything they want but it is well documented in the merchant account industry on time frames, so get the facts straight before you comment. If you have a merchant that is not competant, thats their problem, but the FACTS are ...stated in every merchant agreement on chargebacks. In fact competant merchant processors first send a letter of inquiry, then if its not acceptable. They will capture funds and hold until investigated

As a ex-credit card merchant myself, it's nice to finally see somebody on this forum that knows what their talking about.

[doc24]

Originally Posted by Raider

As a ex-credit card merchant myself, it's nice to finally see somebody on this forum that knows what their talking about.

Raider, Thanks
After years of retail locations and online you do have conflicts, but I have to say the majority of the time , the fraudulent buyers dont get what they want. I have even had buyers online that stated they never got their product, even tho I had a signed receipt of delivery by FedEx, a confirmation and their signature matched, yet they still tried to chargeback the item.

Or how about the driver never was here and he must have left it on some elses porch and they signed for it and it goes on and on.

Needless to say my merchant processor laughed at these claims

Doc

PS: Pool has points but their reputation has gone down hill quite a bit
and you never BID EARLY ... Good points you made on bidders getting together.

[Doc Com]

i think we need to get back to the pool issue as that is the issue of this thread

[theinvestor]

I appreciate Pool taking the time to chime in...and i agree for the most part with the points made...BUT...this does not change the fact that a non paying bidder can run up auctions and then not pay. The auctions that i did have the highest bid...am i getting reimbursed the amount from the fraudulent bids that came before it?

My issue is the non paying bidder in this case ran up 5 different auctions in which he paid for none. Two of those auctions i was the second highest bidder.

Here is the bidding history for another domain :

hrh.on.ca

NameRD - 2009-04-06 16:27:19
bidder_36821 $480 USD 2009-04-06 16:28:04
bidder_36821 $450 USD 2009-04-06 16:27:57
bidder_36821 $420 USD 2009-04-06 16:27:10
NameRD $401 USD 2009-04-06 16:26:46
bidder_36821 $400 USD 2009-04-06 16:27:06
bidder_36821 $350 USD 2009-04-06 16:26:16
NameRD $331 USD 2009-04-06 16:25:14
bidder_36821 $325 USD 2009-04-06 16:24:42
NameRD $301 USD 2009-04-06 16:23:44
bidder_36821 $300 USD 2009-04-06 16:22:43
NameRD $275 USD 2009-04-06 16:19:32
bidder_36821 $240 USD 2009-04-06 16:17:53
NameRD $230 USD 2009-04-06 16:14:55
bidder_36821 $230 USD 2009-04-06 16:17:50
bidder_36821 $210 USD 2009-04-06 16:11:06
You $200 USD 2009-04-06 16:10:24
NameRD $195 USD 2009-04-06 16:09:08
bidder_36821 $180 USD 2009-04-06 16:07:30
NameRD $175 USD 2009-04-06 16:09:03
You $150 USD 2009-04-06 16:06:05
NameRD $145 USD 2009-04-06 16:02:35
You $120 USD 2009-04-06 16:05:12
You $100 USD 2009-04-06 16:03:34
wzhxvy $80 USD 2009-04-02 14:29:12
JenYoung $70 USD 2009-04-01 21:23:23
wzhxvy $60 USD 2009-04-01 20:00:33

[DOTCA]

So are both NameRD and bidder_36821 are the culprits or just the first?? I am a bit confused here..since I see "you" there, meaning yourself.. looks like two others drove the bids higher...

[theinvestor]

No, just NameRD.

I posted in this thread already three different auctions with NameRD being the winner. The other two i was second highest bidder.

[Pool.com]

The auction you showed for hrh.on.ca is a really good example of the issue I was trying to explain and which raider paraphrased rather well. Allow me to expand...

In this auction the last bid placed by "you" was $200. The auction went on between two parties in a span where bids were being placed at about 1 per minute. And while you might ask why didn't these bidders use proxy bids, I can't answer that.

But, back to the popint at hand. If the winning bidder in this auction was declared void and we followed your suggestion, then the second place bidder would get the domain for $210. One increment higher than the third ("you") place bidder.

Isn't it possible that in the flurry of the last 16 minutes where the two bidders were furiously bidding against each other that "you" would have liked to place a bid higher than $200 but was never able to place a valid bid because it was being bid up so fast?

It's not an issue of whether "you" gave up the bidding or not, it's whether the quick bidding of the other parties locked you out? Clearly, "you" did not want to bid more than the winning bid, but perhaps "you" wanted to bid more than their last bid of $200 but never could? I have had situations where simply awarding on the basis of the third highest bidder plus one increment has prompted criticism because the third hihgest bidder would have still been active in the auciton at that level.

The main point here is that by voiding the winning bidder, in many cases this would return the auciton to a "level" where more people may have gotten involved if they could have. And proxy bidding only makes it harder since the two final bidders would only bid up the auciton faster.

Our process allows for the second place max bid to stand or a re-auction occurs. And as I said earlier, the choice is there for the second place bidder to make. They don't have to accept and in fact could simply re-enter the new auciton with a proxy bid the same as their previous high bid.

Some people would also argue that having a re-auction is not fair either because the previous winning bids are known in advance and this will affect the overall bidding.

Ultimately, I guess any approach will not satisfy everyone. I feel our approach is a good compromise for all.

[theinvestor]

The approach that Pool.com takes is only good for Pool.com. Since they want to accept the highest bid possible. The real solution would be to re-auction the name and not give the second highest bidder the chance to take the domain at the 2nd highest bid. Although that bid may have been justified it was still run up by a bidder that had no intention to pay.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by Pool.com

It's not an issue of whether "you" gave up the bidding or not, it's whether the quick bidding of the other parties locked you out? Clearly, "you" did not want to bid more than the winning bid, but perhaps "you" wanted to bid more than their last bid of $200 but never could?

That is what an auction is all about. The bidding continues until all other bidders "gave" up except for the winner.

How on earth can you use that example of "perhaps" someone wanted to bid more as an argument for your case? That in itself justifies your point? Perhaps someone would have bid more?

As for a hypothetical two or more cohorts bidding up an auction...how about dealing with the one bidder who falsely bids up an auction?

By the way, is Pool exempt from being a licensed auctioneer? Auctioneers and auction companies that I am aware of are licensed in the state that they conduct business. Perhaps this issue should be looked into...how an online auction company is regulated and under what jurisdiction they would fall under.

[doc24]

Originally Posted by theinvestor

The approach that Pool.com takes is only good for Pool.com. Since they want to accept the highest bid possible. The real solution would be to re-auction the name and not give the second highest bidder the chance to take the domain at the 2nd highest bid. Although that bid may have been justified it was still run up by a bidder that had no intention to pay.

The Investor is absolutely CORRECT
Reauction the names, auction places rely on bidders going at each other in the heat of the moment. So if a bidder has no intention of paying, there is no difference between a shill bidder and a bidder thats not going to pay. Why should the second bidder be subject to that ?

[Raider]

Originally Posted by theinvestor

The real solution would be to re-auction the name and not give the second highest bidder the chance to take the domain at the 2nd highest bid.

I agree, but consider the fact that many of us don't want to go through another auction and risk the chance of more bidders and higher bidding.... I said this before, try to look at the offer as a "opportunity" rather than what you feel is right or wrong.

Pools policy is NOT going to change, so if it bothers you so much, I suggest you not participate... The best improvement Pool can make right now is to put stricter measures in place to secure payment and prevent non-paying bidders... They do this already but they haven't done it well enough.