Deadbeat auctions on NameJet

[Acro]

I am sick and tired of bidders that win an auction, driving the price up and then they never pay. They essentially steal the domain from others.

I decided to list any NameJet usernames that correspond to unfinished sales, for auctions that I am aware of. Perhaps others can do the same. Here goes:

domain: flag.net
winner: msr
price: $8,900
date: 1/12/2009

domain: billboards.org
winner: tylerdurden
price: $1,445
date: 12/26/2008

[lordbyroniv]

Lots of deadbeats at namejet i have noticed

[theinvestor]

Acro,

Can you explains how this happens when they make you become a verified bidder now? Are there not consequences if you do not pay?

[sdsinc]

Originally Posted by lordbyroniv

Lots of deadbeats at namejet i have noticed

That must explain the crazy prices

[DomainName]

How many times can a winning bidder not pay for their winning auction before namejet cancels their account??

I've noticed a handful of bidders that have retracted at least a half dozen times.

[Acro]

I have no idea why NameJet does not ban serial deadbeat bidders from their auctioning system, unless they use them as "rabbits" like Snapnames with halvarez.

[Acro]

Another deadbeat:

domain: adlinks.com
winner: gridix
price: $3,200
date: 1/19/2008

Domain is back on auction.

[FormerDnForumer]

I almost never participate in these auctions because the house owns the game. It's the Afternic (old version) syndrome all over again.

[theinvestor]

This makes me worry because i have a domain auction coming up soon...i don't wanna be up against non paying bidders...and over pay.

[Acro]

NameJet's system is unfair to the other bidders of a pre-release re-auction due to non-payment. Currently, the 2nd highest bidder of the first auction becomes the top bidder in the second auction. They need to revert the bids as they stood at the time the first auction started - not when it ended.

[theinvestor]

I agree with you there. I don't get it...if you get outbid why are you still binded by your previous amount?

[Doc Com]

Geez, those are some great names.

I will say it again, we definitely need a "name and shame" sub forum.

In an instance like this, it would be fair to point this out to NameJet.

Plus, how do we know it is on the up and up and not someone at Namejet? Especially if they are allowed to keep bidding.

[Acro]

Both DNJournal and other blogs rush to announce such auctions as sales. Unfortunately, all of the ones listed above were not paid for.

Originally Posted by theinvestor

I agree with you there. I don't get it...if you get outbid why are you still binded by your previous amount?

Exactly. Let alone the fact that the 2nd bidder might not have the funds or the interest the following week, but they're being forced to be top bidders. There is also no notification of such an instance; the auction goes back under "My auctions" without an email being sent!

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by Acro

Exactly. Let alone the fact that the 2nd bidder might not have the funds or the interest the following week, but they're being forced to be top bidders. There is also no notification of such an instance; the auction goes back under "My auctions" without an email being sent!

This is totally bogus and a BIG reason why these auction formats are simply bullshit.

How can bidder number 2's bid be binding? He/she got beat by number 1.

It may take a week, two weeks before NameJet comes to the conclusion that bidder 1 is not paying.

A week or two later NameJet wants to tell me I am liable and responsible for payment?

No damn way! How can they do that? Their TOS is bogus if they think they can enforce it.

If this is going on, then there clearly is some BS being done at NameJet. This clearly stinks of bogus "run up" and Schill bidding.

Thanks for the tip off as I will no longer be using namejet.

[Acro]

There was a long-standing auction whereupon the 2nd, 3rd and 4th bidder removed their interest in sequence, after NameJet sent the domain to a second auction due to non-payment, a week later. Each bidder became #1 in turn, when the previous one was removed! Apparently they contacted NameJet asking to be removed. The auction was in the thousands of dollars.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by Acro

There was a long-standing auction whereupon the 2nd, 3rd and 4th bidder removed their interest in sequence, after NameJet sent the domain to a second auction due to non-payment, a week later. Each bidder became #1 in turn, when the previous one was removed! Apparently they contacted NameJet asking to be removed. The auction was in the thousands of dollars.

Again, total BS.

If bidder C does not pay, then the auction needs to TOTALLY forgo and erase all of bidder C's bids...all of them.

This will drop the final price by a bunch in some cases.

Bidder A starts at 500
Bidder B comes in at 600
Bidder C comes in at 700
Bidder D comes in at 800
Bidder C comes in at 900
Bidder A comes in at 1000
Bidder C comes in at 1100
Bidder A comes in at 1200
Bidder C comes in at 1300

Bidder C wins at $1300

Bidder C does not pay.

It is NOT JUST THE FINAL BID THAT IS ERASED!

It is ALL BIDS PLACED BY BIDDER C.

If bidder C does not make good on 1300, then none of bidder C's bids are valid.

This is the key - the second winner is not Bidder A at 1200.

It is Bidder A at 900!

Auctions and auctioneers don't want to do this, even though it is the fair way.

If you remove all of Bidders C's bids, then you go by WHO WON by default when Bidder C is totally removed.

Bidder A starts at 500
Bidder B comes in at 600
Bidder D comes in at 800
Bidder A comes in at 900

This may look complicated but it is not complicated at all.

Bidder A made a legitimate bid at 900.

It does not matter than Bidder A bid up to 1200 because he was bidding against a bogus bidder, hereby essentially bidding against himself.

You go back to the point the Bidder C entered the auction and go from that point.

That is the starting point for determining the next winner.


Bidder A just got this domain at 900.

[Poker]

Transparency anyone? Don't feel like being serious so I just made up a few new names for you guys:

NameSweat.com
NameRegret.com
NameReset.com
NameTourette.com ...because they make you want to swear out loud in public, seemingly unprovoked.

There's also:

ShameJet.com

or the winner if you ask me:

LameJet.com

btw their all avail except for LameJet ...lol

[siteman]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

Again, total BS.

If bidder C does not pay, then the auction needs to TOTALLY forgo and erase all of bidder C's bids...all of them.

This will drop the final price by a bunch in some cases.

Bidder A starts at 500
Bidder B comes in at 600
Bidder C comes in at 700
Bidder D comes in at 800
Bidder C comes in at 900
Bidder A comes in at 1000
Bidder C comes in at 1100
Bidder A comes in at 1200
Bidder C comes in at 1300

Bidder C wins at $1300

Bidder C does not pay.

It is NOT JUST THE FINAL BID THAT IS ERASED!

It is ALL BIDS PLACED BY BIDDER C.

If bidder C does not make good on 1300, then none of bidder C's bids are valid.

This is the key - the second winner is not Bidder A at 1200.

It is Bidder A at 900!

Auctions and auctioneers don't want to do this, even though it is the fair way.

If you remove all of Bidders C's bids, then you go by WHO WON by default when Bidder C is totally removed.

Bidder A starts at 500
Bidder B comes in at 600
Bidder D comes in at 800
Bidder A comes in at 900

This may look complicated but it is not complicated at all.

Bidder A made a legitimate bid at 900.

It does not matter than Bidder A bid up to 1200 because he was bidding against a bogus bidder, hereby essentially bidding against himself.

You go back to the point the Bidder C entered the auction and go from that point.

That is the starting point for determining the next winner.


Bidder A just got this domain at 900.

Snapnames auctions do it like this, and also have the courtesy to ask the second top winner whether he wants to take the name or not.
I've got some nice surprises in the past to get names at a lower price.

On the other hand, I got billed by Namejet for names which I thought I've lost and forgotten about already.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by siteman

On the other hand, I got billed by Namejet for names which I thought I've lost and forgotten about already.

That is why Theo was talking about.

How on earth can they do this?

A clause in the TOS just doesn't cut it.

An indefinite auction? BS.

Snap must have it going on if eliminating all bids dropping the final price down and offering it to the next highest bidder rather than telling them they are responsible.

And I thoroughly agree with the prior statement of transparency.

If namejet is set up to where bidder number 2 is responsible for bidder number 1 default, guess who bidder number 1 may be working for?

Domainers are being baited...pure and simple scam on a grand scale.

[britishbulldog]

Originally Posted by Acro

I have no idea why NameJet does not ban serial deadbeat bidders from their auctioning system, unless they use them as "rabbits" like Snapnames with halvarez.

How you mean acro i have been run up many times by halvarez on snapnames ?