Bidding on your own names at NameJet...?

nicedomains said:

Remember this a few hours ago...?? It was an accusation from a reputable member. You acknowledged it. MO has not acknowledged this post or answered the straight forward question asked.

Click to expand...

An accusation isn't evidence. A lack of acknowledgement isn't a sign of guilt.

xn--v4h.com said:

An accusation isn't evidence. A lack of acknowledgement isn't a sign of guilt.

Click to expand...

Good point. Please look into this @NameJetGM and also any other cases. @Rick Schwartz mentioned an audit which I think is 100% appropriate at this time.

xn--v4h.com said:

You don't believe that more competition is a good thing?

Click to expand...

Shill bidding is not healthy competition.
There is no point trying to rationalize and justify shill bidding.

I don't know why people aren't acknowledging the obvious here.
Booth brothers, Seek aka Oliver, MediaOptions have all been involved in shill bidding.
Some of the accused are trying to defend, some just beating around the bush.
The only question that remains now is can NameJet ban them and afford to lose the commission that they are generating?
That's it. Period.

Both Andy and James Booth are watching this thread closely, but not providing any evidence to clear their names:



Why don't they simply just post some proof to back up what they are claiming, to dispel the increasing amount of evidence that is accumulating against them in this thread that they and Oliver Hoger are cooperating to drive prices up for their own auctions? When somebody stays silent for this long it is usually not a good sign. If their claims were truthful they could have taken 5 minutes to screenshot the relevant sales proof and ownership transfer proof, and cleared their case.

Why doesn't Oliver Hoger, who seems to have bid in at least 902 of his own auctions at NameJet (!), and operate a number of shill bidding accounts at namejet as per the info provided by Michael come on here to clear his name? The scale and extent of this guys shill bidding activities is just mind boggling. If Michael's post is accurate, and no evidence to the contrary has been provided, it's insane that he has been able to get away with all this at NameJet. However, NameJet's lax response to this has been extremely disappointing so far, so I guess I should not be that surprised that they have let this take place on such a large scale. Will NameJet provide evidence to the contrary? Will be very interesting to see how they handle this whole situation. Not promising at all so far. If what has been posted so far is anything to go by, we have probably only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shill bidding activity at NameJet.

A lot of people have accused media options of bidding on his own auctions at NameJet, both when he is the seller and when other's are selling names for him. Why does he keep ignoring every commenter that brings this up? Why doesn't he simply take two minutes to make a statement to address those commenters directly, in order to rebut those accusations if they are false? He must have spent hours over the past day to discuss the theoretical idea that owners should be allowed to bid in their own auctions, but why doesn't he take two minutes out of his day to strongly deny the numerous shill bidding accusations against him?

Why are none of the growing number of people that are being accused of shill bidding at NameJet actively clarifying the situation and posting evidence to clear their name?

15 pages and we still need one major simple question answered to put this to bed.

1. Who owned the domains at question?

Where is the proof?...It should be very easy to provide sufficient evidence to squash this....It's so easy to provide this evidence, if it exists, that this is becoming comical..NameJet said the brothers did not own the domains. Currently, all evidence shows they did own the domains. The ball is in the court of the accused.

Internet.Domains said:

15 pages and we still need one major simple question answered to put this to bed.

1. Who owned the domains at question?

Where is the proof?...It should be very easy to provide sufficient evidence to squash this....It's so easy to provide this evidence, if it exists, that this is becoming comical..NameJet said the brothers did not own the domains. Currently, all evidence shows they did own the domains. The ball is in the court of the accused.

Click to expand...

Take moviezone.com. Since former owner (andy booth), supposed current owner (oliver hoger), whois owner (andy booth), and namejet seller (oliver hoger) bid on it, getting to the bottom of who exactly owned the name doesn't really clear anyone's name, does it?

What a read. This whole thread makes me feel better about hand regs.

karmaco said:

What a read. This whole thread makes me feel better about hand regs.

Click to expand...

psst.... don't give some folk with badly broken moral compass any new ideas..

Drain the swamp. Unfortunately, I don't believe anything will change as "market makers" will do this no matter how they will find another scheme to promote valuations. The stock market, fine art auctions, etc are all corrupt as well. The way I handle it is with leaving the market and refusing to spend my dollars where it is corrupt.

Here's the thing, perception is not necessarily fact. The op found something that is questionable. No need for mob mentality. It is clear that the privately owned business, NameJet, is considering the questionable issues and trying to determine a course of action.

No need for a witch hunt, no need to make assumptions without all the facts. No need to make conclusions rashly.

I don't believe that in midst of questions, we immediately turn on NameJet or these domainers. If each person does the right thing and conducts their auctions ethically and professionally, and according to the platform TOS, they will not be caught up in these kinds of situations.

This is an anomaly. I don't believe NJ has some master plan to rip people off.

I look forward to seeing changes to prevent this kind of uncertainty. I am satisfied at the quick response and the commitments made to investigate the situation.

If people have already made up their minds, what value is there in finding a solution? Each person can make up their own minds, but I for one, will wait and see how this evolves.

Silentptnr said:

Here's the thing, perception is not necessarily fact. The op found something that is questionable. No need for mob mentality. It is clear that the privately owned business, NameJet, is considering the questionable issues and trying to determine a course of action.

No need for a witch hunt, no need to make assumptions without all the facts. No need to make conclusions rashly.

I don't believe that in midst of questions, we immediately turn on NameJet or these domainers. If each person does the right thing and conducts their auctions ethically and professionally, and according to the platform TOS, they will not be caught up in these kinds of situations.

This is an anomaly. I don't believe NJ has some master plan to rip people off.

I look forward to seeing changes to prevent this kind of uncertainty. I am satisfied at the quick response and the commitments made to investigate the situation.

If people have already made up their minds, what value is there in finding a solution? Each person can make up their own minds, but I for one, will wait and see how this evolves.

Click to expand...

if everyone took this approach to things, then nothing would ever get done, and the things you say you now look forward to, wouldn't even be set in motion.

Silentptnr said:

It is clear that the privately owned business, NameJet, is considering the questionable issues and trying to determine a course of action.

Click to expand...

Web.com is a public company tho.

Arca said:

Oliver Hoger (seek) is the seller of moviezone.com at namejet, and presumably he bought it from Andy Booth prior to listing it (that is what is being claimed by Andy Booth). However, Andy Booth (boothcom) was still the owner of MovieZone.com while the domain was in auction according to WHOIS.

Both seek (oliver) and boothcom (andy) bid on MovieZone.com, and they had the two highest bids in the auction. The "notadomainer" bid handle almost fell victim to their shill bidding:

Show attachment 64570

Click to expand...

I don't see any way to spin this.

At the time of the auction the WHOIS showed Andy Booth as the owner. If Oliver Hoger was the actual owner, then why was that the case? How did he list a domain without NameJet verifying ownership?

Also, the 1st and 2nd bids are from Andy Booth and Oliver Hoger. Any combination of who actually owns it and the bidders equals shill bidding.

Please explain to me any possible way there is not some bullshit involved here.

Brad

bmugford said:

I don't see any way to spin this.

At the time of the auction the WHOIS showed Andy Booth as the owner. If Oliver Hoger was the actual owner, then why was that the case? How did he list a domain without NameJet verifying ownership?

Also, the 1st and 2nd bids are from Andy Booth and Oliver Hoger. Any combination of who actually owns it and the bidders equals shill bidding.

Please explain to me any possible way there is not some bullsh*t involved here.

Brad

Click to expand...

They both are friend. Friend helping friend, period.

alcy said:

if everyone took this approach to things, then nothing would ever get done, and the things you say you now look forward to, wouldn't even be set in motion.

Click to expand...

I am only saying that time and time again, I read threads where other honorable domainers get very passionate, and then, in the end, everyone goes back to their day and forgets about it.

This could (and appears to be) a situation where cheating and manipulation are involved. It does appear that the actions by Booths were wrong and against the TOS. Without question.

There is no defense of that. It doesn't even matter if they were the seller or not. It is an issue that is wrong.

That being said, I do believe that the best solution and result will come after thought and consideration.

rentmynames said:

They both are friend. Friend helping friend, period.

Click to expand...

Here are the possibilities -

1.) As the WHOIS showed, Andy Booth was the owner of this domain. Andy Booth was the high bidder in the auction.

2.) Despite what the WHOIS showed, Oliver Hoger was actually the owner. Oliver Hoger was 2nd bidder in the auction.

What is the 3rd option?

Brad

And by the way, there is no question that until the matter is resolved, the members involved should have their privileges suspended.

dordomai said:

how is it possible to make money bidding and winning on your own domains?

You will always lose if you are on both sides of the deal. Commission will be the loss.

The only way to benefit from it financially is to make a small loss buying back your own name to prevent a large loss from having to sell it below market value.

Since you can set a reserve price that protects you froms selling below market value there is really no legitimate reason to bid on your names.

Click to expand...

You could average higher price over many domains, especially if there is one motivated bidder and that motivated bidder should get it at much lower price, not the one you drove him up to.

I saw a domain on GD auction couple of years ago I really liked. I bid it up to around $3,500 and then gave up. In a week I received an email from GD saying that I won it for around $300, as the winner did not pay and next other bidder (bidder #3) stopped at around $300. Now, I don't know if the "winner" was a shill bidder or had buyer's remorse. But regardless if he stopped at around $3,300, I would have lost around $3000 net because of him, even though the name is worth that much to me, the point is I should have gotten it for around $300 anyway.

bmugford said:

Here are the possibilities -

1.) As the WHOIS showed, Andy Booth was the owner of this domain. Andy Booth was bidding in the auction.

2.) Despite what the WHOIS showed, Oliver Hoger was actually the owner. Oliver Hoger was bidding in the auction.

What is the 3rd option. There isn't one...

Brad

Click to expand...

Who is Oliver Hoger....Is it a real person? Friend of the brothers?

bmugford said:

Here are the possibilities -

1.) As the WHOIS showed, Andy Booth was the owner of this domain. Andy Booth was the high bidder in the auction.

2.) Despite what the WHOIS showed, Oliver Hoger was actually the owner. Oliver Hoger was 2nd bidder in the auction.

What is the 3rd option. There isn't one...

Brad

Click to expand...

I would love to hear from Namejet what their scenario's are, as of now they feel everything is A ok, any admission of wrong doing will cost their company as these are active bidders, and sellers, and if any of these scenarios are true the winning bidders would be due compensation, and damages. Some of these auctions get into 5-6 figures, this is real money, $10-20K in the up direction is a great pay day if a bidding war errupts.

I often wonder why these industry veterans choose to wholesale thru namejet even though they can afford to renew their names, as they are in the business of selling to end users, maybe now we are understanding why.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financialcareers/06/mmakertricks.asp

Liquidity providers.

vinodnair said:

Click to expand...

get some more popcorn there georgie.. *if* this turns out to be what many here suspect it to be, it has potential to rank as one of ugliest things in domain history.

Internet.Domains said:

Who is Oliver Hoger....Is it a real person? Friend of the brothers?

Click to expand...

He is well known as an active buyer/seller of short names, especially LLLL.COM names. DSAD had an article by him in 2015, but he generally keeps a low profile.

He is working closely with James Booth, and here is a testimonial by him on the BQDN.com website (James Booth's company page):

Oliver Hoger is also connected to MediaOptions, and helped them with the 11.com sale (from dnjournal):