Moniker, wth are they thinking?? (On a rant)

[Ziggery.com]

To go further with the title, I'm talking about the T.R.A.F.F.I.C auction thats coming up in 2 weeks.

The people who know me, know that I'm a calm person who doesn't get worked up easily BUT this has got me mad enough to type this out!

Take a look through the list, there are names in there that people wouldn't give a reg fee for and they are let in to the auction out of the 110k names submitted. Personally, I think its time to fire some people who pick some of those names.

http://marketplacepro.moniker.com/auction/index.html

I think whoever picks these names should be true domainers and unbiased.

Man o Man, I'm as mad as hell over this, not because mine didn't get accepted into the auction, in fact a couple of mine did, but if you look at some of the names left out of the LIVE auction and put into the extended auction I think Moniker submissions department has their head stuck where the sun doesn't shine! To have a double premium LLLL.com in the auction listed between 1k-5k is just nuts!

If Moniker wanted to get more attention by broadcasting this live, well, they got my attention but I won't be watching it live. In fact, I've already sent a request in to have my names pulled from the auction because it's obvious they have no idea what's going on and couldn't run a drunk-fest in a brewery! Unbelievable!

I watched it last time and I was hoping they would have a different auctioneer, nope...well, I'm going to stop my rant there before I say something I'll regret because it's right on the tip of my tongue and I'm just not going there!!!

I apologize if I offended anyone who has names in this auction, that was not my intention!

Moniker Submissions Department: Replace them.....
Auctioneer: Replace him too
Snapnames: Do your homework

Thanks

Rhinoz on a Rant :td:

 

[DomainTalker]

Legal or not, commonly used or not, it's downright shady imho.

I agree...In the final analysis, its dishonest...

In Australia, this practice is illegal for property auctions...


We think that taking what are effectively false bids 'off the wall', or 'chandelier' is misleading, at best, and misrepresentation, at worst...

When an auctioneer says (implying he's receiving bids): "$12,000"...then, "$12,500"....then: "$13,000"...when there is no bid at all, is a flat out lie to the potential bidders, imo - and, - far from 'meeting the market' - is trying to manipulate the market...


If there are no bids at all, or bids below the set reserve, then the auctioneer should declare that, I reckon....Then, either the seller lowers his reserve to meet the market - or the item should be passed in at either no 'bids', or, the highest (below reserve) bid...

That way, everyone knows the true state of the market in relation to that item - the process is honest, open, and reflects what truly happened.

.

 

[Ziggery.com]

This is where a "standard" for auctions should be implemented across the boards for domains and be ruled over for this "side industry for registrars" as they are ruled by ICANN for domain registrations.

You'll be hearing more from me on this very soon

 

[-REECE-]

Looking forward to it mate

This is where a "standard" for auctions should be implemented across the boards for domains and be ruled over for this "side industry for registrars" as they are ruled by ICANN for domain registrations.

You'll be hearing more from me on this very soon

The funny thing about these auctions is that if you ever tried that with your own domain, everyone would agree that you were shill bidding. I really don't see the difference here.

I agree...In the final analysis, its dishonest...

In Australia, this practice is illegal for property auctions...


We think that taking what are effectively false bids 'off the wall', or 'chandelier' is misleading, at best, and misrepresentation, at worst...

When an auctioneer says (implying he's receiving bids): "$12,000"...then, "$12,500"....then: "$13,000"...when there is no bid at all, is a flat out lie to the potential bidders, imo - and, - far from 'meeting the market' - is trying to manipulate the market...


If there are no bids at all, or bids below the set reserve, then the auctioneer should declare that, I reckon....Then, either the seller lowers his reserve to meet the market - or the item should be passed in at either no 'bids', or, the highest (below reserve) bid...

That way, everyone knows the true state of the market in relation to that item - the process is honest, open, and reflects what truly happened.

.

 

[Ziggery.com]

Only difference between chandelier and shill is that one is under a corporate veil !

 

[scandiman]

The funny thing about these auctions is that if you ever tried that with your own domain, everyone would agree that you were shill bidding. I really don't see the difference here.

Yes, I agree it is odd that if the auctioneer does it it is fine but if the owner did it then it is not fine. What makes this more contentious and difficult is that now we're combining venues, in a live audience a bidder has the opportunity to see what is going on but with a phone bid or online bid, the bidder does not know what is going on.

But still what I find the most troubling in all of this is that following the auction, pass prices are being reported, which can only be viewed as a phantom number not worthy of reporting. It's no different than someone in a forum saying they got a specific dollar offer for a domain when in fact they didn't. I'd call that lying. Additionally these pass prices end up being used by some as a valuation tool when in fact it may simply be something pulled out of thin air.

 

[Rubber Duck]

Even Frank Schilling was caught innocently quoting these chandelier bids. I am not sure whether it was funny or just embarrassing for everyone.

Yes, I agree it is odd that if the auctioneer does it it is fine but if the owner did it then it is not fine. What makes this more contentious and difficult is that now we're combining venues, in a live audience a bidder has the opportunity to see what is going on but with a phone bid or online bid, the bidder does not know what is going on.

But still what I find the most troubling in all of this is that following the auction, pass prices are being reported, which can only be viewed as a phantom number not worthy of reporting. It's no different than someone in a forum saying they got a specific dollar offer for a domain when in fact they didn't. I'd call that lying. Additionally these pass prices end up being used by some as a valuation tool when in fact it may simply be something pulled out of thin air.

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02442

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02442&sh=t

2442

2007-2008 Regular Sessions

I N A S S E M B L Y

January 17, 2007
___________

Introduced by M. of A. BRODSKY -- read once and referred to the Commit-
tee on Tourism, Arts and Sports Development

AN ACT to amend the general business law, in relation to disclosure of
sham bids and house bids at public auctions and requirements for
auction sale of advertised property; prohibited bids

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1 Section 1. The general business law is amended by adding a new section
2 29 to read as follows:
3 S 29. SHAM BIDS. 1. DEFINITIONS. A. THE TERM "SHAM BID", AS USED IN
4 THIS SECTION, MEANS ANY BID FOR WHICH THERE IS NO BONA FIDE OFFER OR
5 WHICH IS NOT A BONA FIDE BID, ANY BID MADE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE SELL-
6 ER, AND BIDS COMMONLY KNOWN AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO "CHANDELIER", "CONSEC-
7 UTIVE", OR "SUCCESSIVE" BIDS.
8 B. THE TERM "AUCTIONEER", AS USED IN THIS SECTION, MEANS ANY PERSON,
9 CORPORATION, OR OTHER ENTITY WHO OR WHICH ENGAGES IN THE BUSINESS OF
10 SELLING REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY AT PUBLIC AUCTION AND WHO OR WHICH
11 SELLS OR OFFERS FOR SALE ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, ITSELF, OR ANOTHER
12 PERSON, AT PUBLIC AUCTION, ANY REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY.
13 C. THE TERM "AUCTION HOUSE", AS USED IN THIS SECTION, MEANS AN AUCTIO-
14 NEER WHICH HAS A SALESROOM WHERE REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY IS OFFERED
15 FOR SALE AT A PUBLIC AUCTION OR BY PRIVATE SALE AND ANY OF ITS OFFICERS,
16 EMPLOYEES, SERVANTS, AGENTS, OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.
17 2. THIS SECTION`S REQUIREMENTS SHALL ALSO APPLY TO ANY PARENT ENTITY
18 WHICH HOLDS AT LEAST A TEN PERCENT INTEREST IN THE EQUITY OF AN AUCTION
19 HOUSE AND SHALL ALSO APPLY TO ANY OTHER SUBSIDIARY ENTITY OF SUCH PARENT
20 ENTITY IN WHICH THE PARENT ENTITY HOLDS AT LEAST A TEN PERCENT INTEREST.
21 3. NO AUCTIONEER OR AUCTION HOUSE MAY SOLICIT, ACCEPT, OR APPEAR TO
22 SOLICIT OR ACCEPT SHAM BIDS UNLESS SUCH BIDS ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THE
23 TERM "FOR THE CONSIGNOR".

EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
{ } is old law to be omitted.
LBD04516-01-7

A. 2442 2

1 4. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT OR
2 IMPAIR THE AUTHORITY OF ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY WHICH EXERCISES
3 REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER AUCTIONS TO IMPOSE MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIRE-
4 MENTS.
5 S 2. The general business law is amended by adding a new section 29-a
6 to read as follows:
7 S 29-A. ABSOLUTE AUCTIONS. 1. WHEN AN AUCTIONEER OR AUCTION HOUSE OR
8 OWNER OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY ADVERTISES THAT THE PROPERTY WILL BE
9 SOLD AT AUCTION REGARDLESS OF PRICE, THEN SUCH PROPERTY SHALL BE SOLD TO
10 THE HIGHEST BIDDER. SUCH ADVERTISING INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO,
11 THE USE OF SUCH TERMS AS "ABSOLUTE BASIS", "ABSOLUTE AUCTION", OR "ABSO-
12 LUTE, UNRESERVED AUCTION". A BID MADE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER OR
13 CONSIGNOR OF SUCH PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE AUCTIONEER OR
14 THE AUCTION HOUSE.
15 2. WHENEVER AN AUCTIONEER OR AUCTION HOUSE ACCEPTS A BID THAT IS MADE
16 FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE AUCTIONEER OR AUCTION HOUSE, THE AUCTIONEER OR
17 AUCTION HOUSE SHALL ANNOUNCE ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH BID WITH THE TERM
18 "AUCTION HOUSE BID".
19 3. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT OR
20 IMPAIR THE AUTHORITY OF ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY WHICH EXERCISES
21 REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER AUCTIONS TO IMPOSE MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIRE-
22 MENTS.
23 4. THE DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION TWENTY-NINE OF THIS ARTICLE
24 ALSO APPLY TO THIS SECTION.
25 S 3. This act shall take effect on the sixtieth day after it shall
26 have become a law.

 

[newdomainer.mobi]

To go further with the title, I'm talking about the T.R.A.F.F.I.C auction thats coming up in 2 weeks.

The people who know me, know that I'm a calm person who doesn't get worked up easily BUT this has got me mad enough to type this out!

Take a look through the list, there are names in there that people wouldn't give a reg fee for and they are let in to the auction out of the 110k names submitted. Personally, I think its time to fire some people who pick some of those names.

http://marketplacepro.moniker.com/auction/index.html

I think whoever picks these names should be true domainers and unbiased.

Man o Man, I'm as mad as hell over this, not because mine didn't get accepted into the auction, in fact a couple of mine did, but if you look at some of the names left out of the LIVE auction and put into the extended auction I think Moniker submissions department has their head stuck where the sun doesn't shine! To have a double premium LLLL.com in the auction listed between 1k-5k is just nuts!

If Moniker wanted to get more attention by broadcasting this live, well, they got my attention but I won't be watching it live. In fact, I've already sent a request in to have my names pulled from the auction because it's obvious they have no idea what's going on and couldn't run a drunk-fest in a brewery! Unbelievable!

I watched it last time and I was hoping they would have a different auctioneer, nope...well, I'm going to stop my rant there before I say something I'll regret because it's right on the tip of my tongue and I'm just not going there!!!

I apologize if I offended anyone who has names in this auction, that was not my intention!

Moniker Submissions Department: Replace them.....
Auctioneer: Replace him too
Snapnames: Do your homework

Thanks

Rhinoz on a Rant :td:

Totally agree with you;

The trouble is they work on a selection system whereby they print paper slips with a single domain submitted printed on each.

They then pass thorugh a panel of selectors who assess the names on their own merits...

At each stage they put the best names in Box A & the rejects in Box B.

Simple in theory but unfortunately they keep putting Box B into the auctions...

You'd think someone at Moniker (& the rest) had a clue wouldn't you???

 

[coast]

Monte, if you are still reading I would like to alert you to a situation in which TRAFFIC lost money today. I follow the .mobi names and today I know for a fact that two premium domain holders who use mac computers were locked out of the bidding because the snapnames software only works on windows based computers. Surely the commission gained by these individuals who have already demonstrated a willingness and ability to win premium names would pay for a programmer to create a system that doesn't lock out users based on their operating system?

 

[advaita]

Re. wall/shill bidding - if there is only one bidder why not just tell him/her "the reserve is xxxx are you willing to pay that price?" - the result would be the same and it would be a lot more honest - although with 'wall bidding' habitual bidders know what the score is anyway and must realize that they are the only bidder