Tie goes to the???

[robertjr]

What should happen in the case of a tie between buyer and seller?

Seller posts domain and price.

Buyer posts :sold but in the same minute the seller changes his/her mind and "edits" post to sale over.

Thus, no way to tell if buyer or seller posted first.

What do you think?

 

[Tippy]

There should be a way to tell which came first, NP staff might need to step in to verify.

Mike

 

[g0ldy]

thats why people should always timestamp their sales and auctions.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

I'd say there should be a way to tell the exact post time, even though they only show to nearest minute here. I think a reply post should trump an edit post, otherwise whichever reply post appears first in the list prevails.

Has this come up?

 

[armstrong]

IMHO, if the issue can't be resolved via timestamps, then the buyer's :sold: post should be honored if possible.

An appropriate analogy would be closing time at stores. People still inside the store during closing time are usually allowed a few minutes to complete their purchases.

 

[-OutlawBiker-]

Originally posted by armstrong
IMHO, if the issue can't be resolved via timestamps, then the buyer's :sold: post should be honored if possible.

An appropriate analogy would be closing time at stores. People still inside the store during closing time are usually allowed a few minutes to complete their purchases.

Timestamps can always resolve the issue down to the second, so it's really a done story.

But lets look at your analogy above.

The problem is that in the case of the forum, the store owner can't see any customers approaching. In other words, the store owner has a sale going, (at several of his stores) he goes to his first store, looks around and there is nobody there. (no posts)

He marks his sales flyers with "Sale Over!" closes the store and goes off to his next store and does the same thing. He eventually ends up at his last store and sees no one around, (no posts)marks his signs again with "Sale Over" and heads on his way. As would happen, (during the same minute) a buyer sees the sales sign and looks away for a few seconds to write out a check (or whatever) and doesn't see the owner close the shop and leave.

The next time the store owner comes back to his stores he sees a post on the door saying "Sold" and he has messages from 3 people asking why the sale ended and offering money. The store owner says "sorry", didn't you see the sales signs where I posted (more than once) that the sale was over?

One of the customers gets all ticked and questions the store owners integrity. The store owner gives the customer references (including the mall owner) and says he has never backed out of a deal in his frickin life. The store owner says he will let the buyer have the merchandise, but at the original discounted sales price and not the last marked down price.

Not good enough says the customer. A sale is a sale.

True says the store owner, but not after a sale was ended.


Now if that's not the case, I want back in at some of those sales of 3 letter .coms that Gregr had going last year, and I want them for the same price.
Doc

 

[RJ]

Originally posted by AdoptableDomains
I'd say there should be a way to tell the exact post time, even though they only show to nearest minute here. I think a reply post should trump an edit post, otherwise whichever reply post appears first in the list prevails.

This is correct. The timestamps in the database go to the actual second, even though only the minute is displayed publicly.

>> Has this come up?

It did today, and hopefully the timestamps were able to resolve the tie.

 

[Bill1]

well then we should just have to have timestams that quote the seconds i dont think they can post at the same second

 

[-OutlawBiker-]

Originally posted by -RJ-
This is correct. The timestamps in the database go to the actual second, even though only the minute is displayed publicly.

>> Has this come up?

It did today, and hopefully the timestamps were able to resolve the tie.

Yeah it's been resolved. Thank you for the research RJ.

It's cool.

 

[The Equivocate]

Even if the Buyer did post Sold first, it's not like anyone can force the Seller to sell it...

 

[MissFlora]

I have an issue with a timestamp sale as well that needs help from mods. Somehow, I don't understand why will the seller not sell the merchandise anyway? He/she has the intention of selling it in the first place and thus though late for a second or two, the intention to sell the product still exists. The seller changes his mind within seconds? I understand that if the price has been set for minutes and the seller decided not to sell at that price, that's reasonable. But if the price is up for awhile and suddenly a buyer appeared. I think the seller should be happy about it, right? I don't know, if I'm the seller, mentally prepared to sell the product at that price, someone want to buy it, I will be happy to sell it though I posted sale over. It doesn't matter as long as I have the intention to sell.