View Single Post
  #3  
Old 06-26-2016, 09:48 AM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector View Post
one 'quick fix' can be if there is ever a bid retraction on an auction you 'won' you have the option of canceling with no recourse.... i know its not a total fix but i know i would drop out of any auction in which someone bid more than me, then 'retracted'...i would than drop out of that auction but right now i always honor paying on any items i 'won'...so if the rules were clear i coudl get out of a 'win' if there was a bid retraction that may prevent some abuse
I'd take it a step further and say that whenever there is a bid retraction, the bidder who then holds the highest bid should have the option at that point of pulling their bid back as well, and so on, down the line if necessary, until no existing bid was the result of having been inflated by the retracted bid. Everyone should know that every bid they place is against a sincere bidder and not someone who has, or will, retract their bid.

For auction houses, if this is a serious problem, perhaps they should consider having all bidders give them a deposit prior to auction close, that would be non-refundable in case of a retraction that didn't have merit. For ebay, they should automatically ban users after their third retraction, and cross-reference new users (by PayPal account, bank account, credit card numbers, name and address, and so on) to make it harder for them to skirt the rule by opening new accounts.

I recently bid in an auction (the seller was a forum member here in fact,) where I was outbid and that bid was cancelled (not retracted) apparently because the bidder had 0 feedback. It wasn't an issue as I was outbid later anyway but at the time, the cancellation reverted me into the top position. So, the same policy should apply for both retractions and cancellations.

Last edited by Mark17; 06-26-2016 at 09:54 AM. Reason: clarified first paragraph a bit
Reply With Quote