| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > I don't think a consensus has been reached(1). I for one consider it an
> > > auction. However Todd has ruled that it isn't and that is sufficient.
> > > Under Lugnet T&C this post is OK for .b-s-t
> >
> > I don't recall saying that. :-(
> > I remember putting forth the argument that an OBO sale was mathematically
> > equivalent to a sealed-bid auction. (Two names for the same function.)
> >
> > Sealed bid auctions belong in .auction, and OBO sales belong in .b-s-t.
>
> Let's try again. You say they're mathematically equivalent but sortable by
> how they're labeled (and treated) into one of the two groups.
That's still not quite it, no. I'm not saying that they're sortable into one
of two groups simply by how they're labled, as if they were the same to begin
with and naturally fall into one category or the other.
Rather, I'm saying they're separate things to begin with, which just happen
to be equivalent in function -- but they are still very different beasts
perceptually to humans, especially to those who dislike auctions. An OBO
sale isn't an auction, nor is an SBA a true auction by nature either, despite
its misleading name. But an SBA, being a degenerate case of an auction, and
having the name and perception of auction, and having evolved from auctions,
perceptually closer to being an auction than an OBO sale is. Nobody is going
to cry bloody murder at someone for posting an informal OBO notice in a
buying/selling/trading group...OBO sales are part of normal everyday non-
Internet culture (classified ads, kiosk or dorm sales, etc.). Auctions,
being more formalized and designed the purpose of sucking as much money out
of bidders as possible, are off-putting to people who want to be able to
negotiate a simple OBO offer.
Maybe I'm wrong in saying that OBOs and SBAs are mathematically equivalent.
Or maybe being mathematically equivalent is irrelevant, because it's the
human factors which distinguish the two so clearly. Both OBOs and SBAs
accept offers from multiple people, where those offers are not [supposed
to be] used to solicit progressively higher offers. If multiple buyers are
pitted against one another in a competition, then it's an auction by nature
if not by name. If buyers are not pitted against one another, then it's not
an auction by nature even if by name.
Question: Do SBAs (being more formalized than OBOs) have a different set of
rules? AFAIK, OBOs don't really have any rules, and a potential buyer has
neither reason nor right to be upset if unable to buy the item for whatever
reason. Yet an SBA might have restrictions: a limited bidding window
(offers must be received by midnight tomorrow night, for example), or a
promise to disclose all bids after bidding closes, or a promise not to
suddenly change one's mind and not sell the item, or a strict promise to
sell to the person making the highest monetary offer regardless of personal
bias. (An important fuzzy-decision-making factor in OBOs is often geography,
which is likely to be a less important factor -- or not a factor at all --
in SBAs.)
If we can list and agree on what the human-level differences are, maybe we
can define the difference between an OBO and an SBA. After all, they are
quite different perceptually even if the underlying algorithms (from a math
standpoint) are identical. I might even wonder if there are OBO sales out
there in "real life" in which a tiny amount of counter-bidding or pseudo-
counter-bidding occurs, for example two buyers showing up simultaneously
and competing with one another on their own accord with no intervention from
the seller.
But aside from any strict definitions, what's important from a community
design standpoint, is simply that there exist a completely auction-free
forum for buying, selling, and trading. That doesn't necessarily mean
auction-free in the mathematical sense, although that would be nice, but
moreso it means auction-free in the human-perceptual sense, for the reasons
upon which the separation exists in the first place is purely for reasons
of human perception (a significant number of people simply find auctions
terrifically annoying).
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 8480 Technic Shuttles
|
| (...) Let's try again. You say they're mathematically equivalent but sortable by how they're labeled (and treated) into one of the two groups. I say they're mathematically equivalent and therefore all belong in auction, regardless of label. (...) (24 years ago, 1-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
