Subject:
|
Re: Proxy ratcheting: How do auction systems work?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.auction
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 05:53:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
835 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.auction, lar@voyager.net (Larry Pieniazek) writes:
> [...]
> I don't like that behaviour. But it's not "broken" if the rules say
> that's the way it will work and if it actually works that way.
> See what I'm getting on about, or am I actually splitting hairs?
> [...]
I don't know if you're splitting hairs, but splitting hairs is probably a
good thing in this case. :I
This whole area/topic (auction theory) is something that I'm extremely
opinionated[1] about -- and not afraid to show it, even at the risk of
coming off as haughty or crass. I'm not extremely opinionated[1] about many
subjects, so I make no apologies when ranting or raving about an auction
system, because the dynamics of an auction system can and should be thought
through in excruciating mathematical and psychological detail prior to
implementation, IMHO. So when some rule or system (eBay, for instance)
works differently from my ideal personal beliefs, I'm pretty quick to rip it
to shreds via logical arguments, because it's clear they're solving the
equation for a different set of variables. Whether by design or accidental,
eBay's system is set up to benefit eBay the most, not the selling population
and certainly not the buying population. I guess it's a good solution if
that's what someone is after.
Anyway, I'm glad we see eye to eye (for the most part, I think) on what
sorts of outcomes are fair (or unfair) in various auction systems. I'm
perhaps too quick to use sweeping statements condemning something and
meaningless terms like "broken" and "fully rocks" because at the time I'm
making the statements, I'm usually spewing a tidbit the way it was filed
away into my brain after having thought about it once upon a time. It isn't
until I "swap it back in" and reconsider it in detail that I'm able to make
more meaningful, logical statements. I guess I also get frustrated a bit
too easily when dealing with this particular topic because it's so easy for
people to give up and not think things through all the way -- giving up
after head-banging for 2 hours when it really takes 20-40 hours, plus
running simulations and mock auctions. I guess I sometimes feel like a
grumpy old math professor who becomes upset whenever someone misses a
crucial step in a proof. :)
--Todd
[1] opinionated isn't the best word... I don't mean the pejorative meaning
of the word, but rather the one which connotes principled steadfastness.
I would call this opinionated in a good way, probably similar to the way
Larritarians are opinionated[2].
[2] while at the same time, paradoxically, remaining fully[3] open-minded.
[3] if it's worth the cycles
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
96 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
