| |
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> It would have been nice if Todd had commented on the point a number of
> folks talked about, that is, whether your thread, after I pounced on it
> in bad humor, is now an auction thread or not.
It wasn't immediately clear to me whether your pounce was competing against
MikeP by offering higher prices for something wanted by both of you, or
whether your pounce was declaring minimum prices that you as a seller would
accept from Mike if he wanted to buy those items from you. In the first
case, it's not an auction or reverse auction because there's no auctioneer.
In the second case, it's not an auction because you're negotiating one-on-
one with Mike.
Looking at your post in .auction for clarification, I think what you have
going there isn't an auction at all... In my mind, an auction must involve
a single auctioneer/entity (meaning a single auctioneer or group of
auctioneers acting in unison) selling something or buying something, with an
initial announcement and periodic updates of sorts.
In a regular auction, the auctioneer has something to sell, and solicits
bids from multiple potential buyers, seeking the highest bids. In a reverse
auction, the auctioneer wants to buy something, and solicits bids from
multiple potential sellers, seeking the lowest bids.
But what you have going is multiple buyers and multiple potential sellers,
with no one entity "running" the show (i.e., no auction). That's a lot more
(in my mind) like a free wheeling commodities or stock market type of thing,
and really belongs in .buy-sell-trade, even if there is price competition.
> It's actually an interesting meta question and gets back to the "does
> the originator of the thread own it" issue that arose from what
> transpired in the market.auction incident Simon referred to. A larger
> question is whether a thread that mutates (in the general case) needs
> to move despite any protestations by the originator. General usenet
> convention is that if the topic really has changed, the thread should
> move. One person claiming it has changed does not mean it has, though.
> Even if that person is me, who is usually right about everything.
I would say a mutated thread should move if and only if it wanders off-topic
for its group or vastly off-topic for its thread -- where the mechanics of
the move consist of either starting a new thread in the same group, or
starting a new thread in a different group, or staying in the same thread
but moving to a differrent group. I don't consider any thread anywhere
(here or Usenet) to be sacred to any one person and off-limits to others,
and I think it would be bad to impose any sorts of rules limiting that.
> That topic itself is way off topic for this group and interested
> discussors should pursue it in .admin or .market.theory
[This message crossposted to lugnet.market.theory with followups set there.]
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Is it an auction or not? (was: WTB Train Parts)
|
| In article <37a489f9.1493045@lugnet.com>, Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> writes (...) It struck me when I got on the net last November, and the conviction remains, that the buying and selling of Lego *bricks* as opposed to sets *is* a commodity (...) (25 years ago, 1-Aug-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: WTB Train Parts
|
| (...) It would have been nice if Todd had commented on the point a number of folks talked about, that is, whether your thread, after I pounced on it in bad humor, is now an auction thread or not. It's actually an interesting meta question and gets (...) (25 years ago, 1-Aug-99, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
