query about new auction posting guidelines

[grodog]

In the Gems threads, scribe wrote:

[Mars]

Maybe it would be more appropriate that in the case where the user is a buyer or seller of the item, that they include this as a small note instead.

[scribe]

Thanks for the question, Allan. The ToT Auction Data Forum is something that I have pondered for quite a long time. In fact, probably a bit too long as I should have had the guidelines in place before going public. The details I posted up yesterday aren't a response to anything that has been posted to date, so I don't want anyone to feel the least bit uncomfortable with their efforts so far.

The question is how do we go about gathering data as a community in the most transparent way possible that won't suggest any sort of vested interest either intended or not? Personally, I don't think there is a perfect way. Just an acknowledgment that we are sensitive to concerns is what I am aiming for.

What makes me uncomfortable about this policy I set forth, is guys will often place bids on items to keep them on a watch list with no intention of winning the item. It would be a shame to lose that data if no one else is inclined to add it to the list. As a policy, I will probably try to find a way to re-word it so that it isn't so black and white. Perhaps something that should remain in spirit without enforcement. Not sure if this makes sense, but I hope it helps to understand the reasoning.
_________________

[tfm]

Just so you know, Allan, the Tome had a rigorous discussion about valuations before going public. I didn't want any record whatsoever as I think that $$$ clouds judgment and interferes with the core purpose of these materials--having fun. Any declared valuations are also subject to abuse by other people, especially if they are low or out of step with current trends. We ended up with the current method you see before you--a record of factual information. As a group we're sensitive to potential abuses regarding valuation, so we're taking the issue very seriously. For some items in the archives, there are estimated values simply because the data pool is so small and antiquated. But that's as far as we're willing to go at this point. If there is a demand for some other valuation mechanism, such as an easy-to-read digest of historically recorded values, then some other value interface may be made available in the future.
_________________
"This is cool."

[grodog]

Thanks for the responses guys. Your collective thinking sounds sound to me, I just thought that not allowing folks to post auctions that they participated in as a seller/buyer was a bit odd.

In your auction discussions, did you give any thought to how a lot would break out, in terms of valuing items---or, would you only post sales for single-item lots? (I was going to post my recent win on an Ardor/Umbar/other stuff lot, when I read the new posting guidelines, which is what prompted my query).
_________________
grodog
---
Allan Grohe
grodog@gmail.com
http://www.greyhawkonline.com/grodog/greyhawk.html

Editor and Project Manager, Black Blade Publishing
http://www.black-blade-publishing.com/

[tfm]

We did talk about it a little and favored single item auctions only, meaning either one item for sale or one important item for sale in a lot. If, for example, a Planescape Sketchbook was listed with The Art of D&D and The Art of AD&D, people would be bidding for the Sketchbook.
_________________
"This is cool."

[scribe]

I think the theory for those types of auctions is that the common items become packing materials. I think a somewhat clear description of auction conditions regarding the lot would be appropriate. I wouldn't try to enter the data unless that items is of the Very Rarist existence. The data would be difficult to use if there were a handful of Uncommon/Rare items pressing the auction result.

This is a good point. I will amend the auction guidelines to reflect thoughts on lots. Any other recommendations/suggestions are welcome.
_________________