PWCC 10 Retraction Rule

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=238568

"As of April 1, 2017 PWCC places blocks on any user ID that has more than 10 bid cancellations in the past six months. This reflects a reduction in the number of allowed bid cancellations from 25 to 10. As the program continues to mature and continues to affect bidder behavior, PWCC will continue to reduce the threshold."

Guess not.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=238568

"As of April 1, 2017 PWCC places blocks on "ANY" user ID that has more than 10 bid cancellations in the past six months. This reflects a reduction in the number of allowed bid cancellations from 25 to 10. As the program continues to mature and continues to affect bidder behavior, PWCC will continue to reduce the threshold."

Guess not.

They must have forgot to add: "Unless you have bid, won and purchased anything from us in the past"

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=238568

"As of April 1, 2017 PWCC places blocks on any user ID that has more than 10 bid cancellations in the past six months. This reflects a reduction in the number of allowed bid cancellations from 25 to 10. As the program continues to mature and continues to affect bidder behavior, PWCC will continue to reduce the threshold."

Guess not.

I will say that in Betsy's email to me, she did say that the bidder IDs would be blocked, but the bids themselves would not be cancelled absent evidence of manipulation with regard to that specific bid. So I suppose blocking the bidder from future bids but allowing the instant bids to stand technically comports with the "policy," but I think Betsy et al demonstrated in the last thread that they still won't enforce the black letter of the policy when it comes to high-rollers.

ETA: Upon further reflection, I certainly understand (as per the scenario in the last thread) why the 2nd bidder in line would want to retract a bid if a higher bidder above them has retracted, thus screwing the underbidder. However, that creates a cascade of retractions, and leads to uneven enforcement of the "policy." The much better way to enforce the policy would be to not only block the IDs, but also to cancel any bids placed by those IDs, even if those bids are deemed to be legitimate. That way, serial-retractors simply cannot participate in PWCC auctions, and underbidder bids will be restored to their proper levels. If the underbidder still has concerns about their max having been exposed, PWCC can cancel the bids on their end and allow the underbidder to re-bid (or not), thereby preventing the underbidder from having to retract on his/her own.

[Edwolf1963]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=238568

"As of April 1, 2017 PWCC places blocks on any user ID that has more than 10 bid cancellations in the past six months. This reflects a reduction in the number of allowed bid cancellations from 25 to 10. As the program continues to mature and continues to affect bidder behavior, PWCC will continue to reduce the threshold."

Guess not.

I guess the program hasn't matured yet?

.. Seriously, all the "complaining and bitching" (most of it anyway) wouldn't have come about had they not put out their policy and in the name of addressing fraudsters, shill bidding, shenanigans of the sort, etc. I don't see what possible purpose there could be to put out a strict, stated policy only to not uphold it?

[irv]

Originally Posted by Edwolf1963

I guess the program hasn't matured yet?

.. Seriously, all the "complaining and bitching" (most of it anyway) wouldn't have come about had they not put out their policy and in the name of addressing fraudsters, shill bidding, shenanigans of the sort, etc. I don't see what possible purpose there could be to put out a strict, stated policy only to not uphold it?

It is to fool people, like myself, with limited experience and knowledge, to make us think they are a well established, honest, transparent and trustworthy company/business.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by irv

It is to fool people, like myself, with limited experience and knowledge, to make us think they are a well established, honest, transparent and trustworthy company/business.

I think they totally believed they were going to uphold this rule until they found out most of their big spenders were doing it.