Issues Arising from Staking

[Cf]

This isn't a dig at Alex but i'm bamboozled by people bidding 1.5 in his latest auction. I thought that was a high price anyway, but then came the revelation of 20% tax on the winnings. And people still bid 1.5! Alex is a good player, and it may be a soft tournament, but come on...

Why do mods have to start posts with "this isn't a dig at Alex" these days. Tighty did it with the 300 posts thing and even tikay assumed the position on his knees.

His latest Columbia auction is obv not value with the 20% tax but so what. He is a decent egg, posts plenty on blonde and should feel the love and generosity of the guys.  He is getting the bids and it's not like he is selling amassive %age anyway.

I think he should have to stick to the 300 post rule myself as he ain't bigger than blonde and its like having your cake and eat it. If you want the blonde love stick to the rules if not just sell on Facebook.

Even I pussy foot around him because he is a little more sensitive than most

It said "this isn't a dig at alex" because I was using his current thread to make a point. If someone else had started it I would use their name instead. Just trying to make it clear that it was the prices and more the people buying that I was questioning, rather than the person selling. And being a mod has nothing to do with it

[bobby1]

The new guideline wasn't a dig at anyone. Pleno kept insisting it was. I had to clarify,Jason.

and yes, everyone has to stick to what we require to use the staking board. Don't like it, don't use it.

 

I have to disagree Rich, I think that is a little unfair.

If Alex has  a diary he can receive bids from people with less than 300 post's on there, that isn't sticking to the rules set out is it?

I really think that board needs to be far more regulated than it is if I am honest, that doesn't mean I am having a dig I just think that with the amounts of cash going around it needs to be a lot tighter than it is.

I saw someone suggest this a while ago, If you get staked on there and a problem of any kind arises is there a format for highlighting this in the posters settings, for example say ( late paying when staked Sept 20011) or ( Didn't play events he took staking stakes for July 2102) or even some of the request being judged on how fair they are(  puts up poor value requests)

You may know there is/has been a problem recently with someone that there should not have been a problem with, is it fair that this person can freely ask for stakes again without any note of this episode being added to their profile?

I truly believe this is a one off for this guy but the next time a stake is asked for it will probably get a different set of stakers and some of the current ones will swerve it because of the problems this time around. So if that stake goes wrong too then who has protected those people when many others on here would/could have prevented this?

Is it down to the people affected to 'out' the guy with all that entails or is there a responsibility to clamp down on this by the site providing the facility?

[pleno1]

Pleno kept insisting it was
 

hm rly

[pleno1]

and yes, everyone has to stick to what we require to use the staking board. Don't like it, don't use it.

 

pretty ridic, the forum is for the people.

should be our forum not yours imo.

supply/demand are main things behind forum.

i dont think there is any forum in world that has a staking section and wouldn't allow X or Y to buy a piece from fb etc.

How is this even going to be moderated, I can just say, oh only selling 45% now or I can want to sell 50% but advertise 40% expecting to sell 10% offline then if its not sold, oh gonna sell another 10 guys.

[Rupert]

Auctions are stupid IMO. If I were to sell for a tournament at 1.3 I could just set the reserve at 1.3 and freeroll at getting higher (assuming I'd have no trouble hitting 1.3). They suck all the value out of the marketplace for the buyer and rely on punters coming in looking for a sweat.

[TightEnd]

The new guideline wasn't a dig at anyone. Pleno kept insisting it was. I had to clarify,Jason.

and yes, everyone has to stick to what we require to use the staking board. Don't like it, don't use it.

 

I have to disagree Rich, I think that is a little unfair.

If Alex has  a diary he can receive bids from people with less than 300 pots on there, that isn't sticking to the rules set out is it?

I really think that board needs to be far more regulated than it is if I am honest, that doesn't mean I am having a dig I just think that with the amounts of cash going around it needs to be a lot tighter than it is.

I saw someone suggest this a while ago, If you get staked on there and a problem of any kind arises is there a format for highlighting this in the posters settings, for example say ( late paying when staked Sept 20011) or ( Didn't play events he took staking stakes for July 2102) or even some of the request being judged on how fair they are(  puts up poor value requests)

You may know there is/has been a problem recently with someone that there should not have been a problem with, is it fair that this person can freely ask for stakes again without any note of this episode being added to their profile?

I truly believe this is a one off for this guy but the next time a stake is asked for it will probably get a different set of stakers and some of the current ones will swerve it because of the problems this time around. So if that stake goes wrong too then who has protected those people when many others on here would/could have prevented this?

Is it down to the people affected to 'out' the guy with all that entails or is there a responsibility to clamp down on this by the site providing the facility?

The point about taking bids on diaries is why I mentioned it to Alex yesterday, on his diary. Doing that consistently is pushing it, and would rather not see it

Your other points are well made.

[bobby1]

Auctions are stupid IMO. If I were to sell for a tournament at 1.3 I could just set the reserve at 1.3 and freeroll at getting higher (assuming I'd have no trouble hitting 1.3). They suck all the value out of the marketplace for the buyer and rely on punters coming in looking for a sweat.

exactly this. The current one is in bad taste, badly thought out and terrible value. It is simply a new way of grinding out a small set of stakers to pay way over the odds.

[smashedagain]

1) not everyone is a scammer like you rupert
2) name names Bobby has a stake gone wrong or is it a stakee got into bother off forum
3) would this forum be a better place if it did actually belong to me and you Patrick

[TightEnd]

and yes, everyone has to stick to what we require to use the staking board. Don't like it, don't use it.

 

pretty ridic, the forum is for the people.

should be our forum not yours imo.

supply/demand are main things behind forum.

i dont think there is any forum in world that has a staking section and wouldn't allow X or Y to buy a piece from fb etc.

How is this even going to be moderated, I can just say, oh only selling 45% now or I can want to sell 50% but advertise 40% expecting to sell 10% offline then if its not sold, oh gonna sell another 10 guys.

The <300 posts to stake and be staked is a protection for both sides of the board

It can certainly be moderated, but to do so often would be heavy handed though I think we'd prefer to request people keep as much of it on that board as possible, rather than in diaries or PMs where supply/demand can be manipulated

All this "for the people" stuff is all very noble but lets be realistic. There are people charged to moderate the forum, for a business with shareholders. No set up like that is not going to allow a completely laissez faire attitude. I'd suggest you are a bit more realistic.

[nirvana]

and yes, everyone has to stick to what we require to use the staking board. Don't like it, don't use it.

 

pretty ridic, the forum is for the people.

should be our forum not yours imo.

supply/demand are main things behind forum.

i dont think there is any forum in world that has a staking section and wouldn't allow X or Y to buy a piece from fb etc.

How is this even going to be moderated, I can just say, oh only selling 45% now or I can want to sell 50% but advertise 40% expecting to sell 10% offline then if its not sold, oh gonna sell another 10 guys.

This is a bit naive.

The forum exists to sell advertising and sponsorship so that Blonde owners and blonde employees can get some return for their efforts.

A by product, is that we all gain a free, and excellent, resource. Being a virtuous circle, our participation in the free resource generates a monetary value for Blonde.

It should be obvious that it doesn't really matter if the auctions go from here to another place as they can't possibly be material in the overall success of the forum

[titaniumbean]

Auctions are an awful idea and only work for the smallest minority of people who want to sell action. In general it's just absolutely awful.

[pleno1]

Auctions are stupid IMO. If I were to sell for a tournament at 1.3 I could just set the reserve at 1.3 and freeroll at getting higher (assuming I'd have no trouble hitting 1.3). They suck all the value out of the marketplace for the buyer and rely on punters coming in looking for a sweat.

Ye

[pleno1]

would it not just make more sense for blonde to ban auctions. in the guideliens it shows how to sell a stake not to do auctions and the "people" seem to prefer it how it was. I'm sure if the guys who do sell auctions want to sell at a price like 1.9 or whatever then they will probably still be able too.

[Doobs]

Auctions are stupid IMO. If I were to sell for a tournament at 1.3 I could just set the reserve at 1.3 and freeroll at getting higher (assuming I'd have no trouble hitting 1.3). They suck all the value out of the marketplace for the buyer and rely on punters coming in looking for a sweat.

There is another problem with the reserve.  People should bid a different amount if they think 10% is available than they would if they thought 20% is available.  Basic supply and demand.  

I also don't get why there is a minimum price.  Don't you either believe in letting the market decide or not?  Obviously currently just a theoretical point as none of the auctions has failed yet.  

[TightEnd]

would it not just make more sense for blonde to ban auctions. in the guideliens it shows how to sell a stake not to do auctions and the "people" seem to prefer it how it was. I'm sure if the guys who do sell auctions want to sell at a price like 1.9 or whatever then they will probably still be able too.

Open minded, but whilst personally I don't think auctions are likely to provide any value for those staking, transferring all the value of a stake to the person being staked, its not for me to say why a potential buyer might be interested in an auction

As we regularly see, people stake people on here for friendship, contribution to community, want to have a sweat etc. None of which are reliant on their view of the EV of the stake, auction or not

I think buyers display these characteristics in auctions, rather than just saying that there is an imbalance between some very savvy people setting auction processes and some less sophisticated people looking to buy, generally



The wider questions, namely is there a need to regulate the staking boards

eg a staking mod/s

eg a rep system +/- via threads or profiles

eg Intervention by mods when something looks out of line

are issues that were raised in The Camel's thread a week or so ago, and again have been raised in here...plenty of cans of worms there that are being considered

So far as we know, there is action taken on flaming on threads, and a set of basic guidelines

The question of whether the sophistication of the board is now such that a bigger control template is required is the pertinent one, I think