XxIdolizedxX Scam/Manipulation

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

@video what more proof do you need.

 

Wow, PA has such a good idea, he's going to take the account and re-sell it!





I'm going to outbid him and do the same thing, I'm smart!




Oh shit nobody wants to buy from my dumbass!

 

Which yes for you would have been a great re-sell investment and almost seems logical but you and your friend have both provided enough for almost anyone with a grade school education to see what you did.

 

"Hey I'll pay you back once I sell this account, but I want more for it"


"Should I bid on it" (bids 925m in btc)


"Let me see if he'll take 950m, before you take the account"


"Okay he bought it, here's the gold"


Omg I can't re-sell the account like PureAddiction could've been able to, I wonder why???

 

I was working under the assumption that there was price manipulation involved, and then how to proceed from there. If, as a matter of policy, the site allows price manipulation in a context like this, then what you did was fine and the case is resolved. I'm personally not of the view that Sythe should prevent price manipulation (unless it is a massive concern and affecting hundreds of people daily, and even then I'm reluctant).

The typical defence against any accusation of price manipulation is: I would have done the same thing anyway. In your circumstance, you are arguing that because you would have accepted the account to discharge part of the debt, and that you bidding on it was something you would have done anyway? Do I have that right? Really then we have a dual purpose. The first purpose is that you are bidding for the account which discharges part of the debt. The second purpose is that you are bidding to up the purchase price to allow Xxidolise to discharge the debt from the proceeds of the account sale + the balance remaining. The first purpose, lets say is legitimate, while the second purpose lets say is illegitimate.

There are many different arguments as to what should constitute the test/standard for 'purpose' in a dual-purpose situation such as this. If you prefer a differing standard of purpose, feel free to interject. In my opinion, when you made the bids, your immediate purpose was to hopefully force the price up for R0T. This is because, if you wanted to discharge the debt for the account, you simply would have asked Xxidolise to stop the auction and give you the account. The reason you didn't however is because you didn't know how R0T would bid. If he had bid 1200m, then you guys probably would have allowed him to win the bid even though PA would have accepted the account to discharge part of the debt. So really, from what I see, you guys were just going fishing for the highest price. To me that was the ultimate purpose. I think it is clear that both of you also have an understanding of this, that if R0T's bid wasn't high enough, then PA would take the account to discharge part of the debt. But, on the event that R0T's bid was sufficiently attractive, you would accept R0T's bid. You two wanted the best outcomes for yourselves.

To me this would probably breach the cartel provisions in Australia, so you probably would be found guilty of price manipulation / bid-rigging / whatever you want to call it in other jurisdictions as well.

Ultimately however, I don't think it is something Sythe should police generally. Sythe is a free market, and absent of similar anti-trust provisions. Additionally, there didn't seem to be an element of maliciousness in your actions, since ultimately you did want to discharge the debt; the question was then how do you go about that most effectively for both you and Xxidolise. You are also individuals and not corporations as well.

For all intents and purposes this is probably denied, but I will ask an admin/Sythe to clarify whether the site's policy to not police price manipulation, at least in a situation like this.

 

Please help me under stand how this doesn't violate the sites TOS not only for me for everyone else.

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.

 

How do you think it violates the sites TOS?

 

I personally extremely appreciate your long thought-out responses in every report you've been in. I'm extremely happy to see you a Global on the roster.

Can you point me in the direction of what laws I violated? I created a fake bid? Bid of what? Virtual coins on a game? Take me to court lad.

 

Shill bidding is a federal crime google it, it violates many different trade statutes.

And the sites terms and rules clearly state-

The providers ("we", "us", "our") of the service provided by this web site ("Service") are not responsible for any user-generated content and accounts ("Content"). Content submitted express the views of their author only.

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.

 

If you take me to a court-room for "fake bidding" with runescape gold pieces, you'd be an even bigger laughing stock than you are now.

Do you see how this is not against the law?

 

Hey look another irrelevant post from you wheres the infractions?

 

Shill bidding is fraud it falls under many different trade law violations nationallly..... And as far as i was aware fraud is scamming right? Which you brought up the free-trade/no trade previsions statement okay but..... clearly in the terms of service for the site it says....

encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.

It violates the terms and usage of the site......

And i dont know how fake bidding on a thread for personal gain even-though it may have been "debt" still isn't scamming they lied and made up fake bids to get more money out of me and i cannot believe we are still having this conversation if i or half the people reading this did anything there would be no twc they would already be banned for just malicious behavior yet alone everything else.

 

Like I said, take me to court. They'll surely make me pay you back your gold pieces on a video game.

How is it personal gain? I get the same amount of money regardless, he owes me a static amount of debt.

1. You don't outbid me, I take the account for 925m and he pays me 75m+ later. I go on to sell the account for my own personal gain.

2. You outbid me, he gives me 950m and pays me 50m+ later.

 

No content was submitted or linked. I also don't think they intended to lose the auction, but rather seek the most favourable outcome. The most relevant statute on 'Shill Bidding' I could find in the US was wire fraud under 18 USC 1343: 941. 18 U.S.C. 1343—Elements of Wire Fraud | USAM | Department of Justice

I don't think anyone intended to defraud you out of money. Ultimately there are trillions of statutes from hundreds of countries. We can't police them all, and we don't have the expertise to. If you can bring evidence that their conduct contravened the US Federal Law, then we will absolutely ban them.

 

How isnt making fake bids to influence the price of a sale defrauding someone out of money?
Especially when you have conflicting interests "ie the said owed debt"

 

Why do you keep saying fake bid? I bid 925m and would've paid 925m for the account.

 

By not defining it as a fake bid (all bids influence the price of sale), and the defrauding only comes due to the bid being fake.

 

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet
Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

^and for some reason thats not enough to prove it was a false bid and malicious?

@Biofighter what do you think is missing here?

 

Hey Time for me to play the 'roll to see if you'll cop an infraction' game.


You've said numerous numerous times 'this violates numerous trade laws' etc etc; yet I've yet to see you actually quote law directly.
I took time out of my day to actually attempt to satisfy my own curiosity of this.

TLDR: There is no direct law saying "SHILL BIDDING IS ILLEGAL" - however taking definitions from the oxford dictionary it can be reasonably argued that Shill bidding (if this can actually be proven to have occurred; which I haven't seen) would come under the definition of fraud

As most of the legal questions on Sythe end up being discussed under the basis of Australian Law (Malak being Australian I assume?) I'll also follow suit.

Assuming we're describing shilling as Fraud, it falls under the following acts;


TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974
Section 52—Misleading or deceptive conduct
(1) A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

As noted by the ACCC's consumer website "scamwatch" depicts, “Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act is designed to stop corporations engaging in conduct which is misleading or deceptive, or which is likely to mislead or deceive. Generally, sellers are required to tell the truth or refrain from giving an untruthful impression.



Going to post this now and keep editing, we're in for a long one boys.



MY OPINION: As of writing this, I'm yet to see any evidence which actually shows all the accused parties of colluding to bump the price; as such considering this a case of fraud is probably incorrect.

 

“10.56. As discussed at para 10.28, shill bidding was the main form of deceptive practice suspected in our online survey (13.6 per cent). This is where a seller makes strategic bids, for example from an additional anonymous account or by an associate. Undisclosed shill bidding is illegal[309] and most auction sites expressly prohibit it.
…
“309 The Fraud Act 2006, which came into force in January 2007, makes it an offence for a person to commit fraud by false representation where the representation is made dishonestly and with the intention of making a gain for himself or another. Under section 57(4) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, it is not lawful for a seller to bid himself or to employ any person to bid on his behalf at a sale by auction unless the auction is notified to be subject to such a right. A sale contravening this section may be treated as fraudulent by the buyer.”


CRIMES ACT 1900 (NSW)
Section 178BB Obtaining money etc by false or misleading statements
(1) Whosoever, with intent to obtain for himself or herself or another person any money or valuable thing or any financial advantage of any kind whatsoever, makes or publishes, or concurs in making or publishing, any statement (whether or not in writing) which he or she knows to be false or misleading in a material particular or which is false or misleading in a material particular and is made with reckless disregard as to whether it is true or is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

“It is an offence against the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 for a person to do any of the following:
(a) make a bid as the seller,
(b) make a bid on behalf of the seller (unless the person is the auctioneer),
(c) procure another person to make a bid on behalf of the seller.
Any bid made with the dominant purpose of benefiting the seller constitutes a bid made on behalf of the seller.
A bid may be found to be a bid made on behalf of the seller even though the seller did not:
(a) request the bid, or
(b) have any knowledge of the bid.”
http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Pr...onditions.html (under “Other auction notices, Penalty for dummy bidding”)
There are, of course, the various Australian state Acts that cover “fraud” which, as state Acts, would appear to be somewhat redundant in this age of the internet and electronic commerce, eg: