The company entrusted with running the auctions, and profiting directly from the auctions, was also permitted to bid up the price on thousands of those auctions? In the UK that would not be legal. In the US this sort of practice is both condoned and permitted, and supported by Gencon (or certainly those voices we associate with Gencon here). And they wonder why we non-US Acaeum members ask so many questions?

Yet no-one has yet offered a response or a justification for this. Just political BS and complaints that the questions keep getting asked. Any chance of a straight forward explanation? Where is this 'transparency' that has been talked about?

We've been on this thread for two weeks or more, and no-one has offered any answers yet.

mbassoc2003 wrote:The company entrusted with running the auctions, and profiting directly from the auctions, was also permitted to bid up the price on thousands of those auctions?

No. You are the only one promoting this falsehood.

mbassoc2003 wrote:Now, in regard to the GenCon auctions, there are only two real questions as I see it. The first is whether or not the T&T are capable and have the expertise to do the job justice... The second is whether The Partnership should have chosen T&T to run the auctions.

Answer #1: T&T does NOT run the GenCon Auction.

Answer #2: The company called "The Partnership", who does run the GenCon Auction, does not sub it to anyone else, T&T or otherwise.

This has been explained multiple times.

mbassoc2003, you are playing the role of an idiot Loony and taking it much too far.

But you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no interest in the truth of the matter, so I really don't know why I'm posting this...

Interesting.... http://livegameauctions.com/aboutus.jsp states the following:

"...In 2007, he formed The Partnership with Bruce Carson, and took over management of the Gen Con auction. In 2006, he also took over management of the Origins live auction..."

For anyone interested, Origins website http://www.originsgamefair.com/2009-origins/special-events/auction states:

"...In 2006, the Origins auction's management was taken over by Troll and Toad, who has moved this into the modern era by adding auctions for collectible card games, collectible miniatures, and video games..."

I don't know anything about it myself, but thats listed on their websites.

*edited for Origins website info*

ExTSR wrote:
Answer #1: T&T does NOT run the GenCon Auction.

Answer #2: The company called "The Partnership", who does run the GenCon Auction, does not sub it to anyone else, T&T or otherwise.

This has been explained multiple times.

mbassoc2003, you are playing the role of an idiot Loony and taking it much too far.

But you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no interest in the truth of the matter, so I really don't know why I'm posting this...

Frank,

I am not promoting a falsehood. I am asking questions in a manner gleaned from the information provided so far, and trying to phrase them in a way that simplifies the questions for those who can answer them.

I presume from your statement, and the vigour with which it was made, that T&T are in no way affiliated with The Partnership, and that no member of staff or owner of T&T in any way makes money from The Partnership's administartion of these auctions. If you assert that that is true, fair enough, but no one has made that differentiation yet, and no one has yet stated that there is no conflict of interest here. That is why people continue toi ask these questions.

Now I may well phrase these questions in as simple a manner as I can, and certainly they get a response from you, which, as you are the former authority on this matter, and in light of your previous ambiguity on the subject, is quite a feat.

I make no accusations in my post. I simply posted how I perceive things at the time of the post and ask for clarification at the time. You may take offence at me asking these questions, but I doubt anyone else here does.

So, let's clarify;

Does T&T have a vested interest in the dealings of The Partnership?
Are any of the decision makers or profit makers of The Partnership also affialited with T&T?
Was any conflict of interest declared? Or does none exist?

ExTSR wrote:This has been explained multiple times

If that were the case, why are so many people still asking for the relationship to be clarified?

There's a fairly long blog on the Dallas Observer from about a week ago, discussing a lawsuit over an auctioneer bidding in its own auctions.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairp ... auctio.php

Bottom line, it's legal in the US if fully disclosed.

Now, as has been noted repeatedly, T&T doesn't own or run the auction, "The Partnership" does.  However, Jon Huston, who also owns T&T, is one of the principal owners of The Partnership.  I have no idea what the exact interests owned by Jon are, in either T&T or The Partnership, of course.  At the least, I think it is clearly fair to say they are affiliated.  But they are not the same (and Bruce certainly seems an active partner, at least from what I've seen).

The bidding by T&T certainly does not appear to be shilling.  It is quite open and obvious, as the bidder is in a T&T-shirt.  (This, unfortunately, had the effect this year of confusing the issue, because Jon, while he was clearly helping with the auction, also wore a T&T t-shirt.)  One of the benefits of a live auction is you can actually see who you are bidding against.  So there is absolutely nothing hidden or secret.  And I would guess that T&T in fact wins a majority of the auctions they bid on, though they certainly lose a good number too.

From my experience at the GenCon auction, T&T's bidding is largely limited to fairly common RPG items, which they presumably think they can turn around quickly on eBay.  Often, it is T&T bidding on an item against another reseller present, until one drops.  Others who have been at the auction can comment, but I don't recall T&T bidding on anything particularly rare or expensive.

But what about the ethics?  Is there something underhanded going on?  A number of people here seem to think so, and keep pointing to the "conflict of interests".  If the bidding is open and obvious, if they aren't driving prices up for the purposes of creating an artificial price, but instead to actually buy the items because they think they can resell them at a higher price . . . where's the problem?  Who is being hurt?  Not the seller, who got a higher price.  Not the losing bidders, because the item was sold at a price higher than they were willing to pay.  Perhaps a winning bidder who beat T&T, who you might argue paid a higher price than they would have; but as long as they can see who they are bidding against, and the T&T bidder is clearly bidding to win and not shill, that's what an auction is supposed to be about, isn't it?

I guess I can see an advantage in an entirely disinterested entity running the auction.  Unfortunately, I don't see that it is a great moneymaker for anyone.  So the odds are, the only folks who would want to run the auction would be someone in fact already in the industry, and interested in it for more than the money.  Who would then satisfy the desired independence?

One last point worth making.  I think everyone here who has been to a GenCon auction in recent years would agree that they are very well run as a general matter.  Do we all have peeves about various things?  Absolutely.  (We wouldn't be good Acaeum members otherwise.   )  But they do a good job of exactly what they are supposed to do.  I both bought and sold stuff this year, and I had a good experience with everyone I talked to at the auction.  And I didn't at all feel taken advantage of, on either side.  FWIW.

We are of course primarily researchers, and the detail of such things is what we ask questions about. It is the very nature of the Acaeum membership to be that curious and specific about details.

This of course is a win win situation for the owner of T&T. If bidders don't bid because T&T are inflating the prices, the seller loses out and T&T buy stuff dirt cheap. If people do bid and the price rises, the buyer pays an inflated price and the owner of T&T makes additional profits on the sales.

Either the buyer or the seller is going to get screwed by the arrangement. That is so f"cked up.

mbassoc2003 wrote:Well, that certainly clears things up.
Maybe if someone had posted that sort of info in the first place, I wouldn't have kept asking the questions and Frank wouldn't have got all wound up about it.

It's a cultural thing. In the UK we think undisclosed conflicts of interest are highly suspicious, and owning a company and having them bid up the prices of hundreds of auctions run by another company you own and making profit from that activity, would be illegal. I am sure it happens, but when it does the press have a field day.

I guess there is a difference between the moral values of our two countries. We value honesty and integrity above monetary gain, and that means we question such exploitation of position and monopoly in our society more readily than maybe Americans are willing to. Or maybe we are just less accepting of things like this.

My personal opinion is that using one of your companies to inflate/bid on items being auctioned by your other company, when you're being paid a percentage commission for auctioning those items, is both morally wrong and reprehensible. I realise that American society thinks differently and this is a cultural thing. I only hope this is not the position of the majority of those who bid and won items, as it is the loyal bidders, buyers and collectors who are losing money directly and being exploited by this arrangement.

You are absolutely right, Frank. I see your point of view now. Having such opinions about financial gain must really appear loony to you. I did not grow up in your society and I do not have your moral value systems. I am alas, British.

Well . . .  

Just to be clear, I think neither I, nor most citizens of my country, fail to "value honor and integrity above monetary gain."  Nor do I have all that much enthusiasm for the "exploitation of position and monopoly in" our society.

If you'd like to generalize, I suppose, however, one could easily draw analogies to the East India Company, or the Raj.  So perhaps we're just good students.  

mbassoc2003 wrote:This of course is a win win situation for the owner of T&T. If bidders don't bid because T&T are inflating the prices, the seller loses out and T&T buy stuff dirt cheap. If people do bid and the price rises, the buyer pays an inflated price and the owner of T&T makes additional profits on the sales.

Either the buyer or the seller is going to get screwed by the arrangement. That is so f"cked up.

Seriously, I'm still trying to understand where this becomes "morally wrong and reprehensible".  Your whole conclusion assumes that T&T is "inflating" prices.  However, T&T is bidding as a reseller.  From what I've seen, they go to reasonable prices, somewhat below what one would see on eBay.  That makes sense, since their goal is to resell what they buy at a profit.  And there are other resellers present, to keep them honest.  So sellers aren't being screwed.  As to buyers, yes, some may be paying more than they would have had T&T not been there.  But again, if T&T wins, it pays the same fees and percentages anyone else pays.  And some of that goes, indirectly, back to Jon Huston.  I guess this is the one valid concern that I see -- assuming T&T only answers to Jon (which I don't know for a fact), then it can pay a slightly higher amount (but not by all that much), knowing that a portion of that fee goes indirectly back to Jon.

But is that morally reprehensible?  Some sort of evil beyond the pale?  I don't see it.  Maybe I'm missing something, but simply saying that a conflict of interest is unacceptable isn't an explanation.

The British do have a most morally questionable past, one that can certainly be compared to most of the modern outrages that are perpetrated by any group or country on the planet. Too many Brits are happy to Roget how outragous our behaviour has been over the centuries.

Hopefully we are not that way now.

The point at which a transaction becomes morally questionable is the point where an individual or company has an influencial effect on both sides of the transaction. Fair enough if that interest is disclosed, but still not a good situation for the regular buyer or seller. If Christies had an inside man bidding on the majority of their auctions under a different company name, and they then resold what they won at the price they were willing to pay through another auction house, and made a percentage profit from what they didn't win, then that would be illegal in the UK. It is also likely that that sort of insider trading would be considered morally reprehensible by most people. I wouldn't se selling stuff on eBay if eBay had a large organization called eBay Retail that went around bidding on the majority of auctions and then resold them in their shop. I doubt many bidders would be on eBay either if that were the practace, and I suspect most people would consider it morally wrong to exploit their position, and leave eBay pretty quick, even if legally it is permitted. There is no difference that I can see between those three cases. Only that smeone within Gencon chose to makeit real.

This will be counter intuitive but I have provided links to auction law forums and blogs already.... and just go check for yourself if you need to.

The auctioneers obligation is to the seller.

Not letting a viable bidder bid is not in the best interest of the seller.  In both the U.S. and in the U.K. the auctioneer can lose his license and is liable for any lost revenue due the seller if he does not meet his duty to the seller.

Not letting a major bidder participate on flimsy grounds would make the auctioneer liable to every affected seller for every dime of lost revenue due to the bad decision.  

When the bidder is disclosed, and both the seller and the auctioneer profit...  the only potential loser is the dissatisfied under bidder.

Guess what.... no one has a legal or moral obligation to the disgruntled under bidder outside of extraordinary circumstance.

The only instances that come to mind where bidders successfully sue auctions is if the auction is in collusion with another bidder or bid rigging pool to profit on the future sale....  to the detriment of the seller and or other bidders.  (ie.  refuses to take their bid, etc.)