This is something that has been on my mind for quite some time. Today there was an auction that turned out ugly because user with highest bid did not have the funds in their account. 

 

What I want to say is, why the need to micromanage players this way? Especially when we are allowed 4 accounts per player. I understand if an account bids on an auction without the funds in said account, it can possibly be a fake bid. But at the same time, it's possible that a player has their money spread across all their accounts. Since Mods check for player funds during auctions, I think it's important to take in to account a players play time, # of accounts, past infractions, etc to decide if it's a real or fake bid. Sometimes players have to make deals or move money around to make a deal happen. What I'm saying is, if seller, buyer can come to an agreement to make a trade possible, why do mods have to micromanage in a way where it now becomes inconvenient for all parties? 

 

I think mods should intervene for accounts that are obviously lacking funds and play history. Or intervene after auction ends if highest bidder cannot pay. I've seen too many auctions end badly because said user did not have the funds in said account, but they can clearly pay it. 

 

 

It is kinda simple for us players to just add the money in the account we are offering from imo. 

 

Take away a lot of unnecessary time that staff would have to take by going thru our multiple accounts.

I just ignore the rule. Worked till now. 
I think you can do that unless you are on big auctions

Just code a Auction house that handles this in a better way already.

 

I feel like adding a new rule to a Auction would help resolve it. Something like allowing the seller to enforce whether or not they want to have a open or forced "payment" kind of deal upon a Auction start. Meaning they can force a deal with the highest bidder that said payment needs to be paid within x alloted days after winning or right there and then. If the bidder cannot pay within x alloted days or cannot make the payment in that instant, the Auction will continue from said bid instead of voiding it and having to start fresh and the user will be punished accordingly with the rules. I feel like this would help resolve the issue you're mentioning to some degree. But idk, I'm not a big trader/auctioneer on PRO, so i'm not particularly experienced with this myself, so take it with a pinch of salt.

Edited July 7, 20224 yr by Desumi

2 hours ago, Desumi said:

Just code a Auction house that handles this in a better way already.

 

I feel like adding a new rule to a Auction would help resolve it. Something like allowing the seller to enforce whether or not they want to have a open or forced "payment" kind of deal upon a Auction start. Meaning they can force a deal with the highest bidder that said payment needs to be paid within x alloted days after winning or right there and then. If the bidder cannot pay within x alloted days or cannot make the payment in that instant, the Auction will continue from said bid instead of voiding it and having to start fresh and the user will be punished accordingly with the rules. I feel like this would help resolve the issue you're mentioning to some degree. But idk, I'm not a big trader/auctioneer on PRO, so i'm not particularly experienced with this myself, so take it with a pinch of salt.

I agree, an auction house would seriously take pro to new heights. Forms of payment rule is also a good point