1m5 tang

1m6 tang

1m7 tang

1m8 tang

1m9 tang

2m tang

Hello everyone,

 

There seems to be an issue with how the auction was handled.
I would like to remind everyone of Trade rules, especially

Quote

GENERAL TRADE RULES

---

 

1. When advertising, be clear and accurate about what you are buying or selling.

Because of this reason, @Qwertyqwerty08's bid is invalid and the winner is @Hbkk2

 

Allow me to explain:

The auction started on Tuesday 7:08 PM GMT +2

End time: Thursday 7:08 PM GMT +2

@Hbkk2 posted their bid on Thursday (today) 7:05PM GMT +2 --> 15 minute rule

There was no valid bid until 7:20 PM GMT +2, which makes @Hbkk2 the winner.

 

@Daftgenius please contact the winner and make sure to post proof of the trade.

 

At last, I would like to advise everyone to carefully read our Trade Rules and Auction Rules

 

Kind regards,

Drakloak
 

Edited May 14May 14 by Drakloak

@Drakloak Sorry to interupt the flow but i got something to say on the behalf of @Qwertyqwerty08

The Bid of "1.2m" was clearly understood by all participants to refer to tangrowth because:

• The active bidding war at that moment was only for Tangrowth
• Previous bids were already shortened
•     " 900k tang", "1m tang" , "1.1m tang"
• The auctioneer did not reject or question it, and another participants immediately continued with bidding with 1.3m tang, clearly shows that meaning of 1.2m bid was understood

Rules requiring accurate bids are intended to prevent confusion during the auction itself. In this case, no confusion occurred, the auction continued normally, and all participants acted as though the bid was valid in real time.

If the bid was genuinely considered invalid, the correct procedure would have been to stop and reject it immediately before further bids occurred.

I don't have a personal problem with the outcome or any other player

but its just unfair for the player who have participated in the auction thinking their bid is valid

i am just curious what would the staff do in this situation or just follow the original trade rules

Thankyouu (Again no offence)

Gracee

Hello @Gracee

 

Thank you for sharing your perspective, and we understand why some players may feel the bid was “obviously” referring to Tangrowth due to the bids coming in at the time.

 

However, our decisions cannot be based on assumptions or interpretations, even when something appears clear in context. The post involves multiple Pokémon, and the bid “1.2m” did not explicitly specify which Pokémon it was placed on. Because of that, it does not meet the requirement of being clear and accurate ,therefore it is  considered invalid.

 

The main reason for this decision is consistency. If we were to allow ambiguous bids in one case because "all participants acted as though the bid was valid in real time.", then the same standard would need to be applied in future cases as well, which would create inconsistency and potential disputes over interpretation.

While some later participants may have personally assumed the intended Pokémon, we must rely only on what is explicitly written and verifiable, not on implied meaning or the flow of the "bidding war".

 

For this reason, our decision remains final and the bid from @Qwertyqwerty08 is considered invalid

 

If you have anything further to add regarding the decision, please feel free to make a post in General Complaint Area

Thank you for your understanding.

 

Kind regards,
Drakloak

Thank you for clearing that up for us @Drakloak

 

@Hbkk2 send me your discord or pm me daftgenius#3502.

 

Let's complete the trade