泊.com parking

[markits]

泊.com for sale
Simple Chinese: Parking
Japanese: Stop, rest, etc.

(Parked at ND and receives 'direct traffic' from China)

BIN $160.

[markits]

Sold!

Add a 0 if it's at snap. Guys, don't be blind when you see my domains. You have to act quickly.

[blastfromthepast]

The problem with this one was that the dictionary translation read:

[EN] to anchor; touch at; to moor
[ZH] 泊 [bó]

[markits]

Did not realise that dict gives such translations.
Check this: http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...-8&sa=N&tab=wi ,that's the Chinese story; The Japanese part is perhaps more attractive.

[markits]

My problem now is that I no longer own the domain; I may need to spend $160xn to buy it back.

[bramiozo]

Care to elaborate as to what just happened here ?

[markits]

Originally Posted by bramiozo

Care to elaborate as to what just happened here ?

There were complaints about me that I have taken private bids and did not give others opportunities to bid here. In fact this domain has been out for sale for quite a while now. The domain was for BIN, not for auction or for offers.

This domain was purchased by a fellow idnf member.

[bramiozo]

Generally, we advocate transparancy in auctions and I don't see any reason why the BIN'er cannot post his claim in this topic, the name does not warrant any special treatment for privacy. That being said, strictly speaking only bid's have to be posted in the thread.

In effect, if there are no bids placed, claiming a BIN price is payed is the same as retracting the domain from auction, both of which are allowed and do not interfere with the rights of any bidder for the simple reason that there ARE no bidders. This is of course closely related to the affinity with contract law for which two parties are required and obviously the bidder is not a party if he just watches the auction.

I have to say that, IF a bid was placed just claiming a BIN is reached would not be enough, although not literally in the rules, it follows from the spirit of it.
If a BIN is claimed but there's is not an obligation to post the BIN claim in the thread it leaves the door wide open for sellers to back out
of auctions by claiming a BIN was given by PM. It is not desirable if we (the idnf staff) have to go through pm's to validate sellers' claims.
All of this can be avoided by being transparant and by being strict with the transparancy.

One might say, the rights of bidders come into existence once they bid, before that the seller is free to do what he wants as long as potential bidders
are made aware of his intentions, I think that is reflected more or less in the rules.

So since there were no bids when you stated it was sold I don't see the problem.

[MDM]

Originally Posted by markits

Sold!

Add a 0 if it's at snap. Guys, don't be blind when you see my domains. You have to act quickly.

The case is simple, there was a thread opened even earlier than this one inviting and accepting PM offer, and both threads were concurrently valid.

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/152195-post1.html

[bramiozo]

I will assume that was an administrative mistake then .

Concurrent threading is not described in the rules but obviously it will be a source for confusion primarily because PM claiming for sales is allowed and it is not allowed to do so for placing bids in auctions. For clarity, any domain can be featured in only one sale/auction at a time, period.

I trust it we don't have to put everything in the rules .

Anyways, this thread is closed.