Considering the stick of truth. Saw it got great reviews when it was released. Only bad thing is I don't have much to offer anymore. What are thoughts on allowing someone to borrow a game from me for a month? For example I have Nioh on PS4. I ship it to person and they can borrow it for up to one month then when they're finished or their month is up they send back to me. Thoughts on this? Is it stupid?
One way I thought to moderate people dib and run is to attach the amount of discount for the item you are offering. this way people can clearly see how much you took and how much you are offering, though value can be subjective and can have a range
RVM's deal is decent if you want a Steam Link, not sure why Steam Link isn't as popular as it should be. I own one just to have the option of mirroring my PC, playing Steam games on my big screen is a nice perk.
Also, that random game is good though, its appeal is prob limited to a select few considering the types(more modern based) of people we get in that thread.
I was thinking the same, there have been a lot of quality games since the holidays, it kind of died back before the holidays and I was thinking about this time might be a good time to bring it back around now that people have played a lot of the games and may have some stuff available again that would be in demand.
Kicking myself for not taking that 2DS steal...almost took your DS Lite Lunar but really wanna be able to play 3DS games. Current steals are ok...question -- do I have to have the Steam game downloaded on my Mac/PC to play using Steam Link?
>> Do people care at all about blu ray movies anymore?
> Only cinephiles/ collectors for the most part and people who don't know about digital
> or are scared of it.
There is another group with digital, people with poor internet connections. I was finally able to upgrade my internet at home awhile back to get away from horrifically capped satellite internet but I still couldn't even come close to streaming HD content at non-peak times.
I also just fall into the collector group as well though.
I'll be giving it a break for a bit before I update the rules. It'll give me a bit of time to work out the kinks... some things to address:
1.) free stuff (can be thrown in, but cannot be in the equation of a "steal" offering) 2.) mystery boxes 3.) steal value minimums (must be at least X dollar amount) 4.) steal tiers (ill explain this when i revise the thread... no more high value items for junk in return)
>> I just wish people would be honest and reciprocate appropriately. It was simple
>> easy and fun.
>> Obviously, some restrictions needed to be in place to make sure people don't take
>> advantage, but really makes the process more complicated than it should be.
>> If only people are honest...
> Of course, but if there's no real repercussions (will i get restricted/banned for
> this?) then it's all free reign...
> so, with that being said, whoever got their hands in the pot before won't be able
> to do it again.
I feel like most people were fair about it...I know I for one didn't always have the most desirable stuff but I always tried to make sure my steals offered made up for what I had dibbed. I relied on the feedback and if my items weren't moving I altered them as much as I could to make sure they were worth people's dibs.
I feel like most people have done that...until the end when it seemed like people offered up whatever and were fine with their dib reverting.
I think what people didn't understand is the concept of reciprocation. There were alot of attention and focus on individual deals.
Why was $10 PSN for $3 a good steal in the beginning? Because that's the amount of discount we were operating at.
But if you take a Pokemon Sun/Moon Dual Pack Sealed for $10 shipped, then offered $30 PSN for $10(while this is a GREAT steal on its own), but in this case it's called stealing because the guy pocketed $30+.
Or a more recent example, you take a sealed Pokemon Omega/Alpha and give back a DualShock 2 controller
You have to see this as a trade, like I am getting a $60-$70 discount on this game, therefore, what can I offer so it will have a similar amount of discount.
Free stuff is fine, but it depends on the value. If it's free junk I agree that shouldn't constitute a steal by itself but a free $30 item should be totally fine. It's all about the amount off of the real value. While this can be a bit fussy on some items, I think it's generally pretty easy to determine based on sold listings and what is available to buy.
As for mystery boxes, I think they are fine to offer. But then that user has to prove themself. Like Pope's boxes were awesome. I'm betting a box from Whitefire would be pretty great. However if you send a crap box ( like say this completely random example: some handhelds for about full market price), then you start to lose trust. I think @Jeff vetting mystery boxes is a good idea, but maybe get the input of some others as well. Of course these people would have to be willing to not claim the boxes. I'd be down for it.
A value minimum is a great idea. I wouldn't want to discourage thread participation, but I think it should be $20.
Tiers could get messy I wouldn't recommend that. Like with @cblake78's idea it sounds nice but then if you have to stay in the same tier or higher it can never go back down. Like @Lunar said it's all about HONESTY. You don't have to lose money in the thread, but at least try to keep it fairly even with what you are taking. Personally, if I post another big steal in the future I will reserve the right to determine if the follow-up steal is good enough. I think that's completely fair if I'm going to offer a $50+ discount on something.
I think this all sounds good on paper but requiring the dollar amounts to be even across the board is not sustainable. This is either going to bottom out after the first or second high value steal or it's going to be the same two or three people. People should just post stuff they'd like to get themselves and if they don't, the stuff won't be taken and they'll lose the steal. It's not up to one or two people decide what constitutes a good deal. People doged about one of Dashey's steals that I was thrilled to dib.
Doesn't have to be an exact even exchange in value, I expect a steady decline of discounted value over at least a few steals. Too many times thing go from $50 discount to $20, then to bottom in 2 dibs. Way too fast IMO
Oh man are we talking tiers? This is like the Retro Virtual Box except people are arbitrarily exchanging cash too I think encouraging people to put in what they take out is ideal over turning it into a rigid structure of rating how worthwhile your deal is sort of thing.
Agreed on the reasonable exchange. I just think the rolling down the hill needs to be slowed. If someone takes a hit and put up a $50 discounted item, then at least offer a $40-$50 discount item back. I think a $10 range is pretty good. It's tough to really judge these values though.
> Trying to dictate value never works. Trust me. Just ask Lunar and me. We've went
> over and over trying to come up with a feasible solution. It just doesn't work.
Indeed, many different ideas were tried and (mostly)failed. All the Virtual Boxes etc and including the steals thread, seemed to work the best in the beginning. When people start hearing/seeing the goodies, then the riff-raff bunch shows up and ruins the fun. And then the host comes in to put some restrictions and down goes the simple and fun run. Sad!
As long as everyone is on board, it will work... I tried to put the least amount of restrictions as possible (on the steals themselves...), im going to sleep on it for a few days and see what I can think up. I love the concept and I'm willing to put some time into it.
Agreed I think the concept ia really good, it's just that anything has a finite shelf life I guess? Virtual boxes have a good run and die down, so I suppose it is here too. Doing it once a month or something seems good possibly allows people to rebuild their stock of items they are willing to offer or finish a couple games they would be willing to part with etc.
the issue is people stopped caring if their items weren't taken. I agree, there will be repercussions this time around. there will be no more free items to hand out to "solidify your steal goes through"...
> If a persons item doesn't get dibbed the punishment should be more than a 48 hour
> ban. Maybe that would help? Maybe the next time around they're banned until the next
> time the thread opens up?
As someone that has been watching from the sidelines, this doesn't seem like a good idea. I've watched multiple times an item steal go back or almost go back to the previous steal even though the steal was good. Sometimes I've even watched as some people were even counting down the time for the previous steal to return (and/or trying to early dib the previous) because they had no interest in the current steals but had interest in the previous.
It really depends on who is online at the time as well. There was times where someone that was interested in the item(s) of the current steal was offline at the time or just missed the cutoff. If you ban the other person for however long or especially until the next time, you may have just unknowingly took multiple people out of the current tread because those people just happened to have what each other wanted and was not interested in what others have to offer. Which in turn may stale the current tread at the time. I know that's maybe a bit of an extreme case but it is still possible.
We did do that once. I thought it was a pretty positive experience. But it could exclude people, and also some people(prob not even a participant) could just neg because they don't like the person or have a miserable life)
One of the biggest problems I saw with the steals in general is the constant misunderstand in price of the item vs discount off the item value. If I offer a $50 item for $10, that's a $40 steal value and the next offer is a $30 item for $10 as that's a $20 steal value. This is NOT okay, that means someone is taking $40 and giving $20, plain and simple. This is how we get to $10 items for free within 2 steals and it happened a lot.
I would certainly like to see the steals follow the value instead of item price. Certainly once this goes up, it would be difficult to sustain so maybe employ a 10% variance in the next steal. Using the example above, if I posted a $40 steal value, the next steal would need to have a steal value of $36-$44 (not an item value of this price, but a steal value). Using this method gives us the ability to go up in value and down but on a slower pace, thus giving the ability to "pay it forward" and stop the abuse of the system. Obviously there are still ways to work the system, especially at the lower values but it might help balance things out and find our sweet spot in which the most people can participate.
Hmm that's not bad friction. I think it may have been @Lunar who said at some point think of it as a trade where the values need to be close, if you're saving 30 on your deal you need to offer about 30 worth of savings. This could fall in line with that line of thinking
It may be relative to what the person offering is truly giving up as well. A few pstv's went in the thread and while they sell for a lot more than what we got them for several of these were probably bought when walmart was giving them away for 20 dollars..so the person offering may not always be taking a hit? It will be hard to come up with a perfect system that works in every instance but a rough percentage may not be out of the question
The whole value thing was the reason I barely dibbed (besides my first time) because the things I wanted to offer weren't high value items compared to many of the steals posted. That's why I only dibbed on low value items (which was 3 times; 2x Pokemon games for $10, Infinite Warfare for $8, and a free copy of OoT 3D)
> The whole value thing was the reason I barely dibbed (besides my first time) because
> the things I wanted to offer weren't high value items compared to many of the steals
> posted. That's why I only dibbed on low value items.
Which is exactly how its supposed to work. You SHOULD hesitate before taking a good deal. Unless you have a good deal ready to roll. Else everything would be dibbed immediately(which happened for a good while), until people got tired of seeing the same options that nobody picked.
Which ultimately killed the thread for the time being. The giant list of options was good in the beginning but in the end, it just slowed things down since most of them were filled with things no one wanted/cared about.
All the requests people were making, while being criticized, helped the thread move along since people knew what to post and knew it would be dibbed in a snap by at least one person.
And the whole eCurrency thing was bad from the beginning since it didn't stop some from dibbing on sought after items, most of which were high dollar to some degree, and just list the currency with little to no loss at all. That should be brought up in the next thread.
Or if ecurrency is being used, I'm always interested in it myself, use it in an appropriate value to what you took, don't take a 30 dollar savings and offer a 10 dollar savings.. frictions percentage idea may help with that.
I like a lot of the ideas that are being discussed. The great thing about this thread is the simplicity, however, there are some people who abused the thread to take an advantage. That is the main major pitfall and needs to be addressed.
I don't want to further complicate things by integrating formulas and having people have to calculate their values, etc in order to post a steal. That wasn't the goal of the thread. Justin had a great idea with the + only (whoever gets the most, etc)... I have some ideas in that may be integrated to just test the waters.
I may also even have people assist with the thread (that can also participate) to help regulate the fairness of steals, etc. Those people would be point of contacts if others have any questions regarding fairness, etc.
One of the major pitfalls of this thread is that I cannot:
1.) Delete posts 2.) Bar people from participating (yes, I can put it in the main post -- do not sell to this person)
unless it becomes part of my personal forum, which then we lose the publicity aspect of the thread to help bring more users in. If that were the case, I think more users would be more likely to abide by the rules rather than trying to skate on by.
I think one major aspect that we will also try is if someone dibs your item, there has to be some way for the community to speak out (without using negs) to say "this guy isnt offering a fair steal in return" and then negate that dib. Consequences are a must if you're going to try to skate on by.
When I introduce the tier idea, it should be relatively easy to follow.
I think the only pitfall to the idea of whoever gets the most plusses gets the steal based on what they are going to offer next is that a few people have a disproportionate amount of really good stuff as opposed to others, and we fall into the trap of it only being for a few people. If user A can offer something kind of decent like horizon for 20 but user B can offer super 1337 system bundle worth 120 for 60 then little user is never going to get anything.
Unless I'm not understanding correctly how that voting system would work.
> So the mystery bundles were considered to be from people pulling a fast one then?
> The first mystery box (being the one with POPs and stuff like that) didn't seem steal
> worthy as well, but that's just me.
I'd agree but I think it's all based on what people are looking for and when. @Lunar obviously feels that the handheld mystery box wasn't any good, I am sure some agree, but someone who was looking to dive into handhelds who didn't have any would've loved that box since it had the capability to play every Nintendo handheld game in existence. I also understand Lunar's point that these could've been pulled from yard sales, and to be honest I forgot where I got the GBC and SP, but the 3DS was my own. Regardless of the origin of the handhelds or what it cost to purchase/trade for them, the "steals" thread was designed to give people a chance to get something good at a discounted rate; the value of the mystery box exceeded $150 and therefore, despite how some people may be able to acquire them for cheaper, it is considered a steal. My intention wasn't to swindle anyone out of funds but mystery boxes are a gamble, what one may love others may hate, ie the POP/swag box or my handheld box. If they're not allowed moving forward then that's obviously something I (and I am sure anyone else) would respect, or any other rules that are put in place for that matter.
I'm not bashing the POP box either just to be clear, the point is that the POP box was geared towards a crowd that would be interested in it (I wouldn't be because I don't collect POPs/swag really and it doesn't sound appealing to some others by the looks of things) and it's great that whoever got it was happy about it, and the Nintendo handheld box was geared towards someone more interested in that stuff (though admittedly would've been more helpful if I put BEGINNER in the description beforehand but hindsight is 20/20) which was obviously less successful.
To Friction or you evidently not, but to someone who was looking to jump into handheld gaming who didn't have any (or even only had 1 or 2) I would think in a heartbeat. I hear you that these systems may be easy to find in the wild, but the 3DS still sells for over $100 alone and over $150 in most places retail used/refurbished. The target audience/buyer missed for sure, I can own that and like I said if I could've put "BEGINNER Nintendo handheld mystery box" that would've been better (I didn't think of it), but at the very least if this stuff gets sold Friction will make a profit
Edit** Saw your edited post after I posted but to answer your added questions, you got everything correct that was in the box and the game case obviously holds no monetary value but I thought it was cool because it was foreign, I took it off my handheld shelf to include. To each their own of course, what one thinks is cool another thinks is dumb, but that piece wasn't meant to be this epic thing that got included
I'm not taking it personally and am really just viewing it as healthy back and forth. I don't think anyone is looking to be a keyboard warrior that's just lame.
To answer the question that's kinda the point of a mystery box, it's a gamble some would love it some wouldn't , but just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can just be like oh hey give me my money back. Theoretically , someone who would've enjoyed it could've taken it at the time and we wouldn't be here.
I honestly considered it because I felt bad, and I actually still do, and although I can understand someone's anger and disappointment if they felt like they were just getting played that doesn't give someone the right to attack someone else personally. I believe friction is definitely a cool guy and just spoke in the moment but it wasn't cool.
Again , to each their own but the facts are the facts. He didn't get 150 copies of madden 95 and got over $150 worth of stuff for $100 which fit the parameters of the thread in which the box was purchased. If moving forward rules are changed for the thread in anyway, shape or form then , like I already said, those rules would be respected. Of course I'm hoping @kingofgames likes his stuff , I took games out of my personal collection for those boxes but only time will tell. I'll definitely give everyone a heads up though, no, worms Armageddon was not included and no, crusaders of centy was not included so if that's what everyone is expecting then get your mouses ready for that neg button lol
> Again , to each their own but the facts are the facts. He didn't get 150 copies of
> madden 95 and got over $150 worth of stuff for $100 which fit the parameters of the
> thread in which the box was purchased. If moving forward rules are changed for the
> thread in anyway, shape or form then , like I already said, those rules would be
> respected. Of course I'm hoping @kingofgames likes his stuff , I took games out of
> my personal collection for those boxes but only time will tell. I'll definitely
> give everyone a heads up though, no, worms Armageddon was not included and no, crusaders
> of centy was not included so if that's what everyone is expecting then get your mouses
> ready for that neg button lol
Let me tell you something, I've been here long enough to know when someone is being deceitful and immoral. Those are things you learn in life and through dealing with people who are honest...and who aren't.
You offered that mystery box with the intention of putting those specific items in there. You would not tell anyone what was in it, even me when I said per the thread guidelines, I want to know if people are getting a good deal. If I have to, I will post our entire conversation here. That mystery box situation...that was your INTENT. You INTENDED on giving those items away at the cost. You CLEARLY know game values, you repeatedly send me trade offers that are half-assed... you would not tell me what was in the mystery boxes. As an example, you stated:
"I don't appreciate the change in rules simply because it's me and not someone else, there have been a handful of mystery boxes already and this hasn't come up. I will let you know that friction got my last $100 mystery box and he's getting between $120 - $160 worth of stuff. I think it really kills the fun element to know that info and just plays into ppl who are looking to resell as opposed to collector's getting a good deal to enhance their collection, but if you feel it's necessary to share that tidbit then so be it. My current steals will fall into that same range" - $120-160 huh?
Another reason why I feel you have ill intent...
(Remember our discussion per your offer of my Gunstar Heroes and Mazin Mutant Saga (complete, great shape) for your cart only Chrono Trigger and $20?)
"Right now they're around $80, few months ago they were around $60, either way we both know you get the point (at least I hope anyway lol). I have been doing this a long time and am not looking for validation, if you really think you'll be able to use these 2 games in a trade for a CIB chrono, even with other games, then I wish you the best of luck. Personally, I'd be surprised (not as surprised for gunstar but most people don't even know what mazin is) if you could include 1 of these in a trade for chrono cart only, but that's just me basing it off the differences between the Nintendo market and the everything else market."
After I mentioned I would trade both of the games towards a CIB Chrono Trigger? after you wanted BOTH of them for your CART ONLY Chrono Trigger and $20 dollars? Why would you be surprised at what someone else would trade?
but WAIT! There's more...
"BostonItalian88 -- Offer Declined You think it's easy to find people who are looking to trade a $250 item for a bunch of $60 items? What market are you in bro? Not sassing what you're looking for but you gotta be real, all the people that post say "Have Chrono CIB, looking for rare SNES or NES titles of equal value". I hope you end up with what you're looking for but it's going to be real tough to accomplish"
I rest my case regarding your inability to understand true trade values and you only care about your items... that you think are gold I may add...
Anywho, back to the matter at hand here...
You knew what was going into the bundle you sent @FrictionPin. Pricecharting is a guide, it does NOT mean your items are worth that amount. Why else would I mention to check ALL of your resources before you offer a steal? Because people will go on places like that, and think "My item is worth $100!"... Do the research. You clearly used the mystery box guise as an excuse to get rid of these items and pocket $100. You wouldn't offer a refund or even consider it after it was asked of you. Why would you DENY someone a refund if they're not happy with what you have to offer? You tarnished your image on this website (and possibly other websites too, because I know that FrictionPin is apart of a LOT of different groups...) all over $100. Your ratings got bombed and you have a history of describing your games less than the quality that they are in order to get a deal... honestly, you are only about the buck. You don't care about the community -- only about yourself.
Even after FrictionPin asked for a refund you stated: "If you still decide to send it back that's on you, I won't be using money to send it back to you."
After this fiasco, you're not allowed to participate in the future, we WON'T be trading again, and I wouldn't be surprised if more people followed suit.
I honestly didn't read much of what @jeff wrote, not out of disrespect but mainly because I have a full time job that has nothing to do with gaming. I read the part about the values in our pm, if anything I undershot the value of it the box. Also skimmed through the part about my trade offer to you, again I'm probably missing your point but I think anyone who's done high end trades will tell you it's not easy to find someone who's willing to trade a $250 item for a package of $60 - $80 items. If you've had better success with those types of trades then congrats, but in my experience they aren't very common. Finally, I saw that I'm not allowed to participate in the steals moving forward , it's your thread and your rules, you created it and I respect your decision.
@JD as for wed, we were deciding amongst those games to include in the trade, didn't matter though because he only ended up having 2 of them, not that it's anyone's business anyway but figured I'd clear up the assumption
>> I feels bad for new user Wedsau being ripped off by Boston if those game boy games
>> are legit
> Holy crap, that offer is a giant ripoff! Says a lot
I also saw that. And was completely shocked. That kid is giving up wayyyyy to much for a dreamcast and items.
I had a similar experience where this kid wanted a few odd and ends games for a big high price Cib game. I try to give this kid so much more items for it And he kept saying. No it's okay I just wanted those games. So I still sent him Quite a few more games to help him out.
Since the mystery box concept is out the window after one bad egg, you might as well haha
As for the GB games, you could say business is business where both sides are happy with what they're giving and getting but at some point, you have to realize where it goes too far and how ridiculous it is.
I don't see lopsided trades as the same thing because both parties agreed and knew what they were getting, but I definitely see the point.
By the way, I've gotten way too much stuff because of that thread. I think I need to have an auction now to clear some stuff out, haha. It's easy to get caught up in the sense of urgency of that thread.
> I don't see lopsided trades as the same thing because both parties agreed and knew
> what they were getting, but I definitely see the point.
Not everyone knows the value of their old games. Especially new users. Ive seen several who see old games as old and not worth much. Allot of times the new guys are excited to get a trade not knowing they are getting taken to the cleaners.
"I am a member who continues you get reprimanded for being too generous; I give away subtime, 48 hr xbl codes, coke codes, demos, and tons of other stuff for free. Some people see it as a scam to get a higher rank or something of that nature on this website, others (like myself) see it for what it is, a generous gesture. As you can see from my list of trades there are a lot of significant deals up there so trust really isn't an issue. Furthermore, unlike many, my life doesn't revolve around this website so "cheating trades" or whatever doesn't really appeal to me, I enjoy giving stuff away to people because it makes them happy and I like helping them out. So, if you are interested in some of my free stuff don't be afraid to shoot me a message or an offer, but just be prepared for the deal to be wiped out by an administrator because someone else is complaining about it. I have not and will not ask for anything that I give away back, and I will continue to give away what I can to the gametz community."
> Boston just got another Bad rating (not from the steal thread)
> But he reply back to the rating by saying - He offer a refund....
> why not give the refund back to the ones on here who asked?
I'll take a stab at answering this question:
It's because he knows he can't sell the contents of these bundles for $100 had the contents been known. If it's truly worth $150-$170, seller would take back the bundle and be able resell to the public and still be up even after covering return shipping.
That's actually not a bad idea. If it is deemed that you have pulled a fast one, any member may call shenanigans. If you are convicted of the "crime" by a 2/3 vote, you forfeit your "deposit." However, a deposit may also be taken back at any time as long as it's at least 48 hours after your last steal.
that would kinda be against the purpose of this all tho. if people are thinking you are trying to pull a fast one, your steal will go unclaimed, and that will speak for itself. everybody agrees that the biggest issue was the mystery boxes, and now that those are no longer allowed, that wont be an issue.
> are trying to pull a fast one, your steal will go unclaimed
Let me give an example of how I think it's relevant.
Dude A pulls a fast one, Dude B still wants his crap, so he steals, Dude B now offers junk, Dude C dibs and then offers junk, and so on, and so on. Now the thread sucks, and someone has to dib on garbage and then offer up gold to save the thread.
>> That's actually not a bad idea. If it is deemed that you have pulled a fast one,
>> any member may call shenanigans. If you are convicted of the "crime" by a 2/3
>> you forfeit your "deposit." However, a deposit may also be taken back at any time
>> as long as it's at least 48 hours after your last steal.
> What about instead of 48 hours, how about until that months steal thread is done,
> would also avoid drive bys
> Also would $100 be a fair amount? Not sure what everyone would have in mind but if
> its a $100 limit should it be a $100 deposit
> What about instead we pool all our money and buy an island and get beer, tan and
> play life size Super Dodge Ball, this is just a thought for the future
I don't think a lot of people could afford to let 100 just sit like that, I know I couldn't, an amount that high would turn it into the thing a lot of people voiced about it becoming a club for the same 4 or 5 people just trading. maybe 40-50
Yeah, throw out the Mystery Box garbage and put a floor as well as a value ceiling. I cannot believe that people participating just CANNOT come up with an item worth $30-40, that the best they can do is spend $10 on funny money and sell it for $4 or grab three PSX CD Only titles and give it away.
I don't know about dictating values. That seems too extreme. What if we just say physical items only? Virtually all of the problems were with either digital items or mystery boxes, right? If we cut those out, maybe it would solve that problem because I don't see people (and they didn't) dibbing a cheap physical item if the last guy got something awesome. However, I could see people (and they did) dibbing a $10 PSN code for $3 in the same situation.
The ceiling is $100, the minimum is going to be $10 at least. No mystery boxes, digital items are OK, but those may have a minimum that's higher than $10.. we'll see what happens when I finalize everything
They way I tried to approach things was to go by discount. So if someone put up a $100 item for $60 then the next time needs to have a $40 discount as well, give or take a few bucks. This would slow the decrease problem and also allow for the thread to move up and down in scale reaching those wanting lower dollar items as well as higher dollar items. As long at the discount is inline from steal to steal then we wouldn't see a $40 discount followed by a $10 one in just a steal or two.
> They way I tried to approach things was to go by discount. So if someone put up
> a $100 item for $60 then the next time needs to have a $40 discount as well, give
> or take a few bucks. This would slow the decrease problem and also allow for the
> thread to move up and down in scale reaching those wanting lower dollar items as
> well as higher dollar items. As long at the discount is inline from steal to steal
> then we wouldn't see a $40 discount followed by a $10 one in just a steal or two.
By that logic, if someone offered a $200 item for $100, every item would then need to be around $100 off from then on though.
See, I don't think discount was the problem before. Most people seemed fine with awesome discounts on awesome items (how I would define steal). There's a bit of give and take there. Dictating values, discounts, etc. just narrows what we can offer, and it also narrows the number of potential dibbers, and in turn, narrows the the number of potential steals in the thread.
I didn't see anyone take issue with someone getting a $100 lot of games for $50 and then offering a high demand new release game for let's say $20-25. Are the discounts inline? No. But they're both clearly steals of high caliber. That should be our measuring stick, and since it's subjective, all we need to do is let the community of potential dibbers decide what's a steal and what isn't.
Alternatively, all equally valued items at equally valued discounts are not equally desired. How about a lot of 10 $10 NES games for $50 or a $100 NES game for $50. Same value and discount? Sure. Same level of desire? Absolutely fudging not. There's no way to really measure or control that, but honestly, I think that's a non-issue and again, dictating values and discounts is not really a slippery slope we want to go down.
The whole digital and gift card thing is a bit of a different argument though.
> By that logic, if someone offered a $200 item for $100, every item would then need
> to be around $100 off from then on though.
Yes, if you are going to take a $100 discount, you better be prepared to give back. Or else just DON'T dib!
> See, I don't think discount was the problem before. Most people seemed fine with
> awesome discounts on awesome items (how I would define steal). There's a bit of give
> and take there. Dictating values, discounts, etc. just narrows what we can offer,
> and it also narrows the number of potential dibbers, and in turn, narrows the the
> number of potential steals in the thread.
> I didn't see anyone take issue with someone getting a $100 lot of games for $50 and
> then offering a high demand new release game for let's say $20-25. Are the discounts
> inline? No. But they're both clearly steals of high caliber. That should be our measuring
> stick, and since it's subjective, all we need to do is let the community of potential
> dibbers decide what's a steal and what isn't.
This is a problem, same problem that originally plagued the thread. When you take a $50 discounted item. And you give back $25(my fav example is Pokemon Sun/Moon dib then $30 PSN for $10), you are essentially pocketing the difference. EVEN if the game is in demand and sought after(in other words, a GREAT deal in a normal sales thread). That's part of the problem when people don't care for what came before. Once it jumps from $50 to $25 in value, then the next one might as well be a $10 discount on mediocre items. Then we are back to bottom until someone take a huge loss again.
> Alternatively, all equally valued items at equally valued discounts are not equally
> desired. How about a lot of 10 $10 NES games for $50 or a $100 NES game for $50.
> Same value and discount? Sure. Same level of desire? Absolutely fudging not. There's
> no way to really measure or control that, but honestly, I think that's a non-issue
> and again, dictating values and discounts is not really a slippery slope we want
> to go down.
Those two examples are definitely NOT the same. I've pointed out this before, a $30 discounted RE7 is not the same as 3 $10 games for free.
While it's not a perfect way to dictate the quality of the steal, not sure what else we can use other than value.
Maybe you have to offer something that you're asking at least $15 for? So that way if they're offering a $5 discount on digital codes, one would hope someone would pass, or if you're throwing three discs out for $15 and nobody takes your offer, someone else who's serious about offering a steal up can have a crack at the previous offer?
I think within a week is always a reasonable time to ship nearly anything. I know for me I work 45+ hours a week and some weeks have kids activities every night or all but 1...sometimes it doesn't seem like much but a couple or three days cab absolutely fly by and I barely see my house except to to sleep and shower. Not saying what you're saying is wrong necessarily WithinTemptation, you know I love ya :)
I agree with pope and other I Iike the digi currency, I use a lot of psn and to me that's a great item..it should just habe to equal the deal you got. If you got a 60 dollar item for 30 you need to offer 30 at least and not 10.
Or maybe digital currency can't be your only offer..you have to offer a physical item as well, maybe that will help?
> See, I don't think discount was the problem before. Most people seemed fine with
> awesome discounts on awesome items (how I would define steal). There's a bit of give
> and take there. Dictating values, discounts, etc. just narrows what we can offer,
> and it also narrows the number of potential dibbers, and in turn, narrows the the
> number of potential steals in the thread.
If we don't use discount as the (within reasonable margin) measuring stick then we have potential for a few things to happen. First would be that we have the $100 item for $50 dibbed, then an offer of a $50 item for $25 let's say. Now what if the next steal is a $30 item for $10? Here we are at the bottom in just 2 steals.
This brings up the 2nd problem, the second person saved $50 and returned $25, $25 turned into $20 to the "pot" thus benefiting $20 the exact discount price of the item they offered.
And then lastly, we're at the bottom of the scale again with $10 items and someone has to mercy dib to get us back on track.
Obviously there is no perfect system and it's really on those of us participating but it seems we need a few new rules in place to help guide us in keeping things going or we'll end up back where we were again.
Wouldnt it help to bridge the gap between the minimum and maximum total value of the steal or total discount? Say if the max discount is 100 and the minimum is 50 or maybe min/max value (not including discount) 50/100 I think personally the root cause is too low of a minimum.
This could be 4 items totalling a 70 dollar value or one item equally 70 dollars but both being sold for 40 for example. I know that one will be more popular than the other but the value and discount is the same, and thats largely what matters. I think keeping values high keeps discounts more constant is my idea.
This is interesting and id like in if it all possible when it
I think the biggest issue still unsolved will be holding values consistent steal by steal . Everyone is focusing on taking a $60+ item and offering a $10 in return. However, that is an extreme example. Realistically the box will be driven down where the next person offers a $50, then a $35, 30, 25 etched so on and so forth. They keep the value difference within an acceptable range, but it is still being driven down.
And whether anybody likes it or not, not everyone will have a $60 item everytime to participate. The box will move to slow if the values are tries to be held constant across the board.
Maybe one option to keep item value across the board up will be to have an average value? For example, I sell an item for $60, person b sells for 50, person c sells for 40 in the current system. If person c sells for $30-35 that is in a reasonable range of what they just got in a steal, however already half of the original value.
However if you average there, person a-c average is $50 so person C would have to up their game, maybe within +/-5 of the average value. That'll hold the overall value necessary to post higher
I like some of your guys' suggestions in theory, but in practice, I think many of them will just overcomplicate things.
If we're really going to do something to ensure good steals (not sure that's possible) beyond just not allowing certain items, I like the idea of multiple dibbers the best. Same time frame, just allow let's say 3 people to dib for each steal. That way, there's a bit of competition. Here's how I'd see it going.
1. DiamondDave posts a steal 2. Dashey is the first to dib and post a steal 3. Now SirConnery and Pope try to get that steal away from Dashey and also dib 4. If they post better stuff than Dashey, it's likely one of their steals will go first, and they get DiamondDave's steal
Of course, if Dashey posts a good enough steal, it's likely someone will dib it right away. Up to two other users don't need to join in. It's just possible if Dashey's steal isn't good enough to warrant a quick enough dib.
Also, to avoid this adding too much time, people need to post their steals at the same time they dib (although more may be added if needed later on).
Other than that, the rules would stay pretty much the same. This way, it's more based on who has the best steal and less based on timing. However, if the first steal is good enough, it won't affect the pace of the thread (which many people enjoyed).
The main thing is that once Dashey dibs DiamondDave's steal, that's the only steal that may be dibbed on. I don't see that being a huge problem though because if it was good enough to either get dibbed on immediately, or it was the best out of the 3, it should be fine.
Now, of course, as mentioned, the extra dibbers won't always be necessary. That's only in the case of a steal that doesn't get dibbed quickly enough. It's a failsafe to help guard against less-than-worthy steals.
All in all, I think the competitive factor is what could really bring this already awesome idea to the next level.
I like the idea of having the first three dibbers or even if it was just 2. More than one is good like you said it creates competition, if you want that steal you dibbed on you have to outdue the other dibber. Good idea!
Still probably have to figure out a way to smooth it out thoughml.
There will definitely be something to avoid being the first person to dibs an item... if all you do is sit there and hit refresh, of course you can get good steals by typing dibs.
The idea of the first 3 people to dib is something I will be looking at for sure. This will allow other people to have an opportunity to dib that aren't fast enough.
Something I was considering doing is a "password"... the person posting a steal will have to post a password, that way you can't just type "dibs"... you have to read the entire post in order to be able to find the password. That will allow you to successfully dib without just copy and pasting. The first 3 dibbers get the chance of getting the items, the person offering the steal chooses the best lot.
"Offering Watch Dogs 2 for PS4, Zelda Phantom Hourglass for DS and Super Mario Bros 3 for $15...
password is: chicken noodle soup"
dibber 1: dibs dibber 2: dibs -- chicken noodle soup -- dibber 3: dibs on the lot dibber 4: dibs on the lot, chicken noodle soup dibber 5: i want zelda dibber 6: dibs!!! give me SMB3! dibber 7: dibs chicken noodle soup
Dibber 2, 4 and 7 will be able to post their steals, the person offering WD2, ZPH and SMB3 gets to choose the best lot of the 3, or we can go by Plusses after around 10 minutes of the 3rd and final steal being posted up.
I know it may sound stupid, but it prevents people from refreshing and getting great deals just by seeing the post go up.
and if Dibber 7 has such a great steal, why didn't you pick his to be next? also, if you offer up a steal and choose one, you will be unable to participate in the next offering... that's the only pitfall.
EDIT: im sure theres a way to work around it though
> Require a steal proposal when dibbing and allow for competition. Easy. If you're
> offering good stuff that gets dibbed, good! If you're not, doesn't matter how hard
> you hit refresh.
Right, but what I don't want to happen is people offering the same "steals" copy and pasting over and over again... and those who will "dib and edit" their post later on... Yes, I know their posts may not get chosen -- but there's always that chance.
also, if we have 10 "dibs! ::steal here::" posts, and then it floods the thread because posts 4-10 are not part of the top 3... at least if we have clarification who the top 3 dibbers are, it'll make it easier to roll though.
Here's my idea. I previously mentioned it a bit, but I will try to give an example.
Everyone signs up before the thread opens and is assigned a random #. Names queue up in the OP with #1 being on top, anyone new entering will be able to come in but they will be on the bottom of the list.
1 Jeff 2 DiamondDave 3 whitefire
and so on.
So and so posts a deal, for 30 minutes, anyone can dib but whoever is higher in the queue gets priority. So in this case, Jeff has the first right of refusal. After 30 minutes, the person highest on the list who called dibs gets it. And their name is moved to the bottom of the list. If both DiamondDave and whitefire called dibs this round, after 30 minutes, Jeff didn't dib. Then DD gets it.
I hope that wasn't too complicated. Feel free to pick it apart, I don't know how well it would actually work.
> kinda like a soft cooldown, not bad but it'd be more work for Jeff since he'd have
> to stay up on it constantly.
I agree. It's a fantastic idea that I think has real merit, and I'd like to see it implemented, but we also can't ask jeff to take on a ton of work here. I think suggestions that are more or less self-regulating once put into place are best.
if theres going to be compeitition for dibbers id think the +/- would be a better way to vote it than just the one original poster? soft cooldown queue isn't bad either but how could it be done so jeff isn't constantly having to redo the list.
> if theres going to be compeitition for dibbers id think the +/- would be a better
> way to vote it than just the one original poster? soft cooldown queue isn't bad
> either but how could it be done so jeff isn't constantly having to redo the list.
I don't think we'd need a vote at all. Just someone dibbing the item should be fine. First one that gets dibbed wins, basically.
There's also an inherent fun with the risk too. Sure, you may want to wait for more people to dib and post a steal to see what's offered, but if you wait, you could also miss out because someone might dib before you.
One way we could solve the constant updating of OP problem is to have someone who is on all the time to do it. I'd volunteer but I don't have alot of time to update, though I am on GTZ alot on my phone.
Anyway, it would have to get Jeff's approval and enough people interested. There's prob other easier to implement options we could try before then.
> This could be 4 items totalling a 70 dollar value or one item equally 70 dollars
> but both being sold for 40 for example. I know that one will be more popular than
> the other but the value and discount is the same, and thats largely what matters.
> I think keeping values high keeps discounts more constant is my idea.
Along these lines, a limit on the maximum number of items that can be bundled may make sense. Like you said, a $70 item for $40 is more of a steal than 4 items totalling $70 for $40. But the next person could offer 10 $7 items together for $40- considerably less desirable, but still the same discount. A limit of, say, 5 items together could help prevent a huge clearance bundle. Jeff could, of course, approve overages if the items truly go well together. (A bundle of all 7 PS2 .hack games has nice cohesion (even if an unrealistic value), a PS2 with 10 common games doesn't.)
Regarding the password or thing about quick dibbing, I don't think there's a need to make that more complex. If a person is quick to the draw too many times, they'll run out of things to offer, reverting back to the other deal and invoking the penalty clause. If someone truly has enough good stuff to offer, then by all means, they should be able to get it quickly.
Even before her now-famous MSNBC comments explaining why "you have the leaking" on alleged ties between Trump officials and Russia, former defense official Evelyn Farkas had undertaken a media campaign to pressure her old colleagues in the Obama administration -- even Barack Obama himself -- to disclose what they knew. Farkas, who left the administration in 2015 after serving as a deputy assistant secretary of defense, raised eyebrows in the March 2 interview on MSNBC when she said there had been a rush to share information before President Trump took office.
"I was urging my former colleagues, and frankly speaking, the people on the Hill ... 'get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration,' because I had a fear that, somehow, that information would disappear with the senior people who left," she said.
"That's why you have the leaking, because people were worried," she added.
The interview came two days before Trump accused Obama of wire-tapping Trump Tower. While that allegation remains widely disputed, the White House jumped on Farkas' remarks as proof that intelligence leaking had taken place in the Obama White House. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer called her remarks "devastating." But the MSNBC comments were hardly the only time Farkas encouraged the distribution of intelligence on Trump officials.
In a Politico column in December, Farkas voiced concern that the American public doesn't have access to the information the intel community has on connections between Russia and Trump. "The information needs to be made public," she wrote. "If the answers yield further evidence that the president-elect is indebted to the Russian government or individuals with Kremlin ties, the intelligence community and policy officials should also begin disclosing what they know about whether Trump's associates have been in contact with Russian officials, and what they've been discussing." She went on to warn that officials with answers to those questions and who could declassify that intel were to leave office when Trump took office.
Just days before Trump took office, Farkas went a step further in a piece for Newsweek and called for then-President Barack Obama to step in. "We need President Obama to share with the public the information the FBI has to date on this issue, and we need President-elect Trump to explain the full extent of his ties with the Kremlin and influential Russians," she wrote.
After the MSNBC appearance, Farkas spoke on March 20 with the BBC about the existence of evidence showing Russian interference in the presidential campaign. "Some of that, the proof is in very tightly held, classified channels," she said. "... And also the question of whether Trump's people were involved probably also would show up in those channels."
Farkas has not made her encouragement of such disclosures a secret. At the same time, she has stressed that she wasn't personally involved, and recently suggested her MSNBC comments were taken out of context -- saying she wouldn't specifically encourage leaking. "At the end of the interview I did start a new thought 'that's why they leaked,' but got cut off. I would have explained that leaking is illegal and I would never condone it, but it seems that the people who were leaking to the New York Times might have also been concerned that the legislative branch was being left in the dark," she told The American Spectator.
But the totality of her articles and interview appearances makes clear that, in her view, high-level Obama officials had potentially damaging information on Trump-Russia ties.
The comments could draw added attention amid reporting by Fox News and other outlets that Susan Rice, former Obama national security adviser, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance. The unmasked names, of people associated with Trump, were sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan -- essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.
You keep breaking the formatting in the OP and it makes all posts go bold and big. lol
Anyways, looks much more complicated than it was before. Couldn't really follow so I'll probably not be participating this time around, at least until I see it working well and get it. I get the basics, three people dib and offer up steals, community votes and the steal that got dibbed-- the person whose steal was dibbed decides which one wins and then...-- like, even going back and trying to explain what I got confused me, lol. Whatever.
Still not a fan of digital at all. It's cheap. But I guess it keeps the thread running, just not good enough for me.
I get the basics but the actual functionality of edits and knowing what's up, or being the OP with three crap offers and not wanting to pick one, what the hell happens? The offerer loses what he dibbed on as the process steps back? You wait for three more offers? It moves on anyways?
> It's only temporary to see how it works. If it's trash, we can go back to the original
Plus, we have minimums now, there aren't going to be any garbage offers... or should be a minimum at that. Once people start seeing others offering steals, theyre going to want to one-up the other steal, otherwise they get nothing.
3.) PLEASE DO NOT PEND YOUR TRADE UNTIL THE PERSON YOU CHOSE ALSO HAS CHOSEN THE BEST STEAL! If you offer TWO unclaimed steals, you will be unable to participate in the future. IF YOU DELETE OR RESCIND YOUR DIB, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE FOR 48 HOURS. BE SURE YOU WANT THE ITEM YOU ARE DIBBING.
is unclaimed when three people don't dib you or if you aren't chosen by the original poster twice?
I wouldn't worry too much about it moving slowly. It's a weekday, and some people may not be following the thread again yet. Unless it's a crazy good steal, it may take a few hours until we really get back into the swing of things.
I do wonder if it would be more simple to just allow 2 or 3 people to dib, and the let the next dibber select which one is best. You can have items stay up for a max of 3 hours, but this way, you don't have to worry about plusses or whatever else. If a dib is good enough to go fast and then the next dib also goes fast, obviously the first dibber's steal was worthy.
User A posts a steal User B dibs user A's steal and posts his own steal Users C and D also dib user A's steal and post their own steals User E dibs user C's steal and posts his own steal User F and G also dib user C's steal and post their own steals
And so on...
People can also have an opportunity to just dib. They don't need to wait.
User A posts a steal User B dibs user A's steal and posts his own steal User C dibs user B's steal and posts his own steal User D dibs user C's steal and posts his own steal User E and F also dib user C's steal and post their own steals
You see, in this case, user B had a good enough steal that C snatched it up, and in turn, C had a good enough steal that so did D. However, D's wasn't good enough for the quick steal, so user E and F came in to try to see if they could snatch it.
So only when a dibber's steal isn't quite good enough does there need to be more dibbers. Otherwise, it runs as it should, naturally.
Whoever is the first to dib decides which user's steal can be fought over, but if you that first dibber posts a good enough steal, it won't be fought over because it was snatched up too quickly.
This way it still moves as quickly as possible unless there's a less than worthy steal, there's incentive for a user who really wants an item to post a great steal (to avoid their dib being challenged), yet we still have a safeguard to avoid lurkers just snatching up all of the good stuff and stalling the thread by posting crap.
I know it's a bit complex, but it's simple when you think about it, and I really think it could work well.
hmm.. so, you're suggesting anyone can post up a steal, but the moment someone takes their steal, they are the one who is able to take the steal they previously dibbed on? I think i'm following, but it can get a bit confusing.
> hmm.. so, you're suggesting anyone can post up a steal, but the moment someone takes
> their steal, they are the one who is able to take the steal they previously dibbed
> on? I think i'm following, but it can get a bit confusing.
Basically, anyone can dib a steal (multiple dibbers is ok). Let the following dibber decide which of those previous dibbers had the best steal. If a dibber has a really good steal, it may be taken immediately, and then there's no reason for another dibber.
I think it gets confusing because of the redundant verbage, but I hope that simplifies it a bit. The idea is to allow the "market," this being the dibbers, to decide without a vote being necessary. First come, first serve still, but if your steal (after you dib) isn't up to sniff for an instant dib, others can dib after you. I think we should make a maximum (say 3 dibbers at a time), so that people don't just wait around to see if anything better comes along.
The idea is that when an item is a real heck of a steal, extra dibbers, voting, etc. won't be necessary. The structure is designed to simultaneously keep things moving at a good pace and allow for better steals.
Very slow. I wonder if the community at large knows we are up and running again. I got some plusses but no dibs yet, but don't want anyone to have to mercy dib either. I may have sone other things. Guess I could do horizon if it comes to that I know that will fly. I've finished it my son was playing it but he's gotten on a state of Decay mad max kick lately so I could always get it again later
I do like the idea of letting 2+ people call dibs, but 30 minutes is way too long. Maybe 10-15 minutes. Of course this only come into play for super good steals. I also think if you call dibs you should post your steal asap so its available as soon as possible.
I hope it picks up soon, kinda sad to check back hours later and no activity.
With your permission @jeff I'd like to start a trade thread with the rules I laid out to see how it works.
To differentiate it from yours, I can make it a trade only thread (no money).
If you're cool with it, Jeff, I'll go ahead and start it.
Guys, these are the guidelines I was going to try oit. If anyone finds them confusing or whatever else, please let me know. It looks like a lot of info; but it's actually really simple in practice.
Please note that since this is a new thread, new rules may need to be added as time goes on as issues arise.
Here's the basic premise (it's somewhat similar to the steals thread but a bit different at the same time):
-You want an item, so you call dibs -At the same time you call dibs, you post your own offer -Here's where the fun part comes in-sniping: a sniper is person who may come along and try to snipe (dib on the item you just dibbed) your item by posting an offer of his/her own -There may be up to 3 snipes per offer (so a total of 4 dibs, essentially) -However, the sniping is over once a new item is dibbed -So the idea is if you post a high-demand enough item, you won't have to contend with snipers -If you don't, you may end up losing that item if the next user dibs one of their items instead of yours
User A offers an item. User B dibs that item. User C dibs user B's item. Now user B gets user A's item.
User A offers an item. User B dibs that item. User C snipes. User D snipes. User E dibs user C's item. Now user C gets user A's item.
So first user to get their offer dibbed, wins the item they were trying to dib (or snipe)
Rules: (updated as needed)
-No mystery bundles -No multiple items (choices) but one offer of multiple items is ok (ex: 5 games listed together is ok but a choice between 5 different games is not) -Physical electronic and gaming items only (phones, tablets, video games, consoles, etc.) - No gift cards, no digital items - No selling. This is for items only. You may charge exact shipping, but you must note the shipping cost (if you're not sure, a maximum shipping cost is ok). However, this can only be exact shipping only (this will be based on the honor system, so please don't ruin it for everyone else because some people have trouble paying for shipping but may have some good stuff to offer) - No mystery bundles/items of any kind. All offers must be explicit (condition, completeness, etc.) - If an item is not dibbed on on for 24 hours, everything reverts back to the prevous offer - You must wait to send out the offer until user who dibbed your offer has had their offer dibbed as well
I'd like to get this thread up and running again first before other similar threads are implemented. I put the other thread on hold temporarily... However, I did want to see if you wanted to be part of the Review team.. i don't want to use moderation or mod to get confused with the actual Mods...
We will revert to the original 1st to dib, 1 person dib immediately concept.
However, we need to determine if we have a 3 person committee, what guidelines determine if something is not a legit steal, and at what point does someone say Okay, this deal isn't fair and requires the person to revise their steal... etc. Then what will be the next steps, etc.
I think having @whitefire , @Lunar and maybe one other person that is willing to throw in a hand. I wish I had a computer to be on more, but I don't and can only review during the day. Anyhow, we need 1 more person to assist.
> With your permission @jeff I'd like to start a trade thread with the rules I laid
> out to see how it works.
> To differentiate it from yours, I can make it a trade only thread (no money).
> If you're cool with it, Jeff, I'll go ahead and start it.
> Guys, these are the guidelines I was going to try oit. If anyone finds them confusing
> or whatever else, please let me know. It looks like a lot of info; but it's actually
> really simple in practice.
Sounds fun! Only shortfall I see in it is that it's likely people are much more willing to throw money around than product (I know I'd be pretty much out of the running after 2-3 trades) but it's a really neat concept. Cutthroat trading!
When a dib fails I could see mass confusion, or when someone's like "Well I don't want these new offers, they're dick; I want what someone offered back here."
Going to get the main topic running again with the original rules... keep in mind, there is still a $15 min... no mystery boxes still, etc.. the only thing removed was the multi-person dibbing, waiting 30 mins, etc...
This is getting more and more complicated. The original rules were best. Just ban someone if they are blatantly taking advantage. I ended up with the two crap mystery bundles, and I still think the original rules were best.