| | | Author | Message |
|---|
brian9824
  
| | #1 posted April 29, 2008 at 6:05pm (EDT) |
Just sent trade message to ForgottenSoup and he declines it and for the reason states : Sorry, only on disc 2.
This gets really annoying and some form of warning might help | CoachMcGuirk
 
| | #2 posted April 30, 2008 at 12:30am (EDT) |
It could just be a nice way of saying "no, your offer isn't good enough." | Boss
 
| | #3 posted April 30, 2008 at 7:47am (EDT) |
Don't we have a Collection section for these type of listings?  | bill
  
 
| | #4 posted April 30, 2008 at 8:09am (EDT) |
this has long been an elusive problem... As Doug implies, it can be a gray area since with the right offer, anything is likely tradable.
Did you suggest to the guy that he move it to his collection? | brian9824
| | #5 posted April 30, 2008 at 8:42am (EDT) |
Yep. | ForgottenSoup
| | #6 posted April 30, 2008 at 11:08pm (EDT) |
Everything is for trade. I've stated multiple times that I'd trade anything for the right item or price. Your offer was reasonable, but not worth stopping short in the game to get rid of it. I never downright said it wasn't for trade. I could have said "No, your offer blows and I'll never be interested" but instead I took the higher route and at least gave you one legitimate reason for denying you. | brian9824
| | #7 posted May 1, 2008 at 9:41am (EDT) |
ForgottenSoup wrote:
> Everything is for trade. I've stated multiple times that I'd trade
> anything for the right item or price. Your offer was reasonable,
> but not worth stopping short in the game to get rid of it. I never
> downright said it wasn't for trade. I could have said "No, your offer
> blows and I'll never be interested" but instead I took the higher
> route and at least gave you one legitimate reason for denying you.
By legitimate reason you mean the reason of you have the game listed and have no intention of trading it because your still playing it?
If the offer was reasonable and you don't want to trade it because you are still playing it then the game doesnt belong on your available list. It should be in your collection which you can always have people check as well.
Listing games as available and then denying reasonable offers because your not done playing the game is one of the most annoying things you can do on this site and it REALLY pisses people off.
Also you never stated everything is for trade for the right item/price unless you made message board posts on random board over a month ago... | ForgottenSoup
| | #8 posted May 1, 2008 at 10:14am (EDT) |
I have intentions to trade it. Christ, can you please drop your boo-boo and get on with life? It's my prerogative where it goes, not yours.
Want it put simply? I didn't want to trade with you. I don't want to trade KUF for LO. I tried to soften the rejection by adding an innocent excuse but that didn't work because your ego somehow worked its way into the matter.
and check my bio. | brian9824
| #9 posted May 1, 2008 at 10:17am (EDT)
edited May 1, 2008 at 11:25am (EDT) |
Bio isnt visible when you are in offer screen or checking matches, hence why there is a comment field for items
| benstylus
| | #10 posted May 1, 2008 at 11:00am (EDT) |
you should still look over someone's bio before sending an offer to them.
It can often tell you all you need to know about the person 
You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it.
I'm prepared to call that cowardice. | John
| | #11 posted May 1, 2008 at 11:30am (EDT) |
Actually, I pretty much agree with Brian on this one. I don't think ForgottenSoup has any real intentions of trading it for anything reasonable because he is still playing it. In my opinion, it should be on his Collection list.
Sure, if someone offered him a PS3 for it, then he'd probably quit playing mid-game and trade it. But, otherwise, I don't think he would except for a an offer so crazy that it would never be made.
It could be different, of course, but that is my guess and is generally the case based on the last 100 or so people that listed a game as "available" that were still playing it.
- John...
"Yes, but people that are quiet shoot up schools.
Do you really want him to own a dog that shoots up a school?"
- Adam | benstylus
| | #12 posted May 1, 2008 at 11:39am (EDT) |
oh I agree with brian also - but i still say read a bio before sending or agreeing to an offer.
You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it.
I'm prepared to call that cowardice. | brian9824
| | #13 posted May 1, 2008 at 11:43am (EDT) |
I'd have to agree with benstylus on my own part lol. I really should read the bio's but usually when i'm sending out offers its 30ish offers at a time cuz i tend to trade in batches. | therainstormlord
 
| | #14 posted May 1, 2008 at 11:59am (EDT) |
Meh -- this falls into the category of people getting bent because they don't get an immediate response to an offer or receive no reason for an offer being declined. It's just an offer, it was declined so move along.
I don't think Brian or John should be judging this guy, claiming he won't trade it. Had he been done with the game, the offer would have been reasonable. If the offer was sweeter, he probably would have traded the game without finishing it or gone out and rented/acquired the game elsewhere (assuming we're not talking about the saved game being stored on the cart like Legend of Zelda.) The game is a available for a price, a price that will likely go down when he completes it.
 | bill
| | #15 posted May 1, 2008 at 12:10pm (EDT) |
I think it would be better for a game you're still playing to be in your collection. But, I don't think it's a big deal either. It's a waste of time to get bent out of shape over someone turning your offer down (for whatever reason), in my opinion. | SmarmySir
| | #16 posted May 1, 2008 at 1:02pm (EDT) |
Really though, offering Kingdom Under Fire for Lost Odyssey... isn't really the most reasonable of trade offers.
----------------------------------------------
My tee-shirt shop.
My Ebay store. | brian9824
| | #17 posted May 1, 2008 at 1:07pm (EDT) |
There was money involved as well, it wasnt a straight trade.
I don't think its a big deal but it happens enough that it gets really annoying and its usually the same people doing it over and over. | willyum
 
| | #18 posted May 1, 2008 at 3:25pm (EDT) |
brian9824 wrote:
> There was money involved as well, it wasnt a straight trade.
>
> I don't think its a big deal but it happens enough that it gets really
> annoying and its usually the same people doing it over and over.
>
I know there are traders whose lists aren't up to date, so it can sometimes be difficult to say who's willing to trade what. And then there are also traders who don't provide information on their bio-pages. Maybe make a personal note on those users (whose lack of clarity annoy you), and avoid sending them offers. Also, if you're about to send an offer, you can view your previous offers to see if there were issues in the past.
 | Corona
| | #19 posted May 3, 2008 at 9:58pm (EDT) |
I don't make offers through the matches system anymore, haven't in forever. Too much info is not known most of the time to make it worth the trouble (what little it is). The person might not be trading it, might have loaned it out, might have broke it, might not have it anymore, might have lost the case/disc/manual, might have decided the day before they love the game or want to play it again, etc, etc, etc. And I don't blame them for not updating, I'm sure they have more important things to do.
If I have something for trade or sell I post it on the forums or if I know for sure someone wants it I offer it (usually with cash, if necessary). If no one responds then if I'm trading it then it goes to the mom and pop game store if selling then Ebay/Amazon.
Blah, just my two cents on the issue. | Forgotten_Freshness
 
| | #20 posted May 4, 2008 at 12:58pm (EDT) |
Very irritating to send an offer to someone and have them say "sorry, that's NFT".
I pester them until they more it to their collection after. 
 | brian9824
| | #21 posted May 4, 2008 at 3:44pm (EDT) |
Heh another one today that is blatant about it. Doctor Gradus.
Asked him to check my list for game and he responds saying he just picked it up so no....
Glad i'm a subscriber again so i can block these people. | MightySlacker
| | #22 posted May 8, 2008 at 11:33am (EDT) |
John wrote:
> Actually, I pretty much agree with Brian on this one. I don't think
> ForgottenSoup has any real intentions of trading it for anything reasonable
> because he is still playing it.
Even though he just said 3 posts above yours that he HAS INTENTIONS TO TRADE IT? I know you know more than everyone else, but this truly is a new level of transcendence.
Brian, the fuse on your tampon seems to be shorter these days - what gives?
Dave
2004-07-22 17:30:17 Morph Mr. Funny man, get ready to have ur life get funnier
HAS HE LEARNED ANYTHING IN A YEAR?
7-Sep-2005 11:04pm Morph keep it up mighty i will have you nailed for harassment
HELL NO! | Grenadier
| | #23 posted May 8, 2008 at 11:37am (EDT) |
MightySlacker wrote:
> John wrote:
>> Actually, I pretty much agree with Brian on this one. I don't think
>> ForgottenSoup has any real intentions of trading it for anything reasonable
>> because he is still playing it.
> Even though he just said 3 posts above yours that he HAS
> INTENTIONS TO TRADE IT? I know you know more than everyone
> else, but this truly is a new level of transcendence.
The operative word there is "real." Saying you'd trade it for "the right deal" means you'd trade it for something totally unbalanced and unrealistic, if the right sucker came along and gave you such a deal. It's not realistic or fair to others to list such things as "Available" when you really won't trade them except under extreme circumstances. Put it on your Collection list until you're really done with it. That's why we have the Collection list functionality.
Click here to join Goozex and get a free game! | therainstormlord
| #24 posted May 8, 2008 at 1:30pm (EDT)
edited May 8, 2008 at 1:33pm (EDT) |
Grenadier wrote:
> MightySlacker wrote:
>> John wrote:
> |>> Actually, I pretty much agree with Brian on this one.
> I don't think
> |>> ForgottenSoup has any real intentions of trading it
> for anything reasonable
> |>> because he is still playing it.
>> Even though he just said 3 posts above yours that he
> HAS
>> INTENTIONS TO TRADE IT? I know you know more than everyone
>> else, but this truly is a new level of transcendence.
>
> The operative word there is "real." Saying you'd trade
> it for "the right deal" means you'd trade it for something
> totally unbalanced and unrealistic, if the right sucker
> came along and gave you such a deal. It's not realistic
> or fair to others to list such things as "Available" when
> you really won't trade them except under extreme circumstances.
> Put it on your Collection list until you're really done
> with it. That's why we have the Collection list functionality.
>
Not realistic or fair? Exactly how is listing a game in an available list unfair to someone else? That's like saying "why put that Lamborghini in the showroom window when I can't afford it". This perception of the users in demand is totally unrealistic as I've stated time and again and these users want to hand out warnings and punishments. Then we get into this issue of what's "fair value". The Fair Value Nazis (FVNs) can't seem to appreciate this concept that his personal valuation for his game will depreciate when he completes it. Until then, he values it more. It's just like setting a reserve price -- if someone wants to pay that much because they value that item equally as much, then they will.
As for why we have the Collection list functionality, I saw that for boasting purposes -- not as layaway or pending tradeable items but that's just my opinion. ( ' :
| Forgotten_Freshness
| | #25 posted May 8, 2008 at 1:33pm (EDT) |
Grenadier wrote:
> MightySlacker wrote:
>> John wrote:
> |>> Actually, I pretty much agree with Brian on this one. I don't
> think
> |>> ForgottenSoup has any real intentions of trading it for anything
> reasonable
> |>> because he is still playing it.
>> Even though he just said 3 posts above yours that he HAS
>> INTENTIONS TO TRADE IT? I know you know more than everyone
>> else, but this truly is a new level of transcendence.
>
> The operative word there is "real." Saying you'd trade it for "the
> right deal" means you'd trade it for something totally unbalanced
> and unrealistic, if the right sucker came along and gave you such
> a deal. It's not realistic or fair to others to list such things
> as "Available" when you really won't trade them except under extreme
> circumstances. Put it on your Collection list until you're really
> done with it. That's why we have the Collection list functionality.
>
>
*clap*clap*clap*
This is how I feel about it, and people should put their crap in their collection.
| brian9824
| #26 posted May 8, 2008 at 1:45pm (EDT)
edited May 8, 2008 at 1:45pm (EDT) |
therainstormlord wrote:
> Grenadier wrote:
>> MightySlacker wrote:
> |>> John wrote:
>> |>> Actually, I pretty much agree with Brian on this one.
>> I don't think
>> |>> ForgottenSoup has any real intentions of trading it
>> for anything reasonable
>> |>> because he is still playing it.
> |>> Even though he just said 3 posts above yours that he
>> HAS
> |>> INTENTIONS TO TRADE IT? I know you know more than everyone
> |>> else, but this truly is a new level of transcendence.
>>
>> The operative word there is "real." Saying you'd trade
>> it for "the right deal" means you'd trade it for something
>> totally unbalanced and unrealistic, if the right sucker
>> came along and gave you such a deal. It's not realistic
>> or fair to others to list such things as "Available" when
>> you really won't trade them except under extreme circumstances.
>> Put it on your Collection list until you're really done
>> with it. That's why we have the Collection list functionality.
>>
>
> Not realistic or fair? Exactly how is listing a game in an available
> list unfair to someone else? That's like saying "why put that Lamborghini
> in the showroom window when I can't afford it". This perception of
> the users in demand is totally unrealistic as I've stated time and
> again and these users want to hand out warnings and punishments.
> Then we get into this issue of what's "fair value". The Fair Value
> Nazis (FVNs) can't seem to appreciate this concept that his personal
> valuation for his game will depreciate when he completes it. Until
> then, he values it more. It's just like setting a reserve price --
> if someone wants to pay that much because they value that item equally
> as much, then they will.
>
> As for why we have the Collection list functionality, I saw that
> for boasting purposes -- not as layaway or pending tradeable items
> but that's just my opinion. ( ' :
>
>
I guess thearetically I could list my house and car here since its for trade if i get a good offer. For that matter I can list my clothes, shoes, soap, furniture, etc and every game I own.
EVERYTHING is for sale for the right price. I doubt I'd find a single user who wouldnt sell me something in their collection if I offered them $1,000,000. The point is if you are only willing to sell or trade something for such an astronomical offer that its not realistic then its not really available. I'm sure he'd sell the game for $100 since he could turn around and rebuy it and pocket difference but no one would ever offer that.
| Grenadier
| #27 posted May 8, 2008 at 1:47pm (EDT)
edited May 8, 2008 at 1:47pm (EDT) |
therainstormlord wrote:
> Not realistic or fair? Exactly how is listing a game in
> an available list unfair to someone else? That's like saying
> "why put that Lamborghini in the showroom window when I
> can't afford it".
No, it's like putting the Lamborghini in the window with a $1 Trillion price tag. The valuation is blown out of proportion because there is no real good-faith intent to trade the game. Only a ridiculously large offer would cause someone to trade the game before they were done playing with it. In effect, it's not tradeable at that point, because only an idiot would make that kind of deal. For normal, even-value trading purposes, you've made the game NFT.
> This perception of the users in demand
> is totally unrealistic as I've stated time and again and
> these users want to hand out warnings and punishments.
I don't want punishments. Who mentioned punishments?
I would like people to not use the site in a way that makes it more difficult for other people to use the site. Listing games that are not truly available as "available" weakens the usefulness of search results for everyone else.
> Then we get into this issue of what's "fair value". The
> Fair Value Nazis (FVNs) can't seem to appreciate this concept
> that his personal valuation for his game will depreciate
> when he completes it. Until then, he values it more. It's
> just like setting a reserve price -- if someone wants to
> pay that much because they value that item equally as much,
> then they will.
I agree, but see above reasoning. If the extra valuation is so far outside the range that everyone else would value it at (ex. "I'd trade it for a $500 PS3!"), then it's "available" in name only.
> As for why we have the Collection list functionality,
> I saw that for boasting purposes -- not as layaway or pending
> tradeable items but that's just my opinion. ( ' :
That's another good use for it. Personally, I've got everything in there, and move things from Wanted to Collection (when I get them) and then to Available (when I'm done with them). I would never consider moving everything from Collection to Available on the off chance of getting an Offer good enough to make me ditch a game I'm not done with. The list clutter and quickly-rejected Offers alone would keep me from doing that.
Click here to join Goozex and get a free game! | Corona
| | #28 posted May 8, 2008 at 1:49pm (EDT) |
I think a lot of people just want people to know they have a certain game the day it comes out, or they want people to think they have it. It was funny, back when I first joined this site (and still sometimes), anytime a new game would come out and would be on the main page it would say like "2 available, 50 wanted." And I would know everytime the couple of people claiming to have it. | therainstormlord
| | #29 posted May 8, 2008 at 2:19pm (EDT) |
brian9824 wrote:
> therainstormlord wrote:
>> Grenadier wrote:
> |>> MightySlacker wrote:
>> |>> John wrote:
> |>> |>> Actually, I pretty much agree with Brian on this
> one.
> |>> I don't think
> |>> |>> ForgottenSoup has any real intentions of trading
> it
> |>> for anything reasonable
> |>> |>> because he is still playing it.
>> |>> Even though he just said 3 posts above yours that
> he
> |>> HAS
>> |>> INTENTIONS TO TRADE IT? I know you know more than
> everyone
>> |>> else, but this truly is a new level of transcendence.
> |>>
> |>> The operative word there is "real." Saying you'd trade
> |>> it for "the right deal" means you'd trade it for something
> |>> totally unbalanced and unrealistic, if the right sucker
> |>> came along and gave you such a deal. It's not realistic
> |>> or fair to others to list such things as "Available"
> when
> |>> you really won't trade them except under extreme circumstances.
> |>> Put it on your Collection list until you're really
> done
> |>> with it. That's why we have the Collection list
> functionality.
> |>>
>>
>> Not realistic or fair? Exactly how is listing a game
> in an available
>> list unfair to someone else? That's like saying "why
> put that Lamborghini
>> in the showroom window when I can't afford it". This
> perception of
>> the users in demand is totally unrealistic as I've stated
> time and
>> again and these users want to hand out warnings and punishments.
>
>> Then we get into this issue of what's "fair value".
> The Fair Value
>> Nazis (FVNs) can't seem to appreciate this concept that
> his personal
>> valuation for his game will depreciate when he completes
> it. Until
>> then, he values it more. It's just like setting a reserve
> price --
>> if someone wants to pay that much because they value
> that item equally
>> as much, then they will.
>>
>> As for why we have the Collection list functionality,
> I saw that
>> for boasting purposes -- not as layaway or pending tradeable
> items
>> but that's just my opinion. ( ' :
>>
>>
>
>
> I guess thearetically I could list my house and car here
> since its for trade if i get a good offer. For that matter
> I can list my clothes, shoes, soap, furniture, etc and every
> game I own.
>
> EVERYTHING is for sale for the right price. I doubt I'd
> find a single user who wouldnt sell me something in their
> collection if I offered them $1,000,000. The point is if
> you are only willing to sell or trade something for such
> an astronomical offer that its not realistic then its not
> really available. I'm sure he'd sell the game for $100
> since he could turn around and rebuy it and pocket difference
> but no one would ever offer that.
>
You can't say "no one" will ever offer that, you can only say "I won't offer that". Operating as both a cash and barter system, it is entirely feasible someone would be willing to meet the asking price.
| brian9824
| | #30 posted May 8, 2008 at 2:20pm (EDT) |
Like others have said the main problem is it makes the search feature really a pain to use. If i want to trade for a new game its next to impossible as most people have it listed and would never trade it unless you pay them more them retail.
I don't want to see anyone punished and i guess warnings wouldn't really work that well either. I know this is an old issue and its very hard to say who isn't trading a game and who is just picky and would only trade it for 1 rare item.
Also the collection is supposed to work exactly the way Grenadier says. When you get a game it goes in your collection, when its ready for trade you move it to available. | therainstormlord
| | #31 posted May 8, 2008 at 2:30pm (EDT) |
Grenadier wrote:
> therainstormlord wrote:
>
>> Not realistic or fair? Exactly how is listing a game
> in
>> an available list unfair to someone else? That's like
> saying
>> "why put that Lamborghini in the showroom window when
> I
>> can't afford it".
>
> No, it's like putting the Lamborghini in the window with
> a $1 Trillion price tag. The valuation is blown out of
> proportion because there is no real good-faith intent to
> trade the game. Only a ridiculously large offer would cause
> someone to trade the game before they were done playing
> with it. In effect, it's not tradeable at that point, because
> only an idiot would make that kind of deal. For normal,
> even-value trading purposes, you've made the game NFT.
The assumption here is that the price is going to be "astronmical". You as a consumer or rejected offer-proposer only know that your offer was not enough.
>> This perception of the users in demand
>> is totally unrealistic as I've stated time and again
> and
>> these users want to hand out warnings and punishments.
>
>
> I don't want punishments. Who mentioned punishments?
What is the point of a warning if there are no consequences?
>
> I would like people to not use the site in a way that
> makes it more difficult for other people to use the site.
> Listing games that are not truly available as "available"
> weakens the usefulness of search results for everyone else.
>
>
>> Then we get into this issue of what's "fair value".
> The
>> Fair Value Nazis (FVNs) can't seem to appreciate this
> concept
>> that his personal valuation for his game will depreciate
>> when he completes it. Until then, he values it more.
> It's
>> just like setting a reserve price -- if someone wants
> to
>> pay that much because they value that item equally as
> much,
>> then they will.
>
> I agree, but see above reasoning. If the extra valuation
> is so far outside the range that everyone else would value
> it at (ex. "I'd trade it for a $500 PS3!"), then it's "available"
> in name only.
Again, we assume the asking price is astronomical when the truth is the offer price just wasn't enough -- it's very easy to go to those extremes when we could be talking about 10 bucks more getting the deal done. Regardless, it's the sellers choice at what what he's willing to let the game go for.
| brian9824
| | #32 posted May 8, 2008 at 2:32pm (EDT) |
But your whole arguement still has the critical flaw of by your logic every game you own should be available because if you got offered enough money it would be for sale. If i buy a game new for $50 and list it as available but won't trade it unless someone offers MORE Then $50 its not really available of reasonable to list it as so | therainstormlord
| | #33 posted May 8, 2008 at 2:44pm (EDT) |
brian9824 wrote:
> Like others have said the main problem is it makes the search
> feature really a pain to use. If i want to trade for a
> new game its next to impossible as most people have it listed
> and would never trade it unless you pay them more them retail.
>
So, you just keep looking? I'm sorry it sounds like a pain but that goes with the territory of opting to acquire goods through bartering rather paying cash. Everyone takes it (cash) but someone pawning off old stuff for new, especially as the guy making the offer, has to accept the fact that it will be tougher to find a match and may have to pay a premium in used goods to get the new item. It all depends on the circumstances.
> Also the collection is supposed to work exactly the way
> Grenadier says. When you get a game it goes in your collection,
> when its ready for trade you move it to available.
Unless the gametz policy has changed, using the collection list in that manner is strictly optional and a bit counterintuitive ... why would I bother listing a random game in there if I'm not putting all of them in (I don't recall if completed trade items are automatically moved to the collection)? Anyway, especially for new users, unless they're looking for bragging rights, they're not going to load up their collection list as a pending trade list. As ForgottenSoup has no collection even defined, clearly it's a conscious choice to make the game available...for his price.
| MightySlacker
| | #34 posted May 8, 2008 at 2:45pm (EDT) |
Where are all these bullcrap assumptions coming from? Can anyone show me one place where he said he wants an astronomcal value for it? What if he just wants a newer release game or *gasp* a higher want?
Brain, why not post the original offer you made and we can see just how unrealistic he is being?
Dave
2004-07-22 17:30:17 Morph Mr. Funny man, get ready to have ur life get funnier
HAS HE LEARNED ANYTHING IN A YEAR?
7-Sep-2005 11:04pm Morph keep it up mighty i will have you nailed for harassment
HELL NO! | therainstormlord
| #35 posted May 8, 2008 at 2:55pm (EDT)
edited May 8, 2008 at 2:57pm (EDT) |
brian9824 wrote:
> But your whole arguement still has the critical flaw of
> by your logic every game you own should be available because
> if you got offered enough money it would be for sale. If
> i buy a game new for $50 and list it as available but won't
> trade it unless someone offers MORE Then $50 its not really
> available of reasonable to list it as so
That's not a critical flaw -- it's a conscious decision not to enter the market as a seller. If there is a critical flaw here, it's that you make egocentric offers. That isn't meant to be insulting, you just refuse to see the value of the an item from the other trader's perpsective -- you offer what you think is reasonable because there's no price tag and then complain at the other guy because he values his stuff differently. GTA4 has plenty of replay value whereas bioshock may not; they may be priced the same at retail but you certainly can't fault the owner of GTA4 if he values it a bit more. One man's trash is another's treasure -- it holds up.
| brian9824
| | #36 posted May 8, 2008 at 2:57pm (EDT) |
Offered Kingdom under fire and $15-20. Said offer was fair but he didnt want to trade it because he was still playing it. Said the reason he told me he wasn't going to trade it since he was still playing it was because he didn't want to "hurt my feelings"
I mean just look at the 5th post. he states that saying a game isn't for trade because he is on disc 2 is a legitimate reason for not trading it. | brian9824
| | #37 posted May 8, 2008 at 2:59pm (EDT) |
therainstormlord wrote:
> brian9824 wrote:
>> But your whole arguement still has the critical flaw of
>> by your logic every game you own should be available because
>> if you got offered enough money it would be for sale. If
>> i buy a game new for $50 and list it as available but won't
>> trade it unless someone offers MORE Then $50 its not really
>> available of reasonable to list it as so
>
> That's not a critical flaw -- it's a conscious decision not to enter
> the market as a seller. If there is a critical flaw here, it's that
> you make egocentric offers. That isn't meant to be insulting, you
> just refuse to see the value of the an item from the other trader's
> perpsective -- you offer what you think is reasonable because there's
> no price tag and then complain at the other guy because he values
> his stuff differently. GTA4 has plenty of replay value whereas bioshock
> may not; they may be priced the same at retail but you certainly can't
> fault the owner of GTA4 if he values it a bit more. One man's trash
> is another's treasure -- it holds up.
>
>
No i complain because he had denied it and said it's not for trade because he is still using it. You aren't allowed to put stuff up for sale in stores and then say its not actually for sale when a customer comes in to buy it. I wouldnt fault anyone for valuing their stuff different, unless they state the reason they arent trading it is because they aren't done playing it. not that the value isn't the same. | therainstormlord
| #38 posted May 8, 2008 at 3:04pm (EDT)
edited May 8, 2008 at 3:09pm (EDT) |
brian9824 wrote:
> therainstormlord wrote:
>> brian9824 wrote:
> |>> But your whole arguement still has the critical flaw
> of
> |>> by your logic every game you own should be available
> because
> |>> if you got offered enough money it would be for sale.
> If
> |>> i buy a game new for $50 and list it as available but
> won't
> |>> trade it unless someone offers MORE Then $50 its not
> really
> |>> available of reasonable to list it as so
>>
>> That's not a critical flaw -- it's a conscious decision
> not to enter
>> the market as a seller. If there is a critical flaw
> here, it's that
>> you make egocentric offers. That isn't meant to be insulting,
> you
>> just refuse to see the value of the an item from the
> other trader's
>> perpsective -- you offer what you think is reasonable
> because there's
>> no price tag and then complain at the other guy because
> he values
>> his stuff differently. GTA4 has plenty of replay value
> whereas bioshock
>> may not; they may be priced the same at retail but you
> certainly can't
>> fault the owner of GTA4 if he values it a bit more.
> One man's trash
>> is another's treasure -- it holds up.
>>
>>
>
> No i complain because he had denied it and said it's not
> for trade because he is still using it. You aren't allowed
> to put stuff up for sale in stores and then say its not
> actually for sale when a customer comes in to buy it.
> I wouldnt fault anyone for valuing their stuff different,
> unless they state the reason they arent trading it is because
> they aren't done playing it. not that the value isn't the
> same.
Well in post 6 he says it was available for trade but your offer wasn't enough for him to stop playing....so you could either pony up more, wait till he's done, find someone else with it or just not get it....
| brian9824
| | #39 posted May 8, 2008 at 3:05pm (EDT) |
Which is the whole point of his thread. The offer was reasonable, but it wasnt for trade because he was still playing. If the game isnt for trade for a reasonable offer it shouldnt be listed as available. | therainstormlord
| | #40 posted May 8, 2008 at 3:11pm (EDT) |
brian9824 wrote:
> Which is the whole point of his thread. The offer was reasonable,
> but it wasnt for trade because he was still playing. If
> the game isnt for trade for a reasonable offer it shouldnt
> be listed as available.
Why shouldn't the owner place a premium on a game while he's playing it? Back to my original post -- for the right price, it would be worthwhile to just save the game to a memory card, trade it for your offer and re-acquire the game later. But, you haven't made an offer enticing enough for him to do that. You're making an egocentric offer when you don't consider or just dismiss his opinion. You do it again here -- "if he's not selling it for my 'reasonable' offer", he must not be in the market.
|
|
Rules Help