Trading Post/PIF/Giving Tree Discussion Thread

[joe_collector]

Mining out a PIF thread is pretty ignorant....

 

[Mr Wiggles]

Do you have a non-shill answer? It's a statistically going to happen problem.

 

But clearly, only if the junk donkeys make it happen - you obviously have no faith in them doing right?

 

This is still not an answer. Try finding an answer to the definitely-going-to-happen problem rather than attempting to divert the conversation.

[joe_collector]

[You're really over complicating things IMO.

 

No, he's just sticking to the same nonsensical and irrelevant comment everytime he posts.

 

Next up, he'll ask "What happens if the original donator dies, and the CGC boards go down from an electrical storm - what will you do then? No way we can change the rules!!"

[revat]

Why do you not want a 3 day rule imposed on the PIF?

 

I am assuming the 3 day rule is referring to the lag in sending (a delay in claiming again from 24-72 hours was also mentioned); in that regard, this question still lacks an answer and is the rational why I don't want to see a non-solution implemented.

 

So what happens in this scenario:

 

Person A puts up an offer.

Person B claims offer and adds their own.

Person C claims B's offer and adds their own; A sends to B.

Person C's offer is not claimed; B's offer stagnates beyond 3 days while A's package arrives.

 

Scarecrow answers like "shills" don't cut it. The PIF thread saw a huge blowup over someone not sending (and others when there was a delay in sending - also a rule) and no solution to this definitely-going-to-happen problem just causes more problems.

 

IF people are into actual theft and are shilling for each other, no amount of rules can prevent the theft (though steps can be taken after the fact as someone will have their address). But assuming that B and C are not in cahoots, B's item goes back up for someone else to claim.

 

I think the proposed rule change now is to increase everyone's perception of fairness AND to have a mechanism for the market speak implicitly on the quality of an offering so individuals do not have to speak explicitly.

 

The problem isn't that B's item goes back up, it's that B's item goes back up and there are no takers for it.

 

 

To me if B already got Item A and another three days pass (after C fails), the person B should be forced to put up Item A and Item B as choices.

[Boboset]

[You're really over complicating things IMO.

 

No, he's just sticking to the same nonsensical and irrelevant comment everytime he posts.

 

Next up, he'll ask "What happens if the original donator dies, and the CGC boards go down from an electrical storm - what will you do then? No way we can change the rules!!"

I'm even having a hard time understanding most of what Wiggles is trying to convey here. No offense Wiggles.

[joe_collector]

To me if B already got Item A and another three days pass (after C fails), the person B should be forced to put up Item A and Item B as choices.

 

Not to mention that odds are Person B and Person C are either the same guy or closely affiliated.

[Mr Wiggles]

Why do you not want a 3 day rule imposed on the PIF?

 

I am assuming the 3 day rule is referring to the lag in sending (a delay in claiming again from 24-72 hours was also mentioned); in that regard, this question still lacks an answer and is the rational why I don't want to see a non-solution implemented.

 

So what happens in this scenario:

 

Person A puts up an offer.

Person B claims offer and adds their own.

Person C claims B's offer and adds their own; A sends to B.

Person C's offer is not claimed; B's offer stagnates beyond 3 days while A's package arrives.

 

Scarecrow answers like "shills" don't cut it. The PIF thread saw a huge blowup over someone not sending (and others when there was a delay in sending - also a rule) and no solution to this definitely-going-to-happen problem just causes more problems.

 

IF people are into actual theft and are shilling for each other, no amount of rules can prevent the theft (though steps can be taken after the fact as someone will have their address). But assuming that B and C are not in cahoots, B's item goes back up for someone else to claim.

 

I think the proposed rule change now is to increase everyone's perception of fairness AND to have a mechanism for the market speak implicitly on the quality of an offering so individuals do not have to speak explicitly.

 

The problem isn't that B's item goes back up, it's that B's item goes back up and there are no takers for it.

You're really over complicating things IMO. You can't outright stop a shill account, but the proposed 6 month sign up requirement would go a long ways towards doing that.

 

This has nothing to do with shill accounts. The 3 day rule assumes there are 2 participants willing to claim any offer in order to be fool proof. In the example illustrated, C has nothing someone wants to claim and it defaults back to B. B's offer was only wanted by C so it sits beyond the 3 day requirement on it's second pass by.

 

Without the second person willing to claim B's offer, the thread experiences a problem. A problem, thus far, without solution.

 

EDIT: a word

[mrmyst]

[You're really over complicating things IMO.

 

No, he's just sticking to the same nonsensical and irrelevant comment everytime he posts.

 

Next up, he'll ask "What happens if the original donator dies, and the CGC boards go down from an electrical storm - what will you do then? No way we can change the rules!!"

I'm even having a hard time understanding most of what Wiggles is trying to convey here. No offense Wiggles.

 

Wiggles, you say?

[Mr Wiggles]

To me if B already got Item A and another three days pass (after C fails), the person B should be forced to put up Item A and Item B as choices.

 

Not to mention that odds are Person B and Person C are either the same guy or closely affiliated.

 

... did a shill account kill your parents? You really are trying to drive this point home.

[Crimebuster]

You disagree with me Crimebuster, that's fine. There's no need discuss that further.

 

Why do you not want a 3 day rule imposed on the PIF?

 

You support a 6 month sign up requirement, something that wouldn't apply to you. But you do not support the 3 day rule, something would apply to you.

 

I never said I was against a 3 day rule. Where are you getting that from? I just didn't even see what this 3 day rule was you're talking about.

 

If I understand correctly, the suggestion is that instead of someone waiting 24 hours between claims to pick up a new item (if it has gone unclaimed), they have to wait 3 days? That's fine, I have no problem with that. I don't really see it affecting much, to be honest, most claims don't last even 24 hours anyway.

 

If that's not the proposed 3 day rule, then someone explain it to me again, because I am starting to get confused.

 

I'm not sure extending the regular waiting period from 1 week to 2 weeks is a good idea though. If claims are being made in a timely fashion, I'm not sure there are enough participants to make it through two whole weeks before the thread stalls simply because there's nobody eligible left to claim something.

[joe_collector]

Without the second person willing to claim B's offer, the thread experiences a problem. A problem, thus far, without solution.

 

That's because there is no verifiable problem, other than ones the junk donkeys can manufacture themselves, and that's what the rules are designed to curtail.

 

It's like you want to stop speeders, so you outfit cops with radar machines, then later complain they cost too much. That's not a real problem, it's a side effect of stopping speeders.

[joe_collector]

To me if B already got Item A and another three days pass (after C fails), the person B should be forced to put up Item A and Item B as choices.

 

Not to mention that odds are Person B and Person C are either the same guy or closely affiliated.

 

... did a shill account kill your parents? You really are trying to drive this point home.

 

Why, you getting nervous?

 

Seriously though, I can see patterns easily and they are definitely present in the PIF thread. I don't know bad the problem is, but if there are absolutely zero shill account operating there, I will eat a comic book with peanut butter.

[Mr Wiggles]

Without the second person willing to claim B's offer, the thread experiences a problem. A problem, thus far, without solution.

 

That's because there is no verifiable problem, other than ones the junk donkeys can manufacture themselves, and that's what the rules are designed to curtail.

 

It's like you want to stop speeders, so you outfit cops with radar machines, then later complain they cost too much. That's not a real problem, it's a side effect of stopping speeders.

 

Please take a statistics class. And please never use an analogy ever again.

[joe_collector]

Please take a statistics class.

 

, you're trying to school me on math.

 

And please never use an analogy ever again.

 

Why, it's just as dumb and illogical as your repetitive jabbering, which was the point.

[Mr Wiggles]

Please take a statistics class.

 

, you're trying to school me on math.

 

By all means, present your math based logic that solves my math based problem. I await your proof.

[joe_collector]

By all means, present your math based logic that solves my math based problem. I await your proof.

 

Let me know when you present one.

 

Here's mine for you: what happens when a vampire offers a book in the PIF thread, but can't ship it out during the daytime hours?

[Boboset]

what happens when a vampire offers a book in the PIF thread, but can't ship it out during the daytime hours?

More than anything, I want to hammer out rule changes to make the PIF more enjoyable and accessible. But

[DavidTheDavid]

I had the thought lately of just wanting to do something nice for someone who's always been really helpful on the boards. Maybe try to figure out what he's into comic-wise, see what I could come up with, and find another boardie who knows how to contact him irl and get a thank-you to him. Pay it forward that way. As annoying, and occasionally amazing, as reddit can be, people there do it all the time, without needing a thread to make it happen.

[joe_collector]

I had the thought lately of just wanting to do something nice for someone who's always been really helpful on the boards.

 

Thanks a lot for the kind thoughts, but I'm sure there are far more worthy recipients than me.

 

[joe_collector]

what happens when a vampire offers a book in the PIF thread, but can't ship it out during the daytime hours?

More than anything, I want to hammer out rule changes to make the PIF more enjoyable and accessible. But

 

Rule 12 - No vampires (unless they have a surrogate who can hit the PO in the daytime)