Trading Post/PIF/Giving Tree Discussion Thread

[vaillant]

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

 

 

Since you are Thanos, Eros comes to mind…

[Mr Wiggles]

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?

 

So more of the diverting behavior?

 

I've provided my math problem numerous times. You've offered nothing but value judgments, scarecrow excuses, and responses, like the one quoted, without a shred of constructive thought or reflection.

 

Anyone else have a solution to the problem? If my structure is confusing, please let me know where you are confused so I can, hopefully, make it clearer.

[joe_collector]

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

 

 

Since you are Thanos, Eros comes to mind…

 

[Park]

I just received a PM from Meeklo offering to decline the offer and have me re-post it. I chose not to.My offer was offered with no strings attached. Isn't that within the spirit of PIF?

 

 

 

 

The "Spirit of the PIF" is what everyone hopes is the primary goal of participants.

 

The "Spirit of the PIF" has been drug out behind the barn and shot.

 

A parade of rules to regulate something like this tells me personally that it should go away. Otherwise, call it the swap meet thread and move it to the selling section because it is not in any way approaching the spirit of any type of pay it forward.

 

Nobody wants a parade of rules added. People are suggesting the addition of 1 to 2 rules to the original 10+ rules established at the beginning of the thread.

 

The PIF seems to be here to stay, why not make it more enjoyable and accessible to a much larger portion of the board?

 

It should be enjoyable but people are using it as a means to take advantage of others. You want to really make it a true pay it forward? Then people should donate things with zero expectations of ever receiving anything. Donate your stuff and walk away. That is paying it forward.

 

That thread, while started with good intentions, is not paying it forward. It is a trading thread.

In that definition it's always been a trading thread, from the first post to the last. I understand your issues with the thread very clearly as my first two confused offers in the thread were in fact donations, where I didn't expect anything back. I just came in there and said, "does anyone want this?"

 

I think we are on the same page. I don't mind if people want to have a trading thread with rules. Great, go for it.

 

But don't call it Pay It Forward and don't sticky it to the top of CG.

[revat]

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.

 

I think everyone will agree that shilling is a problem and that they (shillers) can take advantage of the system if they want to. But I think Wiggles is trying to address a separate issue (even if that same issue can occasionally be the result of shilling) that sometimes an item (or two items in a row) just simply is not picked up by the market.

 

This is how I perceive the 3 day rule:

Person A puts up OFFER A.

Person B claims OFFER A. Puts up OFFER B.

If OFFER B is claimed within 3 days, then person A mails OFFER A to Person B.

IF OFFER B is not claimed within 3 days, OFFER B is taken down and OFFER A goes back up in the PIF for claiming.

 

Mr. Wiggles is asking what happens if person A already received the previous item as a result of OFFER A initially being claimed by Person B. Not a bad question, I think.

Assuming their not shills (in which case you're effed either way), I say you give Offer A another three days, then Person A has to put up whatever they received in the PIF as a choice. THen you could ask what if no one claims that, but I think we can probably wait on asking/solving that question.

 

 

[Boboset]

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.

I assumed you had read this thread before commenting upon the most recent situation here. We were in the midst of discussing rule changes such as the 3 day rule when you made closing comments such as:

 

Why not just let the people who want to enjoy PIF enjoy it unmolested?

I apologize for misinterpreting that.

 

You understood the 3 day rule perfectly. (thumbs u

 

And I agree with you that the waiting period does not need to be changed. I really don't see that as a problem.

[Park]

Second time I have gotten to post this recently

 

[Boboset]

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.

 

I think everyone will agree that shilling is a problem and that they (shillers) can take advantage of the system if they want to. But I think Wiggles is trying to address a separate issue (even if that same issue can occasionally be the result of shilling) that sometimes an item (or two items in a row) just simply is not picked up by the market.

 

This is how I perceive the 3 day rule:

Person A puts up OFFER A.

Person B claims OFFER A. Puts up OFFER B.

If OFFER B is claimed within 3 days, then person A mails OFFER A to Person B.

IF OFFER B is not claimed within 3 days, OFFER B is taken down and OFFER A goes back up in the PIF for claiming.

 

Mr. Wiggles is asking what happens if person A already received the previous item as a result of OFFER A initially being claimed by Person B. Not a bad question, I think.

Assuming their not shills (in which case you're effed either way), I say you give Offer A another three days, then Person A has to put up whatever they received in the PIF as a choice. THen you could ask what if no one claims that, but I think we can probably wait on asking/solving that question.

 

Simple. Offer A is not shipped until Offer B is completed. Whether that's by the first person that claims it or the second person that claims it. I cannot envision a situation where numerous boardies can fail to step up and claim an offer successfully.

[joe_collector]

My point is that this is a natural byproduct of trying to get the junk donkeys a) out of the thread or b) to shape up and offer viable deals, and if it works, his scenario will never longer exist.

 

The junk donkeys and gold miners are the problem, and I could list hundreds of negative scenarios that *currently* happen, and that these threads are attempting to self-police and curtail.

 

If you want to play Wiggles game, how's this?

 

What is to stop anyone from mass-abusing the PIF thread like this:

 

1) Person A lists primo books

2) Person B claims them

3) Person B lists pile of donkey junk

4) Person C (who is a newly created shill of person C posting the WC) claims donkey junk

5) Person B never mails books, therefore never spends a cent, yet claims primo books

6) Rinse and repeat with Person D, Person E, Person F, etc., all shills of person B

 

That's happening right now and it's a far bigger issue than some random occurrence.

[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.

I assumed you had read this thread before commenting upon the most recent situation here. We were in the midst of discussing rule changes such as the 3 day rule when you made closing comments such as:

 

Why not just let the people who want to enjoy PIF enjoy it unmolested?

I apologize for misinterpreting that.

 

You understood the 3 day rule perfectly. (thumbs u

 

And I agree with you that the waiting period does not need to be changed. I really don't see that as a problem.

 

Well, I had read all of it. But the conversation between joe_collector and Mr Wiggles got me confused to the point where I wasn't sure just what the 3 day rule being discussed was any longer, which is why I hadn't commented on it one way or the other. I had to go back through the thread again to figure it out.

 

I'm not averse to rule changes, I just still don't think changes are as necessary as you do. But if there's a way to tweak the rules that satisfies your concerns while still maintaining the spirit of the thread, it's fine with me.

[joe_collector]

Simple. Offer A is not shipped until Offer B is completed. Whether that's by the first person that claims it or the second person that claims it. I cannot envision a situation where numerous boardies can fail to step up and claim an offer successfully.

 

That's the problem, Wiggles keeps posting random issues that would only regularly occur in the Twilight Zone, and misrepresenting them as "common occurrences".

 

Common occurrences are piles and piles of donkey junk, but he never mentions that.

[CAHokie]

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?

 

If he ships priority he can schedule a free pickup and leave it on the porch that morning before daybreak

[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?

 

If he ships priority he can schedule a free pickup and leave it on the porch that morning before daybreak

 

But still, that can invite theft, especially if the Vampire keeps listing PIF offers regularly and it becomes a pattern

[maloney414]

I've been watching the PIF thread since the beginning. I've participated in it several times, and each time my offers were taken very quickly.

 

Some thoughts:

 

1.) I'm not sold on the 3 day rule.

 

Boardie A puts offer up

Boardie B claims it

Boardie B puts offer up.

Boardie C claims it.

But what happens if nobody takes Boardie C's offer in 3 days?

Or, if Boardie B's offer goes back up and no one else takes his offer?

 

I think going backwards is a bad idea for this thread, and against the spirit of the thread.

 

 

2.) I believe offers should only be shipped to the claimer after their new offer is claimed.

 

Boardie A puts offer up

Boardie B claims it

Boardie B puts offer up.

Boardie C claims it.

Only now should Boardie A ship to Boardie B.

 

In other words, you don't get the cool offer you took until you PIF to someone else.

 

 

3.) I think a maximum value rule is a good idea.

 

4.) I at the "I don't have much to offer" defense from boardies who actively buy and sell right here on the boards. Or when they have nice books in their sig line or myslabbedcomics page. They don't fit in that category and aren't using the argument correctly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

My point is that this is a natural byproduct of trying to get the junk donkeys a) out of the thread or b) to shape up and offer viable deals, and if it works, his scenario will never longer exist.

 

The junk donkeys and gold miners are the problem, and I could list hundreds of negative scenarios that *currently* happen, and that these threads are attempting to self-police and curtail.

 

If you want to play Wiggles game, how's this?

 

What is to stop anyone from mass-abusing the PIF thread like this:

 

1) Person A lists primo books

2) Person B claims them

3) Person B lists pile of donkey junk

4) Person C (who is a newly created shill of person C posting the WC) claims donkey junk

5) Person B never mails books, therefore never spends a cent, yet claims primo books

6) Rinse and repeat with Person D, Person E, Person F, etc., all shills of person B

 

That's happening right now and it's a far bigger issue than some random occurrence.

 

[joe_collector]

I2.) I believe offers should only be shipped to the claimer after their new offer is claimed.

 

Boardie A puts offer up

Boardie B claims it

Boardie B puts offer up.

Boardie C claims it.

Only now should Boardie A ship to Boardie B.

 

In other words, you don't get the cool offer you took until you PIF to someone else.

 

This is one scenario that's been talked about, but it's easily defeated with shills so you need a 6-month/1-year waiting period to be able to participate in PIF.

[vaillant]

Anyway, no one replied about the idea of having ALSO a "gifted comics" thread, which does not imply a "Pay it Forward" logic. I think it would be very good – and I think I could offer a lot of stuff for free which people may want to pick by just paying in flull the shipping costs.

 

And I think this may also improve the quality of the Pif offerings: as it has been said, they do not need to match precisely the value, but they should be interesting things you have no current use for…

[Balham's Finest]

 

2.) I believe offers should only be shipped to the claimer after their new offer is claimed.

 

Boardie A puts offer up

Boardie B claims it

Boardie B puts offer up.

Boardie C claims it.

Only now should Boardie A ship to Boardie B.

 

In other words, you don't get the cool offer you took until you PIF to someone else

 

 

 

Yes but here is the issue.

 

Boardie C puts offer up

Nobody claims it

So Boardie B, who has not shipped, puts his offer back up

Nobody claims it

Then what?

 

Boardie B has already received his offer from Boardie A by that point, because Boardie B's offer was claimed by Boardie C.

 

The debate is whether this scenario requires a solution in the rules or not. You've said that going back too far isn't a good idea - I'm inclined to agree. But then how do you deal with the above? Is it enough to say 'it won't happen, and if it does it's as a result of shilling and one or more boarders will step in to make sure the good guys don't lose out'? Maybe.

[Mr Wiggles]

I've been watching the PIF thread since the beginning. I've participated in it several times, and each time my offers were taken very quickly.

 

Some thoughts:

 

 

2.) I believe offers should only be shipped to the claimer after their new offer is claimed.

 

Boardie A puts offer up

Boardie B claims it

Boardie B puts offer up.

Boardie C claims it.

Only now should Boardie A ship to Boardie B.

 

In other words, you don't get the cool offer you took until you PIF to someone else.

 

This is exactly the structure I've been talking about. I'll continue the chain:

 

Boardie A puts offer up

Boardie B claims it

Boardie B puts offer up.

Boardie C claims it.

Only now should Boardie A ship to Boardie B.

Boardie C puts offer up.

-No one claims Boardie C offer-

Boardie B offer is put back up.

-No one claims Boardie B offer-

Problem.

 

If you wait until Boardie C's offer is claimed for Boardie A to ship (I believe that is what Boboset is suggesting), you now have a delay of up to 6 days for each claim to ship.

[Boboset]

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.

I assumed you had read this thread before commenting upon the most recent situation here. We were in the midst of discussing rule changes such as the 3 day rule when you made closing comments such as:

 

Why not just let the people who want to enjoy PIF enjoy it unmolested?

I apologize for misinterpreting that.

 

You understood the 3 day rule perfectly. (thumbs u

 

And I agree with you that the waiting period does not need to be changed. I really don't see that as a problem.

 

Well, I had read all of it. But the conversation between joe_collector and Mr Wiggles got me confused to the point where I wasn't sure just what the 3 day rule being discussed was any longer, which is why I hadn't commented on it one way or the other. I had to go back through the thread again to figure it out.

 

I'm not averse to rule changes, I just still don't think changes are as necessary as you do. But if there's a way to tweak the rules that satisfies your concerns while still maintaining the spirit of the thread, it's fine with me.

There's two reasons I think the rules really do need to be changed.

 

Reason 1: There's the straightforward and recurring problem highlighted by the situation we saw with Meeklo today where he took much more than offered.

 

Reason 2: It's everything else that results from reason number one. The bad blood, the arguments, the talking in circles, the false hope that common sense and fairness will win out. All of it. It's completely unneeded and a waste of time.

 

That's why I think the rules need a slight tweak. NamesJay started the thread, but at 616 pages, it's a thread that belongs to the community now.