Trading Post/PIF/Giving Tree Discussion Thread

[cloud cloddie]

The most recent PIF offer weighed against what was taken is a prime example of offering far far less than what was taken. It's ridiculous, check it out. Two mid grade bronze keys is met with an offer of mostly mostly quarter bin fodder.

 

I think the best fix for that thread is a three day rule. When you claim something you have three days to present an offer that is claimed by someone else or the original offer is back up for grabs. It means waiting, at most, a few days to ship your offer out. Not a big deal, thread fixed.

 

To the people who think the thread has been running great these last few days? Yes it has been and it's because of the controversy, it happens every single time this is brought up. I fully expect a defense launched my way from mostly those who are known to game that system in the past or haven't been here long enough to see the vicious cycle repeat perpetually. I'd like to move past that and solve this problem.

 

 

This 3 day rule is a good idea in my opinion.

 

I think it might be time to accept that the PIF thread is something a bit more than just "paying it forward". People have expectations, they have opinions on fairness, and lots of people have walked away from the thread.

 

It's ok for the thread to be a little bit more than just giving away free books and this 3 day rule will, I think, fix a lot of the issues that have arose.

 

I'd add this. If "Steve" claims something and their offer (or offers if they change it up) isn't claimed in 3 days, the original offer goes back up. "Steve" doesn't need to be banned or booted or anything, he just can't try and claim that offer again, but he can try again on the next one if he wants and make a hopefully more appealing offer on his next try.

 

Sounds like good business to me.

 

I agree with all this. 3 day rules is the best option I've heard that would seem to fix a good deal of the PIF problems without targeted shaming.

[Balham's Finest]

I agree with this slamming of my offerings. This is the only stuff I got and while it may be meaningless to a bunch of people on here, most of this is stuff I have had for a while and I care more about the idea of "paying it forward" regardless of what any of you think. You don't like what is being offered, then shut up and keep it to yourself. Let the rest of us have fun and enjoy the thread.

 

Here is an perfect example of someone totally lacking in basic Common Sense.

 

Paying it Forward is *not* grabbing a pile of good stuff and then tossing some junk back. It should at least attempt to be equivalent, or you should be the bigger man and not run around gold-digging if all you can "pay it forward" with is gravel. Just wait for someone else's gravel and claim that.

 

It's nice to know that there are other's who are not only seeing it, but being ticked about it, and willing to voice it.

 

And as was stated, this IS the PIF discussion thread, not his sales thread or the "sacred" PIF thread itself.

 

But why waste time venting in here? Everyone knows what the arguments are.

 

Isn't it more useful to propose votes on new rules?

 

Although having said that I'm honestly not sure what the process should be - it's NamesJay's thread, so does he have the final say on rule changes? There's nothing to stop someone else starting a new PIF thread with new rules obviously, but that seems a bit nuclear to me.

 

I like the idea of the three day rule because it does as little violence to the spirit of the original rules as possible, and doesn't involve either a complete re-start or the addition of a value ceiling/floor, which I think would be a recipe for disaster.

[Ogami]

The most recent PIF offer weighed against what was taken is a prime example of offering far far less than what was taken. It's ridiculous, check it out. Two mid grade bronze keys is met with an offer of mostly mostly quarter bin fodder.

 

I think the best fix for that thread is a three day rule. When you claim something you have three days to present an offer that is claimed by someone else or the original offer is back up for grabs. It means waiting, at most, a few days to ship your offer out. Not a big deal, thread fixed.

 

To the people who think the thread has been running great these last few days? Yes it has been and it's because of the controversy, it happens every single time this is brought up. I fully expect a defense launched my way from mostly those who are known to game that system in the past or haven't been here long enough to see the vicious cycle repeat perpetually. I'd like to move past that and solve this problem.

 

 

This 3 day rule is a good idea in my opinion.

 

I think it might be time to accept that the PIF thread is something a bit more than just "paying it forward". People have expectations, they have opinions on fairness, and lots of people have walked away from the thread.

 

It's ok for the thread to be a little bit more than just giving away free books and this 3 day rule will, I think, fix a lot of the issues that have arose.

 

I'd add this. If "Steve" claims something and their offer (or offers if they change it up) isn't claimed in 3 days, the original offer goes back up. "Steve" doesn't need to be banned or booted or anything, he just can't try and claim that offer again, but he can try again on the next one if he wants and make a hopefully more appealing offer on his next try.

 

Sounds like good business to me.

 

I agree with all this. 3 day rules is the best option I've heard that would seem to fix a good deal of the PIF problems without targeted shaming.

 

You think this is a better option than the rule people have been using for office Christmas parties since time immemorial?

 

[cloud cloddie]

The most recent PIF offer weighed against what was taken is a prime example of offering far far less than what was taken. It's ridiculous, check it out. Two mid grade bronze keys is met with an offer of mostly mostly quarter bin fodder.

 

I think the best fix for that thread is a three day rule. When you claim something you have three days to present an offer that is claimed by someone else or the original offer is back up for grabs. It means waiting, at most, a few days to ship your offer out. Not a big deal, thread fixed.

 

To the people who think the thread has been running great these last few days? Yes it has been and it's because of the controversy, it happens every single time this is brought up. I fully expect a defense launched my way from mostly those who are known to game that system in the past or haven't been here long enough to see the vicious cycle repeat perpetually. I'd like to move past that and solve this problem.

 

 

This 3 day rule is a good idea in my opinion.

 

I think it might be time to accept that the PIF thread is something a bit more than just "paying it forward". People have expectations, they have opinions on fairness, and lots of people have walked away from the thread.

 

It's ok for the thread to be a little bit more than just giving away free books and this 3 day rule will, I think, fix a lot of the issues that have arose.

 

I'd add this. If "Steve" claims something and their offer (or offers if they change it up) isn't claimed in 3 days, the original offer goes back up. "Steve" doesn't need to be banned or booted or anything, he just can't try and claim that offer again, but he can try again on the next one if he wants and make a hopefully more appealing offer on his next try.

 

Sounds like good business to me.

 

I agree with all this. 3 day rules is the best option I've heard that would seem to fix a good deal of the PIF problems without targeted shaming.

 

You think this is a better option than the rule people have been using for office Christmas parties since time immemorial?

 

If getting blitzed, xeroxing your privates and banging coworkers in the broom closet is gonna help the thread, I'm all for that too.

[Ogami]

The most recent PIF offer weighed against what was taken is a prime example of offering far far less than what was taken. It's ridiculous, check it out. Two mid grade bronze keys is met with an offer of mostly mostly quarter bin fodder.

 

I think the best fix for that thread is a three day rule. When you claim something you have three days to present an offer that is claimed by someone else or the original offer is back up for grabs. It means waiting, at most, a few days to ship your offer out. Not a big deal, thread fixed.

 

To the people who think the thread has been running great these last few days? Yes it has been and it's because of the controversy, it happens every single time this is brought up. I fully expect a defense launched my way from mostly those who are known to game that system in the past or haven't been here long enough to see the vicious cycle repeat perpetually. I'd like to move past that and solve this problem.

 

 

This 3 day rule is a good idea in my opinion.

 

I think it might be time to accept that the PIF thread is something a bit more than just "paying it forward". People have expectations, they have opinions on fairness, and lots of people have walked away from the thread.

 

It's ok for the thread to be a little bit more than just giving away free books and this 3 day rule will, I think, fix a lot of the issues that have arose.

 

I'd add this. If "Steve" claims something and their offer (or offers if they change it up) isn't claimed in 3 days, the original offer goes back up. "Steve" doesn't need to be banned or booted or anything, he just can't try and claim that offer again, but he can try again on the next one if he wants and make a hopefully more appealing offer on his next try.

 

Sounds like good business to me.

 

I agree with all this. 3 day rules is the best option I've heard that would seem to fix a good deal of the PIF problems without targeted shaming.

 

You think this is a better option than the rule people have been using for office Christmas parties since time immemorial?

 

If getting blitzed, xeroxing your privates and banging coworkers in the broom closet is gonna help the thread, I'm all for that too.

 

So I'll mark you down for reinforcing the incoming ever increasing bureaucracy, to continue the analogy.

 

Committee meetings will be every morning from 9am till lunch. Your team will be created for you.

 

Good luck.

[joe_collector]

I'd rather see a hardline 2-week to a month strict limit on return junk donkeys (rather than 1 week/24 hours), as having the same people claiming stuff over and over and over defeats the purpose of the thread, which is to spread PIF books to ALL the forum members, not just those who live in that thread.

 

The best answer would be a HOS for junk donkeys, but no one would go for that, as it's "shaming".

[Balham's Finest]

The most recent PIF offer weighed against what was taken is a prime example of offering far far less than what was taken. It's ridiculous, check it out. Two mid grade bronze keys is met with an offer of mostly mostly quarter bin fodder.

 

I think the best fix for that thread is a three day rule. When you claim something you have three days to present an offer that is claimed by someone else or the original offer is back up for grabs. It means waiting, at most, a few days to ship your offer out. Not a big deal, thread fixed.

 

To the people who think the thread has been running great these last few days? Yes it has been and it's because of the controversy, it happens every single time this is brought up. I fully expect a defense launched my way from mostly those who are known to game that system in the past or haven't been here long enough to see the vicious cycle repeat perpetually. I'd like to move past that and solve this problem.

 

 

This 3 day rule is a good idea in my opinion.

 

I think it might be time to accept that the PIF thread is something a bit more than just "paying it forward". People have expectations, they have opinions on fairness, and lots of people have walked away from the thread.

 

It's ok for the thread to be a little bit more than just giving away free books and this 3 day rule will, I think, fix a lot of the issues that have arose.

 

I'd add this. If "Steve" claims something and their offer (or offers if they change it up) isn't claimed in 3 days, the original offer goes back up. "Steve" doesn't need to be banned or booted or anything, he just can't try and claim that offer again, but he can try again on the next one if he wants and make a hopefully more appealing offer on his next try.

 

Sounds like good business to me.

 

I agree with all this. 3 day rules is the best option I've heard that would seem to fix a good deal of the PIF problems without targeted shaming.

 

You think this is a better option than the rule people have been using for office Christmas parties since time immemorial?

 

Are you talking about a set $ value? The problem with that is that people will disagree about what books are worth.

[joe_collector]

Are you talking about a set $ value? The problem with that is that people will disagree about what books are worth.

 

How? Do you even know what we're talking about? Someone posted a CGC X-Men #3 in there, and that's what led to most of this "gold-digging" commentary.

 

Are you *really* going to tell me that book was worth less than $50?

[Balham's Finest]

Are you talking about a set $ value? The problem with that is that people will disagree about what books are worth.

 

How? Do you even know what we're talking about? Someone posted a CGC X-Men #3 in there, and that's what led to most of this "gold-digging" commentary.

 

Are you *really* going to tell me that book was worth less than $50?

 

What a crazy question. Of course I am not saying that a CGC X-Men 3 is worth less than $50. Like the aggression though - helps the discussion.

 

I assumed the suggestion was that there should be a minimum/maximum $ value for offers, and my point was that it might not always be easy to establish value. Is that not what was being discussed?

 

EDIT: if you don't think it was, then can you explain the reference to office Christmas parties, which is what I was responding to.

[comix4fun]

I agree with this slamming of my offerings. This is the only stuff I got and while it may be meaningless to a bunch of people on here, most of this is stuff I have had for a while and I care more about the idea of "paying it forward" regardless of what any of you think. You don't like what is being offered, then shut up and keep it to yourself. Let the rest of us have fun and enjoy the thread.

 

Here is an perfect example of someone totally lacking in basic Common Sense.

 

Paying it Forward is *not* grabbing a pile of good stuff and then tossing some junk back. It should at least attempt to be equivalent, or you should be the bigger man and not run around gold-digging if all you can "pay it forward" with is gravel. Just wait for someone else's gravel and claim that.

 

It's nice to know that there are other's who are not only seeing it, but being ticked about it, and willing to voice it.

 

And as was stated, this IS the PIF discussion thread, not his sales thread or the "sacred" PIF thread itself.

 

But why waste time venting in here? Everyone knows what the arguments are.

 

Isn't it more useful to propose votes on new rules?

 

Although having said that I'm honestly not sure what the process should be - it's NamesJay's thread, so does he have the final say on rule changes? There's nothing to stop someone else starting a new PIF thread with new rules obviously, but that seems a bit nuclear to me.

 

I like the idea of the three day rule because it does as little violence to the spirit of the original rules as possible, and doesn't involve either a complete re-start or the addition of a value ceiling/floor, which I think would be a recipe for disaster.

 

I agree.

 

And when the junk sits there for 3 days with no takers it will serve as an announcement that the offering party was tested and found lacking.

 

In this situation, this particular offer in light of what was taken, should be an absolute embarrassment to the person putting them up.

 

Each of the books taken was worth at least $25 and, given their popularity, may be closer to $50 each.

 

For that he offered up options that were each probably $5 or less (being generous).

 

Then, when pressed, he offered up a book he was asking $25 for, barely able to hit 1/4 to 1/2 of what he took.

 

It's that kind of PIF-Plundering that keeps people away from that thread and demands the kind of rule change you mention and the poll is trying to determine. Without some rule change the only people left to PIF will be the naive and the gamers.

[comix4fun]

Are you talking about a set $ value? The problem with that is that people will disagree about what books are worth.

 

How? Do you even know what we're talking about? Someone posted a CGC X-Men #3 in there, and that's what led to most of this "gold-digging" commentary.

 

Are you *really* going to tell me that book was worth less than $50?

 

What a crazy question. Of course I am not saying that a CGC X-Men 3 is worth less than $50. Like the aggression though - helps the discussion.

 

I assumed the suggestion was that there should be a minimum/maximum $ value for offers, and my point was that it might not always be easy to establish value. Is that not what was being discussed?

 

EDIT: if you don't think it was, then can you explain the reference to office Christmas parties, which is what I was responding to.

 

A good rule would be you have to be within 25% of the taken item's value, plus or minus.

[joe_collector]

What a crazy question. Of course I am not saying that a CGC X-Men 3 is worth less than $50. Like the aggression though - helps the discussion.

 

Glad you liked it - I got a whole bagful for you if you want it.

 

I don't know if you've ever worked in an office, but there's always one guy who bring an iPad to a $10 minimum gift exchange, resulting in greedy people fighting over that gift.

 

Since there are obviously very greedy people in the PIF thread, we need to get rid of the iPads and stick to some kind of maximum value. It's if $50 and someone offers a $70 TPB, who cares, but if someone offers a $500 CGC comic, that's obviously way over the line.

[Balham's Finest]

Are you talking about a set $ value? The problem with that is that people will disagree about what books are worth.

 

How? Do you even know what we're talking about? Someone posted a CGC X-Men #3 in there, and that's what led to most of this "gold-digging" commentary.

 

Are you *really* going to tell me that book was worth less than $50?

 

What a crazy question. Of course I am not saying that a CGC X-Men 3 is worth less than $50. Like the aggression though - helps the discussion.

 

I assumed the suggestion was that there should be a minimum/maximum $ value for offers, and my point was that it might not always be easy to establish value. Is that not what was being discussed?

 

EDIT: if you don't think it was, then can you explain the reference to office Christmas parties, which is what I was responding to.

 

A good rule would be you have to be within 25% of the taken item's value, plus or minus.

 

I'm not sure that adds anything to the 3 day rule, to be honest. If someone puts an offer up it either gets taken, or it doesn't. In theory, if someone really wants an offer that was worth a lot less than the previous one, why shouldn't they take it and be happy?

 

My - the 3 day rule would be a pretty big change. If people agree, it should be implemented as the only change for a period. My guess is that it would be effective, but if not then other options could be looked at.

[bababooey]

You think this is a better option than the rule people have been using for office Christmas parties since time immemorial?

 

If getting blitzed, xeroxing your privates and banging coworkers in the broom closet is gonna help the thread, I'm all for that too.

 

[joe_collector]

And when the junk sits there for 3 days with no takers it will serve as an announcement that the offering party was tested and found lacking.

 

But the junk donkeys will just invent more shills to "claim" the PIF offer and even save themselves shipping costs, something that is already suspected of going on.

[Mr Wiggles]

I posted this in the modification poll thread as well.

 

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.

[mrmyst]

Person D is the winna

[Balham's Finest]

Glad you liked it - I got a whole bagful for you if you want it.

 

I don't know if you've ever worked in an office, but there's always one guy who bring an iPad to a $10 minimum gift exchange, resulting in greedy people fighting over that gift.

 

Since there are obviously very greedy people in the PIF thread, we need to get rid of the iPads and stick to some kind of minimum value. It's if $50 and someone offers a $70 TPB, who cares, but if someone offers a $500 CGC comic, that's obviously way over the line.

 

Sounds like you want a maximum value, rather than a minimum. Or maybe both. I could get behind a maximum, but I don't think a minimum would be a good idea, for the reasons I already mentioned above - basically, that it doesn't really add anything to the 3 day rule, but could cause more arguments.

 

I don't doubt that the gift exchanges you are talking about happen, but I've never heard of them in the UK. More common is the secret santa type arrangement where you draw a name out of a hat and buy a present for that person. There's usually say a £10-£20 limit that you are supposed to stay close to. So I guess that explains the misunderstanding.

[joe_collector]

In theory, if someone really wants an offer that was worth a lot less than the previous one, why shouldn't they take it and be happy?

 

Yeah, it's never been about equitable value, all the problems have to do with the gross outliers - CGC X-Men #3's and worthless junk someone found in the dumpster.

[joe_collector]

[i don't doubt that the gift exchanges you are talking about happen, but I've never heard of them in the UK.

 

They're very poplar here, like musical chairs with gifts.