..... No one truly can be a bully you into specific trades as this is a game. ..... Everyone should have the freedom to trade the way they want however, not get bent out of shape if bad trades don't get picked up as everyone also has the freedom to choose which trades they want to pick up.
First, tolerating even pressure to restrict what you are doing with implied or actual threats used for intimidation and/or acts of coercion," is at least a mild form of bullying in this game. And, in my book, no bullying should be allowed, period. Tolerating a mild form only encourages those who act that way to do so more boldly. And while, if the fs has stated, "only 2 star trades except in these circumstances...." I have no problem with they enforcing their contract. But if I post 60 zero star trades I'm putting them at the end of the list (and I know that) and the only problem is that I'm not fully protecting players from miss-clicks where they will be unhappy. That's pretty minor -- and yes, I've missclicked and don't like it. But I don't think my error should be solved by the players erecting a fence that hampers another players style of play.
Second, along those lines, I too believe a player should be allowed to post whatever they wish. We have, finally I think, come to understand that "fair" isn't dictated by the stars but is an individual players evaluation at the time the post/take the trade. We have also, finally understood that to condemn a person -- especially in public -- for "gouging" and other superlatives, is a moral judgement and not healthy because, as one poster said, once you realize there are people in the community who will call you a "gouger" or whatever, you change you behavior to avoid getting a bad reputation. Your reputation should not suffer and there should be no threats implied that it will suffer, if you post what you wish to post.
Hmmm...
So to recap:
- 1:1 is too restrictive
- 1:1.5 is too unfair
- but 1:1.14 is "just right"
Who died and made you Goldilocks?
But it's not 1:1, 1:1.5 or even 1:1.14. It's whatever I say it is for ME when I post and what the purchaser says it is for He or She when he or she takes the trade. The value is based upon the traders perception of value when the trade is made.
And, don't forget, Goldilocks picked the bed that was right for her. Obviously papa's bed was right for him, mama's for her and the baby bed for the kid. Just sort of proves my point about value, doesn't it?
Finally, I'd like to take this time to lay out a problem I do see, caused by the very "rule" supposed to make things "fair." I am in a place where there is an abundance of T3 goods and a shortage of T2. If a player posts T2 for T3 at the 2 star level, if they have been improperly trained that a 2 star trade is always "fair," they loose. They loose because T2 is in short supply and if they look they will see that T2 for T3 is often posted in the 1 star area -- meaning they could get more for their T2 by posting it as 1 star at least. This is just one example of how having a player based idea, and enforcing it can lead to players being hurt. Yes, they can also make mistakes and be hurt by not understanding the relative worth of goods (in their current situation), but the answer is not to attempt to tell them a patently untrue thing -- 2 star trades are always "fair" -- but to train them to evaluate trades on their own. Fortunately, the days of "no cross tier trading" are gone. And, I've noticed, a growing number of players are offering 3 star, 1 star and even 0 star trades. At least in my part of the world. Hopefully, the trend will continue, thus adding another layer of complexity and opportunity to the game.
AJ