Please implement a listing fee!

[Xystic]

Not exactly the same. It costs nothing to list the item, so it wont harm people with no money, but it would deter people from relisting items and give them the incentive to let the auctions run their course.

I'm going to have to draw this out for you if you can't seem to see the flaw in your logic.

First lets make a cheesy equation and detail out the variables.

Variables

[A] = To a fee of any type
[B] = To the sold value of your item, if its not sold the value = 0
[C] = The sum of the two values

In an intial fee listing system, the fees are obviously applied first. Meaning [A] will come before [B].

[A]+[B] = [C]

In your system, a "Relisting Fee', the [A] variable is applied after [B].

[B]+[A] = [C]

So now, lets give the variables values, specifically for when we aren't able to sell our items and need to relist.

Therefore:

[A] = -1 gil
[B] = 0 gil

Initial Listing Fee:

[A]+[B] = [C]
[-1]+[0]=[-1]

Relisting Fee:

[B]+[A] = [C]
[0]+[-1] =[-1]

In both equations, we draw the same value for [C]. We aren't seeing a difference. We swap [A] and [B] around but we get the same END VALUE.

Therefore, we can ask the same questions for a relisting fee and they will be the same answers as an initial listing fee.

Who can't afford the initial listing fees/relisting fees?

The people with less money.

Who gets cornered in markets that have initial fees/relisting fees?

The people with less money.

Who can afford initial fees/relisting fees?

The people with more money.

Please rethink about what you said.

[Sparky]

I didn't read past the first line due to the patronizing way you addressed me. I'm sure it's terribly interesting - I might read it some time.

[Xystic]

Works the same as placing an initial listing fee.

This was your second reply.

Not exactly the same. It costs nothing to list the item, so it wont harm people with no money, but it would deter people from relisting items and give them the incentive to let the auctions run their course.

Your second reply clearly implied you could not see your own flaw in your logic. So I drew it out for you.

I'm going to have to draw this out for you if you can't seem to see the flaw in your logic.

I'm sure it's terribly interesting - I might read it some time.

Now if my statement was indeed meant to be patronizing, I would have not gone thru the entire trouble of trying to help someone understand their own flaw with equations.

[Sparky]

I'll point out your own flaw, seeing as this is the game we are playing.

Player has no money, but would like to make money. There's two possibilities based on the circular argument above:

1. Pay a listing fee - Player cant afford the fee, therefore can't afford to list the item. Player remains broke.
2. Pay a fee once the item is sold - Player manages to sell the item, can afford the fee, and more importantly can afford to list future items.

So my argument is not flawed. I made no mention about the cost to the seller being the same, or indeed any different. Furthermore, a listing fee would hurt players more than a post-sale fee, regardless of whether the fee remains the same.

You've obviously latched on completely to the one little part of my statement that mentioned relisting. But if you care to re-read my post, you'll see that I was clearly primarily talking about a final sale fee.

[DannyNobuser]

you guys are not seeing the point even with a listing fee you cannot suppress the RMTs. the best bet is to make crafting and crafting components harder to come by then you are going in the right direction you boos the economy because now things are worth more and the RMT has it harder and if its to hard for them to make a quick dollar than they go out of buisness

[Xystic]

I'll point out your own flaw, seeing as this is the game we are playing.

The argument earlier deals with listing fees and re-listing fees to stop re-listing.

Not exactly the same. It costs nothing to list the item, so it wont harm people with no money, but it would deter people from relisting items and give them the incentive to let the auctions run their course.

This is where our argument sprouted from.

The equations represent that no matter where you place the fee in the equation, the poorer player will still suffer the same issues of being cornered. We aren't talking about making a sale to make future sales. We also aren't talking about the benefits of an initial listing fee versus a post fee.

We were arguing about whether or not initial fees or post fees will deter people from re-listing.

You've obviously latched on completely to the one little part of my statement that mentioned relisting. But if you care to re-read my post, you'll see that I was clearly primarily talking about a final sale fee.

Yes, your primary goal may have been the final sale fee, but our argument was clearly sprouted from your argument below about your fees if the item is taken off and reposted. This is what we've been arguing about, I have not argued against other parts of your posts yet. The whole entire thing up to now has just been this.

How about deducting the tax if an item is taken off the market? At the moment the tax is deducted at the point of sale, which should remain, but if you cancel the items, the tax should be deducted regardless.

I stated its the same as initial listing fees then which promotes poorer players in being cornered.

We aren't talking about making sales, future sales, benefits of a initial fee versus a post fee or a final sale fee.

We were arguing fee versus re-listing.

[Sparky]

I think at this point it's clear that your agenda is having the argument itself, and not where the argument leads. If all you want is to be seen to be the one who's right, and I, the one who is wrong, then congratulations. I couldn't possibly argue with one so well versed in the use of the quote post feature.

Clearly you aren't capable of understanding that theoretically if someone could not afford to pay up front, then then can't list an item in the first place. But congratulations on cherry picking your quotes.

I'm out.

[Xystic]

I think at this point it's clear that your agenda is having the argument itself, and not where the argument leads.

The argument was fees versus deterrence of re listing.

If all you want is to be seen to be the one who's right, and I, the one who is wrong, then congratulations. I couldn't possibly argue with one so well versed in the use of the quote post feature.

Please bear in mind, all your quotes were your ideas. I have not altered them one bit. I have only argued against them and all of your arguments against mine sprouted from just from that one argument.

Clearly you aren't capable of understanding that theoretically if someone could not afford to pay up front, then then can't list an item in the first place. But congratulations on cherry picking your quotes.

Once again, our entire argument was revolved around you saying a post fee is beneficial and I saying its the same as initial listing fees, it doesn't deter relisting and hurts poorer players while you argued the latter. I've not argued anything outside of that.

I'm out.

I've been pretty courteous and presented you logical equations up to this point arguing that one point alone.

This is a place of discussion. We point out flaws in designs, ideas and logic. It is a commonplace thing here, please to do not feel like I was solely bent on proving you wrong. If you had presented a well defined argument to back up your initial claim, I would have gladly accepted it.