Active Seller Help Group (IATS)

[Stellar]

approve this. As a trusted seller, we are here to support ourselves and for the website. We also want to make profit off of our sales for the website too. 20 PC is not going to cut it. So once again, I support this.

 

[Dom]

approve this. As a trusted seller, we are here to support ourselves and for the website. We also want to make profit off of our sales for the website too. 20 PC is not going to cut it. So once again, I support this.

This ^ these prices aren't making our time worth while and a small increase would also fund the site more leading for further improvements hypothetically!

 

[Blaguard]

Phenix pretty much speaks for me since we have one shop, but I'd like to join as well

 

[Stellar]

This ^ these prices aren't making our time worth while and a small increase would also fund the site more leading for further improvements hypothetically!

Making little in profits won't get us or the site nowhere pretty much. So lets hope we can get a bunch of people on board with this. #savetheeconomy #KeepPPAlive #toomanyhashtags

 

[Dom]

Making little in profits won't get us or the site nowhere pretty much. So lets hope we can get a bunch of people on board with this. #savetheeconomy #KeepPPAlive #toomanyhashtags

If anyone is reading and supports it please post what you like about it so I can track names of who to add to the PM!

#IATS

 

[JoyLovesSylveon]

To be completely honest, the price of 6iv, shiny, battle ready pokemon should be wayyy more expensive. People take so much time to breed these amazing shiny pokemons and selling them for only 20 cents a piece is a little unreasonable. Even genning pokemon takes skill and time. I say, if people want good pokemon, they should pay more. Rare pokemon are always at a high demand, because they wouldnt be rare if they were cheap and everyone had one.

 

[gnmmarechal]

I suck at image editing, but I made something.

 

[Dom]

I suck at image editing, but I made something.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're supporting the idea?

 

[gnmmarechal]

Woah, you posted like 1 sec after me
well, yeah, it sounds like a good idea.

 

[Saya Kisaragi]

I'll join in on this as well. Even though I run an odd jobs shop, the idea of the IATS is an excellent way to support the trusted sellers and the sellers who don't undercut.

 

[Dom]

I'll join in on this as well. Even though I run an odd jobs shop, the idea of the IATS is an excellent way to support the trusted sellers and the sellers who don't undercut.

Good support, you'll be added to the PM when it's made @Blaguard as well!

 

[Matt_192]

I'll join in on this as well. Even though I run an odd jobs shop, the idea of the IATS is an excellent way to support the trusted sellers and the sellers who don't undercut.

Good support, you'll be added to the PM when it's made @Blaguard as well!

Oml you two made me think I had an alert from doulie about the tournament xD

 

[Blaguard]

Good support, you'll be added to the PM when it's made @Blaguard as well!

Glad to be able to support the economy lol

 

[Senpai]

Maybe with our help you can start again

Na its fine, art is what I am best at

 

[T_and_A]

So what happens when every shop is member of this shopkeeper's alliance?

Is signing up for the union an agreement in some way? If so, to what *exactly* are those signing up agreeing? If there is no agreement, why make the club?

Is there some test, or barrier to entry? Or may anyone join regardless of post history, sales history, purchase history, and account history? If this isn't an "official" site thing, who dictates whether or not another person may use said banner? Is there an arbiter for prospective entries? Who is assigned that task? How do we decide who is assigned that position? What if that person goes AWOL and new shops wish to join in the interim?

If someone joins the seller's alliance and then sneaks in a PM undercut offer (or performs another "shady" seller action) to a buyer, do they get kicked out of the club? Do they get site-wide banned? Are the any repercussions at all? What constitutes "shady"? Are there going to be investigations of these claims, or will they be accepted at face value and result in penalties to the offenders? Are there trials or hearings about the "offenses", and if so, who are the judge & jury? Not many people here are without bias, so it would be very difficult to arrive at a fair decision. I assume most sellers would vote to eliminate a competitor when given the opportunity.

I've been saying since I joined that people here are setting their prices FAR too low, but this particular proposal doesn't seem like it's going to change much. It's just going to make more 'back room deals', because the undercutting is still going to happen. The people that do it are just going to have a fancy banner now.

Then you'll create an artificial two-class seller system. A "noble" class of sellers and a "Plebeian" class of sellers. The "Nobles" will talk down about the "plebeians", regardless of the motive behind the "plebeian's" refusal to join the seller's union. PM's will be sent that "those without the banner can't be trusted". That's going to happen; it's inevitable.

Look, I get what you're trying to do, and trust me, I'm all for making more money here. In addition to the fact that we, the sellers, will be profiting more on each sale, the site itself will profit more from each purchase as 1/3 of every dollar spent on "pc" goes to the site, which is why (I assume) this idea was presented by a moderator.

Please for the love of god don't be offended when I say this, but it seems like a very uninformed, or VERY incomplete idea at this point. This is the kind of idea a child who has never studied economics in any way would present.

I don't see how my customers would benefit from this at all, and that's who I'm really interested in pleasing. I doubt any customer of mine would see any up-side to this, but it does potentially raise a TON of questions.

 

[Blaguard]

So what happens when every shop is member of this shopkeeper's alliance?

Is signing up for the union an agreement in some way? If so, to what *exactly* are those signing up agreeing? If there is no agreement, why make the club?

Is there some test, or barrier to entry? Or may anyone join regardless of post history, sales history, purchase history, and account history? If this isn't an "official" site thing, who dictates whether or not another person may use said banner? Is there an arbiter for prospective entries? Who is assigned that task? How do we decide who is assigned that position? What if that person goes AWOL and new shops wish to join in the interim?

If someone joins the seller's alliance and then sneaks in a PM undercut offer (or performs another "shady" seller action) to a buyer, do they get kicked out of the club? Do they get site-wide banned? Are the any repercussions at all? What constitutes "shady"? Are there going to be investigations of these claims, or will they be accepted at face value and result in penalties to the offenders? Are there trials or hearings about the "offenses", and if so, who are the judge & jury? Not many people here are without bias, so it would be very difficult to arrive at a fair decision. I assume most sellers would vote to eliminate a competitor when given the opportunity.

I've been saying since I joined that people here are setting their prices FAR too low, but this particular proposal doesn't seem like it's going to change much. It's just going to make more 'back room deals', because the undercutting is still going to happen. The people that do it are just going to have a fancy banner now.

Then you'll create an artificial two-class seller system. A "noble" class of sellers and a "Plebeian" class of sellers. The "Nobles" will talk down about the "plebeians", regardless of the motive behind the "plebeian's" refusal to join the seller's union. PM's will be sent that "those without the banner can't be trusted". That's going to happen; it's inevitable.

Look, I get what you're trying to do, and trust me, I'm all for making more money here. In addition to the fact that we, the sellers, will be profiting more on each sale, the site itself will profit more from each purchase as 1/3 of every dollar spent on "pc" goes to the site, which is why (I assume) this idea was presented by a moderator.

Please for the love of god don't be offended when I say this, but it seems like a very uninformed, or VERY incomplete idea at this point. This is the kind of idea a child who has never studied economics in any way would present.

I don't see how my customers would benefit from this at all, and that's who I'm really interested in pleasing. I doubt any customer of mine would see any up-side to this, but it does potentially raise a TON of questions.

Have you stopped to consider that maybe not everyone is a horrible person? That the majority of people actually want to see this site's economy succeed and prices stay at a fair point. Honestly all your arguments are contingent upon every last seller on this site being completely self-interested.
The point of this "union" isn't to force everyone to raise prices, but it's to have those who do want prices raised to be able to state their support and unite against undercutters.
And no, those who don't have the banner aren't going to be "lower class" than those who do. Besides, if they want the banner they can just ask for it and charge the prices we set. This way more sellers will charge a fair price instead of swooping in on fair sales and doing it for 20pc.
I think my final question, Mr. Genius, is what's your solution to undercutting?

 

[Dom]

So what happens when every shop is member of this shopkeeper's alliance?

Is signing up for the union an agreement in some way? If so, to what *exactly* are those signing up agreeing? If there is no agreement, why make the club?

Is there some test, or barrier to entry? Or may anyone join regardless of post history, sales history, purchase history, and account history? If this isn't an "official" site thing, who dictates whether or not another person may use said banner? Is there an arbiter for prospective entries? Who is assigned that task? How do we decide who is assigned that position? What if that person goes AWOL and new shops wish to join in the interim?

If someone joins the seller's alliance and then sneaks in a PM undercut offer (or performs another "shady" seller action) to a buyer, do they get kicked out of the club? Do they get site-wide banned? Are the any repercussions at all? What constitutes "shady"? Are there going to be investigations of these claims, or will they be accepted at face value and result in penalties to the offenders? Are there trials or hearings about the "offenses", and if so, who are the judge & jury? Not many people here are without bias, so it would be very difficult to arrive at a fair decision. I assume most sellers would vote to eliminate a competitor when given the opportunity.

I've been saying since I joined that people here are setting their prices FAR too low, but this particular proposal doesn't seem like it's going to change much. It's just going to make more 'back room deals', because the undercutting is still going to happen. The people that do it are just going to have a fancy banner now.

Then you'll create an artificial two-class seller system. A "noble" class of sellers and a "Plebeian" class of sellers. The "Nobles" will talk down about the "plebeians", regardless of the motive behind the "plebeian's" refusal to join the seller's union. PM's will be sent that "those without the banner can't be trusted". That's going to happen; it's inevitable.

Look, I get what you're trying to do, and trust me, I'm all for making more money here. In addition to the fact that we, the sellers, will be profiting more on each sale, the site itself will profit more from each purchase as 1/3 of every dollar spent on "pc" goes to the site, which is why (I assume) this idea was presented by a moderator.

Please for the love of god don't be offended when I say this, but it seems like a very uninformed, or VERY incomplete idea at this point. This is the kind of idea a child who has never studied economics in any way would present.

I don't see how my customers would benefit from this at all, and that's who I'm really interested in pleasing. I doubt any customer of mine would see any up-side to this, but it does potentially raise a TON of questions.

Not everyone will ever join, if this happens then we will all use great prices and be happy (Ideally)

They're agreeing to price well and to use clean business practices to achieve results

Anyone can join if they seem sincere, I can accept people and so can other users who I know I can trust, these are fine details easily talked about in the PM once created

You're talking about some worst case dystopian class gaps, it isn't probable. Anyone without the banner can sell as they wish, people will always have preferences.

If you don't see any upsides then i implore you not to join and either it doesn't work and i'm out some time or it does and the results will speak for themselves.

I did think about this and the finer details will be polished in the PM, It is a rough draft and I did not claim it was a finished product.

Also @Blaguard is right you keep focusing on the worst people doing the worst things but no upsides or positives

I do understand the economy and in my mind this will work that's all, if not at least i can say i genuinely tried to help instead of sitting and sulking about the economy going to hell or ripping apart those who are trying to help it

 

[T_and_A]

I don't remember saying that anyone was a horrible person, not sure where you're getting that idea.

I think you and just about every other person may have a different idea of what a "fair" point is for prices.

Every seller on this site *IS* completely self-interested. If they weren't interested in profiting from sales here, they'd just be giving their product away. The entire argument for charging more finds its foundation in self-interest. Not only is that justifiable, it's expected and preferred.

All your points about the banner still raise the questions that I asked in my previous post.

You used the word "fair" again near the end, and again, I think you'll find that the particular definition of "fair" varies from person to person 'round these parts.

My solution to undercutting? Undercutting does not require a solution. If a job is worth your time, you determine the price. If a prospective buyer is willing to pay that price then you have determined the price correctly. The "undercutters" place a lower value on their own time, and until they decide to change that value, this "club" will not change it for them. The only way a prospective buyer would be enticed to buy from a union member is if they were scared away from the people who didn't join, which goes back to my points about a two-class seller system and slanderous comments about those who decide not to join.

If you're looking to force people to pay you more, that just isn't going to happen. There will always be undercutting, period. Unless the site incorporates rules with actual consequences, it will continue.

To Dom: (sorry I don't know how the whole quoting thing works)

You keep using ambiguous terms like "price well", "Shady sellers", and " clean business practices", but these need clear cut definitions before they can be entered as factual to this debate.

"Anyone can join if they seem sincere..."
I'm reminded of George Burns' famous quote: "The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made". Neither here nor there, just reminded of the quote, that's all. If anything, this just goes back to my other twenty questions from my last post that remain, for the most part, unanswered (ie, who decides, who decides who decides, etc)

I don't think those are worst case scenarios, although the wording I used may have been a bit extreme. The things I've mentioned will happen day one after implementation. Those within the club will denigrate those who have opted out. That is inevitable.

What's this about "finer details will be polished in the PM"? I thought PM meant Private Message around here? I'm just confused as to what this means.

I think I paid an equal amount of attention to each potential negative and positive. Each negative raised several questions, which I asked. The only positive I can foresee was "we make more money", and I think I covered that, too. If there's another positive point besides "we make more money", I'd like to hear it.

I'm glad to hear that at 17 you've studied economics, but I'm surprised that after those studies you've made the determination that price fixing works.

 

[Dom]

I don't remember saying that anyone was a horrible person, not sure where you're getting that idea.

I think you and just about every other person may have a different idea of what a "fair" point is for prices.

Every seller on this site *IS* completely self-interested. If they weren't interested in profiting from sales here, they'd just be giving their product away. The entire argument for charging more finds its foundation in self-interest. Not only is that justifiable, it's expected and preferred.

All your points about the banner still raise the questions that I asked in my previous post.

You used the word "fair" again near the end, and again, I think you'll find that the particular definition of "fair" varies from person to person 'round these parts.

My solution to undercutting? Undercutting does not require a solution. If a job is worth your time, you determine the price. If a prospective buyer is willing to pay that price then you have determined the price correctly. The "undercutters" place a lower value on their own time, and until they decide to change that value, this "club" will not change it for them. The only way a prospective buyer would be enticed to buy from a union member is if they were scared away from the people who didn't join, which goes back to my points about a two-class seller system and slanderous comments about those who decide not to join.

If you're looking to force people to pay you more, that just isn't going to happen. There will always be undercutting, period. Unless the site incorporates rules with actual consequences, it will continue.

To Dom: (sorry I don't know how the whole quoting thing works)

You keep using ambiguous terms like "price well", "Shady sellers", and " clean business practices", but these need clear cut definitions before they can be entered as factual to this debate.

"Anyone can join if they seem sincere..."
I'm reminded of George Burns' famous quote: "The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made". Neither here nor there, just reminded of the quote, that's all. If anything, this just goes back to my other twenty questions from my last post that remain, for the most part, unanswered (ie, who decides, who decides who decides, etc)

I don't think those are worst case scenarios, although the wording I used may have been a bit extreme. The things I've mentioned will happen day one after implementation. Those within the club will denigrate those who have opted out. That is inevitable.

What's this about "finer details will be polished in the PM"? I thought PM meant Private Message around here? I'm just confused as to what this means.

I think I paid an equal amount of attention to each potential negative and positive. Each negative raised several questions, which I asked. The only positive I can foresee was "we make more money", and I think I covered that, too. If there's another positive point besides "we make more money", I'd like to hear it.

I'm glad to hear that at 17 you've studied economics, but I'm surprised that after those studies you've made the determination that price fixing works.

The finer details will be discussed and everyone will establish a fiar price together through a long discussion I know everyone has different views. PM is Private Message we will make one with everyone who is interested to discuss

I'm not looking to convert everyone to be on board, you're clearly against it and i'm 100% okay with that, this isn't a site thing it's a Dom thing for whoever opts into the group as well, it was a suggestion and this isn't price fixing considering we're still allowing competition to set their prices and do as they please we're just trying to draw business in a clean manner

I'm not really looking to argue further, I'm seeing this conversation become pointless personally

 

[T_and_A]

I don't see what we've been doing as arguing. Your proposal just raises a few questions and I asked them. It sounds like you don't have the answers quite yet, though, which isn't an issue right now because it's not happening yet. I am surprised that nobody else has brought up these issues and just started agreeing without all the details. That's very strange behavior, indeed!