Barter has implemented a new idea, namely moderating trades. In essence it sounds quite nice as the idea is that it protects new users from being 'scammed' by retraders. It appears better in theory than in practice as it has rather far reaching consequences and even trades that match rather evenly or even exceed the value on gg.deals or allkeyshop can and will get declined occasionally.
Some select retraders could be annoying (generally a minority of all retraders for spamming systematically uninteresting offers), but many retraders also provided a valuable service......in case you'd want a rare game, then trading with them, even at a premium could still net you a game that could not be gotten cheaper elsewhere. Alternatively they could provide liquidity in the form of TF2 keys, gems, etc. for otherwise more difficult to trade items. These services have been very valuable for me, the liquidity more so than paying a premium for a rare game, but I am glad both exist as both have had their uses.
When I was a new user at Barter many years ago I never felt ripped off for any completed trade. I felt that I made extremely good deals......before I discovered bundled games I simply bought all games for close to full price or full price at Steam......so who knows.....maybe I did get 'ripped off' in the early days sometimes when trading at Barter and Steam Trades, but it still felt like I got great deals for games I really wanted. It was my opinion and that was the only thing that counted for me. I was just glad to not be 'ripped off by paying full price at Steam'.
If I am not mistaken, curator games are now also policed at Barter. This too had been valuable to me as I found it nice that games could be acquired that way and in appreciation, I have also attempted to assist such developers with genuine reviews and feedback. Long time traders have now all kinds of new weird disclaimers at their profile and receive time outs for what are deemed to be unfair offers, if not outright bans.
I'd rather have choice than no choice, even if some of the options offered sometimes are not that great. Free markets are always superior to central planning, but it seems people constantly need to reinvent 'the wheel'. If someone truly makes terrible offers, then the market will decide not to trade with them. The consequences are felt right then and there, so personally I see little need to go behind that. There is already a hierarchy of desirability of trading with someone. Those with high acceptance rates tend to get priority where possible. Why? Simply because it saves time and is if nothing else likely a bit cheaper to come to a deal. There is also the subjective value that nobody but the parties involved can ascertain.
I'd say it was a nice experiment, but not every experiment is a success. If this situation becomes worse, then I would not be surprised if Lestrades becomes a whole lot more popular. I think this idea was well intentioned, but ideas cannot be judged based on their intentions as everyone can have good intentions. Intentions are in essence unassailable, but that does not mean that they necessarily have good results. Once the scope expands, where does it stop? It undoubtedly started out as protecting new traders, but now also seemingly has turned into 'bringing justice to self centered traders'. What is justice? What would be the philosophical foundation of that justice and does it make sense? Is such justice based upon fixed principles or whims and emotions? Justice by whose standards? What safeguards are there in place to prevent issues that go along with such distribution of powers? What recourse would there be? In my opinion as someone who generally is not a retrader, it is a slippery slope and I do not think that setting any foot on that slope cannot be done without slipping.
I think a mandatory to read disclaimer before using Barter with tips and hints for new users could be more useful for new users and long time users if that is something that is found to be valuable there. In essence that is already there, but it might not yet be mandatory to read before using the website. I would think that is a better solution, but perhaps all of this leads back to the philosophical foundation behind any trading website with questions whether free markets or central planning works better. I think the answer to that question has been settled long ago.
Some select retraders could be annoying (generally a minority of all retraders for spamming systematically uninteresting offers), but many retraders also provided a valuable service......in case you'd want a rare game, then trading with them, even at a premium could still net you a game that could not be gotten cheaper elsewhere. Alternatively they could provide liquidity in the form of TF2 keys, gems, etc. for otherwise more difficult to trade items. These services have been very valuable for me, the liquidity more so than paying a premium for a rare game, but I am glad both exist as both have had their uses.
When I was a new user at Barter many years ago I never felt ripped off for any completed trade. I felt that I made extremely good deals......before I discovered bundled games I simply bought all games for close to full price or full price at Steam......so who knows.....maybe I did get 'ripped off' in the early days sometimes when trading at Barter and Steam Trades, but it still felt like I got great deals for games I really wanted. It was my opinion and that was the only thing that counted for me. I was just glad to not be 'ripped off by paying full price at Steam'.
If I am not mistaken, curator games are now also policed at Barter. This too had been valuable to me as I found it nice that games could be acquired that way and in appreciation, I have also attempted to assist such developers with genuine reviews and feedback. Long time traders have now all kinds of new weird disclaimers at their profile and receive time outs for what are deemed to be unfair offers, if not outright bans.
I'd rather have choice than no choice, even if some of the options offered sometimes are not that great. Free markets are always superior to central planning, but it seems people constantly need to reinvent 'the wheel'. If someone truly makes terrible offers, then the market will decide not to trade with them. The consequences are felt right then and there, so personally I see little need to go behind that. There is already a hierarchy of desirability of trading with someone. Those with high acceptance rates tend to get priority where possible. Why? Simply because it saves time and is if nothing else likely a bit cheaper to come to a deal. There is also the subjective value that nobody but the parties involved can ascertain.
I'd say it was a nice experiment, but not every experiment is a success. If this situation becomes worse, then I would not be surprised if Lestrades becomes a whole lot more popular. I think this idea was well intentioned, but ideas cannot be judged based on their intentions as everyone can have good intentions. Intentions are in essence unassailable, but that does not mean that they necessarily have good results. Once the scope expands, where does it stop? It undoubtedly started out as protecting new traders, but now also seemingly has turned into 'bringing justice to self centered traders'. What is justice? What would be the philosophical foundation of that justice and does it make sense? Is such justice based upon fixed principles or whims and emotions? Justice by whose standards? What safeguards are there in place to prevent issues that go along with such distribution of powers? What recourse would there be? In my opinion as someone who generally is not a retrader, it is a slippery slope and I do not think that setting any foot on that slope cannot be done without slipping.
I think a mandatory to read disclaimer before using Barter with tips and hints for new users could be more useful for new users and long time users if that is something that is found to be valuable there. In essence that is already there, but it might not yet be mandatory to read before using the website. I would think that is a better solution, but perhaps all of this leads back to the philosophical foundation behind any trading website with questions whether free markets or central planning works better. I think the answer to that question has been settled long ago.
